"Normal" Canon Zoom Lens that's worth a damn?
 

Maybe I'm looking for a ghost... but it seems that Canon does not
really make a "normal" length zoom lens. Here's the quandry:

For a 4-lens setup along with two bodies (EOS 3 and EOS 10D), I have
been considering the following:

17-40mm f/4 L USM (very wide to normal)
??? (normal to short tele)
100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 IS USM (long tele)
100 f/2.8 Macro USM (macro and portrait)

In looking at reviews of the two potential choices for the "midrange"
zoom, neither seem to be all that great:

28-105 f/3.5-4.5 II USM
28-135 f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

I'd be willing to pay more if they had a really well-corrected L
series slightly faster zoom, say 28-105 f/2.8-4 L USM or even a
constant aperture 28-105 f/4 L USM...

Any idea why they don't? I know, most of you don't work for Canon and
can't speak for them. And the other option, a set of 2 or 3 prime
lenses is I suppose another possibility but seems counter-intuitive
for the setup I'm contemplating.

Any input (other than sarcastic troll nonsense) will be much
appreciated.

-Karl
http://www.karlwinkler.com

"Normal" Canon Zoom Lens that's worth a damn?
 

I'd be incluned to go with a 50 f1.8 and the 70-200 f4 or even the f2.8 IS.
--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from my novel "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html
"Karl Winkler" wrote in message
om...
Maybe I'm looking for a ghost... but it seems that Canon does not
really make a "normal" length zoom lens. Here's the quandry:

For a 4-lens setup along with two bodies (EOS 3 and EOS 10D), I have
been considering the following:

17-40mm f/4 L USM (very wide to normal)
??? (normal to short tele)
100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 IS USM (long tele)
100 f/2.8 Macro USM (macro and portrait)

In looking at reviews of the two potential choices for the "midrange"
zoom, neither seem to be all that great:

28-105 f/3.5-4.5 II USM
28-135 f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

I'd be willing to pay more if they had a really well-corrected L
series slightly faster zoom, say 28-105 f/2.8-4 L USM or even a
constant aperture 28-105 f/4 L USM...

Any idea why they don't? I know, most of you don't work for Canon and
can't speak for them. And the other option, a set of 2 or 3 prime
lenses is I suppose another possibility but seems counter-intuitive
for the setup I'm contemplating.

Any input (other than sarcastic troll nonsense) will be much
appreciated.

-Karl
http://www.karlwinkler.com

"Normal" Canon Zoom Lens that's worth a damn?
 

"Karl Winkler" wrote in message
om...
Maybe I'm looking for a ghost... but it seems that Canon does not
really make a "normal" length zoom lens. Here's the quandry:

For a 4-lens setup along with two bodies (EOS 3 and EOS 10D), I have
been considering the following:

17-40mm f/4 L USM (very wide to normal)
??? (normal to short tele)
100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 IS USM (long tele)
100 f/2.8 Macro USM (macro and portrait)

In looking at reviews of the two potential choices for the "midrange"
zoom, neither seem to be all that great:

28-105 f/3.5-4.5 II USM
28-135 f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

I'd be willing to pay more if they had a really well-corrected L
series slightly faster zoom, say 28-105 f/2.8-4 L USM or even a
constant aperture 28-105 f/4 L USM...

Any idea why they don't? I know, most of you don't work for Canon and
can't speak for them. And the other option, a set of 2 or 3 prime
lenses is I suppose another possibility but seems counter-intuitive
for the setup I'm contemplating.

What part of having high quality optics at reasonable price and actually
moving instead of zooming is counterintuitive? Doesn't having overlapping
f/l range zooms seem counterintuitive to you?

Pretty much the only thing missing from your setup is a 50mm. An 85mm might
be worth considering too, but not knowing what you want to shoot (other than
that you clearly wish to cover as many focal lengths as possible) or for
what application makes things difficult.

--
Martin Francis http://www.sixbysix.co.uk
"Go not to Usenet for counsel, for it will say both no, and yes, and
no, and yes...."

"Normal" Canon Zoom Lens that's worth a damn?
 

"Karl Winkler" wrote in message
om...
Maybe I'm looking for a ghost... but it seems that Canon does not
really make a "normal" length zoom lens. Here's the quandry:

For a 4-lens setup along with two bodies (EOS 3 and EOS 10D), I have
been considering the following:

17-40mm f/4 L USM (very wide to normal)
??? (normal to short tele)
100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 IS USM (long tele)
100 f/2.8 Macro USM (macro and portrait)

In looking at reviews of the two potential choices for the "midrange"
zoom, neither seem to be all that great:

28-105 f/3.5-4.5 II USM
28-135 f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

I'd be willing to pay more if they had a really well-corrected L
series slightly faster zoom, say 28-105 f/2.8-4 L USM or even a
constant aperture 28-105 f/4 L USM...

Any idea why they don't? I know, most of you don't work for Canon and
can't speak for them. And the other option, a set of 2 or 3 prime
lenses is I suppose another possibility but seems counter-intuitive
for the setup I'm contemplating.

Any input (other than sarcastic troll nonsense) will be much
appreciated.

-Karl
http://www.karlwinkler.com

You mean like the 24-70 f2.8L? Or the recently discontinued, and some
places still available, 28-70 f2.8L?
It is not just Canon that doesn't seem to have, say, a 35-55, 40-80 or
something like that, there isn't one that I know of for SLR type cameras
from any manufacturer. The closest is the 18-55 that comes with, and fits
only, the Digital Rebel/300D.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

"Normal" Canon Zoom Lens that's worth a damn?
 

"Martin Francis" wrote in message ...
"Karl Winkler" wrote in message
om...
Maybe I'm looking for a ghost... but it seems that Canon does not
really make a "normal" length zoom lens. Here's the quandry:

For a 4-lens setup along with two bodies (EOS 3 and EOS 10D), I have
been considering the following:

17-40mm f/4 L USM (very wide to normal)
??? (normal to short tele)
100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 IS USM (long tele)
100 f/2.8 Macro USM (macro and portrait)

In looking at reviews of the two potential choices for the "midrange"
zoom, neither seem to be all that great:

28-105 f/3.5-4.5 II USM
28-135 f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

I'd be willing to pay more if they had a really well-corrected L
series slightly faster zoom, say 28-105 f/2.8-4 L USM or even a
constant aperture 28-105 f/4 L USM...

Any idea why they don't? I know, most of you don't work for Canon and
can't speak for them. And the other option, a set of 2 or 3 prime
lenses is I suppose another possibility but seems counter-intuitive
for the setup I'm contemplating.

What part of having high quality optics at reasonable price and actually
moving instead of zooming is counterintuitive?

Perspective. Moving does not replace the ability to control
perspective.

Doesn't having overlapping
f/l range zooms seem counterintuitive to you?

The only overlap in my proposed setup is the 40mm upper limit and 28mm
lower limit for the "wide" and "normal" zooms. That's not much of an
overlap.

Pretty much the only thing missing from your setup is a 50mm.

I've owned 50mm lenses and although they are (or at least can be)
optically superior to zooms, I often feel like I need something just a
bit shorter or longer.

An 85mm might
be worth considering too, but not knowing what you want to shoot (other than
that you clearly wish to cover as many focal lengths as possible) or for
what application makes things difficult.

I'm a huge fan of the 85-90mm focal length and one of my favorite
lenses is the Zuiko 85mm f/2. However, if I can cover this with either
a good zoom or the 100mm f/2.8 in my lineup (for portrait work) I
don't see the need for another fixed lens at 85mm.

-Karl
http://www.karlwinkler.com

"Normal" Canon Zoom Lens that's worth a damn?
 

"Skip M" wrote in message news:vPyDc.640$876.219@fed1read07...
"Karl Winkler" wrote in message
om...
Maybe I'm looking for a ghost... but it seems that Canon does not
really make a "normal" length zoom lens. Here's the quandry:

For a 4-lens setup along with two bodies (EOS 3 and EOS 10D), I have
been considering the following:

17-40mm f/4 L USM (very wide to normal)
??? (normal to short tele)
100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 IS USM (long tele)
100 f/2.8 Macro USM (macro and portrait)

In looking at reviews of the two potential choices for the "midrange"
zoom, neither seem to be all that great:

28-105 f/3.5-4.5 II USM
28-135 f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

I'd be willing to pay more if they had a really well-corrected L
series slightly faster zoom, say 28-105 f/2.8-4 L USM or even a
constant aperture 28-105 f/4 L USM...

Any idea why they don't? I know, most of you don't work for Canon and
can't speak for them. And the other option, a set of 2 or 3 prime
lenses is I suppose another possibility but seems counter-intuitive
for the setup I'm contemplating.

Any input (other than sarcastic troll nonsense) will be much
appreciated.

-Karl
http://www.karlwinkler.com

You mean like the 24-70 f2.8L? Or the recently discontinued, and some
places still available, 28-70 f2.8L?

I'm considering those, but the long end is short of the 100mm minimum
end of that 100-400 zoom. I may end up considering the 70-200 f/2.8 or
f/4, but I've seen what that 100-400 can do, and it's quite a lens.
200 seems sort to me for wildlife, and I'm not a huge fan of
extenders. But perhaps for the really long shots, an extender might be
the way to pull the whole system together at a reasonable cost.

It is not just Canon that doesn't seem to have, say, a 35-55, 40-80 or
something like that, there isn't one that I know of for SLR type cameras
from any manufacturer. The closest is the 18-55 that comes with, and fits
only, the Digital Rebel/300D.

I noticed that it's not just Canon. But I guess I'm curious as to
"why"!

-Karl
http://www.karlwinkler.com

"Normal" Canon Zoom Lens that's worth a damn?
 

Tony Spadaro wrote:

I'd be incluned to go with a 50 f1.8 and the 70-200 f4 or even the f2.8 IS.

The Canon EF 50mm F/1.8 is inferior in build quality as well as in
performance to the 1.4 USM as well as the former version which had a
distance scale and metal mount.

I have tested both extensively, and have found that the 50mm 1.8 is
not a top-class lens, even if it is cheap. The plastic lens mount
excludes as a long-term investment.

Per Inge Oestmoen, Norway

"Normal" Canon Zoom Lens that's worth a damn?
 

Karl Winkler wrote:

I'm considering those, but the long end is short of the 100mm minimum
end of that 100-400 zoom. I may end up considering the 70-200 f/2.8 or
f/4, but I've seen what that 100-400 can do, and it's quite a lens.

Have you seen comparisons between the 100-400 and the 400 F/5.6?

Admittedly I have not personally compared these lenses, but Michael
Reichmann has:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...tten-400.shtml

Per Inge Oestmoen, Norway

"Normal" Canon Zoom Lens that's worth a damn?
 

"pioe[rmv]" wrote:
Tony Spadaro wrote:

I'd be incluned to go with a 50 f1.8 and the 70-200 f4 or even the f2.8
IS.

The Canon EF 50mm F/1.8 is inferior in build quality as well as in
performance to the 1.4 USM as well as the former version which had a
distance scale and metal mount.

I have tested both extensively, and have found that the 50mm 1.8 is
not a top-class lens,

Of course it's a "top-class" lens: it performs better than any Canon lens
with a shorter focal length*. Other than the 50/1.4, it's the best
normal-to-wide lens Canon makes.

Pretty flipping amazing for _any_ lens, let alone a $79.95 wonder (including
tax and shipping!).

*: http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~ashon/photo/comparo6.htm

even if it is cheap. The plastic lens mount
excludes as a long-term investment.

Of course it's not a long-term investment: it's a $79.95 throwaway lens you
buy if you don't know if you would really use the 50/1.4 all that much.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

"Normal" Canon Zoom Lens that's worth a damn?
 

It is also 80 bucks brand new and one hell of a lens for the money. There
is no recorder incident of the mount ever failing.
Basically you can use what you want but try not to be such a high hatted
snob about it.

--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from my novel "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html
"pioe[rmv]" wrote in message
news:yVRDc.396$vH5.173@amstwist00...
Tony Spadaro wrote:

I'd be incluned to go with a 50 f1.8 and the 70-200 f4 or even the f2.8
IS.

The Canon EF 50mm F/1.8 is inferior in build quality as well as in
performance to the 1.4 USM as well as the former version which had a
distance scale and metal mount.

I have tested both extensively, and have found that the 50mm 1.8 is
not a top-class lens, even if it is cheap. The plastic lens mount
excludes as a long-term investment.

Per Inge Oestmoen, Norway

"Normal" Canon Zoom Lens that's worth a damn?
 

In article , Karl
Winkler writes

What part of having high quality optics at reasonable price and actually
moving instead of zooming is counterintuitive?

Perspective. Moving does not replace the ability to control
perspective.

Moving is the only way to control perspective, apart from using a
tilt/shift lens. Zooming alone can only change magnification, and leaves
perspective absolutely unaltered.
--
David Littlewood

"Normal" Canon Zoom Lens that's worth a damn?
 

In article , Karl
Winkler writes
Maybe I'm looking for a ghost... but it seems that Canon does not
really make a "normal" length zoom lens. Here's the quandry:

For a 4-lens setup along with two bodies (EOS 3 and EOS 10D), I have
been considering the following:

17-40mm f/4 L USM (very wide to normal)
??? (normal to short tele)
100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 IS USM (long tele)
100 f/2.8 Macro USM (macro and portrait)

In looking at reviews of the two potential choices for the "midrange"
zoom, neither seem to be all that great:

28-105 f/3.5-4.5 II USM
28-135 f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

I'd be willing to pay more if they had a really well-corrected L
series slightly faster zoom, say 28-105 f/2.8-4 L USM or even a
constant aperture 28-105 f/4 L USM...

Any idea why they don't? I know, most of you don't work for Canon and
can't speak for them. And the other option, a set of 2 or 3 prime
lenses is I suppose another possibility but seems counter-intuitive
for the setup I'm contemplating.

Any input (other than sarcastic troll nonsense) will be much
appreciated.

Karl,

It would help if you said what kind of work you intend to use the lenses
for. I am slightly mystified as to what you are lacking.

There are some superb "mid range" lenses - the 35 f/1.4, the 50/1.4 and
the 85/1.8 spring to mind. The 100/2.0, 100/2.8 macro, and 135/2.0 are
al superb

If you need a zoom, the 28-70 f/2.8L is superb, and the 28-135 IS is
excellent, though its restricted maximum aperture can be limiting. Some
of the 28-105 versions are also very highly regarded. I agree a slightly
wider range for the 24-70L (and IS) would be very welcome - let's say a
24-105 f/2.8L IS. For all I know they may be working on one.

At the slightly wider end, the 24/3.5 TS-E is a lens I rarely leave home
without.

IMO, the real gap in the Canon range is at the very wide end. £1400 for
the 14mm is very steep (and there is no way I am ever going to waste my
money on another Sigma - I already have a Sigma 14mm which doesn't work
on my 10D). I would like to see a good 12-25mm L Canon for use on the
10D.
--
David Littlewood

"Normal" Canon Zoom Lens that's worth a damn?
 

David Littlewood wrote in message ...
In article , Karl
Winkler writes

What part of having high quality optics at reasonable price and actually
moving instead of zooming is counterintuitive?

Perspective. Moving does not replace the ability to control
perspective.

Moving is the only way to control perspective, apart from using a
tilt/shift lens. Zooming alone can only change magnification, and leaves
perspective absolutely unaltered.

I understand what you're saying but perhaps I'm not getting my point
across very well. Here's what I mean: let's say I want to take a
series of portraits of someone. With a medium-range zoom, I can
accomplish everything I need. Full length portraits can be done at the
shorter end of the range or perhaps somewhere in the middle (~40 to
50mm on a 35mm body) and then tighter head shots can be done at the
longer end (70 to 105 or even 135mm). If I used a 50mm lens, I can do
the full-length portraits but it will not work to "move closer" to do
the head shots.

In this specific case, I could also use two fixed-length lenses (say,
50mm and 100mm), but what about the focal lengths between those two?

And changing focal lengths (via zoom or by changing lenses) changes
the *angle of view* of the lens, say from 90 degrees at 20mm to 60
degrees at 50mm to 30 degrees at 90mm (approximately), right? So to
me, this is changing the perspective. With longer lenses, there is
more foreshortening (distant objects seem closer or more "compressed")
while shorter lenses do the opposite. And to me, these are important
considerations. Heck, a zoom lens lets you do all three things:

1. Alter the angle of view and/or foreshortening effect, and
2. Move closer or further away if you want to, and
3. Allow you to do all of these things without changing lenses

You have no argument from me that good prime lenses are (generally)
superior optically. But considering the versitility of zooms and the
fact that some of the current designs (Canon L series, for example)
are very, very good, I think it's why it is becoming far more common
to see photographers with a range of 2 or 3 zooms than 6 different
prime lenses.

YMMV

-Karl
http://www.karlwinkler.com

"Normal" Canon Zoom Lens that's worth a damn?
 

In article , Karl
Winkler writes
David Littlewood wrote in message
.. .
In article , Karl
Winkler writes

What part of having high quality optics at reasonable price and actually
moving instead of zooming is counterintuitive?

Perspective. Moving does not replace the ability to control
perspective.

Moving is the only way to control perspective, apart from using a
tilt/shift lens. Zooming alone can only change magnification, and leaves
perspective absolutely unaltered.

I understand what you're saying but perhaps I'm not getting my point
across very well. Here's what I mean: let's say I want to take a
series of portraits of someone. With a medium-range zoom, I can
accomplish everything I need. Full length portraits can be done at the
shorter end of the range or perhaps somewhere in the middle (~40 to
50mm on a 35mm body) and then tighter head shots can be done at the
longer end (70 to 105 or even 135mm). If I used a 50mm lens, I can do
the full-length portraits but it will not work to "move closer" to do
the head shots.

In this specific case, I could also use two fixed-length lenses (say,
50mm and 100mm), but what about the focal lengths between those two?

And changing focal lengths (via zoom or by changing lenses) changes
the *angle of view* of the lens, say from 90 degrees at 20mm to 60
degrees at 50mm to 30 degrees at 90mm (approximately), right? So to
me, this is changing the perspective.

Not in the normally-accepted use of the word in photography. You would
get exactly the same result (apart perhaps from more grain) by using a
wide and blowing up the central portion as using a long lens.

With longer lenses, there is
more foreshortening (distant objects seem closer or more "compressed")
while shorter lenses do the opposite. And to me, these are important
considerations.

Only because you usually use a long lens from a long distance, and a
wide from very close. If you use a long lens very close up you get the
same perspective as with a wide, just less angle of view. Same if you
use a wide from a mile away and blow up - very "foreshortened"
appearance just as when using a tele from the same spot.

Heck, a zoom lens lets you do all three things:

1. Alter the angle of view and/or foreshortening effect, and
2. Move closer or further away if you want to, and
3. Allow you to do all of these things without changing lenses

True.

You have no argument from me that good prime lenses are (generally)
superior optically. But considering the versitility of zooms and the
fact that some of the current designs (Canon L series, for example)
are very, very good, I think it's why it is becoming far more common
to see photographers with a range of 2 or 3 zooms than 6 different
prime lenses.

True; it was only the understanding of "perspective" that I was raising.

David
--
David Littlewood

"Normal" Canon Zoom Lens that's worth a damn?
 

"Tony Spadaro" wrote in message
. com...
It is also 80 bucks brand new and one hell of a lens for the money.
There
is no recorder incident of the mount ever failing.

I have seen the front section of an EF 50m/1.8 MKII unscrew from the mount.
A brand new one, too.

--
Martin Francis http://www.sixbysix.co.uk
"Go not to Usenet for counsel, for it will say both no, and yes, and
no, and yes...."

"Normal" Canon Zoom Lens that's worth a damn?
 

"Karl Winkler" wrote in message
om...
David Littlewood wrote in message
...
In this specific case, I could also use two fixed-length lenses (say,
50mm and 100mm), but what about the focal lengths between those two?

In medium format I use a 50mm, 80mm and 150mm- similar FOV to 30mm, 50mm
and 90mm in the "small format", and not far from the 35/50/90mm kit I had in
35mil. I also have a 120mm which I originally bought when I intended having
a two lens kit (60mm and 120mm). In six months or so of working like this,
my 120mm has been gathering dust in a bag like a proverbial Hoover. I just
don't use it, despite the fact that it's probably the sharper lens. The
nearest equivalent to a 100mm in 6x6cm mount is either 160mm or 180mm, and
whilst I have a 150mm I won't consider either as a viable purchase.

Yes, it may seem like a huge jump between 50mm and 100mm, but I doubt
you'll really miss the in-betweenys. And hey, if you prefer 85mm, skip the
100mm and get an 85/1.8 and some tubes.

And changing focal lengths (via zoom or by changing lenses) changes
the *angle of view* of the lens, say from 90 degrees at 20mm to 60
degrees at 50mm to 30 degrees at 90mm (approximately), right? So to
me, this is changing the perspective.

Perspective is not the correct word to use in this sense, and there's no way
around it; no zoom lens could ever be called a perspective control lens.
Zooming is cropping with optics- field of view changes, depth of field
changes, but perspective does not.

With longer lenses, there is
more foreshortening (distant objects seem closer or more "compressed")

This is true with shorter lenses too- and with the human eye. From a
distance, a howling dog can look the same size as the moon whether you're
using a 14mm or 400mm- but a photographer with both lenses will probably use
the 400mm. That fancy effect from "Jaws" and "Goodfellas" was done by
zooming and changing perspective *at the same time*

Google "perspective" and "zoom" in rec.photo.equipment.35mm for more
(heated) past debate on the subject.

--
Martin Francis http://www.sixbysix.co.uk
"Go not to Usenet for counsel, for it will say both no, and yes, and
no, and yes...."

"Normal" Canon Zoom Lens that's worth a damn?
 

That sounds like someone at the factory frogot to put in a screw or two. I'm
talking about the plastic mount on a lens or body actually breaking under
pressure. The anti-Canon idiots have been claiming this can happen for many
years now but have not managed to document a single case.

--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from my novel "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html
"Martin Francis" wrote in message
...
"Tony Spadaro" wrote in message
. com...
It is also 80 bucks brand new and one hell of a lens for the money.
There
is no recorder incident of the mount ever failing.

I have seen the front section of an EF 50m/1.8 MKII unscrew from the
mount.
A brand new one, too.

--
Martin Francis http://www.sixbysix.co.uk
"Go not to Usenet for counsel, for it will say both no, and yes, and
no, and yes...."

"Normal" Canon Zoom Lens that's worth a damn?
 

David Littlewood wrote:

Not in the normally-accepted use of the word in photography. You would
get exactly the same result (apart perhaps from more grain) by using a
wide and blowing up the central portion as using a long lens.

No you won't. Try shooting a row of trees at 17mm, 20mm, 35mm and 50mm.
Now look at the center crops.


David

--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

"Normal" Canon Zoom Lens that's worth a damn?
 

"Martin Francis" wrote in message
...
"Tony Spadaro" wrote in message
. com...
It is also 80 bucks brand new and one hell of a lens for the money.
There
is no recorder incident of the mount ever failing.

I have seen the front section of an EF 50m/1.8 MKII unscrew from the
mount.
A brand new one, too.

--
Martin Francis http://www.sixbysix.co.uk
"Go not to Usenet for counsel, for it will say both no, and yes, and
no, and yes...."


That is impossible. I'm looking at the lens right now, and there ain't any
threads, there are screw that hold the mount on. Since that is the way
other lenses are built, that is a failure that could have happened with any
lens, if it indeed did happen.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

"Normal" Canon Zoom Lens that's worth a damn?
 

"David Littlewood" wrote in message
...
In article , Karl
Winkler writes

What part of having high quality optics at reasonable price and
actually
moving instead of zooming is counterintuitive?

Perspective. Moving does not replace the ability to control
perspective.

Moving is the only way to control perspective, apart from using a
tilt/shift lens. Zooming alone can only change magnification, and leaves
perspective absolutely unaltered.
--
David Littlewood

That, I think, was the point. Once you've gotten the perspective you want,
"zooming with your feet" would disturb that. Zooming with the lens would
leave that intact and only change the framing of the image.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

"Normal" Canon Zoom Lens that's worth a damn?
 

I've been using mine for 10 years now (1.8 Mk II) and never had a failure/
problem.

The mount looks like new.

I think if you handle your gear well, it does not matter if its
polycarbonate or metal!

Only the result counts, and this lens is capable of very good ones.


"Skip M" wrote in message
news:PhsEc.2539$876.1859@fed1read07...
"Martin Francis" wrote in message
...
"Tony Spadaro" wrote in message
. com...
It is also 80 bucks brand new and one hell of a lens for the money.
There
is no recorder incident of the mount ever failing.

I have seen the front section of an EF 50m/1.8 MKII unscrew from the
mount.
A brand new one, too.

--
Martin Francis http://www.sixbysix.co.uk
"Go not to Usenet for counsel, for it will say both no, and yes, and
no, and yes...."


That is impossible. I'm looking at the lens right now, and there ain't
any
threads, there are screw that hold the mount on. Since that is the way
other lenses are built, that is a failure that could have happened with
any
lens, if it indeed did happen.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

"Normal" Canon Zoom Lens that's worth a damn?
 

I think seeing a full format sensor on a 10d successor is more likely to
happen than the production of lenses "fitting" the 10D/ 300D sensor size.


"David Littlewood" wrote in message
...
In article , Karl
Winkler writes
Maybe I'm looking for a ghost... but it seems that Canon does not
really make a "normal" length zoom lens. Here's the quandry:

For a 4-lens setup along with two bodies (EOS 3 and EOS 10D), I have
been considering the following:

17-40mm f/4 L USM (very wide to normal)
??? (normal to short tele)
100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 IS USM (long tele)
100 f/2.8 Macro USM (macro and portrait)

In looking at reviews of the two potential choices for the "midrange"
zoom, neither seem to be all that great:

28-105 f/3.5-4.5 II USM
28-135 f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

I'd be willing to pay more if they had a really well-corrected L
series slightly faster zoom, say 28-105 f/2.8-4 L USM or even a
constant aperture 28-105 f/4 L USM...

Any idea why they don't? I know, most of you don't work for Canon and
can't speak for them. And the other option, a set of 2 or 3 prime
lenses is I suppose another possibility but seems counter-intuitive
for the setup I'm contemplating.

Any input (other than sarcastic troll nonsense) will be much
appreciated.

Karl,

It would help if you said what kind of work you intend to use the lenses
for. I am slightly mystified as to what you are lacking.

There are some superb "mid range" lenses - the 35 f/1.4, the 50/1.4 and
the 85/1.8 spring to mind. The 100/2.0, 100/2.8 macro, and 135/2.0 are
al superb

If you need a zoom, the 28-70 f/2.8L is superb, and the 28-135 IS is
excellent, though its restricted maximum aperture can be limiting. Some
of the 28-105 versions are also very highly regarded. I agree a slightly
wider range for the 24-70L (and IS) would be very welcome - let's say a
24-105 f/2.8L IS. For all I know they may be working on one.

At the slightly wider end, the 24/3.5 TS-E is a lens I rarely leave home
without.

IMO, the real gap in the Canon range is at the very wide end. £1400 for
the 14mm is very steep (and there is no way I am ever going to waste my
money on another Sigma - I already have a Sigma 14mm which doesn't work
on my 10D). I would like to see a good 12-25mm L Canon for use on the
10D.
--
David Littlewood

"Normal" Canon Zoom Lens that's worth a damn?
 

"Skip M" wrote:

Moving is the only way to control perspective, apart from using a
tilt/shift lens. Zooming alone can only change magnification, and leaves
perspective absolutely unaltered.
--
David Littlewood

That, I think, was the point. Once you've gotten the perspective you want,
"zooming with your feet" would disturb that. Zooming with the lens would
leave that intact and only change the framing of the image.


Given the poor optical quality of early zoom lenses, someone writing
in a 1970s photo mag coined the phrase "zooming with your feet", which
is what you had to do when using the (then) optically superior fixed
focal length lenses. It was considered almost lazy use a zoom lens,
stand still and zoom to get the framing you wanted.

Much of that prejudice against zooms remains, mostly among people of a
certain age. g But the advent of top quality "pro" zooms has
changed all that.

When we are out looking for a shot, and find one we want, it is a joy
to be able to stand in one position, retaining the chosen viewpoint
(and therefore the chosen perspective) and zoom to crop the shot.
This cannot be done with fixed focal length lenses unless your chosen
cropping just happens to coincide with the focal length in use.

What this means is that you have to adopt a very different approach,
depending whether you use a zoom or a selection of fixed focal length
lenses.

But the fact remains that fixed focal length lenses have a better
optical performance than all but the best zoom lenses, and if you want
that optical performance, you either buy top quality pro zooms, use
fixed focal length lenses or accept the limitations of shooting with
consumer grade zooms at f/8 or f/11 and at those focal lengths where
distortion is less apparent.

"Normal" Canon Zoom Lens that's worth a damn?
 

In article , Sander Vesik
writes
David Littlewood wrote:

Not in the normally-accepted use of the word in photography. You would
get exactly the same result (apart perhaps from more grain) by using a
wide and blowing up the central portion as using a long lens.

No you won't. Try shooting a row of trees at 17mm, 20mm, 35mm and 50mm.
Now look at the center crops.

I have. Apart from slight changes in grain and DoF, and possibly a touch
of distortion, the pictures are identical.

What do you think they would show?
--
David Littlewood

"Normal" Canon Zoom Lens that's worth a damn?
 

In article GjsEc.2540$876.1943@fed1read07, Skip M
writes
"David Littlewood" wrote in message
.. .
In article , Karl
Winkler writes

What part of having high quality optics at reasonable price and
actually
moving instead of zooming is counterintuitive?

Perspective. Moving does not replace the ability to control
perspective.

Moving is the only way to control perspective, apart from using a
tilt/shift lens. Zooming alone can only change magnification, and leaves
perspective absolutely unaltered.
--
David Littlewood

That, I think, was the point. Once you've gotten the perspective you want,
"zooming with your feet" would disturb that. Zooming with the lens would
leave that intact and only change the framing of the image.

No; he was saying exactly the opposite.
--
David Littlewood

"Normal" Canon Zoom Lens that's worth a damn?
 

I've had mine about 5 years now, and not a vestige of a problem.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

"AW" wrote in message ...
I've been using mine for 10 years now (1.8 Mk II) and never had a failure/
problem.

The mount looks like new.

I think if you handle your gear well, it does not matter if its
polycarbonate or metal!

Only the result counts, and this lens is capable of very good ones.

"Normal" Canon Zoom Lens that's worth a damn?
 

"TP" wrote in message
...

But the fact remains that fixed focal length lenses have a better
optical performance than all but the best zoom lenses, and if you want
that optical performance, you either buy top quality pro zooms, use
fixed focal length lenses or accept the limitations of shooting with
consumer grade zooms at f/8 or f/11 and at those focal lengths where
distortion is less apparent.


Oh, sometimes there is a third alternative....If you watch the used market
and do a little research....I picked up a beautiful 75-150mm Nikkor "E" lens
for only $100, and it is beautifully sharp throughout its range, and seems
to have very little if any distortion. It's a little large by today's
standards, but it has come to be a lens that I use very often......

"Normal" Canon Zoom Lens that's worth a damn?
 

"William Graham" wrote:

Oh, sometimes there is a third alternative....If you watch the used market
and do a little research....I picked up a beautiful 75-150mm Nikkor "E" lens
for only $100, and it is beautifully sharp throughout its range, and seems
to have very little if any distortion. It's a little large by today's
standards, but it has come to be a lens that I use very often......


The 75-150mm f/3.5 Nikon Series E is one of the finest lenses Nikon
ever produced. It has a constant f/3.5 maximum aperture, is superbly
sharp and has just about the best bokeh of any Nikon portrait lens -
certainly at least on a par with the legendary 105mm f/2.5 AI(S).

The downside is that, being a Series E lens, it is less well made than
contemporary AIS Nikkors, suffering from serious zoom creep, and it
also suffers from significant light fall-off towards the corners.

A great many Nikon pros pleaded with Nikon to make this lens in a
Nikkor version with less light fall-off and better build quality, alas
Nikon never took up the challenge.

Look after this lens and it will serve you well. The zoom creep
cannot be cured, except for a short time after repair, but it soon
gets loose again. I used a tubular elastic bandage (from a drugstore)
to counter the zoom creep problem on one of mine - I have owned three
examples of this lens and they were all great performers.

There are very few better portrait lenses than this one, light
fall-off notwithstanding.

"Normal" Canon Zoom Lens that's worth a damn?
 

"TP" wrote in message
...
"William Graham" wrote:

Oh, sometimes there is a third alternative....If you watch the used
market
and do a little research....I picked up a beautiful 75-150mm Nikkor "E"
lens
for only $100, and it is beautifully sharp throughout its range, and
seems
to have very little if any distortion. It's a little large by today's
standards, but it has come to be a lens that I use very often......


The 75-150mm f/3.5 Nikon Series E is one of the finest lenses Nikon
ever produced. It has a constant f/3.5 maximum aperture, is superbly
sharp and has just about the best bokeh of any Nikon portrait lens -
certainly at least on a par with the legendary 105mm f/2.5 AI(S).

The downside is that, being a Series E lens, it is less well made than
contemporary AIS Nikkors, suffering from serious zoom creep, and it
also suffers from significant light fall-off towards the corners.

A great many Nikon pros pleaded with Nikon to make this lens in a
Nikkor version with less light fall-off and better build quality, alas
Nikon never took up the challenge.

Look after this lens and it will serve you well. The zoom creep
cannot be cured, except for a short time after repair, but it soon
gets loose again. I used a tubular elastic bandage (from a drugstore)
to counter the zoom creep problem on one of mine - I have owned three
examples of this lens and they were all great performers.

There are very few better portrait lenses than this one, light
fall-off notwithstanding.


Mine seems to have little or no zoom creep, but then, it's a one touch type
lens, so my left hand is on it while I am shooting to both focus and zoom,
so it doesn't have the freedom to creep. The first few rolls of slides I
have gotten back have pleased me greatly.....I think I will continue looking
for another one, just to have as a back-up..........

"Normal" Canon Zoom Lens that's worth a damn?
 

David J. Littleboy wrote:

"pioe[rmv]" wrote:

The Canon EF 50mm F/1.8 is inferior in build quality as well as in
performance to the 1.4 USM as well as the former version which had a
distance scale and metal mount.
I have tested both extensively, and have found that the 50mm 1.8 is
not a top-class lens,

Of course it's a "top-class" lens: it performs better than any Canon lens
with a shorter focal length*. Other than the 50/1.4, it's the best
normal-to-wide lens Canon makes.
*: http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~ashon/photo/comparo6.htm

Well, irrespective of what theoretical MTF models say, I just maintain
that it is inferior to both the 1.4 and the previous model. If MTF
numbers are to be of any value, they have to be measured, not
theoretical models from the manufacturer.

This comparison shows the true pictu

http://www.seittipaja.fi/data/Pontif...sus_fifty.html

Here is my own test, which is in Norwegian, but the aperture values
and pictures should explain themselves. The quality difference in
favor of the 1.4 is plain to see:

http://akam.no/art.php?artikkelid=913

My impression is that the Canon EF 50mm 1.8 II fails to qualify as a
top-class lens. The former 50mm 1.8 I was superior, and had/has a much
better construction.

even if it is cheap. The plastic lens mount
excludes as a long-term investment.

Of course it's not a long-term investment: it's a $79.95 throwaway lens you
buy if you don't know if you would really use the 50/1.4 all that much.

Agreed, but there are good reasons to buy something that lasts.

Per Inge Oestmoen, Norway

"Normal" Canon Zoom Lens that's worth a damn?
 

In article KFcJc.2058$vH5.810@amstwist00, "pioe[rmv]" "pioe
says...
My impression is that the Canon EF 50mm 1.8 II fails to qualify as a
top-class lens. The former 50mm 1.8 I was superior, and had/has a much
better construction.

It's $80! What else do you want?

"Normal" Canon Zoom Lens that's worth a damn?
 

In article KFcJc.2058$vH5.810@amstwist00, "pioe[rmv]" "pioe
says...
My impression is that the Canon EF 50mm 1.8 II fails to qualify as a
top-class lens. The former 50mm 1.8 I was superior, and had/has a much
better construction.

It's $80! What else do you want?