If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Canon digital bodies and Nikon lenses
Dear group members:
I wanted to post some questions and first reviews on my new equipment to obtain some feedback from you as well as have you share your own experiences. This past weekend I took my new Canon 1Ds Mark II out for the first real serious shooting session and did some tests with two lenses I purchased along with the camera. The lenses are the EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM zoom and the EF 24mm f/1.4L USM. I am surprised with the low quality of the images I got from both lenses. I am coming from film cameras and used two very similar lenses with my Nikon Pro film body. My expectations for both Canon lenses were that they would meet Nikon's quality since they are both "L" lenses and the price is about the same but they don't even come close. My Nikon lenses are the 17-35mm f/2.8D ED-IF AF-S Zoom-Nikkor and the 28mm f/1.4D AF Nikkor. The performance on these lenses is just outstanding. The zoom is an all-around great lens that I like to take with me to places where I may want to capture a large area and may not have the room to stand back and embrace my landscape. The 28mm is a great lens for low light situations where I don't like to use tripod and/or flash. They are both very sharp and even with the zoom opened to 17mm coverage, there is the natural distortion found at this type of focal length but the image is extremely sharp. I thought it might be just my impression and decided to check a few sites. I couldn't really find one that had objective tests with a specific technical protocol for testing lenses, but found several sites with reviews from other users and photographers such as Fred Miranda's site. It seems all reviews corroborate my initial impressions about flaws with Canon lenses. The 16-35mm is claimed to be a disappointment but many who reviewed it and the 24 f/1.4 also has its flaws including lack of sharpness. What is the deal with Canon lenses ? I can't believe I've just purchased a $ 10,000 + digital set up with what should be the best high end digital SLR system in the market and this is the type of photos I'm getting from these lenses. My opinion about the camera couldn't be any better. It is indeed very well built and a work of art in terms of engineering. The lenses, on the other hand, don't seem to even come from the same manufacturer or to have been designed with serious photographers in mind. One of Fred Miranda's review compares the sharp quality of Nikkor's 28mm lens to a Leica Vario-Elmar 21-35mm zoom lens. This is how good Nikon lenses are. The other option of lens I had in mind for my camera was the new EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM lens because of its versatility and the ability to use it as the preferred lens for those photo shooting situations where you can only take one lens with you. After searching for this lens I found out that it has been pulled from the market because of some serious design flaws that caused flaring and other problems. Canon could follow Sony's approach. Since they realize they don't have the expertise required to design and build truly professional grade lenses, they went to Carl Zeiss. Now that Kyocera decided to discontinue its Contax line of cameras and is only keeping the Yashica line, Canon could very easily approach Carl Zeiss to produce its lenses as Kyocera did in the past. It is hard to accept that after a $ 10,000+ purchase the results I'm obtaining are not matching those I was able to obtain from my Nikon $ 2,000 film setup. Maybe my expectations were too high. Maybe I was under the wrong impression when I presumed that Canon's lenses were of similar quality to those made by Nikon. The bottom line is that one company gives you great lenses but still can't seem to develop a decent body with full frame sensor that doesn't change the characteristics of all the lenses you invested your money on. The other produces great bodies with outstanding resolution, full frame sensor and great overall performance but the lenses are of average rather than professional grade image quality. It seems that digital photography is not ready for prime time yet. Close - but no cigar ! I am sorry for the long post - just needed to share my frustrations. Best regards, Joseph --- Dr. Joseph Chamberlain Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Canon digital bodies and Nikon lenses
"Joseph Chamberlain, DDS" wrote in message .. . Dear group members: I wanted to post some questions and first reviews on my new equipment to obtain some feedback from you as well as have you share your own experiences. This past weekend I took my new Canon 1Ds Mark II out for the first real serious shooting session and did some tests with two lenses I purchased along with the camera. The lenses are the EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM zoom and the EF 24mm f/1.4L USM. I thought it might be just my impression and decided to check a few sites. I couldn't really find one that had objective tests with a specific technical protocol for testing lenses, but found several sites with reviews from other users and photographers such as Fred Miranda's site. It seems all reviews corroborate my initial impressions about flaws with Canon lenses. The 16-35mm is claimed to be a disappointment but many who reviewed it and the 24 f/1.4 also has its flaws including lack of sharpness. More money than brains, I see. Spend thousands of dollars on something and then read the reviews. Bravo! Greg |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Canon digital bodies and Nikon lenses
Just curious: Why buy the Canon when you already had some excellent Nikon
lenses? I don't want to get into the Canon vs. Nikon debate, but many of us chose a digital body based on what we already had in the way of equipment. "Joseph Chamberlain, DDS" wrote in message .. . Dear group members: I wanted to post some questions and first reviews on my new equipment to obtain some feedback from you as well as have you share your own experiences. This past weekend I took my new Canon 1Ds Mark II out for the first real serious shooting session and did some tests with two lenses I purchased along with the camera. The lenses are the EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM zoom and the EF 24mm f/1.4L USM. I am surprised with the low quality of the images I got from both lenses. I am coming from film cameras and used two very similar lenses with my Nikon Pro film body. My expectations for both Canon lenses were that they would meet Nikon's quality since they are both "L" lenses and the price is about the same but they don't even come close. My Nikon lenses are the 17-35mm f/2.8D ED-IF AF-S Zoom-Nikkor and the 28mm f/1.4D AF Nikkor. The performance on these lenses is just outstanding. The zoom is an all-around great lens that I like to take with me to places where I may want to capture a large area and may not have the room to stand back and embrace my landscape. The 28mm is a great lens for low light situations where I don't like to use tripod and/or flash. They are both very sharp and even with the zoom opened to 17mm coverage, there is the natural distortion found at this type of focal length but the image is extremely sharp. I thought it might be just my impression and decided to check a few sites. I couldn't really find one that had objective tests with a specific technical protocol for testing lenses, but found several sites with reviews from other users and photographers such as Fred Miranda's site. It seems all reviews corroborate my initial impressions about flaws with Canon lenses. The 16-35mm is claimed to be a disappointment but many who reviewed it and the 24 f/1.4 also has its flaws including lack of sharpness. What is the deal with Canon lenses ? I can't believe I've just purchased a $ 10,000 + digital set up with what should be the best high end digital SLR system in the market and this is the type of photos I'm getting from these lenses. My opinion about the camera couldn't be any better. It is indeed very well built and a work of art in terms of engineering. The lenses, on the other hand, don't seem to even come from the same manufacturer or to have been designed with serious photographers in mind. One of Fred Miranda's review compares the sharp quality of Nikkor's 28mm lens to a Leica Vario-Elmar 21-35mm zoom lens. This is how good Nikon lenses are. The other option of lens I had in mind for my camera was the new EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM lens because of its versatility and the ability to use it as the preferred lens for those photo shooting situations where you can only take one lens with you. After searching for this lens I found out that it has been pulled from the market because of some serious design flaws that caused flaring and other problems. Canon could follow Sony's approach. Since they realize they don't have the expertise required to design and build truly professional grade lenses, they went to Carl Zeiss. Now that Kyocera decided to discontinue its Contax line of cameras and is only keeping the Yashica line, Canon could very easily approach Carl Zeiss to produce its lenses as Kyocera did in the past. It is hard to accept that after a $ 10,000+ purchase the results I'm obtaining are not matching those I was able to obtain from my Nikon $ 2,000 film setup. Maybe my expectations were too high. Maybe I was under the wrong impression when I presumed that Canon's lenses were of similar quality to those made by Nikon. The bottom line is that one company gives you great lenses but still can't seem to develop a decent body with full frame sensor that doesn't change the characteristics of all the lenses you invested your money on. The other produces great bodies with outstanding resolution, full frame sensor and great overall performance but the lenses are of average rather than professional grade image quality. It seems that digital photography is not ready for prime time yet. Close - but no cigar ! I am sorry for the long post - just needed to share my frustrations. Best regards, Joseph --- Dr. Joseph Chamberlain Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Canon digital bodies and Nikon lenses
Joseph Chamberlain, DDS wrote:
Dear group members: I wanted to post some questions and first reviews on my new equipment to obtain some feedback from you as well as have you share your own experiences. This past weekend I took my new Canon 1Ds Mark II out for the first real serious shooting session and did some tests with two lenses I purchased along with the camera. The lenses are the EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM zoom and the EF 24mm f/1.4L USM. I am surprised with the low quality of the images I got from both lenses. I am coming from film cameras and used two very similar lenses with my Nikon Pro film body. My expectations for both Canon lenses were that they would meet Nikon's quality since they are both "L" lenses and the price is about the same but they don't even come close. My Nikon lenses are the 17-35mm f/2.8D ED-IF AF-S Zoom-Nikkor and the 28mm f/1.4D AF Nikkor. The performance on these lenses is just outstanding. The zoom is an all-around great lens that I like to take with me to places where I may want to capture a large area and may not have the room to stand back and embrace my landscape. The 28mm is a great lens for low light situations where I don't like to use tripod and/or flash. They are both very sharp and even with the zoom opened to 17mm coverage, there is the natural distortion found at this type of focal length but the image is extremely sharp. I thought it might be just my impression and decided to check a few sites. I couldn't really find one that had objective tests with a specific technical protocol for testing lenses, but found several sites with reviews from other users and photographers such as Fred Miranda's site. It seems all reviews corroborate my initial impressions about flaws with Canon lenses. The 16-35mm is claimed to be a disappointment but many who reviewed it and the 24 f/1.4 also has its flaws including lack of sharpness. What is the deal with Canon lenses ? I can't believe I've just purchased a $ 10,000 + digital set up with what should be the best high end digital SLR system in the market and this is the type of photos I'm getting from these lenses. My opinion about the camera couldn't be any better. It is indeed very well built and a work of art in terms of engineering. The lenses, on the other hand, don't seem to even come from the same manufacturer or to have been designed with serious photographers in mind. One of Fred Miranda's review compares the sharp quality of Nikkor's 28mm lens to a Leica Vario-Elmar 21-35mm zoom lens. This is how good Nikon lenses are. The other option of lens I had in mind for my camera was the new EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM lens because of its versatility and the ability to use it as the preferred lens for those photo shooting situations where you can only take one lens with you. After searching for this lens I found out that it has been pulled from the market because of some serious design flaws that caused flaring and other problems. Canon could follow Sony's approach. Since they realize they don't have the expertise required to design and build truly professional grade lenses, they went to Carl Zeiss. Now that Kyocera decided to discontinue its Contax line of cameras and is only keeping the Yashica line, Canon could very easily approach Carl Zeiss to produce its lenses as Kyocera did in the past. It is hard to accept that after a $ 10,000+ purchase the results I'm obtaining are not matching those I was able to obtain from my Nikon $ 2,000 film setup. Maybe my expectations were too high. Maybe I was under the wrong impression when I presumed that Canon's lenses were of similar quality to those made by Nikon. The bottom line is that one company gives you great lenses but still can't seem to develop a decent body with full frame sensor that doesn't change the characteristics of all the lenses you invested your money on. The other produces great bodies with outstanding resolution, full frame sensor and great overall performance but the lenses are of average rather than professional grade image quality. It seems that digital photography is not ready for prime time yet. Close - but no cigar ! I am sorry for the long post - just needed to share my frustrations. Best regards, Joseph --- Dr. Joseph Chamberlain Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery How much do you want for this load of rubbish you bought? I'm no fan of Canon but I might be convinced to help you out by taking it off your hands so you can buy a piece of Nikon crap and discover the same thing... That you shouldn't be playing with Professional Photographers equipment and expect to get the same results they do. For Christ sake man, half the world's magazine cover shooters use this gear. If you can't get a decent picture, just remember the old saying... "A poor tradesman always blames his tools". Posting negative remarks about brands here will get you nothing but ridicule. Why? Because the photographers here all know that Canon is absolutely the best quality, most reliable load of useless digital crap anyone could ever own. You telling them that is preaching to the converted. Despite this knowledge, some still manage to run their business with Canon gear a lot less advanced than your outfit. The manage to take award winning photographs with them and generally make do with cameras and lenses you'd probably pass up because they weren't the "best"... Whatever that means . Before you continue on with your trolling posts, either learn how to take a photo or take the camera back and buy a Polaroid. -- Douglas... Specifications are good to read but When it comes to judging Digital Cameras... I'm in the "how do the pictures look" category. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Canon digital bodies and Nikon lenses
On 11/8/05 6:20 PM, in article ,
"Joseph Chamberlain, DDS" wrote: Dear group members: I wanted to post some questions and first reviews on my new equipment to obtain some feedback from you as well as have you share your own experiences. This past weekend I took my new Canon 1Ds Mark II out for the first real serious shooting session and did some tests with two lenses I purchased along with the camera. The lenses are the EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM zoom and the EF 24mm f/1.4L USM. I am surprised with the low quality of the images I got from both lenses. I am coming from film cameras and used two very similar lenses with my Nikon Pro film body. My expectations for both Canon lenses were that they would meet Nikon's quality since they are both "L" lenses and the price is about the same but they don't even come close. My Nikon lenses are the 17-35mm f/2.8D ED-IF AF-S Zoom-Nikkor and the 28mm f/1.4D AF Nikkor. The performance on these lenses is just outstanding. The zoom is an all-around great lens that I like to take with me to places where I may want to capture a large area and may not have the room to stand back and embrace my landscape. The 28mm is a great lens for low light situations where I don't like to use tripod and/or flash. They are both very sharp and even with the zoom opened to 17mm coverage, there is the natural distortion found at this type of focal length but the image is extremely sharp. I thought it might be just my impression and decided to check a few sites. I couldn't really find one that had objective tests with a specific technical protocol for testing lenses, but found several sites with reviews from other users and photographers such as Fred Miranda's site. It seems all reviews corroborate my initial impressions about flaws with Canon lenses. The 16-35mm is claimed to be a disappointment but many who reviewed it and the 24 f/1.4 also has its flaws including lack of sharpness. What is the deal with Canon lenses ? I can't believe I've just purchased a $ 10,000 + digital set up with what should be the best high end digital SLR system in the market and this is the type of photos I'm getting from these lenses. My opinion about the camera couldn't be any better. It is indeed very well built and a work of art in terms of engineering. The lenses, on the other hand, don't seem to even come from the same manufacturer or to have been designed with serious photographers in mind. One of Fred Miranda's review compares the sharp quality of Nikkor's 28mm lens to a Leica Vario-Elmar 21-35mm zoom lens. This is how good Nikon lenses are. The other option of lens I had in mind for my camera was the new EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM lens because of its versatility and the ability to use it as the preferred lens for those photo shooting situations where you can only take one lens with you. After searching for this lens I found out that it has been pulled from the market because of some serious design flaws that caused flaring and other problems. Canon could follow Sony's approach. Since they realize they don't have the expertise required to design and build truly professional grade lenses, they went to Carl Zeiss. Now that Kyocera decided to discontinue its Contax line of cameras and is only keeping the Yashica line, Canon could very easily approach Carl Zeiss to produce its lenses as Kyocera did in the past. It is hard to accept that after a $ 10,000+ purchase the results I'm obtaining are not matching those I was able to obtain from my Nikon $ 2,000 film setup. Maybe my expectations were too high. Maybe I was under the wrong impression when I presumed that Canon's lenses were of similar quality to those made by Nikon. The bottom line is that one company gives you great lenses but still can't seem to develop a decent body with full frame sensor that doesn't change the characteristics of all the lenses you invested your money on. The other produces great bodies with outstanding resolution, full frame sensor and great overall performance but the lenses are of average rather than professional grade image quality. It seems that digital photography is not ready for prime time yet. Close - but no cigar ! I am sorry for the long post - just needed to share my frustrations. Best regards, Joseph --- Dr. Joseph Chamberlain Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery I can't comment on the lenses that you bought since I have not tried them. However, I do have a question. You don't say anything about how you processed/handled your test images. Is it possible that you are using the default in-camera processing parameters of your 1DsII? The default for sharpness is a parameter of 0 which is the softest of four choices. Also, most digital images benefit from some software sharpening, specially those with little or no in-camera sharpening. Canon, rightly or wrongly, believes that the buyers of of this camera prefer to default to a soft image. Most users of the 1DsII that I have read about have reset their in-camera sharpness to a 1 or a 2 setting. Chuck |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Canon digital bodies and Nikon lenses
Joseph Chamberlain, DDS wrote:
[bs snipped] Please dont feed the trolls! |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Canon digital bodies and Nikon lenses
"Douglas..." wrote in message
... How much do you want for this load of rubbish you bought? I'm no fan of Canon but I might be convinced to help you out by taking it off your hands so you can buy a piece of Nikon crap and discover the same thing... That you shouldn't be playing with Professional Photographers equipment and expect to get the same results they do. For Christ sake man, half the world's magazine cover shooters use this gear. If you can't get a decent picture, just remember the old saying... "A poor tradesman always blames his tools". Posting negative remarks about brands here will get you nothing but ridicule. Why? Because the photographers here all know that Canon is absolutely the best quality, most reliable load of useless digital crap anyone could ever own. You telling them that is preaching to the converted. Despite this knowledge, some still manage to run their business with Canon gear a lot less advanced than your outfit. The manage to take award winning photographs with them and generally make do with cameras and lenses you'd probably pass up because they weren't the "best"... Whatever that means . Before you continue on with your trolling posts, either learn how to take a photo or take the camera back and buy a Polaroid. -- Douglas... Specifications are good to read but When it comes to judging Digital Cameras... I'm in the "how do the pictures look" category. Douglas, you've given me "newsgroup whiplash." I've never had the experience of being insulted and pleased by the same post... grin -- Skip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Canon digital bodies and Nikon lenses
Oh, yeah, and laughing, too! g
-- Skip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com look" category. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Canon digital bodies and Nikon lenses
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Canon digital bodies and Nikon lenses
I operate nearly evey day with a microscope and what I do is far more
critical than anything a maxillofacial surgeon will encounter. Who has the time to worry about taking pictures? If the lawyers hear you are taking pictures they will just use them to hang you with, whether they are taken with a Canon or a Nikon. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Canon digital bodies and Nikon lenses | Joseph Chamberlain, DDS | Digital Photography | 24 | November 13th 05 05:28 AM |
Seeking recommendation for used SLR gears | S. S. | 35mm Photo Equipment | 186 | December 10th 04 12:18 AM |
CANON - The Great Innovator (was: CANON – The Great Pretender) | Steven M. Scharf | Digital Photography | 104 | September 3rd 04 01:01 PM |
CANON - The Great Innovator (was: CANON – The Great Pretender) | Steven M. Scharf | 35mm Photo Equipment | 92 | September 3rd 04 01:01 PM |