Canon digital bodies and Nikon lenses

Rich wrote:

On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 21:19:21 -0700, "Roger N. Clark (change username
to rnclark)" wrote:


Rich wrote:



Single coated filters reflect about 1.5% of the light at each surface,
which doesn't amount to much in terms of transmission,

But reflectance increases off axis. It would certainly
contribute to vignetting on a wide angle lens, but how much
I do not know (I don't have a camera with such a filter
with me at the moment). It would be an interesting measurement
though.

Roger


Probably not enough to see visually?
But one day they'll be able to lay down coatings that will
accommodate the angle change (due to curvature) across
the face of a lens.
-Rich

Probably. Especially the reflection off the back side.
See:
http://www.janostech.com/files/Optic...ign%20Data.pdf
The above are not multicoated curves, but it gives an idea.
At angles of 35 degrees off the back side of an uncoated
filter, reflectance is 20%. Multicoating will reduce that,
but we need to see a plot to see how much. At large angles,
the destructive interference distances in an AR coating
are breaking down (not valid for visible wavelengths),
so it could actually be worse!

Roger

Roger

Joseph Chamberlain, DDS wrote:

My impression is that this is being caused (at least in part) by the filter
I am using. When I purchase my camera I asked for Heliopan multicoated UV
filters for both lenses. The reseller gave me by mistake the single coated
filters and I didn't notice this until I got home. When I hold the
multicoated filter I have on my Nikkor 17-35mm and the single coated filter
I have on my Canon 16-35mm both against the light in a angle it is easy to
see that the single coated reflects a lot more light than the multicoated.
Could this associated with the curvature of the lens and the light fall off
effect that has been discussed here in the past for full frame sensors cause
this problem ? What are your opinions ?

A filter doesn't reflect enough to cause vignetting. If a filter causes it,
it's due to not having enough clearance -- the ring on the filter blocks the
light.

Using a wide angle lens wide open causes vignetting because that's just how
it works. Obviously they can try to minimize it in the lens design, but
when you have light from a wide circle exposing each part of the image, the
edges are going to lose something due to part of the circle being outside
the image area. (There seems to be a lot of confusion between this and the
"soft corner" effect you sometimes see with digital sensors; they are two
different things. Corner falloff is not a "digital" artifact.)

Last but not least, I have spoken to some photographers who say they don't
use any filter at all with wide lenses such as this 16-35mm because any type
of filter independent of how good it is will cause image problems at such
wide angles. How many of you use lenses without filters to protect them ?
Isn't that a little risky since you can damage the front element of the lens
? How many of you have actually had lenses damaged because of the absence of
a protective UV filter ?

I don't use them, but I do use lens hoods quite a lot, which offer much the
same protection while not hurting image quality (and usually helping). I
pretty much always have a hood on the lens.

--
Jeremy |

"G.T." wrote in message
...
Lester Wareham wrote:
Joseph

I think you have come in for some unfair comments from some on this
group, well done for accepting it in good grace.

Now I note you exchanged the 16-35 for another lens which was more
saticfactory. Can you share with us which lens that was please.


I guess top-posters can't comprehend simple English.

Greg

"Joseph Chamberlain, DDS" wrote in message
.. .



After using a few others 16-35mm the reseller had in his inventory it was
apparent not only to me, but to a few specialists that the lens was
definitely flawed. I was able to exchange it for a different one that
produced images that were noticeably better.

It sounds to me like he EXCHANGED it for another Canon 16-35.

"It sounds to me like he EXCHANGED it for another Canon 16-35"

I thought so too but it was ambiguous - does your reply clarify it. No. Then
why not let him answer for himself.


"G.T." wrote in message
...
Lester Wareham wrote:
Joseph

I think you have come in for some unfair comments from some on this
group, well done for accepting it in good grace.

Now I note you exchanged the 16-35 for another lens which was more
saticfactory. Can you share with us which lens that was please.


I guess top-posters can't comprehend simple English.

Greg

"Joseph Chamberlain, DDS" wrote in message
.. .



After using a few others 16-35mm the reseller had in his inventory it was
apparent not only to me, but to a few specialists that the lens was
definitely flawed. I was able to exchange it for a different one that
produced images that were noticeably better.

It sounds to me like he EXCHANGED it for another Canon 16-35.

Thanks for the clarification Joseph.

"Joseph Chamberlain, DDS" wrote in message
.. .
On 11/13/05 6:49 AM, in article ,
"Lester Wareham" wrote:

Joseph

I think you have come in for some unfair comments from some on this
group,
well done for accepting it in good grace.

Now I note you exchanged the 16-35 for another lens which was more
saticfactory. Can you share with us which lens that was please.


Lester

Lester:

I have exchanged it for the same lens. Apparently the one I originally
purchased with my camera had some manufacturing issue with heavy
geometrical
distortion towards the edges, specially at the 16mm focal length end of
the
zoom range. I went back to the reseller and tested a few others and all of
them provided better images than the one I had.

My new Canon 16-25mm lens has improved dramatically after I exchanged it
for
another lens. However, I continue to notice a great deal of vignetting
primarily when the lens is wide open at 16mm focal length. I took a shot
with the blue sky in the background and the vignetting was so intense that
after using the vignette correction under lens correction in Camera Raw to
its maximum it could still be noticed.

My impression is that this is being caused (at least in part) by the
filter
I am using. When I purchase my camera I asked for Heliopan multicoated UV
filters for both lenses. The reseller gave me by mistake the single coated
filters and I didn't notice this until I got home. When I hold the
multicoated filter I have on my Nikkor 17-35mm and the single coated
filter
I have on my Canon 16-35mm both against the light in a angle it is easy to
see that the single coated reflects a lot more light than the multicoated.
Could this associated with the curvature of the lens and the light fall
off
effect that has been discussed here in the past for full frame sensors
cause
this problem ? What are your opinions ?

I have also looked at B+W's Kaesemann multicoated polarizer and it barely
reflects any light on its surface. It seems it would be a good aid in
avoiding or reducing this vignetting I am seeing. The only trade-off is
the
2 f-stops lost using this polarizer.

What are your opinions on this subject ? How many of you have the same
Canon
lens or a similar lens and have experienced this type of problem ? What
solution have you found ?

Last but not least, I have spoken to some photographers who say they don't
use any filter at all with wide lenses such as this 16-35mm because any
type
of filter independent of how good it is will cause image problems at such
wide angles. How many of you use lenses without filters to protect them ?
Isn't that a little risky since you can damage the front element of the
lens
? How many of you have actually had lenses damaged because of the absence
of
a protective UV filter ?

Thank you in advance for your replies and help.

Best regards,

Joseph

---

Dr. Joseph Chamberlain
Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery

On 11/16/05 11:59 AM, in article QcMef.512876$oW2.95067@pd7tw1no, "Robert
Brace" wrote:


I don't work for them either, but I do use RRS equipment for both film &
digital and it is outstanding. I'm surprised at your comparison with
Manfrotto for price comparison. I've never encountered anything with the
name Manfrotto on it (and I've owned much, and still own some of it) which I
didn't consider roughly cast, poorly machined and of inferior design!! RRS
is so far ahead of Manfrotto in every area of comparison it doesn't even
deserve comment.
Their newly re-designed B-150 macro focusing rail (it's now designated the
B-150B, I think) is not available yet. They have been saying "late fall"
since I first called them on the disappearance of the B-150 last April. I
considered the Kirk rail, but decided to wait. That's the result of being
impressed with their quality.
Bob

Bob:

Now you have ME surprised.

Manfrotto (or Bogen as it is known in the US) makes some of the best
tripods, heads and general studio and lighting support equipment I have seen
to date. It is one of the most sought by professionals and the one with the
most comprehensive product line. Their equipment is sturdy and built like
"tanks" - something that is really built to last.

I own Manfrotto tripods that are 20 years old and they look as if they were
purchased yesterday (in part because of the proper care I provide without
exposing them to unnecessary punishment). I don't have one single piece of
equipment from Manfrotto that has even a single rust spot or has ever failed
to perform as I have come to expect it to.

Since I don't own any RSS' equipment I can't compare the two. If their
equipment is of similar quality to that of Manfrotto's products they really
are good equipment. If they are in fact much better as you describe then
they must be the top-of-the-line.

I think the roughly cast description you attribute to Manfrotto's products
is in fact an intentional design feature aimed at providing consumers with
products that "feel" and "behave" sturdy.

Joseph

---

Dr. Joseph Chamberlain
Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery

"Joseph Chamberlain, DDS" wrote in message
.. .
On 11/16/05 11:59 AM, in article QcMef.512876$oW2.95067@pd7tw1no, "Robert
Brace" wrote:


I don't work for them either, but I do use RRS equipment for both film &
digital and it is outstanding. I'm surprised at your comparison with
Manfrotto for price comparison. I've never encountered anything with the
name Manfrotto on it (and I've owned much, and still own some of it)
which I
didn't consider roughly cast, poorly machined and of inferior design!!
RRS
is so far ahead of Manfrotto in every area of comparison it doesn't even
deserve comment.
Their newly re-designed B-150 macro focusing rail (it's now designated
the
B-150B, I think) is not available yet. They have been saying "late fall"
since I first called them on the disappearance of the B-150 last April.
I
considered the Kirk rail, but decided to wait. That's the result of
being
impressed with their quality.
Bob

Bob:

Now you have ME surprised.

Manfrotto (or Bogen as it is known in the US) makes some of the best
tripods, heads and general studio and lighting support equipment I have
seen
to date. It is one of the most sought by professionals and the one with
the
most comprehensive product line. Their equipment is sturdy and built like
"tanks" - something that is really built to last.

I own Manfrotto tripods that are 20 years old and they look as if they
were
purchased yesterday (in part because of the proper care I provide without
exposing them to unnecessary punishment). I don't have one single piece of
equipment from Manfrotto that has even a single rust spot or has ever
failed
to perform as I have come to expect it to.

Since I don't own any RSS' equipment I can't compare the two. If their
equipment is of similar quality to that of Manfrotto's products they
really
are good equipment. If they are in fact much better as you describe then
they must be the top-of-the-line.

I think the roughly cast description you attribute to Manfrotto's products
is in fact an intentional design feature aimed at providing consumers with
products that "feel" and "behave" sturdy.

Joseph

---

Dr. Joseph Chamberlain
Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery

To add my opinion to the cacophony, RRS stuff really is a lot better than
Manfrotto/Bogen. That being said, I've always felt that RRS made their
stuff better than it really needs to be, and charges WAY too much.
Manfrotto, on the other hand, charges just a little bit more than their
stuff is worth, and it generally gets the job done. I have two M/B tripods
with heads, and one QR plate of theirs. The QR plate lacks an antitwist
feature, but for the difference in price, I just make sure it's good and
tight.

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

In article ,
Joseph Chamberlain, DDS wrote:
Manfrotto (or Bogen as it is known in the US) makes some of the best
tripods, heads and general studio and lighting support equipment I have seen
to date. It is one of the most sought by professionals and the one with the
most comprehensive product line. Their equipment is sturdy and built like
"tanks" - something that is really built to last.

I own Manfrotto tripods that are 20 years old and they look as if they were
purchased yesterday (in part because of the proper care I provide without
exposing them to unnecessary punishment). I don't have one single piece of
equipment from Manfrotto that has even a single rust spot or has ever failed
to perform as I have come to expect it to.

In my opinion, Manfrotto stuff is usually properly engineered, but it is not
high-end. For video, I work with some 20 year old Manfrotto tripods and an
about 15 year old one from Sachtler.

The latest IBC last September was an obvious opportunity to see whether
there was any news in tripod land. Manfrotto didn't bring anything that
comes even close to a Sachtler head.

Recently, I was looking for an affordable, 2nd hand, 'big' ball head. One
of the older Manfrotto designs was a complete disaster. Not that it would
break, but movements were anything but smooth. (I bought a Gitzo, but
I doubt that it is as good as the more high-end stuff).


--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency

"Joseph Chamberlain, DDS" wrote in message
.. .
On 11/16/05 11:59 AM, in article QcMef.512876$oW2.95067@pd7tw1no, "Robert
Brace" wrote:


I don't work for them either, but I do use RRS equipment for both film &
digital and it is outstanding. I'm surprised at your comparison with
Manfrotto for price comparison. I've never encountered anything with the
name Manfrotto on it (and I've owned much, and still own some of it)
which I
didn't consider roughly cast, poorly machined and of inferior design!!
RRS
is so far ahead of Manfrotto in every area of comparison it doesn't even
deserve comment.
Their newly re-designed B-150 macro focusing rail (it's now designated
the
B-150B, I think) is not available yet. They have been saying "late fall"
since I first called them on the disappearance of the B-150 last April.
I
considered the Kirk rail, but decided to wait. That's the result of
being
impressed with their quality.
Bob

Bob:

Now you have ME surprised.

Manfrotto (or Bogen as it is known in the US) makes some of the best
tripods, heads and general studio and lighting support equipment I have
seen
to date. It is one of the most sought by professionals and the one with
the
most comprehensive product line. Their equipment is sturdy and built like
"tanks" - something that is really built to last.

I own Manfrotto tripods that are 20 years old and they look as if they
were
purchased yesterday (in part because of the proper care I provide without
exposing them to unnecessary punishment). I don't have one single piece of
equipment from Manfrotto that has even a single rust spot or has ever
failed
to perform as I have come to expect it to.

Since I don't own any RSS' equipment I can't compare the two. If their
equipment is of similar quality to that of Manfrotto's products they
really
are good equipment. If they are in fact much better as you describe then
they must be the top-of-the-line.

I think the roughly cast description you attribute to Manfrotto's products
is in fact an intentional design feature aimed at providing consumers with
products that "feel" and "behave" sturdy.

Joseph

---

Dr. Joseph Chamberlain
Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery


Joseph:
As I mentioned, I am still using some Manfrotto. One item is a Proball
468RC ball head which has held up not too badly -- but at the first
opportunity I replaced their quick release with an early RRS lever release
Arca-Swiss type (marked AS-A on the end). Now it works the way it should
have originally. I have owned their tripods in the past, but lately have
settled on Gitzo tripods, ball heads and monopods and I also have an older
Linhof which holds its own very capably.
Someone else mentioned that things with Manfrotto seemed "acceptable"
but there was always something that seemed "overlooked" (and I don't mean
well-scrutinized)!!
You could easily make the "over priced" case for RRS, but I don't find
myself having to "accommodate" any of their equipment -- it just works and
continues to work on & on.
What is that worth?
There is an old saying my Grandfather used to quote from time to time:
"The world is full of people who know the price of everything and the value
of nothing". It's still true, in my experience.
Bob