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 |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
Canon digital bodies and Nikon lenses
wrote in message
... "Joseph Chamberlain, DDS" writes: Skip: snip Your images that were taken at 16mm look much better than mine and I can barely see any distortion around the edges. It doesn't even look like the typical image of a 16mm lens. How can you tell? There are essentially no straight lines near the edges of those images, eexcept the horizon, which basically goes through the center of the image. snip A) that's not exactly a horizon...that is a shoreline. B) there are intersecting straight lines at the right edge of the 16mm images. You can see by the inward tilt of the buildings over there that there is some WA type distortion. -- Skip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
Canon digital bodies and Nikon lenses
" + "KillFile" = "Problem Solved"
wrote in message ups.com... george trolls: Not to start a war about it (especially since you asked so politely), Trolls never want to start a war! Never! They are just asking innocent (albeit, stupid) questions! why are some people so adamantly opposed to top-posting? Because it is stupid. And people with functioning brains have known this for thousands of years. Try reading (as an example), the Talmud. I consider that to be more polite than bottom posting (though I generally follow the etiquette of the thread I am replying to) because your way (bottom posting) forces me to always scroll through a bunch of previous posts whereas top posting immediately shows the latest and if I want history, I can read down until the gaps a filled (I really don't need to know that a thread asking how to color correct different light sources began as a thread on how to cook grits!). You sound like a lazy-ass indeed. Advice: read more than USENET. Read _alot_ more. Try something with depth. Enquiring minds want to know the rationale (and why some are so militant about it)... More lazy-assness. Try using google to answer simple questions. Try wikipedia. Here, go right to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_posting and read all of it. I direct your attention to the first example (right at the beginning) as to why top-posting is the number one sign of a defective intellect. |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
Canon digital bodies and Nikon lenses
Cockpit Colin top posts like a moron:
" + "KillFile" = "Problem Solved" Oh no, killfiled by another nitwit! The agony is unbearable! HA HA HA HA HAA!!! Nevertheless, I know you are still reading, so I'll just mention one last fact: the number one feature of a mark is that they _continue to believe even in the face of evidence they have been tricked_. |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
Canon digital bodies and Nikon lenses
"Skip M" wrote:
wrote in message u... "Joseph Chamberlain, DDS" writes: Skip: snip Your images that were taken at 16mm look much better than mine and I can barely see any distortion around the edges. It doesn't even look like the typical image of a 16mm lens. How can you tell? There are essentially no straight lines near the edges of those images, eexcept the horizon, which basically goes through the center of the image. snip A) that's not exactly a horizon...that is a shoreline. B) there are intersecting straight lines at the right edge of the 16mm images. You can see by the inward tilt of the buildings over there that there is some WA type distortion. Are you sure that isn't just a case of converging verticals, caused by pointing the axis of the lens above the horizontal? |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
Canon digital bodies and Nikon lenses
I relied heavily on the reviews before purchasing the 2 I mentioned - I was
left with the impression that they were both solid & reliable workhorses that did what they were designed to do very well - my personal experience with them has exactly mirrored my expectations. I've read some nice things about the 70-200 F4, but I went for it's bigger brother because (as you're aware) they don't make the F4 version with IS. I think it's worth spelling out the difference 3 stops can make - it's obvious when you think about it, but I just didn't think about it for a long time - for a given situation it can mean I can use (for example) 1/25 sec instead of 1/200 - when you think about it, it's one hell of a difference. Keeping in mind that with F4 -v-F2.8 you'd need slower shutter speeds to start with - so it's a double-edged sword. If you're going to have better light available then this may not be an issue for you. The F2.8 IS version also gives full compatability with the 2.0 teleconverter ( AF on all AF points) - something that I need. I looked lovingly at the 24-105 and the 70-300, but I had my suspicion that they might get branded "jack of all trades - master of none" - the reviews seem to support the notion that "they're good - but not as good as ..." etc, which means "the perfectionist" in me wouldn't be happy knowing there was something better. In terms of weight - hmm - I dunno. They're certainly VERY solid lenses. One salient point I remember a park ranger telling me one day - he commented how it always amused him at how various tourists that he was guiding would argue that their camera was better than the other guys because it was 100 grams lighter - when both of them had 40 pound beer guts hanging over their belt. I tend to think that if it's a couple of pounds heavier it's only about another 1% body weight. If small and light is a priority you'd probably be better off with a Rebel 350D on a 24-105 - but I think that with a 1D for you, and a 20D with grip, 2 batteries, and L bracket attached for me, "light and portable" is never going to be a reality (not to mention a solid tripod, other lenses, 18" nodal bar etc). Cheers, Colin "Joseph Chamberlain, DDS" wrote in message .. . Colin: Thanks again for the tips. I really like your suggestions and like both lens as well. The one I've had my eyes own is the 24-105mm but was quite disappointed with the problems and Canon's recall because of the flaring issues. Hopefully this lens will be out soon with the design revised and without the problems. The one thing about this lens I find appealing over the 24-70mm f/2.8 you mention is the extended range that makes it such a versatile lens to carry. If I were to go to a place and could only take one lens I think this would probably be the ideal lens to carry. The 70-200mm lens is a great lens judging from all the reviews I've read so far. The problem is the size and weigth. This is not the kind of lens one can carry everywhere. In case I am to travel and carry this lens with me I better start doing some serious bodybuilding I've been told that the 70-200mm f/4 is actually quite a nice lens while much smaller and lighter. Here is the US the demand seem to be such for this lens that it is on backorder at BH Photo which is the largest reseller in the country. The only drawbacks are the aperture (f/4 versus F/2.8 on the lens you suggested) and the lack of IS which can be handy in many situations. Outside of these lenses, I have also been looking at something small to carry with me when going on trips and simply planning to take leisure, unpretentious photos. I've looked at both the 70-300mm DO lens and the new 70-300mm lens. Reviews on the net seem to provided mixed results. Some say the DO is actually a great lens for what it is meant to do. The major drawback is the flaring but this seem to happen only in situation where the subject is backlit and light is coming head on through the lens. The other lens have also received some bad as well as good reviews. Some say that image quality is actually superior to the DO lens that costs almost twice as much. The major complaints I've read on reviews of this lens are (1) the slow focusing that sometimes seem to keep "hunting" the subject and the (2) fact that as the lens focuses it rotates the outer ring which can be a problem if you have a filter such as a polarizer attached. Although the DO is more compact and has better focusing (reviews compare the speed of the focusing mechanism to that found in the best L lens), I would tend to favor image quality as the most important quality. Do you have any input or suggestions you can share with me on these two lenses ? In case anyone else wants to share opinions or point to sites that actually offer information from real tests conducted on lenses I would greatly appreciate it. There was a post in one of the newsgroups a few days ago about a web site linked to www.imaging-resource.com that was dedicated to the evaluation of lenses and used a very strict technical/scientific protocol to test lenses. Does anyone know the address to this site or other similar with tests and serious reviews on lenses ? I've tried Rob Galbraigth and Fred Miranda but all I can find are posts placed by users and not real technical tests. Any help will be greatly appreciated. Thank you again for the great suggestions, Colin. I am going to stop at my local reseller over the weekend and take a closer look at both lenses you suggested. Best regards, Joseph --- Dr. Joseph Chamberlain Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery On 11/10/05 8:13 PM, in article , "Cockpit Colin" wrote: Joseph, For what it's worth, if you're ever in the market for a couple of general-purpose lenses, I'd be happy to recomment the Canon 24-70 F2.8L USM and the Canon 70-200 F2.8L IS USM. Together they cover a wide range, and are capable of producing very sharp images. Cheers, CC |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
Canon digital bodies and Nikon lenses
I'll stop top posting the day they invent a newsreader that automatically
scrolls to the bottom of every message. |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
Canon digital bodies and Nikon lenses
Cockpit Colin wrote:
I'll stop top posting the day they invent a newsreader that automatically scrolls to the bottom of every message. http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/oe-quotefix/ For Outlook Express -- Frank S "Verbing weirds language." —Calvin |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
OT - OE Enhancer (was Canon digital bodies and Nikon lenses)
Thanks for that Frank, but I can't see anything about automatically
scrolling to the end of a message. |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
OT - OE Enhancer (was Canon digital bodies and Nikon lenses)
Cockpit Colin wrote:
Thanks for that Frank, but I can't see anything about automatically scrolling to the end of a message. It's been a long, long time since I installed it; I think there is a choice on the setup or install menus. Any road, it does it every time, as well as color-code messages per poster. -- Frank ess |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
Canon digital bodies and Nikon lenses
Plonk to junior who thinks Wintel was the beginning of computing...
wrote in message ups.com... george trolls: Not to start a war about it (especially since you asked so politely), Trolls never want to start a war! Never! They are just asking innocent (albeit, stupid) questions! why are some people so adamantly opposed to top-posting? Because it is stupid. And people with functioning brains have known this for thousands of years. Try reading (as an example), the Talmud. I consider that to be more polite than bottom posting (though I generally follow the etiquette of the thread I am replying to) because your way (bottom posting) forces me to always scroll through a bunch of previous posts whereas top posting immediately shows the latest and if I want history, I can read down until the gaps a filled (I really don't need to know that a thread asking how to color correct different light sources began as a thread on how to cook grits!). You sound like a lazy-ass indeed. Advice: read more than USENET. Read _alot_ more. Try something with depth. Enquiring minds want to know the rationale (and why some are so militant about it)... More lazy-assness. Try using google to answer simple questions. Try wikipedia. Here, go right to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_posting and read all of it. I direct your attention to the first example (right at the beginning) as to why top-posting is the number one sign of a defective intellect. |
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 |