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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Are IS lenses doomed ?
"MarkČ" mjmorgan(lowest even number wrote in message
... Skip wrote: "VC" wrote in message ... snip a bunch of words There is a very small advantage in having IS in the lens but it is not significant enough to grant double and triple cost of the same quality lenses. What do you guys think ? I keep seeing this bandied about as the premium for IS/VR, but nowhere do I see it in actual practice. It is about a $400-500 increase in price over the non IS version, if such does exist in the lineup. The only times this has occurred is with the old 75-300, a cheap lens with a gimmick, as far as I am concerned I think it was more than a gimmick. I used that lens in Alaska in 1997, and it allowed decent shots that would have been total garbage without it. Was it a great optic, in strict optical terms? No. Did it render FAAAAR better captures than its non-IS sibling would have? Absolutely. --I was hanging out the window of engine-running shuttle-buses in Denali. -No tripod or monopod was possible. In situations like these, the lens was definitely worth having. I gave it to my dad, and he's happily shooting with it on his 10D... Maybe "gimmick" was too harsh of a word. It just seemed to me, at the time, that it was a cheap lens with IS added to justify getting a premium price. -- Skip Middleton www.shadowcatcherimagery.com www.pbase.com/skipm |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Are IS lenses doomed ?
Skip wrote:
"MarkČ" mjmorgan(lowest even number wrote in message ... Skip wrote: "VC" wrote in message ... snip a bunch of words There is a very small advantage in having IS in the lens but it is not significant enough to grant double and triple cost of the same quality lenses. What do you guys think ? I keep seeing this bandied about as the premium for IS/VR, but nowhere do I see it in actual practice. It is about a $400-500 increase in price over the non IS version, if such does exist in the lineup. The only times this has occurred is with the old 75-300, a cheap lens with a gimmick, as far as I am concerned I think it was more than a gimmick. I used that lens in Alaska in 1997, and it allowed decent shots that would have been total garbage without it. Was it a great optic, in strict optical terms? No. Did it render FAAAAR better captures than its non-IS sibling would have? Absolutely. --I was hanging out the window of engine-running shuttle-buses in Denali. -No tripod or monopod was possible. In situations like these, the lens was definitely worth having. I gave it to my dad, and he's happily shooting with it on his 10D... Maybe "gimmick" was too harsh of a word. It just seemed to me, at the time, that it was a cheap lens with IS added to justify getting a premium price. Partially, maybe. OK. But the price wasn't outlandish considering the tech it presented for the first time. What was the alternative for hand-held tele photography? The only alternatives at that point were very high dollar, large aperture lenses...or non-IS equiv. lenses that were nearly useless without eithe a tripod, or grainy film. This was a truly unique lens for its day. For its range, it allowed use of a slower lens without being tethered to a tripod. Beyond that, this was the lens that confirmed the whole concept of IS's usefulness. I think much like a prototype. Prototypes are never perfection, but they are the test and display of what is possible with new tech. As a prototype, it was very successful as it ushered in what has become serious a point of Canon influence over the industry. Everyone has had to adjust. Nikon with VR, Sigma is even trying...and now we've got every type of camera trying to sell based on some for of "IS." IS has changed the entire ballgame, and this lens started that. By the time I went mostly digital, I'd already replaced that lens with the 100-400 IS, so I don't have easily posted pictures taken with it... One of the few is this goofy monkey pic: http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/47306239/original Nothing specatacular, but certainly not tirrible. -- Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by MarkČ at: www.pbase.com/markuson |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Are IS lenses doomed ?
"MarkČ" mjmorgan(lowest even number wrote in message
... the few is this goofy monkey pic: http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/47306239/original It's a good thing we're not on the planet of the apes. Calling an Orangutan a Monkey is grounds for a severe beating. :-) |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Are IS lenses doomed ?
"David Kilpatrick" wrote in message ... [ . . . ] One slightly ironic point is that so far all the sensor-stabilised cameras have been 1.5X APS factor. [ . . . ] Off topic for the thread, but this is the first time I've seen that term, "APS factor," used. I think it's a very good one, much better than the common "crop factor" (and variants) which I have always objected to on the grounds that nothing is actually being cropped, and even if it were, nothing is being *multiplied* by the so-called crop and the 1.5x or other number given is obviously a multiplier. "APS factor" is very good. Neil |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Are IS lenses doomed ?
"Skip" wrote in message news [ . . . ] The lenses are doomed, the companies that make them are doomed, photography as we know it is doomed, we are all doomed. Now that's what I like to see. None of this namby-pamby "glass is half empty" rubbish. Neil |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Are IS lenses doomed ?
In article , Bill
writes "MarkČ" mjmorgan(lowest even number wrote in message ... the few is this goofy monkey pic: http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/47306239/original It's a good thing we're not on the planet of the apes. Calling an Orangutan a Monkey is grounds for a severe beating. Or at the Unseen University on Discworld. David -- David Littlewood |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Are IS lenses doomed ?
On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 12:06:25 -0500, "Neil Harrington"
wrote: "David Kilpatrick" wrote in message ... [ . . . ] One slightly ironic point is that so far all the sensor-stabilised cameras have been 1.5X APS factor. [ . . . ] Off topic for the thread, but this is the first time I've seen that term, "APS factor," used. I think it's a very good one, much better than the common "crop factor" (and variants) which I have always objected to on the grounds that nothing is actually being cropped, and even if it were, nothing is being *multiplied* by the so-called crop and the 1.5x or other number given is obviously a multiplier. "APS factor" is very good. I agree with your disagreements, but some complain bitterly about using APS to describe these sensor sizes, because the sizes don't exactly agree. See http://tinyurl.com/somes KS |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Are IS lenses doomed ?
In article , Neil
Harrington writes "David Kilpatrick" wrote in message ... [ . . . ] One slightly ironic point is that so far all the sensor-stabilised cameras have been 1.5X APS factor. [ . . . ] Off topic for the thread, but this is the first time I've seen that term, "APS factor," used. I think it's a very good one, much better than the common "crop factor" (and variants) which I have always objected to on the grounds that nothing is actually being cropped, and even if it were, nothing is being *multiplied* by the so-called crop and the 1.5x or other number given is obviously a multiplier. "APS factor" is very good. Well, up to a point, Lord Copper. The reference to APS indicates that the sensor is the same size as APS film (more specifically, IIRC, APS-C). This is decidedly specific; there are many other sensor sizes in use in digital cameras, so the term would not do for a general case. Would be a lot more rigorous if the exact sensor size in mm were to be quoted. David -- David Littlewood |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Are IS lenses doomed ?
On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 12:12:41 -0500, "Neil Harrington"
wrote: "Skip" wrote in message news [ . . . ] The lenses are doomed, the companies that make them are doomed, photography as we know it is doomed, we are all doomed. Now that's what I like to see. None of this namby-pamby "glass is half empty" rubbish. Neil I'm on the way to the trash to throw away my 5D and the 24-105.... ;-) -- Scott in Florida |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Are IS lenses doomed ?
Scott in Florida wrote:
On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 12:12:41 -0500, "Neil Harrington" wrote: "Skip" wrote in message news [ . . . ] The lenses are doomed, the companies that make them are doomed, photography as we know it is doomed, we are all doomed. Now that's what I like to see. None of this namby-pamby "glass is half empty" rubbish. I'm on the way to the trash to throw away my 5D and the 24-105.... ;-) Don't bother. As Skip pointed out, we're all doomed. Doomed, I tell ya, doomed! So it's no use. -- john mcwilliams |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Full Frame Lenses vs Small Sensor Lenses | measekite | Digital Photography | 15 | September 13th 06 04:36 PM |
FA: Minolta SRT-101 with 3 MC Rokker lenses, hoods, manuals macro lenses, MORE | Rowdy | 35mm Equipment for Sale | 0 | August 28th 06 10:42 PM |
Main OEMs - Worst lenses compilations - lenses to run away from | Alan Browne | 35mm Photo Equipment | 9 | December 12th 04 02:36 AM |
Some basic questions about process lenses vs. "regular" lenses | Marco Milazzo | Large Format Photography Equipment | 20 | November 23rd 04 05:42 PM |
FS: Many Photo Items (Nikon Bodies/Lenses, Bessa Body/lenses, CoolScan, Tilt/shift Bellows, etc.) | David Ruether | General Equipment For Sale | 0 | December 16th 03 08:58 PM |