A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Photo Equipment » 35mm Photo Equipment
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

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



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old June 29th 04, 12:56 PM
David Littlewood
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default "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
  #12  
Old June 29th 04, 01:05 PM
David Littlewood
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default "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
  #13  
Old June 29th 04, 08:16 PM
Karl Winkler
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default "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
  #14  
Old June 29th 04, 08:37 PM
David Littlewood
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default "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
  #15  
Old June 29th 04, 10:26 PM
Martin Francis
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default "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...."


  #16  
Old June 29th 04, 10:33 PM
Martin Francis
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default "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...."


  #17  
Old June 30th 04, 03:19 AM
Tony Spadaro
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default "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...."




  #18  
Old June 30th 04, 04:27 AM
Sander Vesik
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default "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 +++
  #19  
Old June 30th 04, 06:34 AM
Skip M
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default "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


  #20  
Old June 30th 04, 06:36 AM
Skip M
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default "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


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
what does the focal distance actually mean? scott Digital Photography 10 July 1st 04 10:51 PM
General Lens ZOOM question.... advid Digital Photography 11 June 30th 04 10:07 PM
50mm "normal" lens with digital SLR? Chris Brown Digital Photography 5 June 27th 04 06:58 PM
Canon EF long lens rental Florida US Michael C. Smith 35mm Photo Equipment 9 June 25th 04 12:23 PM
Choose a standard zoom lens for Maxxum Bill Tuthill 35mm Photo Equipment 0 June 14th 04 07:11 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:47 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2022 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.