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
|
|||
|
|||
"Normal" Canon Zoom Lens that's worth a damn?
I've been using mine for 10 years now (1.8 Mk II) and never had a failure/
problem. The mount looks like new. I think if you handle your gear well, it does not matter if its polycarbonate or metal! Only the result counts, and this lens is capable of very good ones. "Skip M" wrote in message news:PhsEc.2539$876.1859@fed1read07... "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 |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
"Normal" Canon Zoom Lens that's worth a damn?
I think seeing a full format sensor on a 10d successor is more likely to
happen than the production of lenses "fitting" the 10D/ 300D sensor size. "David Littlewood" wrote in message ... 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 |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
"Normal" Canon Zoom Lens that's worth a damn?
"Skip M" wrote:
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. Given the poor optical quality of early zoom lenses, someone writing in a 1970s photo mag coined the phrase "zooming with your feet", which is what you had to do when using the (then) optically superior fixed focal length lenses. It was considered almost lazy use a zoom lens, stand still and zoom to get the framing you wanted. Much of that prejudice against zooms remains, mostly among people of a certain age. g But the advent of top quality "pro" zooms has changed all that. When we are out looking for a shot, and find one we want, it is a joy to be able to stand in one position, retaining the chosen viewpoint (and therefore the chosen perspective) and zoom to crop the shot. This cannot be done with fixed focal length lenses unless your chosen cropping just happens to coincide with the focal length in use. What this means is that you have to adopt a very different approach, depending whether you use a zoom or a selection of fixed focal length lenses. But the fact remains that fixed focal length lenses have a better optical performance than all but the best zoom lenses, and if you want that optical performance, you either buy top quality pro zooms, use fixed focal length lenses or accept the limitations of shooting with consumer grade zooms at f/8 or f/11 and at those focal lengths where distortion is less apparent. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
"Normal" Canon Zoom Lens that's worth a damn?
In article , Sander Vesik
writes 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. I have. Apart from slight changes in grain and DoF, and possibly a touch of distortion, the pictures are identical. What do you think they would show? -- David Littlewood |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
"Normal" Canon Zoom Lens that's worth a damn?
In article GjsEc.2540$876.1943@fed1read07, Skip M
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. -- 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. No; he was saying exactly the opposite. -- David Littlewood |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
"Normal" Canon Zoom Lens that's worth a damn?
I've had mine about 5 years now, and not a vestige of a problem. -- Skip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com "AW" wrote in message ... I've been using mine for 10 years now (1.8 Mk II) and never had a failure/ problem. The mount looks like new. I think if you handle your gear well, it does not matter if its polycarbonate or metal! Only the result counts, and this lens is capable of very good ones. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
"Normal" Canon Zoom Lens that's worth a damn?
"TP" wrote in message ... But the fact remains that fixed focal length lenses have a better optical performance than all but the best zoom lenses, and if you want that optical performance, you either buy top quality pro zooms, use fixed focal length lenses or accept the limitations of shooting with consumer grade zooms at f/8 or f/11 and at those focal lengths where distortion is less apparent. Oh, sometimes there is a third alternative....If you watch the used market and do a little research....I picked up a beautiful 75-150mm Nikkor "E" lens for only $100, and it is beautifully sharp throughout its range, and seems to have very little if any distortion. It's a little large by today's standards, but it has come to be a lens that I use very often...... |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
"Normal" Canon Zoom Lens that's worth a damn?
"William Graham" wrote:
Oh, sometimes there is a third alternative....If you watch the used market and do a little research....I picked up a beautiful 75-150mm Nikkor "E" lens for only $100, and it is beautifully sharp throughout its range, and seems to have very little if any distortion. It's a little large by today's standards, but it has come to be a lens that I use very often...... The 75-150mm f/3.5 Nikon Series E is one of the finest lenses Nikon ever produced. It has a constant f/3.5 maximum aperture, is superbly sharp and has just about the best bokeh of any Nikon portrait lens - certainly at least on a par with the legendary 105mm f/2.5 AI(S). The downside is that, being a Series E lens, it is less well made than contemporary AIS Nikkors, suffering from serious zoom creep, and it also suffers from significant light fall-off towards the corners. A great many Nikon pros pleaded with Nikon to make this lens in a Nikkor version with less light fall-off and better build quality, alas Nikon never took up the challenge. Look after this lens and it will serve you well. The zoom creep cannot be cured, except for a short time after repair, but it soon gets loose again. I used a tubular elastic bandage (from a drugstore) to counter the zoom creep problem on one of mine - I have owned three examples of this lens and they were all great performers. There are very few better portrait lenses than this one, light fall-off notwithstanding. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
"Normal" Canon Zoom Lens that's worth a damn?
"TP" wrote in message ... "William Graham" wrote: Oh, sometimes there is a third alternative....If you watch the used market and do a little research....I picked up a beautiful 75-150mm Nikkor "E" lens for only $100, and it is beautifully sharp throughout its range, and seems to have very little if any distortion. It's a little large by today's standards, but it has come to be a lens that I use very often...... The 75-150mm f/3.5 Nikon Series E is one of the finest lenses Nikon ever produced. It has a constant f/3.5 maximum aperture, is superbly sharp and has just about the best bokeh of any Nikon portrait lens - certainly at least on a par with the legendary 105mm f/2.5 AI(S). The downside is that, being a Series E lens, it is less well made than contemporary AIS Nikkors, suffering from serious zoom creep, and it also suffers from significant light fall-off towards the corners. A great many Nikon pros pleaded with Nikon to make this lens in a Nikkor version with less light fall-off and better build quality, alas Nikon never took up the challenge. Look after this lens and it will serve you well. The zoom creep cannot be cured, except for a short time after repair, but it soon gets loose again. I used a tubular elastic bandage (from a drugstore) to counter the zoom creep problem on one of mine - I have owned three examples of this lens and they were all great performers. There are very few better portrait lenses than this one, light fall-off notwithstanding. Mine seems to have little or no zoom creep, but then, it's a one touch type lens, so my left hand is on it while I am shooting to both focus and zoom, so it doesn't have the freedom to creep. The first few rolls of slides I have gotten back have pleased me greatly.....I think I will continue looking for another one, just to have as a back-up.......... |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
"Normal" Canon Zoom Lens that's worth a damn?
David J. Littleboy wrote:
"pioe[rmv]" wrote: The Canon EF 50mm F/1.8 is inferior in build quality as well as in performance to the 1.4 USM as well as the former version which had a distance scale and metal mount. I have tested both extensively, and have found that the 50mm 1.8 is not a top-class lens, Of course it's a "top-class" lens: it performs better than any Canon lens with a shorter focal length*. Other than the 50/1.4, it's the best normal-to-wide lens Canon makes. *: http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~ashon/photo/comparo6.htm Well, irrespective of what theoretical MTF models say, I just maintain that it is inferior to both the 1.4 and the previous model. If MTF numbers are to be of any value, they have to be measured, not theoretical models from the manufacturer. This comparison shows the true pictu http://www.seittipaja.fi/data/Pontif...sus_fifty.html Here is my own test, which is in Norwegian, but the aperture values and pictures should explain themselves. The quality difference in favor of the 1.4 is plain to see: http://akam.no/art.php?artikkelid=913 My impression is that the Canon EF 50mm 1.8 II fails to qualify as a top-class lens. The former 50mm 1.8 I was superior, and had/has a much better construction. even if it is cheap. The plastic lens mount excludes as a long-term investment. Of course it's not a long-term investment: it's a $79.95 throwaway lens you buy if you don't know if you would really use the 50/1.4 all that much. Agreed, but there are good reasons to buy something that lasts. Per Inge Oestmoen, Norway |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
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 |