Olympus shocker! E-5, no AA filter!!

On Wed, 20 Oct 2010 07:36:15 -0400, peter
wrote:
: On 10/19/2010 9:37 PM, Robert Coe wrote:
:
:
: I might as well be. Over the weekend I made the mother of all impulse
: purchases: I ordered a 7D. It arrived this afternoon. (B&H ships so quickly to
: the Boston area that it's faster than driving to the mall.) Haven't had a
: chance to try it yet, though; the first battery is still charging.
:
: I couldn't spare a walkaround lens for it, so I bought the 17-55 (the real
: one, not the kit lens). It's not an "L", but it seems to be well regarded from
: what I've read. It's the size of a 12-oz. Coke can and weighs more than two
: pounds, so just carrying it around should be good exercise.
:
:
: Impulse is the best way. Only one discussion with the treasurer.
:
: I am looking forward to many years of seeing your images. Enjoy it.

Thanks, Peter. I'm sure I will enjoy it!

Bob

On Wed, 20 Oct 2010 11:50:52 +0100, Bruce wrote:
: Robert Coe wrote:
: On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 09:29:42 +0100, Bruce wrote:
: : Robert Coe wrote:
: : On Mon, 18 Oct 2010 09:47:03 +0100, Bruce wrote:
: : : The only problem is, I'm not sure why anyone who is serious about
: : : photography would buy a good quality DSLR then shoot JPEGs.
: :
: : Neither am I, and I am, and I did, and I don't.
: :
: :
: : You're in denial. ;-)
:
: I might as well be. Over the weekend I made the mother of all impulse
: purchases: I ordered a 7D. It arrived this afternoon. (B&H ships so quickly to
: the Boston area that it's faster than driving to the mall.) Haven't had a
: chance to try it yet, though; the first battery is still charging.
:
: I couldn't spare a walkaround lens for it, so I bought the 17-55 (the real
: one, not the kit lens). It's not an "L", but it seems to be well regarded from
: what I've read. It's the size of a 12-oz. Coke can and weighs more than two
: pounds, so just carrying it around should be good exercise.
:
:
: Great decision! The 7D is a very fine camera. It is easily the best
: available APS-C DSLR body even after Nikon's latest oeuvre, the D7000.
: With a high quality 18 MP sensor it makes the D300(s) look tame.
:
: The 17-55mm is a very fine lens, with excellent optics and extremely
: fast AF. People often confuse "L" with "pro quality" when there are
: several non-L lenses in the Canon range that have higher optical
: quality than some L lenses. This one has an excellent reputation.
:
: Together, a great combination. Enjoy.

I'll sure try! :^)

Bob

In article , Bruce
wrote:

Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
Bruce wrote:
People often confuse "L" with "pro quality" when there are
several non-L lenses in the Canon range that have higher optical
quality than some L lenses.

Example: The 35-350mm and 28-300mm superzoom lenses. They are
mediocre (for a non-superzoom lens) and quite a few non-L lenses
beat them. But quite strong performers for a superzoom.

But then L stands for "Luxury", not "pro quality" --- and "pro
quality" is more than optical quality (e.g. build quality, able
to take a beating and go on, ...)


I thought L stood for "Low dispersion glass", and the reason why
several pro quality lenses are not L lenses is that their optical
design did not require the L glass.

For example, the EF 50mm f/1.4 USM is not an L lens, but it delivers
outstanding results in the right hands. Not only is there no L glass,
but its optical design dates back to the FD 50mm f/1.4 of 1971.

Honey, it don't require the right hands! It is a lovely piece of glass,
even in the wrong hands, like mine.

--
To de-mung my e-mail address:- fsnospam$elliott$$
PGP Fingerprint: 1A96 3CF7 637F 896B C810 E199 7E5C A9E4 8E59 E248

"Elliott Roper" wrote in message
...
In article , Bruce
wrote:

For example, the EF 50mm f/1.4 USM is not an L lens, but it delivers
outstanding results in the right hands. Not only is there no L glass,
but its optical design dates back to the FD 50mm f/1.4 of 1971.

Honey, it don't require the right hands! It is a lovely piece of glass,
even in the wrong hands, like mine.

As long as you don't shoot it wide open. (If you need f/1.4, you need the
Sigma 50/1.4.) But you are quite right. Stopped down it's one of the
sharpest lenses around, the bokeh is decent, color good.

Actually, though, the design dates back to 1894 or so. The classic 50/1.4
lenses (but not the Sigma 50/1.4) are all the Planar design. It's a great
design that was way ahead of its time: it had too many elements and couldn't
be used until lens coatings were developed around WWII.

--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

In article , David J.
Littleboy wrote:

"Elliott Roper" wrote in message
...
In article , Bruce
wrote:

For example, the EF 50mm f/1.4 USM is not an L lens, but it delivers
outstanding results in the right hands. Not only is there no L glass,
but its optical design dates back to the FD 50mm f/1.4 of 1971.

Honey, it don't require the right hands! It is a lovely piece of glass,
even in the wrong hands, like mine.

As long as you don't shoot it wide open. (If you need f/1.4, you need the
Sigma 50/1.4.) But you are quite right. Stopped down it's one of the
sharpest lenses around, the bokeh is decent, color good.

Actually, though, the design dates back to 1894 or so. The classic 50/1.4
lenses (but not the Sigma 50/1.4) are all the Planar design. It's a great
design that was way ahead of its time: it had too many elements and couldn't
be used until lens coatings were developed around WWII.

I did a double take at '1894' and then you mentioned WWII so I hit
Google and Wikidpedia

Thanks. I never would have guessed it had such a long history.

--
To de-mung my e-mail address:- fsnospam$elliott$$
PGP Fingerprint: 1A96 3CF7 637F 896B C810 E199 7E5C A9E4 8E59 E248

"Elliott Roper" wrote:
Littleboy wrote:

As long as you don't shoot it wide open. (If you need f/1.4, you need the
Sigma 50/1.4.) But you are quite right. Stopped down it's one of the
sharpest lenses around, the bokeh is decent, color good.

Actually, though, the design dates back to 1894 or so. The classic 50/1.4
lenses (but not the Sigma 50/1.4) are all the Planar design. It's a great
design that was way ahead of its time: it had too many elements and
couldn't
be used until lens coatings were developed around WWII.

I did a double take at '1894' and then you mentioned WWII so I hit
Google and Wikidpedia

Thanks. I never would have guessed it had such a long history.

My late father was a Rolleiflex user in the 50s and an incredible fan of the
Zeiss Tessar. But Rollei switched to the Planar for their high-end models in
the late 50s or early 60s or so, and the zeitgeist had been that the Planar
is the newer/better/sexier lens. So I was also surprised when I found out
the Planar's history. (I think the earliest Hasselblads may have had a Kodak
Tessar copy, and later moved to a real Zeiss Planar.)

I have both a 50's Tessar 'flex and a 60's Planar (3.5F) 'flex, and they are
both great lenses.

--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

Bruce wrote:

I thought L stood for "Low dispersion glass", and the reason why
several pro quality lenses are not L lenses is that their optical
design did not require the L glass.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/c...ns-Series.aspx

For example, the EF 50mm f/1.4 USM is not an L lens,

The top of the line is the f/1.2. It's an L.

-Wolfgang

Bruce wrote:
Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
Bruce wrote:

I thought L stood for "Low dispersion glass", and the reason why
several pro quality lenses are not L lenses is that their optical
design did not require the L glass.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/c...ns-Series.aspx

For example, the EF 50mm f/1.4 USM is not an L lens,

The top of the line is the f/1.2. It's an L.

That's because it needs L glass to achieve comparable performance to
that of the f/1.4.

"Luxury" glass?

-Wolfgang