 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / November 2006Why are the new DX lenses so slow?
Nikon and Canon both. I have lenses for my old F100 that are faster than what both companies are offering. I mean f2.8 or less and a constant speed through the zoom range. Does anybody have information about why these digital lenses are coming out with such high and variable f-stops? Tired of noisy pictures, Steve > Nikon and Canon both. I have lenses for my old F100 that are faster than > what both companies are offering. I mean f2.8 or less and a constant speed > through the zoom range. Does anybody have information about why these > digital lenses are coming out with such high and variable f-stops? Because the common consumer wants cheap, not good. > Tired of noisy pictures, The fast lenses still work. They're not making a whole lot of new ones, unfortunately, but a lens doesn't have to be new to be good.  SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com >> Nikon and Canon both. I have lenses for my old F100 that are faster >> than >> what both companies are offering. I mean f2.8 or less and a constant >> speed >> through the zoom range. Does anybody have information about why these >> digital lenses are coming out with such high and variable f-stops? As for the variable f-stops, I would assume it's because as the focal length changes that automatically changes what the f-stop is. The same-sized hole is a different f-stop for 50 mm than it is for, say, 125 mm. I was never a fan of zooms even in my film days, so I'm not that familiar with them. You say that there are zooms where the widest f-stop is not variable as the lens is zoomed out? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that means the manufacturer was simply not telling you the truth about that lens and not letting you know that the widest aperature opening has a different f value based on how far out the lens is zoomed. > I was never a fan of zooms even in my film days, so I'm not that familiar > with them. You say that there are zooms where the widest f-stop is not > variable as the lens is zoomed out? Most higher-end zooms have a constant aperture. > Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that means the manufacturer was > simply not telling you the truth about that lens and not letting you know > that the widest aperature opening has a different f value based on how > far out the lens is zoomed. The physical size of the iris opening and the optical aperture are not the same thing. It's cheaper to make a variable-aperture zoom, but the good zooms are constant-aperture, for real. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com >>> Nikon and Canon both. I have lenses for my old F100 that are faster than >>> what both companies are offering. I mean f2.8 or less and a constant speed [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >lens and not letting you know that the widest aperature opening has a >different f value based on how far out the lens is zoomed. There is some variation, but it is relatively small. They are not being dishonest. A 1/3rd stop or less variation is not worth the distinction, but a 1/2 stop or more variation certainly is. However, like all things in lense design it is a compromise. It is possible to produce, at a lower cost, a sharper lense if it has a variable aperture over the focal length range. A constant maximum aperture is possible, but it either produces a less sharp lense or costs significantly more. It is not uncommon to target a design for low cost production, and that is often best accomplished by allowing the maximum aperture to vary. It is also common to target a different design for "best performance at whatever it costs", and that will often have a wider maximum aperture that is constant (relatively) across the focal range. But the lense will appeal only to those who can justify the money spent for the best possible lenses. SignatureFloyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com >>>> Nikon and Canon both. I have lenses for my old F100 that are faster than >>>> what both companies are offering. I mean f2.8 or less and a constant speed >>>> through the zoom range. Does anybody have information about why these >>>> digital lenses are coming out with such high and variable f-stops? Probably for size/weight/price reasons - there are some fast constant-aperture zooms either designed for the smaller format, or for the larger, but useable on the smaller. >>As for the variable f-stops, I would assume it's because as the focal >>length changes that automatically changes what the f-stop is. The same-sized >>hole is a different f-stop for 50 mm than it is for, say, 125 mm. True. But see below... >>I was never a fan of zooms even in my film days, so I'm not that familiar >>with them. You say that there are zooms where the widest f-stop is not >>variable as the lens is zoomed out? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think >>that means the manufacturer was simply not telling you the truth about that >>lens and not letting you know that the widest aperature opening has a >>different f value based on how far out the lens is zoomed. No. If you set the aperture to a given stop and look into the front at the diaphragm blades as you zoom the lens, you will see that the blades move to to keep the aperture constant (a lens that has the diaphragm wide open at the longest FL will close the diaphragm some as it is zoomed to the shortest FL). This is true only for constant-aperture zooms... > There is some variation, but it is relatively small. They are not > being dishonest. A 1/3rd stop or less variation is not worth the > distinction, but a 1/2 stop or more variation certainly is. Due to manufacturing tolerances and illumination unevenness, there can be slight effective-stop changes, but otherwise, the stop really does not change... > However, like all things in lense design it is a compromise. It > is possible to produce, at a lower cost, a sharper lense if it > has a variable aperture over the focal length range. A constant > maximum aperture is possible, but it either produces a less > sharp lense or costs significantly more. Yes, but there have been exceptions. The Nikkor 75-150mm f3.5 E was an excellent zoom with a constant aperture and low price. The 70-210 f4 E and 36-72mm f3.5 E Nikkors were other examples. > It is not uncommon to target a design for low cost production, > and that is often best accomplished by allowing the maximum > aperture to vary. True. > It is also common to target a different design for "best > performance at whatever it costs", and that will often have a > wider maximum aperture that is constant (relatively) across the > focal range. But the lense will appeal only to those who can > justify the money spent for the best possible lenses. Also true - and for those who are willing to lug the monsters around... Too bad there aren't more good f3.5 or f4 constant- aperture zooms, so one doesn't need to choose between f2.8 or f5.6 "wide"-open at the long end. F3.5-4.5 isn't a bad compromise, though, I guess (if more were truely high quality - I've still seen nothing in the current Nikon line other than the constant-aperture f2.8 zooms [which are excellent!] to equal the old MF 35-105mm f3.5-4.5 [selected sample only, though!]). -- David Ruether ruether@verizon.net rpn1@cornell.edu http://www.ferrario.com/ruether >Too bad there aren't more good f3.5 or f4 constant- >aperture zooms, so one doesn't need to choose between >f2.8 or f5.6 "wide"-open at the long end. I guess you just need to have chosen the right system :-) I can get a (great) 12-24/f4 and a (good) 16-45/f4 today, with a 60-250/f4 announced (but not available this year). I'm more interested in the 16-50/f2.8 & 50-135/f2.8, though. > >Too bad there aren't more good f3.5 or f4 constant- > >aperture zooms, so one doesn't need to choose between [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > with a 60-250/f4 announced (but not available this year). > I'm more interested in the 16-50/f2.8 & 50-135/f2.8, though. Nikon has a good system already available..... 12-24/4, 17-55/2.8, 10.5/2.8 fisheye...more to come as well.... JR >> I can get a (great) 12-24/f4 and a (good) 16-45/f4 today, >> with a 60-250/f4 announced (but not available this year). [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > 12-24/4, 17-55/2.8, 10.5/2.8 fisheye...more to come as well.... There's just a slight correction needed here. This should be the Tokina 12-24, then all Nikon 17-35, 28-70, 70-200 and an optional 10.5. Sadly I must say that the Nikon 12-24 is severely lacking in image and build quality and the Tokina is king in this arena, plus it's a lot less expensive. The 17-55 is mediocre and should not be considered over the 17-35 and 28-70 combination. If Nikon continues its current trend towards consumer grade DX lenses we will all be screwed. Rita > There's just a slight correction needed here. This should be the > Tokina [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > grade DX > lenses we will all be screwed. I just realized something..."Rita" is on prescription drugs. And I'm not entirely sure it's really prescription either... :-) >> There's just a slight correction needed here. This should be the >> Tokina [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > And I'm not entirely sure it's really prescription either... LOL! Bill, look at the reviews and side-by-side images produced by these lenses and you will see that the Tokina is the best out of the bunch out of all the 12-24 produced. I know this fact is hard to swallow; I had the same problem believing it. The proof is out there. Rita > LOL! Bill, look at the reviews and side-by-side images produced by these > lenses and you will see that the Tokina is the best out of the bunch out of > all the 12-24 produced. I know this fact is hard to swallow; I had the > same > problem believing it. The proof is out there. Is this proof? http://www.nikonians.org/nikon/nikkor-12-24mm/chromatic_aberration.html >> LOL! Bill, look at the reviews and side-by-side images produced by >> these lenses and you will see that the Tokina is the best out of the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Is this proof? > http://www.nikonians.org/nikon/nikkor-12-24mm/chromatic_aberration.html Thanks, I've been searching for that page. I've seen it long ago and was going by memory. Seems like it's the Sigma that's the 1st place holder with Tokina 2nd and Nikon 3rd. Still from a price point and image quality, Nikon lost with its 12-24. Rita >>> LOL! Bill, look at the reviews and side-by-side images produced by >>> these lenses and you will see that the Tokina is the best out of the [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Nikon > lost with its 12-24. Perhaps for Canon there is an advantage. IIRC the Canon 10-22 is less expensive than the Nikkor 12-24, excellent performance, plus goes to 10mm. That comparison makes me think the Nikkor is overpriced. >>> LOL! Bill, look at the reviews and side-by-side images produced by >>> these lenses and you will see that the Tokina is the best out of the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> Is this proof? >> http://www.nikonians.org/nikon/nikkor-12-24mm/chromatic_aberration.html > Thanks, I've been searching for that page. I've seen it long ago and was > going by memory. Seems like it's the Sigma that's the 1st place holder with > Tokina 2nd and Nikon 3rd. Still from a price point and image quality, Nikon > lost with its 12-24. > Rita I did not try the Tokina, but I did compare the Sigma full-frame 12-24mm, Sigma 10-20mm, and Nikkor 12-24mm at their widest FLs in the corners (not edges). The Sigma 10-20, though wider, was almost as good in the corners as the Nikkor, with the others noticeably inferior. I did not like ANY of the lenses, though, since none was really sharp and clean in the corners at *any* stop (a requirement for me to consider a lens acceptable, particularly if expensive, as all of these are). At $1000, the Nikkor is very overpriced for its performance level, but $500 is more than I would like to pay for the Sigma, given its severe corner illumination roll-off and very noticeable chromatic problems... -- David Ruether ruether@verizon.net rpn1@cornell.edu http://www.ferrario.com/ruether >> Thanks, I've been searching for that page. I've seen it long ago >> and was going by memory. Seems like it's the Sigma that's the 1st [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Sigma, given its severe corner illumination roll-off and very > noticeable chromatic problems... Exactly! This is the way I see the Nikon 12-24 as well. A lot of people like the build quality and images of the Tokina the best out of all of them. I don't know when this test was done, but maybe Tokina improved their lenses? Maybe Nikon did as well? It still looks like the Nikon 12-24 is the one to not get, though. Rita >>> Thanks, I've been searching for that page. I've seen it long ago >>> and was going by memory. Seems like it's the Sigma that's the 1st [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > lenses? Maybe Nikon did as well? It still looks like the Nikon 12-24 is > the one to not get, though. I'm not so sure about that - although I agree that the price for the nikkor seems high. I never had the luxury of an ultra-wide 15mm or 18mm lens for 35mm, but the wide prime lenses ~20 or 24mm I used were less than stellar at the edge, and they were always very expensive. (The first wide angle lens I bought was a very humble and average performing AI-s 28mm f2.8 - and back in the early 1980s even that lens cost me a fortune) How much better would the 17-35 be on a full-frame sensor? I can't afford the lens - and doubt that I could afford the camera if it was made. For now you can buy a D80 and a Nikkor 12-24 for the price of just the 17-35. >>>> Thanks, I've been searching for that page. I've seen it long ago >>>> and was going by memory. Seems like it's the Sigma that's the 1st >>>> place holder with Tokina 2nd and Nikon 3rd. Still from a price >>>> point and image quality, Nikon lost with its 12-24. >>> I did not try the Tokina, but I did compare the Sigma full-frame >>> 12-24mm, Sigma 10-20mm, and Nikkor 12-24mm at their widest FLs in the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >>> Sigma, given its severe corner illumination roll-off and very >>> noticeable chromatic problems... >> Exactly! This is the way I see the Nikon 12-24 as well. A lot of people >> like the build quality and images of the Tokina the best out of all of them. >> I don't know when this test was done, but maybe Tokina improved their >> lenses? Maybe Nikon did as well? It still looks like the Nikon 12-24 is >> the one to not get, though. > I'm not so sure about that - although I agree that the price for the nikkor seems high. > I never had the luxury of an ultra-wide 15mm or 18mm lens for 35mm, but the wide prime lenses ~20 or 24mm I used were less than > stellar at the edge, and they were always very expensive. (The first wide angle lens I bought was a very humble and average > performing AI-s 28mm f2.8 - and back in the early 1980s even that lens cost me a fortune) How much better would the 17-35 be on a > full-frame sensor? I can't afford the lens - and doubt that I could afford the camera if it was made. For now you can buy a D80 > and a Nikkor 12-24 for the price of just the 17-35. I have the Nikkor 15mm f5.6 (good and very even, though not exceptional performance to the corners by f11 FF) and have tried the 15mm f3.5 Nikkor (excellent to the edges FF, but with poor corners). The MF 18mm f3.5 (with color...) is excellent FF (I have not tried the AF version). The later MF and the AF 24mm f2.8 are really excellent to the corners by f5.6 FF. The 20mm f2.8 Nikkor is excellent to the corners by f5.6+ FF, but I did not like the performance of earlier Nikkor 20mm lenses. The 28mm f2.8 you had was more likely the AI version, quite inferior to the AIS. The 17-35 is a VERY remarkable lens (see comparison on my web page with other Nikkors at different stops, at - www.ferrario.com/ruether/wa-zooms.htm). For evaluations of many other Nikkors go to - www.ferrario.com/ruether/slemn.html. -- David Ruether ruether@verizon.net rpn1@cornell.edu http://www.ferrario.com/ruether > The 17-35 is a > VERY remarkable lens (see comparison on my web page with other > Nikkors at different stops, at - > www.ferrario.com/ruether/wa-zooms.htm). For evaluations of many other > Nikkors go to - www.ferrario.com/ruether/slemn.html. Which one do you like best, the 17-35 or the 17-55? My opinion is the 17-35. I would never part with my 17-35 or 28-70. Rita >Exactly! This is the way I see the Nikon 12-24 as well. A lot of people >like the build quality and images of the Tokina the best out of all of them. >I don't know when this test was done, but maybe Tokina improved their >lenses? Maybe Nikon did as well? It still looks like the Nikon 12-24 is >the one to not get, though. I know what some folks around here think about ken rockwell, but he also had a comparison review. IIRC, one thing brought out was that the distortion of the Toking was simpler and more easily corrected than that of the Nikon. I also believe the Nikon is an AF-S vs the Tokina being an AF. That said given the savings I've been happy with the Tokina myself. SignatureEd Ruf (Usenet2@EdwardG.Ruf.com) http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index.html Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!) wrote: > I know what some folks around here think about ken rockwell, but he also > had a comparison review. IIRC, one thing brought out was that the > distortion of the Toking was simpler and more easily corrected than that of > the Nikon. I also believe the Nikon is an AF-S vs the Tokina being an AF. > That said given the savings I've been happy with the Tokina myself. Not that KR is a complete idiot - but he goes to great detail explaining settings for distortion correction using PS - when almost "one-click" near perfect correction of even complex distortion patterns is possible with PTLens (available for $10) either standalone or PS plugin. Almost beggaring belief, Ken even mentions PTLens and has a link on his site to someone that shows with clear examples what a waste of time Ken's laborious calculations are. Rita ? Berkowitz <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote: >>> Thanks, I've been searching for that page. I've seen it long ago >>> and was going by memory. Seems like it's the Sigma that's the 1st [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >> Sigma, given its severe corner illumination roll-off and very >> noticeable chromatic problems... >Exactly! This is the way I see the Nikon 12-24 as well. A lot of people >like the build quality and images of the Tokina the best out of all of them. >I don't know when this test was done, but maybe Tokina improved their >lenses? Maybe Nikon did as well? It still looks like the Nikon 12-24 is >the one to not get, though. As you all know, the Tokina is not an FF lens. But I have one on my Canon APS-C sensor camera and I love it. Not too heavy, very sharp, and fun to use. On a full-frame? I don't know what I'd use but I'd love to have the problem... ;-) ---- Paul J. Gans > There's just a slight correction needed here. This should be the Tokina > 12-24, then all Nikon 17-35, 28-70, 70-200 and an optional 10.5. Sadly I [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > combination. If Nikon continues its current trend towards consumer grade DX > lenses we will all be screwed. I agree with you on the Tokina Pro 12-24/4....I have that lens and returned the Nikkor 12-24 to get it. The 17-55 is said to be the equal of the 28-70 lens...mediocre? I have never seen a mediocre review of the lens...in fact everyone says its a toss up between the 28-70 or 17-55. Why will we be screwed? Lets face it...how many pro lenses can they build? They have a pro lens from 10.5mm all that way to 600mm...so do they need to constantly re-release lenses? It looks as if they are adding AF-S and VR to the older pro lenses. My 70-200/afs VR is an AMAZING lens...dont see how it could be better. It would be cool to see some fast primes in DX format...like 1.2's and 1.4's...but I am very happy with the Nikon system...and I dont seem to want for anything. JR >> There's just a slight correction needed here. This should be the Tokina >> 12-24, then all Nikon 17-35, 28-70, 70-200 and an optional 10.5. Sadly I [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> combination. If Nikon continues its current trend towards consumer grade DX >> lenses we will all be screwed. > I agree with you on the Tokina Pro 12-24/4....I have that lens and > returned the Nikkor 12-24 to get it. The 17-55 is said to be the equal > of the 28-70 lens...mediocre? I have never seen a mediocre review of > the lens...in fact everyone says its a toss up between the 28-70 or > 17-55. Judging from the images at http://www.nikonians.org/nikon/nikkor-12-24mm/chromatic_aberration.html it looks to me that the detail level of the chimney, building clapboards, and fence are better with both the Nikkor and Sigma (at 12mm...) than the Tokina. The17-55mm f2.8 is known to be a superior optic. The one image I've seen from the 10.2mm, though, was VERY disappointing anywhere near the edges even at the small stop used to take it (perhaps it was a defective sample...). > Why will we be screwed? Lets face it...how many pro lenses can > they build? They have a pro lens from 10.5mm all that way to 600mm...so [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > JR --David Ruether >> There's just a slight correction needed here. This should be the >> Tokina 12-24, then all Nikon 17-35, 28-70, 70-200 and an optional [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > and 1.4's...but I am very happy with the Nikon system...and I dont > seem to want for anything. I'm not sure that I would even consider comparing the 17-55 to the 28-70 since the 17-55 isn't even in the same league. I bought both the 17-35 and 28-70 since I know the 17-55 wasn't going to satisfy me. As for how many pro lenses Nikon could build isn't the issue. People just don't want them to discontinue the legendary ones and try to replace it with some consumer grade DX crap. I got the 70-200mm VR and it's awesome. I got both the new VR 105 as well as the old AF-D version, both versions are optically awesome, but the VR is useless in macro as it was expected to be. I got the good old 85mm f/1.4D and love it. I would cry if Nikon discontinued this lens like they did the 28mm f/1.4. It would sicken me if they reintroduced these two legendary lenses in the DX format. Rita >No. If you set the aperture to a given stop and look into the >front at the diaphragm blades as you zoom the lens, you will see >that the blades move to to keep the aperture constant (a lens >that has the diaphragm wide open at the longest FL will close >the diaphragm some as it is zoomed to the shortest FL). This >is true only for constant-aperture zooms... I've never noticed any lense that did that. >> There is some variation, but it is relatively small. They are not >> being dishonest. A 1/3rd stop or less variation is not worth the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >there can be slight effective-stop changes, but otherwise, the >stop really does not change... It does. How much depends on the design of the lense. If the designer allows much change, they label it as variable. If the change is (as I stated originally) small, they call it constant. >> However, like all things in lense design it is a compromise. It >> is possible to produce, at a lower cost, a sharper lense if it [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >low price. The 70-210 f4 E and 36-72mm f3.5 E Nikkors >were other examples. The Nikkor 75-150mm f/3.5 E, for example, does not change the aperture as it is zoomed. Regardless of the fact that those are low cost constant maximum aperture lenses, that does *not* negate the statement you are replying to. If they had been designed to have a variable maximum aperture they probably would have been even less expensive to manufacture. The problem then would have been marketing, because Nikon wanted to maintain the appearance of top quality. SignatureFloyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com >>No. If you set the aperture to a given stop and look into the >>front at the diaphragm blades as you zoom the lens, you will see >>that the blades move to to keep the aperture constant (a lens >>that has the diaphragm wide open at the longest FL will close >>the diaphragm some as it is zoomed to the shortest FL). This >>is true only for constant-aperture zooms... > I've never noticed any lense that did that. Take a closer look (with all the blackening of parts, it can be hard to see the movement of the diaphragm blades in a constant-aperture zoom) - they are cammed to do this, otherwise the lens is NOT constant aperture and will pass differing amounts of light with zooming (and the aperture ring and lens specifications will show this, as with "f3.5-4.5" instead of "f3.5"). Newer bodies will often permit setting a constant stop, limited to the widest possible at a given FL, though... >>> There is some variation, but it is relatively small. They are not >>> being dishonest. A 1/3rd stop or less variation is not worth the >>> distinction, but a 1/2 stop or more variation certainly is. >>Due to manufacturing tolerances and illumination unevenness, >>there can be slight effective-stop changes, but otherwise, the >>stop really does not change... > It does. How much depends on the design of the lense. If the > designer allows much change, they label it as variable. If the > change is (as I stated originally) small, they call it constant. This is just not true... (see above, and my earlier post). >>> However, like all things in lense design it is a compromise. It >>> is possible to produce, at a lower cost, a sharper lense if it >>> has a variable aperture over the focal length range. A constant >>> maximum aperture is possible, but it either produces a less >>> sharp lense or costs significantly more. >>Yes, but there have been exceptions. The Nikkor 75-150mm >>f3.5 E was an excellent zoom with a constant aperture and >>low price. The 70-210 f4 E and 36-72mm f3.5 E Nikkors >>were other examples. > The Nikkor 75-150mm f/3.5 E, for example, does not change the > aperture as it is zoomed. Correct - the diaphragm has been compensated so that at the short end it is not permitted to go to the maybe f2.8 or so that it would otherwise go to (too much illumination fall-off and sharpness loss for the other characteristics of the design - and this was common practice at the time [and cheap variable-aperture designs came in about then]). remember that the f-stop number is not an arbitrary rating - it is the focal length divided by the physical size of the diaphragm (or the longer the FL at a given stop, the larger the diaphragm size required to pass the same amount of light). > Regardless of the fact that those are low cost constant maximum > aperture lenses, that does *not* negate the statement you are [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > marketing, because Nikon wanted to maintain the appearance of > top quality. It is not the diaphragm camming that is expensive (one need only make the diaphragm actuator curved or tilted instead of straight as it reaches through the lens), it is the optical improvements needed to produce good optical performance at the short end of the zoom range with a fast stop there... -- David Ruether ruether@verizon.net rpn1@cornell.edu http://www.ferrario.com/ruether >>>No. If you set the aperture to a given stop and look into the >>>front at the diaphragm blades as you zoom the lens, you will see [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >"f3.5-4.5" instead of "f3.5"). Newer bodies will often permit setting >a constant stop, limited to the widest possible at a given FL, though... I've dissassembled a few zoom lenses. And constant-aperture lenses do *not* do that. I can't imagine that anyone would add cost and complexity to actually slow down a lense just to be able to say the aperture stays constant! >This is just not true... (see above, and my earlier post). I don't think your post was correct. >>>> However, like all things in lense design it is a compromise. It >>>> is possible to produce, at a lower cost, a sharper lense if it [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >Correct - the diaphragm has been compensated so that at the short >end it is not permitted to go to the maybe f2.8 or so that it would That is *wrong*. I've got a disassembled Nikkor 75-150mm f/3.5 Series E lense sitting here next to me. There is *no* such mechanism. >otherwise go to (too much illumination fall-off and sharpness loss >for the other characteristics of the design - and this was common >practice at the time [and cheap variable-aperture designs came in You have it *backwards*. I've only got one variable aperture zoom lense handy to look at (a Nikkor 18-70mm), and *it* is cammed to allow the aperture to open up more as the focal length increases. Go *look* at a few lenses. SignatureFloyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com > You have it *backwards*. I've only got one variable aperture > zoom lense handy to look at (a Nikkor 18-70mm), and *it* is > cammed to allow the aperture to open up more as the focal length > increases. 100% correct with the 18-70. But not some other variable aperture Nikkor zooms where the diaphram remains fully open throughout the zoom range. Only one I have handy is a 70-210 f4-5.6 D. > I can't imagine that anyone would add cost and complexity to > actually slow down a lense just to be able to say the aperture > stays constant! Hmmm... possibly adding to the complexity of the 18-70 because faults at the 18mm end (light fall-off) would have seemed worse if it had been an f2.8 - 5.6. >>>>No. If you set the aperture to a given stop and look into the >>>>front at the diaphragm blades as you zoom the lens, you will see >>>>that the blades move to to keep the aperture constant (a lens >>>>that has the diaphragm wide open at the longest FL will close >>>>the diaphragm some as it is zoomed to the shortest FL). This >>>>is true only for constant-aperture zooms... >>> I've never noticed any lense that did that. This was true for some constant-aperture lenses I have looked at - but I just checked a 70-210mm f4 and 80-200mm f2.8, and, much to my surprise, the diaphrahm did *not* adjust to compensate for the FL change(!). You are then at least sometimes right! >>Take a closer look (with all the blackening of parts, it can be hard >>to see the movement of the diaphragm blades in a constant-aperture [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >>"f3.5-4.5" instead of "f3.5"). Newer bodies will often permit setting >>a constant stop, limited to the widest possible at a given FL, though... > I've dissassembled a few zoom lenses. And constant-aperture > lenses do *not* do that. I've also taken apart some, and found that they sometimes do, and show the diaphragm changes with zooming (but that was years ago, and my memory has faded about specifics, alas...). > I can't imagine that anyone would add cost and complexity to > actually slow down a lense just to be able to say the aperture > stays constant! Or do the reverse, when the 70-210 Vivitar Series I went from f3.5(?) constant to f2.8-3.5(?), I think without any real optical redesign... >>> The Nikkor 75-150mm f/3.5 E, for example, does not change the >>> aperture as it is zoomed. >>Correct - the diaphragm has been compensated so that at the short >>end it is not permitted to go to the maybe f2.8 or so that it would > > That is *wrong*. I've got a disassembled Nikkor 75-150mm f/3.5 Series > E lense sitting here next to me. There is *no* such mechanism. From my examination of a 70-210 E, I think you are right! >>otherwise go to (too much illumination fall-off and sharpness loss >>for the other characteristics of the design - and this was common >>practice at the time [and cheap variable-aperture designs came in > You have it *backwards*. I've only got one variable aperture > zoom lense handy to look at (a Nikkor 18-70mm), and *it* is > cammed to allow the aperture to open up more as the focal length > increases. Or, looking at it the other way, as I said, the aperture closes more as you zoom toward shorter FLs... > Go *look* at a few lenses. I did...;-) -- David Ruether ruether@verizon.net rpn1@cornell.edu http://www.ferrario.com/ruether >> You have it *backwards*. I've only got one variable aperture >> zoom lense handy to look at (a Nikkor 18-70mm), and *it* is [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Or, looking at it the other way, as I said, the aperture closes >more as you zoom toward shorter FLs... My fault for poor sentence structure: What is backwards is that it is not likely to be found in a constant aperture zoom, but *is* found in variable aperture lenses. >> Go *look* at a few lenses. > >I did...;-) SignatureFloyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com > Nikon and Canon both. I have lenses for my old F100 that are faster > than what both companies are offering. I mean f2.8 or less and a constant [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Steve Nikon makes a 17-55mm f/2.8 DX Zoom. Bill Crocker > Nikon and Canon both. I have lenses for my old F100 that are faster > than what both companies are offering. I mean f2.8 or less and a constant [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Steve I think they are trying to make inexpensive yet good lenses for the masses. One way to do that is to make them slower. As other posters have already said, both Nikon and Canon make some incredible lenses that will fit both a new digital and their 35mm models. All it takes is money. > Nikon and Canon both. I have lenses for my old F100 that are faster than > what both companies are offering. Don't the old fast lenses work on your digital camera? > I mean f2.8 or less and a constant speed > through the zoom range. Does anybody have information about why these > digital lenses are coming out with such high and variable f-stops? > > Tired of noisy pictures, Most of the new "DX" lenses are zooms. How many old zooms faster than f 2.8 do you have? > Nikon and Canon both. I have lenses for my old F100 that are faster than > what both companies are offering. I mean f2.8 or less and a constant speed > through the zoom range. We lately discussed this here: The "DX" specification (i.e. small sensor only) only makes a quite short lens smaller, cheaper and lighter. With tele lenses it does not help much and so it does not make sense to build long "DX" lenses. The ones already used for 35mm are still the best price/performance compromise you can construct here. So they are continued to be sold. -Michael Supposedly the D80 will make the D200 a more "prof"-choice and less interesting for discounters. But regarding the experiences we had with the D100 and D70, I'm glad we have a D200 and would rather buy another D200 than a D80 for backup. -Michael > Supposedly the D80 will make the D200 a more "prof"-choice and less > interesting for discounters. > > But regarding the experiences we had with the D100 and D70, I'm glad we > have a D200 and would rather buy another D200 than a D80 for backup. Michael, What would these experiences be? (Out of curiosity). Cheers. > What would these experiences be? (Out of curiosity). Reliability. With several 100.000 shots the D100 had no problem at all, while the D70 started to sometimes write junk on the card and this could not be fixed by the Nikon service. Of course this is not unexpected with a non-pro product. -Michael Sorry for posting this in the wrong thread. -Michael I suppose that Canon and Nikon are in business to make money. When they design lenses that cost more than a new SUV, they tend to be slow sellers. > Nikon and Canon both. I have lenses for my old F100 that are faster > than what both companies are offering. I mean f2.8 or less and a constant [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Steve > Nikon and Canon both. I have lenses for my old F100 that are faster than > what both companies are offering. I mean f2.8 or less and a constant speed > through the zoom range. Does anybody have information about why these > digital lenses are coming out with such high and variable f-stops? > Tired of noisy pictures Canon has many new large aperture lenses: Canon 17-55/2.8 IS Canon 50/1.2 Canon 85/1.2 http://digitcamera.tripod.com/#slr > Nikon and Canon both. I have lenses for my old F100 that are faster > than what both companies are offering. I mean f2.8 or less and a constant > speed through the zoom range. Does anybody have information about why > these digital lenses are coming out with such high and variable f-stops? > > Tired of noisy pictures, Because they are inexpensive? > Nikon and Canon both. I have lenses for my old F100 that are faster > than what both companies are offering. I mean f2.8 or less and a [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Steve Price.. that is the answer! My 18-70 Nikon DX F3.5/4.5 is one incredible lens for the money. Out of my cold dead fingers will you grab it. Fast lenses were always expensive lenses. Lets see, my Nikon 80-200 F2.8 AFD was 1100 bucks, my 20m F2.8 AF-D was 500 bucks. I can still buy those lenses. And I still use them. Todays items.. Nikon 17-35 F2.8 1499.95 Nikon DX 17-55 F2.8 1199 Not much has changed in the last 10 years.. except the lenses have gotten less expensive and faster. Jim <jen....not....home..remvdots...@....yahoo >> Nikon and Canon both. I have lenses for my old F100 that are faster >> than what both companies are offering. I mean f2.8 or less and a constant [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> >> Steve Well, since I can't reply to the OP, I'll just tag along here. Canon makes two lenses that are f2.8 for digital, the EF-S 17-55 f2.8 IS and the 60mm f2.8 Macro. Of course, the existing lenses work just fine on a digital camera, so Nikon and Canon, and everybody else for that matter, make lenses that go down to f1.2 or so that function fully on their digital cameras. No one, to my knowledge, makes a zoom faster than f2.8, except Oly for their 4/3 system. SignatureSkip Middleton www.shadowcatcherimagery.com www.pbase.com/skipm > Well, since I can't reply to the OP, I'll just tag along here. > Canon makes two lenses that are f2.8 for digital, the EF-S 17-55 f2.8 > IS and the 60mm f2.8 Macro. Don't forget to add that the 17-55 lens was a dog right out of the box since IS doesn't add any real world benefits to this lens. It has something to do with IS naturally being ineffective on lenses of 50mm and less. It is a great example of good marketing. Now, the 60mm macro is a great lens. Rita >> Well, since I can't reply to the OP, I'll just tag along here. >> Canon makes two lenses that are f2.8 for digital, the EF-S 17-55 f2.8 [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > with IS naturally being ineffective on lenses of 50mm and less. It is a > great example of good marketing. Now, the 60mm macro is a great lens. Rita, next time you feel like entering a reply that's only claim to fame is its negativity, take a long walk in the woods, instead, would you? The addition of IS to that lens does not make it a dog, nor is IS "naturally" ineffective on lenses of 50mm or less. Less necessary, maybe, but talk to the guys who own Konica/Minolta/Sony cameras with in camera IS and ask them how ineffective it is, or if it has made any of their lenses of less than 50mm into "dogs." SignatureSkip Middleton www.shadowcatcherimagery.com www.pbase.com/skipm >> Don't forget to add that the 17-55 lens was a dog right out of the >> box since [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > cameras with in camera IS and ask them how ineffective it is, or if > it has made any of their lenses of less than 50mm into "dogs." Oh, come on, Skip. What's so negative about telling the truth? This lens is a verifiable dog and you know it. And, yes we both know that IS is totally ineffective at 50mm and bellow. Hell, Mark has even proven that his IS lens at 17mm is worthless and a paperweight on his 5D. As for the manufacturers you mention telling you they aren't selling crap, we are both sure they are going to pound sand up our collective a.ses to make a sale. Rita >>> Don't forget to add that the 17-55 lens was a dog right out of the >>> box since [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > both > sure they are going to pound sand up our collective a.ses to make a sale. If you were telling the truth, then it wouldn't be a negative. But that's a big IF. SignatureSkip Middleton www.shadowcatcherimagery.com www.pbase.com/skipm >>> Don't forget to add that the 17-55 lens was a dog right out of the >>> box since [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > both > sure they are going to pound sand up our collective a.ses to make a sale. Ok, Rita, now that I've had time to ruminate on this mess of a post of yours, I can tell that "if you're telling the truth" doesn't enter into this. For one thing, how can Mark have proven that an IS lens at 17mm is worthless on a 5D, since the 17-55 IS won't even FIT on a 5D? And the inclusion of IS doesn't make that a paperweight, except I guess it would on a 5D, since it won't fully mount, therefore it probably won't function. I wasn't speaking of the manufacturers, I was speaking of the guys who actually own the cameras, a fact that you would know if you were more concerned with reading comprehension than with getting what you perceive to be a snappy comeback. SignatureSkip Middleton www.shadowcatcherimagery.com www.pbase.com/skipm >> Oh, come on, Skip. What's so negative about telling the truth? This lens >> is a verifiable dog and you know it. And, yes we both [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > you would know if you were more concerned with reading comprehension > than with getting what you perceive to be a snappy comeback. Let's see? A while back Mark was called on his bullshit claim that IS "actually helps" on WA lenses on the 24mm shot he posted using a FF body. Of course, Mark had actually did the side-by-side tests with IS on and off, but refused to post the results since it proves his claim that IS "actually helped" that shot is totally bogus. It really doesn't surprise me that anyone in the group has as of yet been able to prove that IS is helpful on lenses of 50mm and wider. I'm sure if they had the slightest chance they were right they would quickly jump in and prove me wrong. Of course, we both know that the 17-55 being an EF lens won't work on the 5D, but that isn't the point, is it? The 17-55 is a consumer grade lens of inferior quality. That's not to say that it doesn't have its purpose in someone's camera bag. Why doesn't Canon or Nikon make any 50mm and wider pro lenses with IS/VR? Does this have anything to do with the ineffectiveness of IS in this range? Would a pro actually be duped into actually buying one if it were made? Personally, I don't see what your obsession is trying to disprove a known fact that IS is totally ineffective at 50mm and wider? If you don't believe me just do the side-by-side tests with IS on and off then post your results. I've posted my results when asked and the other party didn't live up to their end of the agreement, as I expected. I mean, seriously, I have nothing to prove since I know the facts and I won't be buying any IS/VR pro WA lenses in the unlikely event Nikon or Canon would make one. At this point, you have only yourself to prove this to. Rita > Ok, Rita, now that I've had time to ruminate on this mess of a post of > yours, Translation: "I'm still foaming at the mouth 12 hours later"... SignatureStacey Hey, Stace, you owe me 20 bucks. A year later, and no knee jerk upgrade. SignatureSkip Middleton www.shadowcatcherimagery.com www.pbase.com/skipm > Hey, Stace, you owe me 20 bucks. A year later, and no knee jerk upgrade. Talk to me next spring when a year has actually gone by... SignatureStacey Rita, it has. The bet was made the first of last October. SignatureSkip Middleton www.shadowcatcherimagery.com www.pbase.com/skipm > Oh, come on, Skip. What's so negative about telling the truth? You dared to -not- be a cheerleader for Canon! Canon could throw a coke bottle bottom into a EF mount and they'd sing it's praises! SignatureStacey >> Oh, come on, Skip. What's so negative about telling the truth? > > You dared to -not- be a cheerleader for Canon! Canon could throw a > coke bottle bottom into a EF mount and they'd sing it's praises! LOL! Now that's too damn funny! I have to admit that the boy has got spunk. At least Mark knew when to put his tail between his legs and crawl off to die in his self-inflicted misery. Seriously, all Canon lenses aren't bad; you just have to now their limitations and plan your shoot around them. To be fair, this IS/VR issue is equally challenging to Nikon as well since anything of 50mm and wider yield diminishing returns. This is why Nikon wouldn't embarrass themselves by producing a 17-55mm VR pro lens. Rita > Seriously, all Canon lenses > aren't bad; you just have to now their limitations and plan your shoot > around them. Exactly, Canon makes -some- fantastic optics (every manufacturer has weak and strong points..) but according to these guys, anything canon makes is beyond reproach and God help anyone who doesn't believe it!!! They'll go after people who question the optical quality of the cheap kit lens. These guys act like THEY designed this stuff they take it so personally. Like their self worth is based on their purchase choices? SignatureStacey >> Seriously, all Canon lenses >> aren't bad; you just have to now their limitations and plan your shoot [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > guys act like THEY designed this stuff they take it so personally. Like > their self worth is based on their purchase choices? Stacey, read her and my posts. She said that the addition of IS made the 17-55 IS a dog. (" the 17-55 lens was a dog right out of the box since IS doesn't add any real world benefits to this lens.") She also said that Mark had proved that it was ineffective at focal lengths under 50mm and specifically 17mm with his use on his 5D. (" Hell, Mark has even proven that his IS lens at 17mm is worthless and a paperweight on his 5D") I was calling her to task on both statements, since the addition of IS has nothing to do with that lens being, or not being, a dog. And Mark could have proven nothing of the sort, since a) he doesn't have that lens and, b) it wouldn't fit on his (or my) 5D, anyway. Or on his 10D, for that matter... I don't care if she cheerleads for Canon, Nikon, or some obscure camera manufacturer in Kazakhstan, I just want her to get her facts straight. SignatureSkip Middleton www.shadowcatcherimagery.com www.pbase.com/skipm >> Seriously, all Canon lenses >> aren't bad; you just have to now their limitations and plan your shoot [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > guys act like THEY designed this stuff they take it so personally. Like > their self worth is based on their purchase choices? Equally, those who need to make such an "observation" over and over just might have a bit of ego involved somehow. Just maybe. Signaturejohn mcwilliams Remember to pillage *before* you burn. >> Oh, come on, Skip. What's so negative about telling the truth? > > You dared to -not- be a cheerleader for Canon! Canon could throw a coke > bottle bottom into a EF mount and they'd sing it's praises! By the way, Stacey, we're not even talking about Canon lenses, we're talking about image stabilization, which, in case you've not noticed is included in either the DSLR body or the lens for every manufacturer out there, except for Oly. Of course, that explains it, you shoot Oly, don't you... SignatureSkip Middleton www.shadowcatcherimagery.com www.pbase.com/skipm > IS doesn't add any real world benefits to this lens. It has something to do > with IS naturally being ineffective on lenses of 50mm and less. Interesting claim. But then you are not the type to shoot a 22 mm lens (thats 35mm for fullframe) with 1/4s or 1/8s either, are you? Other people do, even if they don't care carrying a tripod. -Wolfgang >> IS doesn't add any real world benefits to this lens. It has >> something to do with IS naturally being ineffective on lenses of >> 50mm and less. > > Interesting claim. But then you are not the type to shoot a 22 mm > lens (thats 35mm for fullframe) with 1/4s or 1/8s either, are you? Hmm. I love low-light photography and do most of my shooting handheld, same with macro. I came to this conclusion by simple honing better handholding techniques for all my shooting. At those speeds you mention you can tie the camera to the end of a rope and swing it to get rock steady images using WA lenses. The addition of IS to a lens of 50mm or wider lens is like adding a tandem axle to a Ferrari. > Other people do, even if they don't care carrying a tripod. I very rarely carry a tripod. Rita >>> IS doesn't add any real world benefits to this lens. It has >>> something to do with IS naturally being ineffective on lenses of >>> 50mm and less. >> Interesting claim. But then you are not the type to shoot a 22 mm >> lens (thats 35mm for fullframe) with 1/4s or 1/8s either, are you? > Hmm. I love low-light photography and do most of my shooting handheld, same > with macro. I came to this conclusion by simple honing better handholding > techniques for all my shooting. Which obviously helps. However, there _are_ people that want more. Or those, who, due to physical handicaps, _cannot_ hold the camera as steady, whatever their handholding technique. > At those speeds you mention you can tie the > camera to the end of a rope and swing it to get rock steady images using WA > lenses. True. You also can cross a mile wide canyon walking on a rope. That is, if the circumstances are right (like being a high-wire artist), and you have the requisite amount of luck. Otherwise ... you fail. > The addition of IS to a lens of 50mm or wider lens is like adding a > tandem axle to a Ferrari. Says you. I could say that Microsoft Windows is completely useless and does only hurt people and performance, distributes virusses and has the security of an open barn door, and it would be true for me --- yet very very many people use it and seem not unhappy enough not to change to another operating system. -Wolfgang >> Hmm. I love low-light photography and do most of my shooting >> handheld, same with macro. I came to this conclusion by simple [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Or those, who, due to physical handicaps, _cannot_ hold the camera > as steady, whatever their handholding technique. True. That's a good point, but I'm not 100% convinced that VR/IS would even help that much in these situations either. >> At those speeds you mention you can tie the >> camera to the end of a rope and swing it to get rock steady images >> using WA lenses. > > True. You also can cross a mile wide canyon walking on a rope. It's all in the technique. > That is, if the circumstances are right (like being a high-wire > artist), and you have the requisite amount of luck. > Otherwise ... you fail. No luck needed, just use a safety line that is tethered to the rope via rollers. >> The addition of IS to a lens of 50mm or wider lens is like adding a >> tandem axle to a Ferrari. > > Says you. But the issue still stands that there hasn't been a single member in this group or anywhere else that can prove without a doubt that IS does help on 50mm and wider lenses. > I could say that Microsoft Windows is completely useless and does > only hurt people and performance, distributes virusses and has > the security of an open barn door, and it would be true for me --- > yet very very many people use it and seem not unhappy enough not > to change to another operating system. Windows, like an IS lens, can produce spectacular results when used properly. My Windows installation is totally bulletproof and rock stable. I also know when to turn VR on since my default mode is to keep it off. Rita > But the issue still stands that there hasn't been a single member in this > group or anywhere else that can prove without a doubt that IS does help on > 50mm and wider lenses. Rita, there's a big swing from your statement that a lens is a dog because of the inclusion of IS (" the 17-55 lens was a dog right out of the box since IS doesn't add any real world benefits to this lens") or that it is "like adding a tandem axle to a Ferrari" to asking for proof that IS is a help on 50mm and wider lenses. OTOH, you can't prove that it doesn't, now can you? SignatureSkip Middleton www.shadowcatcherimagery.com www.pbase.com/skipm >> But the issue still stands that there hasn't been a single member in >> this group or anywhere else that can prove without a doubt that IS [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > asking for proof that IS is a help on 50mm and wider lenses. OTOH, > you can't prove that it doesn't, now can you? Where's the swing? Adding a tandem axle to a Ferrari isn't going to help its performance and handling capabilities since this car is already optimized in these areas. The driver has to *LEARN* how to drive the car and listen to all the feedback it gives. Same with the 17-55, though not in the same league as a higher performing "L" series lens this EF lens yields absolutely no real world benefits from IS other than making the user feel all warm and fuzzy. Hmm? I already posted my photos on this subject when called to the task. I supported my argument; others put their tail between their legs and crawled off in shame. Not that it really means sh.t to a tree in the forest, others can simply prove me wrong by taking two pictures with the switch on/off. Rita >>> But the issue still stands that there hasn't been a single member in >>> this group or anywhere else that can prove without a doubt that IS [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > others > can simply prove me wrong by taking two pictures with the switch on/off. No, adding a tandem axle is going to hinder the performance of a Ferrari. Which is what you implied, no, stated, about the lens when you said that the 17-55 was a dog because IS doesn't add any real world benefits. And showing what you can do without it doesn't prove that it has no benefit, only that you don't think you need it. SignatureSkip Middleton www.shadowcatcherimagery.com www.pbase.com/skipm > No, adding a tandem axle is going to hinder the performance of a > Ferrari. Which is what you implied, no, stated, about the lens when > you said that the 17-55 was a dog because IS doesn't add any real > world benefits. Hey, most of the "experts" in this group claim that adding extra lens elements for IS/VR *DOES* diminish performance, and I agree with them. First off, you're starting with a second rate EF lens and adding a "tandem axle" to it. Might as well grind the front with a belt sander at this point. When you add one pile of crap to another you don't get fillet mignon, you get a larger pile of crap. > And showing what you can do without it doesn't prove > that it has no benefit, only that you don't think you need it. Now you're catching on. If the "perceived" gain is so slight that you can't distinguish between the two in a double-blind test than it is totally and utterly ineffective. Rita >> No, adding a tandem axle is going to hinder the performance of a >> Ferrari. Which is what you implied, no, stated, about the lens when >> you said that the 17-55 was a dog because IS doesn't add any real >> world benefits. > Hey, most of the "experts" in this group claim that adding extra lens > elements for IS/VR *DOES* diminish performance, and I agree with them. Of course it does. More glass means less transmission, more glass means more flare prone. Heavier. More power draw, too. May even generate some noise. Gyroscopes need some time to spin up (though light-based gyroscopes --- instead of wheel gyroscopes would cut that down nicely), too. On the other hand, I'll never buy a long lens without IS, unless I really have no other choice. The benefits are just too good. (On short lenses I find that subject movement is usually the lower limit for _my_ kind of shooting. But then I don't shoot buildings or landscapes a lot ...) > First off, you're starting with a second rate EF lens You mean a first rate EF-S. It is not a bad lens at all, at all, according to http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=303&sort=7&cat=27&page=3 http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_1755_28/index.htm > and adding a "tandem axle" to it. And it has IS, yes, and, yes, people seem to like the IS there --- see the fredmiranda-URL. > Might as well grind the front with a belt sander at this point. That probably goes for each and every lens, then. > When you add one pile of crap to another you don't get fillet > mignon, you get a larger pile of crap. When you add one pile of prejudice to another one, you do not get facts, either. You do get a unreasonably strong opinion, however. >> And showing what you can do without it doesn't prove >> that it has no benefit, only that you don't think you need it. > Now you're catching on. If the "perceived" gain is so slight that you can't > distinguish between the two in a double-blind test than it is totally and > utterly ineffective. Go try 17mm effective at 1/4 second exposure, then we talk about double blind. -Wolfgang >> Hey, most of the "experts" in this group claim that adding extra lens >> elements for IS/VR *DOES* diminish performance, and I agree with [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > lower limit for _my_ kind of shooting. But then I don't shoot > buildings or landscapes a lot ...) Who's even discussing long lenses with IS/VR? The discussion is the ineffectiveness of WA lenses. > Go try 17mm effective at 1/4 second exposure, then we talk > about double blind. And this is what I'm talking about. IS/VR does absolutely nothing in this range. Rita >>> Hey, most of the "experts" in this group claim that adding extra lens >>> elements for IS/VR *DOES* diminish performance, and I agree with >>> them. >> Of course it does. More glass means less transmission, more >> glass means more flare prone. Heavier. More power draw, too. >> May even generate some noise. Gyroscopes need some time to spin >> up (though light-based gyroscopes --- instead of wheel gyroscopes >> would cut that down nicely), too. >> On the other hand, I'll never buy a long lens without IS, unless >> I really have no other choice. The benefits are just too good. >> (On short lenses I find that subject movement is usually the >> lower limit for _my_ kind of shooting. But then I don't shoot >> buildings or landscapes a lot ...) > Who's even discussing long lenses with IS/VR? We are talking about the IS/VR diminishing performance, and yet we seem to agree that at least for long lenses the performace diminish is _well_ worth the benefits. > The discussion is the ineffectiveness of WA lenses. Nope, the discussion is about the effectiveness of IS in WA lenses. You claim WA lenses are ineffective. You probably mean that IS in WA-lenses is ineffective. >> Go try 17mm effective at 1/4 second exposure, then we talk >> about double blind. > And this is what I'm talking about. IS/VR does absolutely nothing in this > range. You claim that. Would you be prepared to claim that a tripod does absolutely nothing in this range either? If no, why not? -Wolfgang >> No, adding a tandem axle is going to hinder the performance of a >> Ferrari. Which is what you implied, no, stated, about the lens when [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > point. When you add one pile of crap to another you don't get fillet > mignon, you get a larger pile of crap. That would be diminish performance from the non IS version of the same lens, which is minimal, according to the MTF charts I've seen on PhotoZone and Photodo. I'll agree that it does so, in that case, but never to the point of making a lens a "dog." Your contention that the 17-55 is a second rate EF lens is a bit off, though, as is your idea that a lens group was added to it. There is no non IS version of that lens, it was designed from the ground up as an EF-S lens with IS. When you leave your overblown rhetoric at home, you make some sense, Rita, but when you go over the top with assertions like this, and like the one where you said Mark proved the worthlessness of IS at 17mm on his 5D (an impossibility) your credibility goes in the can. >> And showing what you can do without it doesn't prove >> that it has no benefit, only that you don't think you need it. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > distinguish between the two in a double-blind test than it is totally and > utterly ineffective. As far as "perceived gain" I don't know where you got that from what I said. All I said is that _you_ don't think you need it. No lines to be read between, there. SignatureSkip Middleton www.shadowcatcherimagery.com www.pbase.com/skipm > When you leave your overblown rhetoric at home, you make some > sense, Rita, but when you go over the top with assertions like this, > and like the one where you said Mark proved the worthlessness of IS > at 17mm on his 5D (an impossibility) your credibility goes in the can. Skip, do you have an IS lens that will do 17mm? If so, slap it on the old 5D and do the tests and come back with your results. You can view the final images at 100% and use a jeweler's loupe and I'll bet you couldn't tell the difference between IS on/off. As for my credibility, I no concerned in the slightest what you or anyone else thinks. Mark had issues that were proven wrong and he didn't want to live up to his end of the agreement because he's too immature to say he's wrong when he looked at his results from doing the test. >>> And showing what you can do without it doesn't prove >>> that it has no benefit, only that you don't think you need it. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > I said. All I said is that _you_ don't think you need it. No lines > to be read between, there. It's the placebo effect. If the sugar pill is working for you, by all means... You guys conveniently exclude motion blur of a moving subject. IS DOES NOT help in that area when shutter speed is too low. You already know this. Rita >> When you leave your overblown rhetoric at home, you make some >> sense, Rita, but when you go over the top with assertions like this, [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > the > test. Rita, there is no 17mm IS lens that will fit on a 5D. I have used a 24-105 and 28-135 IS lens on my 5D, which is why I can comment on the useability of IS on sub 50mm focal lengths. And, if you have no concern about your credibility, why do you even comment? If you have no credibility, your comments have no utility. >>>> And showing what you can do without it doesn't prove >>>> that it has no benefit, only that you don't think you need it. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > NOT > help in that area when shutter speed is too low. You already know this. We don't include that because it is a matter of record, and not a part of the discussion of whether IS is effective or not. You just keep bringing up red herrings to divert attention from the idea that you've dug yourself a hole that you can't get out of. SignatureSkip Middleton www.shadowcatcherimagery.com www.pbase.com/skipm > Rita, there is no 17mm IS lens that will fit on a 5D. I have used a > 24-105 and 28-135 IS lens on my 5D, which is why I can comment on the > useability of IS on sub 50mm focal lengths. > And, if you have no concern about your credibility, why do you even > comment? If you have no credibility, your comments have no utility. Then shoot the tests at 24mm with IS on/off under the same conditions Mark did his at. I believe Mark used the 24-105 on his 5D as well. I posted the rules for Mark to follow. Any handheld technique you use daily, even a beanbag is allowed. No tripod or monopod allowed. I have no problem with my credibility since it's very much intact and solid where it needs to be. As for utility, you are getting exactly what you are paying for. If it's useful information, great. If not, no loss, don't use it. No skin off my a.s. You seem to have this delusion that anything said in a newsgroup or internet is actually factual or without agenda or personal gain. >> It's the placebo effect. If the sugar pill is working for you, by >> all means... [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > keep bringing up red herrings to divert attention from the idea that > you've dug yourself a hole that you can't get out of. Ah, I see. A hole? Which hole would that be? I'm looking at the total picture while some elect to dissect or circumcise the portion of the issue that *might* remotely support their argument. This being the case, you must assuredly mean that IS will eliminate motion blur? Skip, I'm starting to think you are buying into the advertisement that VR/IS gives you 3 stops of performance? Sure, Nikon tries to have us all believe this. Which would you rather have, a lens of f/1.4 or a lens of f/ |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message