 |
 | 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 / March 2005Zoom Lens recommendations?
After purchasing a Digital Rebel with hopes of being able to use existing lenses, and finding out that my existing lenses do not work, I find myself in the market for a Zoom lens. Does anyone have any recommendations for a good zoom in the <$400 price range? Thanks~ >After purchasing a Digital Rebel with hopes of being able to use existing >lenses, and finding out that my existing lenses do not work, I find myself >in the market for a Zoom lens. Are you sure? "Film" lenses from Canon *will* work with the dRebel. They just behave a bit differently. -Joel ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Please feed the 35mm lens/digicam databases: http://www.exc.com/photography ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- I thought this to be the case as well, and I have a Tamron lens that I like really well. It functions correctly (focus looks sharp etc.) however it produces a picture sligthly out of focus, no matter what I do even in manual focus. I talked with Tamron, and they explained it too me as the emulsion process is non reflective and more forgiving that the digital CCD which is reflective and causes the image to "bounce" around causing the distortion (no matter how in focus you are). It is sort of a roll of the dice, you may get a good image every so often, but not very often if at all. The digital specific lenses have special coatings and are designed to take care of this. Kevin > >After purchasing a Digital Rebel with hopes of being able to use existing >>lenses, and finding out that my existing lenses do not work, I find myself [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > http://www.exc.com/photography > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > I talked with Tamron, and they explained it too me as the emulsion process > is non reflective and more forgiving that the digital CCD which is [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > digital specific lenses have special coatings and are designed to take > care of this. Sounds very dubious to me, how come other manufacturers lens work, eg Canon, they aren't 'digital' ?. >> I talked with Tamron, and they explained it too me as the emulsion >> process [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Sounds very dubious to me, how come other manufacturers lens work, eg > Canon, they aren't 'digital' ?. Some of them don't, very well. Our 20Ds pointed up the image limitations of the well regarded 28-105 f3.5-4.5 to the point of it being unacceptable.  SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com >Some of them don't, very well. Our 20Ds pointed up the image limitations of >the well regarded 28-105 f3.5-4.5 to the point of it being unacceptable. I look at it this way ... some of my lenses give true 8MP images, and some don't. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< >>Some of them don't, very well. Our 20Ds pointed up the image limitations >>of [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > some don't. > ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< Heheheh, yeah. But the thing I found curious is that it was difficult to see the difference between my 28-135 IS and my wife's 28-105 on print film, but the difference is startling on our 20Ds... SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com >>>Some of them don't, very well. Our 20Ds pointed up the image limitations >>>of [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > see the difference between my 28-135 IS and my wife's 28-105 on print > film, but the difference is startling on our 20Ds... I think the smaller 1.6 crop format makes more demands on the lens. Canon's MTF data talks about 10 lp/mm and 30 lp/mm giving an diagnostic of the lenses contrast and resolving power respectively. Of course this is on film. When you scale in the smaller sensor dimensions the same image detail (scaled down) will be 16 and 48 lp/mm respectively. Added to this for a given angle of view you need shorter lenses that are harder to get high resolution from, I think this means you need the best lenses for the 20D sized sensors particularly at the wide end. >>>>Some of them don't, very well. Our 20Ds pointed up the image >>>>limitations of [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > harder to get high resolution from, I think this means you need the best > lenses for the 20D sized sensors particularly at the wide end. Sure it does, but it puts the same demands on all lenses, especially those designed for film rather than digital. So why the 28-135 IS outperformed our 28-105 so much on a digital format remains unexplained. Both are designed for film, and both performed to a similar level on that medium. SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com >>>>>Some of them don't, very well. Our 20Ds pointed up the image >>>>>limitations of [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > our 28-105 so much on a digital format remains unexplained. Both are > designed for film, and both performed to a similar level on that medium. The MTF curves might give some clue. I haven't looked at the MTF data for those lenses but have been looking closely at Canon and Photodo data for other lenses to work out what to get. What I noticed for wider angles of view, is that some lenses MTF response seems to fall off much faster than others (this varies across the image plane). There is not much information from Canon as they only provide MTF data on two spatial frequencies (10 and 30 lp/mm). However, it seems to me (warning! pet theory) that some lenses perform much worse at the higher spatial frequencies that would be more significant on APS-C digital than other lenses. This I expect to be more significant with wide angle zooms (<35mm wide end). This would explain your experience. The MTF curves for the EF-S lenses don't look a lot (or any) better than the 35mm lenses but they so seem to roll-off much slower. This is of course all a little tentative, as I am trying to curve fit the Canon data to extrapolate the performance at higher spatial frequencies. It seems plausible though, as long as the MTF 50% frequency for the lens is not too high. Lester >> I talked with Tamron, and they explained it too me as the emulsion process >> is non reflective and more forgiving that the digital CCD which is [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >Sounds very dubious to me, how come other manufacturers lens work, eg Canon, >they aren't 'digital' ?. Actually a lot of them are. A quick Google search on this topic will turn up all sorts of references. Basically (as I understand it) Canon and Nikon both have special coatings on their lenses to cut down on this effect as it certainly doesn't hurt a film image and is vital to digital. I have a Tamron lens that ALWAYS looks blurry on my 10D (though it always looked pretty good with a film camera). I nearly went mad trying to figure out the problem until someone told me about this issue. a few references... Tamron Di: Lenses with optics designed to combat increased reflectivity of digital sensors. Lens manufacturers are all busy slowly introducing new versions of their present lens lines but corrected for digital cameras. Goals: elimination of ghost and flare images caused by the increased reflectivity of digital sensors, smaller manufacturing tolerances, increased corner and edge capability... http://www.photoreporter.com/2003/12-15/features/the_way_it_is.html I have the 300 2.8 AF-S D II, only a year old and while it's great for most shots, have had issues with backlit/rimlit subjects and situations with my D1x which doesn't appear on film. If you notice, the newest 300 2.8 VR has a curve on the inside of the built-in skylite filter (vs. a flat piece of glass in previous versions) which is supposed to stop light from reflecting off the chip, back to the front element/filter, back again and so forth. "Meniscus protective glass element to overcome internal reflections from digital imaging sensor" is how Nikon puts it certainly inferring there is an issue with using this lens on a digital camera. Canon has also corrected this problem in all of their long glass. I understand the increased reflectivity of the chip surface vs. film is the cause of this. http://www.robgalbraith.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=311421&Main=311189 Drifter "I've been here, I've been there..." > I thought this to be the case as well, and I have a Tamron lens that I like > really well. It functions correctly (focus looks sharp etc.) however it [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > specific lenses have special coatings and are designed to take care of > this. When it smells like horseshit... Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch. >> I talked with Tamron, and they explained it too me as the emulsion process >> is non reflective and more forgiving that the digital CCD which is [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > When it smells like horseshit... I have read that the extra reflectivity of the CCD can reduce contrast when the lens lacks special coatings. Also that it complicates TTL flash metering. Nothing about distortion though. SignatureBen Rosengart (212) 741-4400 x215 Sometimes it only makes sense to focus our attention on those questions that are equal parts trivial and intriguing. --Josh Micah Marshall Have you tried the old lenses? I never heard anyone complain about non-digital coatings before. Maybe a minor issue. > I thought this to be the case as well, and I have a Tamron lens that I like > really well. It functions correctly (focus looks sharp etc.) however it [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >>http://www.exc.com/photography >>---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > After purchasing a Digital Rebel with hopes of being able to use existing > lenses, and finding out that my existing lenses do not work, I find myself > in the market for a Zoom lens. > > Does anyone have any recommendations for a good zoom in the <$400 price > range? Canon 75-300 IS. I'd buy the 28-135mm IS lens as a gerenal lens and then save for a longer or wider lens in the future when you want something else. The 28-135mm is a 45-212mm on the Rebel and it takes awesome pictures and the IS works great. Art > I'd buy the 28-135mm IS lens as a gerenal lens and then save for a > longer or wider lens in the future when you want something else. The > 28-135mm is a 45-212mm on the Rebel and it takes awesome pictures and > the IS works great. Depends on what the OP wants to do. This shot from a tram ride in the Florida Everglades would not have been possible with the 28-135: http://home.comcast.net/~charlesschuler/wsb/media/291308/site1056.jpg >> I'd buy the 28-135mm IS lens as a gerenal lens and then save for a >> longer or wider lens in the future when you want something else. The [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > http://home.comcast.net/~charlesschuler/wsb/media/291308/site1056.jpg That is sure a skinny egret... We have fat ones... http://terraholm.com/photos/page5.htm scroll down, also some on http://terraholm.com/photos/page4.htm SignatureLaurel T >> After purchasing a Digital Rebel with hopes of being able to use existing >> lenses, and finding out that my existing lenses do not work, I find myself [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Canon 75-300 IS. Yeh, I agree. I tried out my friends 75-300 last weekend on my 20d, and took a ton of duck pictures, they came out very nice. The focus is sometimes slow (some people have referred to it as "hunting" for the focus). I am think of getting the canon 100-400 IS L lense. There was a couple both with digital cameras, one 20d, and a 1d (or???) and BOTH with the 100-400 lens! He let me take a couple photos with the 1d. The 100-400 focused faster and smoother than the 75-300, though that could certainly be the 1d. Also, the 100-400 is much heavier! -- Patrick Mansfield > >> After purchasing a Digital Rebel with hopes of being able to use existing > >> lenses, and finding out that my existing lenses do not work, I find myself [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > He let me take a couple photos with the 1d. The 100-400 focused faster > and smoother than the 75-300, though that could certainly be the 1d. I saw a couple just like that in the Sepulveda Basin a couple of weeks ago taking bird pictures. You're not in the San Fernando Valley, are you? Greg > "Patrick Mansfield" <patman@aracnet.nospam.com> wrote in message >> There was a couple both with digital cameras, one 20d, and a 1d (or???) >> and BOTH with the 100-400 lens! [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I saw a couple just like that in the Sepulveda Basin a couple of weeks ago > taking bird pictures. You're not in the San Fernando Valley, are you? Nope, in Portland, we were at the Crystal Springs Rhododendron gardens (SE part of town). But, it's not far from CA, with such gear they probably travel a lot, and they must be birders. -- Patrick Mansfield > > "Patrick Mansfield" <patman@aracnet.nospam.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > part of town). But, it's not far from CA, with such gear they probably > travel a lot, and they must be birders. Definitely possible. I have to say I had camera envy that day. Greg > After purchasing a Digital Rebel with hopes of being able to use existing > lenses, and finding out that my existing lenses do not work, I find myself [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Thanks~ 28-135 f3.5-5.6 IS USM, a little over $400, but worth the extra $10 or so at B&H. The 75-300 f4-5.6 IS USM is $415 from the same source. SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.