 |
 | 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 / January 2007Canon 17-40mm/4L and the 5D?
Does anyone really use this lens on their 5D or 1Ds? After looking at these tests shots I'm not sure if anyone in this group would actually use this lens. http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/1740.html Also, an interesting comparison and test results from the old 17-35 Nikkor. http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/18.html And a shootout with Canon's 16-35 vs. the 17-35 Nikkor. http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/widezooms/widezooms1.html It's an interesting read, but probably old news for most. Rita > Does anyone really use this lens on their 5D or 1Ds? After looking at > these [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Rita Gee, girl, why don't you link to this page... http://www.16-9.net/ultrawides/ He comments on the page you linked to that he thought the lens was faulty. And if he had compared lenses at comparable focal lengths, I wonder what the results would have been? And, frankly, at f2.8, I can't see enough difference in the Canon 16-35 and Nikon 17-35 to justify the crowing the owners of the Nikon have been doing. In fact, the biggest difference seems to be how much sharper the Canon is at the center than the Nikon. Edge sharpness, while desirable, is less of an issue, since much of the edge/corner of the images falls prey to cropping from a 2:3 ratio to a 4:5 ratio. At 5.6, the oversharpening he's given the Nikon images really comes into play, showing more CA than the Canon at the edges, even though it is sharper at the corners. Not sure which I'd find easier to live with, CA or softness. We could go on, but to no point. It's interesting to see that a lens that all but the most diehard Canon adherent will admit has it's limitations comes so close to a lens that is held in nearly mythical regard.  SignatureSkip Middleton www.shadowcatcherimagery.com www.pbase.com/skipm You do realize that you are feeding a troll? Troll, or not. I have a 5d and sold my 10d. I also have 17-40 F4L that I have used with both cameras. I agree that the 17-40 doesn't bring out the best in either of these two cameras, full frame or cropped 1.6. Both show a lack of sharpness compared to my 50 F1.4, 100 f2, 28 f2.8, 70-200 2.8L IS. It is not any worst than my 28-135 IS, buy my old 70-210 USM is better! Now this is if you do pixel peeping on your monitor. For small 6x4 prints it really does a great job. For critical use there are better choices, but they don't seem to come from Canon. cel > You do realize that you are feeding a troll? Feeding/baiting, it's still fun, in the end... SignatureSkip Middleton www.shadowcatcherimagery.com www.pbase.com/skipm > You do realize that you are feeding a troll? Yabbut, if you don't challenge this particular kind of assholery, someone may become or remain misguided. SignatureFrank ess >> You do realize that you are feeding a troll? > > Yabbut, if you don't challenge this particular kind of assholery, someone > may become or remain misguided. Agreed. >>> You do realize that you are feeding a troll? >> >> Yabbut, if you don't challenge this particular kind of assholery, someone >> may become or remain misguided. > > Agreed. You two yahoos must have redefined what a troll is... >>>> You do realize that you are feeding a troll? >>> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > You two yahoos must have redefined what a troll is... Would you say that the proper definition can be described after inspection of the deprecatory "You two yahoos ... " post and its sender? SignatureFrank ess Matt Clara is searching for his/her karma. >> You do realize that you are feeding a troll? > > Yabbut, if you don't challenge this particular kind of assholery, > someone may become or remain misguided. Frankie, baby, I didn't host this page and someone that really doesn’t have a Nikon/Canon ax to grind posts it. It's a well-known fact that Canon doesn't seem to want to produce a usable WA lens for their FF bodies. Its no wonder most Pro shooters are using the old 17-35 Nikkor on their Canon bodies. And my question wasn't meant to be a dig at Canon. I don't know why Canon owners can't admit that their WA lenses suck? I know I can admit Nikon is screwing us with the DX lenses. For the record I'm in love with Canon, but their WA lenses are as capable of busting up a perfect romance as an illegitimate child can!!!! Rita >>> You do realize that you are feeding a troll? >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > bodies. And my question wasn't meant to be a dig at Canon. I don't know > why Canon owners can't admit that their WA lenses suck? Maybe because they don't. Here are some pictures taken using Canon's 10-22mm lens which was used to shoot some scenes of the Bixby Ranch, which is a historic local landmark. The ranch opened for visitation just for a couple of days. All the shots were taken using the 10-22mm lens. Visitor mobility was extremely limited. Rules concerning cameras and tourism were: 1- No pods allowed (tri, mono, or shoulder). 2- No flash allowed. 3- Must stay with the assigned tour guide. 4- Cannot use existing furniture to support cameras. 5- Some rooms and buildings are of limits. http://www.pbase.com/nchen711/bixby_ranch > I know I can admit > Nikon is screwing us with the DX lenses. For the record I'm in love with [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Rita > Here are some pictures taken using Canon's 10-22mm lens which was used > to shoot some scenes of the Bixby Ranch, which is a historic local > landmark. The ranch opened for visitation just for a couple of days. > All the shots were taken using the 10-22mm lens. Thanks for posting the pics, they do look great! The lenses in question that I mentioned show their strengths and weaknesses on a full frame sensor body. The lens you are using is designed for the smaller APS-C sensor body and isn't suitable for the 5D. Though many people find both the 10-22 and the Nikon 12-24 a suitable lens the Tokina 12-24 is the overall winner in this class of lens. Nikon has let a lot of people down with this lens. Rita >> Here are some pictures taken using Canon's 10-22mm lens which was used >> to shoot some scenes of the Bixby Ranch, which is a historic local [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Rita I've read the lens test reports that I think appeared in PC Photo, which declared the Tokina 12-24 lens was just barely better than either 10-22 or the 12-24. I haven't used the Nikon lens but I have used the Tokina lens. I found both the Tokina and Canon lenses to be very good. I do wish I could have used a tripod or even a monopod when taking the indoor shots at the ranch. At my age, I do encounter camera shake problems. > Here are some pictures taken using Canon's 10-22mm lens which was > used [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > http://www.pbase.com/nchen711/bixby_ranch I enjoyd the Ranh tour. Thank you for the opportunity. Where is "local"? SignatureFrank ess >> Here are some pictures taken using Canon's 10-22mm lens which was used >> to shoot some scenes of the Bixby Ranch, which is a historic local [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Where is "local"? Long Beach, California. >>> Here are some pictures taken using Canon's 10-22mm lens which was >>> used to shoot some scenes of the Bixby Ranch, which is a historic [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Long Beach, California. I've spent many happy hours at "The Pike" (early- middle 1950s) and at the auto races (1975 through 80s) in Long Beach. I don't know if it's true, but it seemed to me the light was cleaner there than in the west-facing beaches in the L.A. area. Oh, yeah: the only place I could find to re-bellows my Kodak Autographic was in Long Beach. Several hours bus-ride each way from my home in Torrance. Worth it, and the $6.50 they charged (a lot of money for a 12-year-old who raised rabbits for income). SignatureFrank ess Frank less wrote: >>>> Here are some pictures taken using Canon's 10-22mm lens which was >>>> used to shoot some scenes of the Bixby Ranch, which is a historic [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > true, but it seemed to me the light was cleaner there than in the > west-facing beaches in the L.A. area. Yep, in the good old days, Long Beach was a great friendly atmosphered town. Times have changed and IMO, the glory of Long Beach had long since past by. Where once the town was a great place to live or visit, now it's a place to avoid. > Oh, yeah: the only place I could find to re-bellows my Kodak Autographic > was in Long Beach. Several hours bus-ride each way from my home in > Torrance. Worth it, and the $6.50 they charged (a lot of money for a > 12-year-old who raised rabbits for income). >> Frankie, baby, I didn't host this page and someone that really doesn’t >> have [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > landmark. The ranch opened for visitation just for a couple of days. All > the shots were taken using the 10-22mm lens. Nice pictures. I like my 10-22mm as well, but it's not FF lens, and OP clearly stated 'FF body'. In fact I've been looking for an all-around lens that complements the 10-22, and is usable with FF body (which I eventually will get). The 17-40mm was one of my options... yet I would prefer something like 17-200mm. Too bad there isn't one. Peter >>> Frankie, baby, I didn't host this page and someone that really >>> doesn’t have [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Peter Hi Peter, I was aware that the discussion was about wide angle lenses being used with FF bodies. At first I had no intention of responding but as I thought about the issue, I began to recall past posts that criticized Canon's 10-22 lens as being soft and having other short comings. I felt that the lens was often times getting a bad rap. Naturally, the 10-22 lens is not designed for a FF body, but the FF issue is often not remembered by readers and what tends to be remembered is that a lens like the 10-22 is not a good a lens as assumed by a non user as it may seem to be in the eye of a user. Frankly, while there is some benefits to be gained by using a FF body, I tend to think more is gained by using these type lenses as well as FF lenses on camera bodies, be they of the 1.3x, 1.5x, or 1.6x type. Before getting the 10-22 lens, I was intending to buy the Canon 5D since all my lenses are FF type lenses. However, when I was about to buy the camera I asked myself why do I *need* a FF body camera to shoot the scenes I like to seriously shoot. I rather think that there are a multitude of camera buff's just like me who are hung up on getting a FF body camera, who want a DSLR but don't really need a FF body DSLR camera. So, with that in mind, I took the gamble and bought the 10-22 to be used with my 30D and saved myself some $3,000 buckaroos. Did I do right? Technically, in my case, I sure as jell did. However, after having thought about the issue, I posted as I did only to see if there were others like myself who are hung up on getting a FF body camera but who don't really need a FF body camera. Now Pete, I'll offer an apology for what I'm about to say "cause it may seem nonsensical after what I have said in the above. With camera equipment, I have what I need to satisfy my interest in photographing scenes I like to photograph. If I should need more necessary equipment, I'll buy it. But damn it, I still have that feeling of still being interested in a FF body camera, although I have no damn need of one. :-) >>>> Frankie, baby, I didn't host this page and someone that really >>>> doesn’t have [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] > still being interested in a FF body camera, although I have no damn > need of one. :-) For me, it's about quality, large sensors that produce quality LARGE prints. The 5D has detail to spare for my Epson 4000 (17" wide, and as long as I want to go). The other is High quality at high ISO. Here's a shot at 1600 ISO. As I've viewed this image, both printed, and at full resolution (100%) on-screen...it never really even crosses my mind that this is a high ISO shot: http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/71893527/original (there's funny lighting, due to mixed light sources on a long exposure) What's interesting to me here is that even at full size, noise just does NOT look like what one would expect from 1600 ISO. I could have waited longer in this windless night using a lower ISO, but when 1600 looks as good as it does on the 5D, you've got the wonderful option of NOT standing there for several minutes per shot. :) SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson >> Now Pete, I'll offer an apology for what I'm about to say "cause it >> may seem nonsensical after what I have said in the above. With camera [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > several minutes per shot. > :) Incredible... ISO 1600 shot from my 20D is total noisefest. One more reason to start saving for 5D... Peter >>>>> Frankie, baby, I didn't host this page and someone that really >>>>> doesnt have [quoted text clipped - 74 lines] >several minutes per shot. >:) Hi Mark² EXIF says ISO = 800! Still a great, interesting shot! Jack Mac >>>>>> Frankie, baby, I didn't host this page and someone that really >>>>>> doesn't have [quoted text clipped - 83 lines] > Still a great, interesting shot! > Jack Mac Oops. Wrong shot. :) Here are a couple at 1600: http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/71893521/original http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/71893529/original (That's a passing snow-plow...with flare from the headlights...which were the only illumination for the entire scene...) SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson >>>>>>> Frankie, baby, I didn't host this page and someone that really >>>>>>> doesn't have [quoted text clipped - 90 lines] >(That's a passing snow-plow...with flare from the headlights...which were >the only illumination for the entire scene...) Yep, that's at 1600! Nice shots! Looks like a snow-plow was needed! Jack Mac >>>>>>> Frankie, baby, I didn't host this page and someone that really >>>>>>> doesn't have [quoted text clipped - 86 lines] > (That's a passing snow-plow...with flare from the headlights...which were > the only illumination for the entire scene...) :-) I'm submitting this quickie photo in response to the following and the fact that I agree with you: "What's interesting to me here is that even at full size, noise just does NOT look like what one would expect from 1600 ISO." http://www.pbase.com/nchen711/image/72653897&exif=N Camera: 1DMKII Lens: 50mm f-1.4 f-Stop: 5.6 ISO: 3200 Camera stability: Hand Held This too when viewed at full size (out of the box), noise does NOT look like what one would expect from using ISO 3200. Note: Primary correction was made for color temperature to reflect actual condition. Other normal corrections for resolution reduction, resizing, etc. for posting was also accomplished. The 50mm f-1.4 lens was used 'cause in the past, posts have said it wasn't a good lens (my sense of humor caused me to add this note). >>>>> Frankie, baby, I didn't host this page and someone that really >>>>> doesn’t have [quoted text clipped - 72 lines] > several minutes per shot. > :) I like the shot. There's an artistic quality that's pleasing. I give myself all the arguments that favors getting a 5D. Frankly, matching the 5D camera with a good wide angle lens would be the least of my problems. It's convincing myself that I should get a 5D that's the problem. When it comes to making large prints (larger than say 12X8) the argument favoring larger prints fails. Though I like seeing larger prints, I can't give them away; no one I know wants them. As for getting noise when using high ISO's, my 1DMKII handles that problem very well. You see Mark, that's my dilemma. I agree, the 5D is a very good camera but justifying the expenditure when I have everything I need or want to satisfy my photographic pursuits is the problem. The problem is compounded by my being able to afford buying the darn thing. I think I'm still hung-up on the 35mm size sensor being a target to shoot for. :-( >>> Here are some pictures taken using Canon's 10-22mm lens which was >>> used to shoot some scenes of the Bixby Ranch, which is a historic [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Canon's 10-22 lens as being soft and having other short comings. I felt > that the lens was often times getting a bad rap. > Before getting the 10-22 lens, I was intending to buy the Canon 5D since > all my lenses are FF type lenses. However, when I was about to buy the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > be used with my 30D and saved myself some $3,000 buckaroos. Did I do > right? Technically, in my case, I sure as jell did. Since I'm relative novice in dSLRs (have had 20D for about a year) I would certainly agree with you. You need FF camera when you know what you're doing! > However, after having thought about the issue, I posted as I did only to > see if there were others like myself who are hung up on getting a FF [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I'll buy it. But damn it, I still have that feeling of still being > interested in a FF body camera, although I have no damn need of one. :-) I can totally relate to that! :) I dont really need a FF body... but eventually I hope to get to the point where I'll need it. Higher dynamic range, less noise, better colour reproduction are just priceless to us pixelpeeps! :)))) Peter >>>> You do realize that you are feeding a troll? >>> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Maybe because they don't. Here's a shot using the "sucky" 16-35 2.8 L. And by the way... Who here would want to shoot wide angle landscapes at 2.8??? Tele for sports, wildlife, and perhaps some portraiture, but come on... It's great for focusing and etc., but seriously, guys. How often do you REALLY want so little DOF in your wides that you shoot wide angle at 2.8? http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/58828940/original Check the corners. Granted this wasn't on my 5D (this was shot in my pre-5D days), but these "sucky" Canon Ls just aren't very sucky, folks. Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson >>>>> You do realize that you are feeding a troll? >>>> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >Granted this wasn't on my 5D (this was shot in my pre-5D days), but these >"sucky" Canon Ls just aren't very sucky, folks. Great shot, Mark. As always, difficult to make a complete judgement on a web image, but all the indications support what you say. I have the predecessor of your lens, the 17-35 f/2.8L, which is not quite as good as the 16-35 f/2.8L, but even that in real-life use produces excellent results. David SignatureDavid Littlewood >>>>>> You do realize that you are feeding a troll? >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > David Thanks David. :) Fact is...even printed at 17" wide and quite tall, that shot from my "lowly 10D" holds up extremely well on paper. Had I shot it with the 5D, I'd be figuring out a means making a larger print. SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson >>>>> You do realize that you are feeding a troll? >>>> Yabbut, if you don't challenge this particular kind of assholery, [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: > www.pbase.com/markuson Great shot Mark. I like it a bunch. I too have the 16-35mm L lens and have yet to have a complaint with its use. Hell, it works well for me. :-) >>> You do realize that you are feeding a troll? >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > bodies. And my question wasn't meant to be a dig at Canon. I don't know > why Canon owners can't admit that their WA lenses suck? Maybe because they don't. Here are some pictures taken using Canon's 10-22mm lens whuich was used to shoot some scenes of the Bixby Ranch, which is a historic local landmark. The ranch opened for visitation just for a couple of days. All shots were taken using the 10-22mm lens. Visitor mobility was extremely limited. Rules concerning cameras and tourism were: 1- No pods allowed (tri, mono, or shoulder). 2- No flash allowed. 3- Must stay with the assigned tour guide. 4- Cannot use existing furniture to support cameras. 5- Some rooms and buildings are off limits. http://www.pbase.com/nchen711/bixby_ranch > I know I can admit > Nikon is screwing us with the DX lenses. For the record I'm in love with [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Rita >>> You do realize that you are feeding a troll? >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Rita Maybe because they don't. Here are some pictures taken using Canon's 10-22mm lens which was used to shoot some scenes of the Bixby Ranch, which is a historic local landmark. The ranch opened for visitation just for a couple of days. All shots were taken using the 10-22mm lens. Visitor mobility was extremely limited. Rules concerning cameras and tourism were: 1- No pods allowed (tri, mono, or shoulder). 2- No flash allowed. 3- Must stay with the assigned tour guide. 4- Cannot use existing furniture to support cameras. 5- Some rooms and buildings are off limits. http://www.pbase.com/nchen711/bixby_ranch <snip stupidity>. > Rita Are you RichA's twin sister? SignatureSlack Not related. What have I stated that you think is incorrect? cel > <snip stupidity>. > > > Rita > > Are you RichA's twin sister? >Note: The author of this message requested that it not be archived. This message will be >removed from Groups in 6 days (Jan 10, 12:43 pm). Probably just as well, but it's rather rude to leave replies hanging, and invites one to agree with the troll accusations... Troll, Rita ? Berkowitz wrote: > Does anyone really use this lens on their 5D or 1Ds? After looking at these > tests shots I'm not sure if anyone in this group would actually use this > lens. > http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/1740.html So you didn't notice the ridiculously intense sharpening halos on the Zeiss images, especially the second one? And that didn't set a teeny alarm bell ringing about possible bias, a little tweaking to help prove his case, or just plain ineptitude? Sheesh. Not that I'm defending the lens which may well be a p-o-s like most of the other canon kit lenses (O:, but if you looked at those images and didn't notice something a little strange, then... wanna *buy* that bridge you are guarding? Rita ? Berkowitz wrote: > Does anyone really use this lens on their 5D or 1Ds? After looking at these > tests shots I'm not sure if anyone in this group would actually use this > lens. > > http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/1740.html Lets hope not. The edge definition, even stopped down is worse than a kit lens on a Rebel. >> Does anyone really use this lens on their 5D or 1Ds? After looking >> at these tests shots I'm not sure if anyone in this group would [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Lets hope not. The edge definition, even stopped down is worse than a > kit lens on a Rebel. Yes, it's sad! What's even worse is Canon owners have to use Nikon glass to get great WA images. Rita >>> Does anyone really use this lens on their 5D or 1Ds? After looking >>> at these tests shots I'm not sure if anyone in this group would [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > to > get great WA images. It's fun watching you two talk among yourselves, the only two who take themselves, and each other, seriously... SignatureSkip Middleton www.shadowcatcherimagery.com www.pbase.com/skipm > It's fun watching you two talk among yourselves, the only two who take > themselves, and each other, seriously... Wrong! Nobody should take anything said on Usenet seriously, I don't. Rita >> It's fun watching you two talk among yourselves, the only two who take >> themselves, and each other, seriously... > > Wrong! Nobody should take anything said on Usenet seriously, I don't. Correction: Wrong! Nobody should take anything said by "Rita" on Usenet seriously; I don't. Except "Rita" is capable of real thought and observation; too bad he dribbles so much. Signaturejohn mcwilliams Rita ? Berkowitz wrote: > >> Does anyone really use this lens on their 5D or 1Ds? After looking > >> at these tests shots I'm not sure if anyone in this group would [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Yes, it's sad! What's even worse is Canon owners have to use Nikon glass to > get great WA images. Or old Leica, Contax, Zeiss or OM glass. > > >> Does anyone really use this lens on their 5D or 1Ds? After looking > > >> at these tests shots I'm not sure if anyone in this group would [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Or old Leica, Contax, Zeiss or OM glass. It is good news that you now may use the Contax Vario-Sonnar 17-35/2.8 zoom on a Canon - with autofocus and auto aperture! See this test: http://www.planetwidephoto.com/17-35test_main.htm > It is good news that you now may use the Contax Vario-Sonnar 17-35/2.8 > zoom on a Canon - with autofocus and auto aperture! See this test: > > http://www.planetwidephoto.com/17-35test_main.htm Now this is awesome news! Even more reasons to buy a Canon FF body. I wonder how many photographers are going to toss the old 16-35? Rita Rita Ä Berkowitz wrote: > Does anyone really use this lens on their 5D or 1Ds? After looking at > these > tests shots I'm not sure if anyone in this group would actually use this > lens. > > http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/1740.html Lets hope not. The edge definition, even stopped down is worse than a kit lens on a Rebel. Rich, buy a camera, try it out, and get back to us. You have no clue about which you speak, here, and I have a feeling that you know it. You're just firing for effect. SignatureSkip Middleton www.shadowcatcherimagery.com www.pbase.com/skipm > Rita Ä Berkowitz wrote: >> Does anyone really use this lens on their 5D or 1Ds? After looking at [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > about which you speak, here, and I have a feeling that you know it. > You're just firing for effect. Why buy a camera? They all have some plastic, and will soon be eclipsed by a newer model. It's best to just piss and moan rather than just buy one and go take pictures that make you happy. :-) > Rita Ä Berkowitz wrote: > > Does anyone really use this lens on their 5D or 1Ds? After looking at [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > which you speak, here, and I have a feeling that you know it. You're just > firing for effect. This is the sad, sad part. Canon FF users always wax poetic about being able to get the full wide angle out of a wide angle lens (versus crop sensor users) but what good is it unless the edges are acceptable? You're going to have to crop the shot or anyway, just to improve the image. In this shot, to me it looks like the edges start to deteriorate about 4/5ths out from the image centre. http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/57631694/original Skip wrote: > Rita Ä Berkowitz wrote: > > Does anyone really use this lens on their 5D or 1Ds? After looking at [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > which you speak, here, and I have a feeling that you know it. You're just > firing for effect. This is the sad, sad part. Canon FF users always wax poetic about being able to get the full wide angle out of a wide angle lens (versus crop sensor users) but what good is it unless the edges are acceptable? You're going to have to crop the shot or anyway, just to improve the image. In this shot, to me it looks like the edges start to deteriorate about 4/5ths out from the image centre. http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/57631694/original Well, Rich, if you'd look at the link Rita provided, you'd see that the much vaunted Nikkor 17-35 ain't a whole lot better. And, in real life, it's rare that something on those edges is critical. http://www.pbase.com/skipm/image/71261853/large BTW, I'm still trying to find what was in focus in what I'm guessing is your shot. It's hard to tell where the softness starts, since the whole darn image is soft. SignatureSkip Middleton www.shadowcatcherimagery.com www.pbase.com/skipm > Skip wrote: > > [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > shot. It's hard to tell where the softness starts, since the whole darn > image is soft. And here I thought Canon autofocus was pretty good.... Skip wrote: > > "RichA" <rander3127@gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:1167952252.827420.12510@42g2000cwt.googlegroups.com... [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > shot. It's hard to tell where the softness starts, since the whole darn > image is soft. And here I thought Canon autofocus was pretty good.... Well, bud, it works for me, and millions of others. SignatureSkip Middleton www.shadowcatcherimagery.com www.pbase.com/skipm >> And here I thought Canon autofocus was pretty good.... > > Well, bud, it works for me, and millions of others. Caveat: At least on the 20D, it works substantially better with f/2.8 or faster lenses (which Skip has a full line of, IIRC). Shots I've taken with the 70-200 f/2.8 IS or 85mm f/1.8 have had no accuracy problems after focus lock, other than the occasional mislock on a nearby object that was too subtle a difference to see in the viewfinder. Shots I've taken on the 17-85 f/4-5.6 IS and 75-300 f/4-5.6 IS have sometimes been erratic even after a focus indicator blinks -- and manual focusing with those two leaves a rather substantial range of motion where I can still get a blink, but the actual center of focus is shifting visibly. I've been given to understand that this is a general issue not limited to Canons. I've also heard a rumor that Canon is working on an AF system that focuses very accurately with f/4 lenses as well, but I've never seen anything substantial on it. That said, I've had far more shots fuzzed by user error (insufficient shutter speed or tripod stability or even by error in manual focusing) or general lens softness (although the 75-300 isn't a bad lens at the center all the way up to 200mm, nothing saves you if you have to go further or want detail on the edges) than I have by autofocus error, so I really don't have a complaint with Canon autofocus in general. I've done a lot of manual focus shooting on the 75-300, but that's because it's an obsolete lense where the autofocus is both hideously slow and prone to hunting. SignatureZed Pobre <zed@resonant.org> a.k.a. Zed Pobre <zed@debian.org> PGP key and fingerprint available on finger; encrypted mail welcomed. >>> And here I thought Canon autofocus was pretty good.... >> [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > because it's an obsolete lense where the autofocus is both hideously > slow and prone to hunting. The 5D focuses better with f2.8 or faster lenses, too. I ran into an interesting "problem" for lack of a better word, on Sunday. I was trying to focus on the radiator grill of an old car that was a tight square mesh. The lens (24-70 f2.8L) hunted back and forth very rapidly about 5 or 6 times before settling on focus. I've never had that happen before. It was bright sunlight, and the car was a light color. Weird. SignatureSkip Middleton www.shadowcatcherimagery.com www.pbase.com/skipm >>>> And here I thought Canon autofocus was pretty good.... >>> [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > never had that happen before. It was bright sunlight, and the car > was a light color. Weird. Did you try the old 45 degree tilt trick? SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson >>>>> And here I thought Canon autofocus was pretty good.... >>>> [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > > Did you try the old 45 degree tilt trick? Yeah, that settled it down. But it was a little disconcerting to say the least. SignatureSkip Middleton www.shadowcatcherimagery.com www.pbase.com/skipm > The 5D focuses better with f2.8 or faster lenses, too. > I ran into an interesting "problem" for lack of a better word, on Sunday. I > was trying to focus on the radiator grill of an old car that was a tight > square mesh. The lens (24-70 f2.8L) hunted back and forth very rapidly > about 5 or 6 times before settling on focus. I've never had that happen > before. It was bright sunlight, and the car was a light color. Weird. The 85mm f/1.8 that I have is prone to this whenever the subject is either very small against a bright background, or lots of lines at different depths with a relatively bright background (it had some troubles shooting overlaying branches in winter, for instance). That's the only lens I've used with that trouble, though. SignatureZed Pobre <zed@resonant.org> a.k.a. Zed Pobre <zed@debian.org> PGP key and fingerprint available on finger; encrypted mail welcomed. >> The 5D focuses better with f2.8 or faster lenses, too. >> I ran into an interesting "problem" for lack of a better word, on Sunday. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > That's the only lens I've used with that trouble, though. That's pretty much the description of what I was looking at. A tight grid of small, light colored metal bars with chrome or polished edges over the equally tight, but darker, radiator. SignatureSkip Middleton www.shadowcatcherimagery.com www.pbase.com/skipm > Well, Rich, if you'd look at the link Rita provided, you'd see that > the much vaunted Nikkor 17-35 ain't a whole lot better. And, in real > life, it's rare that something on those edges is critical. > http://www.pbase.com/skipm/image/71261853/large Skip, that image is very soft and you've cropped the hell out of it. If you didn't tell me you used the 16-35 I could have sworn this was a kit lens. But it's still fun to watch you squirm trying to justify how unimportant the stuff on the edges are to save face. Most Nikkon shooters would moan in disgust with that much softness and cropping needed to get a usable image. Rita Stuff it girl, that image is not soft, and I did not crop the heck out of it. If you think that image is soft, then you need a new monitor, or new glasses, or both. My point, since you've done such a masterful job of missing it, is that, more times than not, what's at the edge is not sharp edged enough for your concerns to matter. And you still squirm away at the mention of how soft that Nikkor in the linked site is at the center, wide open. SignatureSkip Middleton www.shadowcatcherimagery.com www.pbase.com/skipm > >> Well, Rich, if you'd look at the link Rita provided, you'd see that [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Rita > Stuff it girl, that image is not soft, and I did not crop the heck > out of it. If you think that image is soft, then you need a new > monitor, or new glasses, or both. Skip, please don't take our discussion so seriously that you have to get worked up, it's not worth it. Rita >> Stuff it girl, that image is not soft, and I did not crop the heck >> out of it. If you think that image is soft, then you need a new >> monitor, or new glasses, or both. > > Skip, please don't take our discussion so seriously that you have to get > worked up, it's not worth it. You're right, Rita, I was really tired when I put up those posts. Which also explains the multiple errors in each and every one of them. Wrong images, wrong aperture, wrong lenses. Cripes, I should have kept it to my self. SignatureSkip Middleton www.shadowcatcherimagery.com www.pbase.com/skipm Aw, crap, I just looked at the exif, and that's from my 24-70... SignatureSkip Middleton www.shadowcatcherimagery.com www.pbase.com/skipm > Aw, crap, I just looked at the exif, and that's from my 24-70... Are you sure? I mean there's no reason to get all flustered since it's only a discussion about lens performance. Now here's a comparison you'd like, the legendary "Beast" which is the good old 28-70/2.8 Nikkor. Now that's a sweet piece of glass. Read up on that one. Rita >> Aw, crap, I just looked at the exif, and that's from my 24-70... > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > a > sweet piece of glass. Read up on that one. Nope, yet one more error, that is from my wife's 24-105 IS, which I had borrowed for the day, and forgot that I had. Actually there are some really awesome older lenses in the 28-70 group, one that you should check out is the 28-70 f2.6 (not a typo) Angineux. It was only available in Nikon mount, and, if I remember correctly, was the only autofocus lens Angineux ever produced. That lens alone has tempted me to buy a used Nikon body to mate up with it. To say it's legendary is to demean the lens. SignatureSkip Middleton www.shadowcatcherimagery.com www.pbase.com/skipm > Actually there are some really awesome older lenses in the 28-70 > group, one that you should check out is the 28-70 f2.6 (not a typo) > Angineux. It was only available in Nikon mount, and, if I remember > correctly, was the only autofocus lens Angineux ever produced. That > lens alone has tempted me to buy a used Nikon body to mate up with > it. To say it's legendary is to demean the lens. They are nice! They have the 28-70 in both Canon and Nikon AF mounts, though the Canon mount is a bit rarer and very difficult to find. There was a Nikon version a while back on eBay that went for more than I was will to pay. So, if you really seek this lens there would be no sense in buying the Nikon version and a body since the Canon version should be killer on the 5D and AF. Rita >> Actually there are some really awesome older lenses in the 28-70 >> group, one that you should check out is the 28-70 f2.6 (not a typo) [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > 5D > and AF. I did not know about a Canon mount in that lens, now there's a holy grail to search for. I had the Tokina knockoff of this lens, nice but not overly so. My daughter has it, now, on her Rebel XT. SignatureSkip Middleton www.shadowcatcherimagery.com www.pbase.com/skipm Now that I've thoroughly confused the issue, here's an untouched image shot with the Canon in question, at the focal length in question, at the aperture in question. If you are concerned about any softness in the pattern in the linoleum, I'd suggest you find something more productive to do with your time... http://www.pbase.com/skipm/image/72664190 SignatureSkip Middleton www.shadowcatcherimagery.com www.pbase.com/skipm > >> Well, Rich, if you'd look at the link Rita provided, you'd see that [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > stuff on the edges are to save face. Most Nikkon shooters would moan in > disgust with that much softness and cropping needed to get a usable image. Now that I've thoroughly confused the issue, here's an untouched image shot with the Canon in question, at the focal length in question, at the aperture in question. If you are concerned about any softness in the pattern in the linoleum, I'd suggest you find something more productive to do with your time... http://www.pbase.com/skipm/image/72664190 SignatureSkip Middleton www.shadowcatcherimagery.com www.pbase.com/skipm > Now that I've thoroughly confused the issue, here's an untouched > image shot with the Canon in question, at the focal length in > question, at the aperture in question. If you are concerned about > any softness in the pattern in the linoleum, I'd suggest you find > something more productive to do with your time... > http://www.pbase.com/skipm/image/72664190 Nice shot! I really like the stable of exotics in the background. OK, I looked at the EXIF in this shot and it was set at f/4 instead of the discussed f/2.8. For starters the corners are toast. The light falloff and vignetting are very pronounced and would be much worse wide-open. Before you get too excited in thinking I'm trying to slam you, I'm not. I think you are a great photographer and I really like what you post. And in the real world where this picture matters you can compose your shot so you have enough crop room should you desire to do so. Depending on how most scenes are lit and what the background is you can get away with these characteristics. The thing that gets me is Canon has a superior and wider mount than Nikon that leaves so much room open for fine-tuning and tweaking to get it right. For me, the price point and performance of the 16-35 simply isn't worth it. That doesn't mean other people won't fall in love with this lens. Here's an example of how *ANY* lens can be hyped beyond the point of absurdity. I was on a wait list for almost a year for the mythical 18-200 VR. Yes, this piece of crap is a DX lens. I knew before ordering it there was going to be lots of shortcomings in build quality and optics, but I had to find out for myself and wasn't expecting too much. Well, I recently got it and it was less than I expected. I don't feel too bad since I was only temporally out $750 compared to the people that cheerfully fork over $900-$1,000 for this three legged dog. The bottom line is you have to be happy with the equipment you buy and use no matter what the reviews or anyone else say about it. Rita >> Now that I've thoroughly confused the issue, here's an untouched >> image shot with the Canon in question, at the focal length in [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Nice shot! I really like the stable of exotics in the background. That's the garage of the local Ferrari/Lamborghini/Aston Martin/Lotus/Bugatti dealer. There must have been $10m worth of cars in the two garages. This one had just come down from Pebble Beach, where it had been bought for $6.5m http://www.pbase.com/skipm/image/72699732/large And this was one of two there that day, and what I was there to photograph. $1.3m per copy, one sold that day, and a rare bargain, compared to the Ferrari above. http://www.pbase.com/skipm/image/71261896 OK, I > looked at the EXIF in this shot and it was set at f/4 instead of the > discussed f/2.8. For starters the corners are toast. The light falloff > and > vignetting are very pronounced and would be much worse wide-open. Yet another of my errors last night, I could have sworn I read f2.8. I don't really see the light fall of as that bad, but I'm used to it from film days. Some of what you are seeing as light fall of was actually the lighting in the place, notice the "spotlight effect" around the car. As far as softness, you're right, but some of it may be DOF, the focal point is up on the "Motul" lettering. Look at the side grill on the 250 California, next to it, or the windshield surround on the Dino 206P to the right of the image. Those look pretty sharp, even up on the top of the Dino. By the way, that's one of two that resides there. Here's another one you might find fun, http://www.pbase.com/skipm/image/72664583 A little light fall off in the upper and lower left, hard to tell on the right, the lighting is so poor. > Before > you get too excited in thinking I'm trying to slam you, I'm not. I think > you are a great photographer and I really like what you post Thanks! And in the > real world where this picture matters you can compose your shot so you > have > enough crop room should you desire to do so. Depending on how most scenes > are lit and what the background is you can get away with these > characteristics. That's the point I've been trying to make. And it's not just cropping room, so many subjects just don't have hard delineations that show up softness on the edges. Skys, cars, people... > The thing that gets me is Canon has a superior and wider mount than Nikon > that leaves so much room open for fine-tuning and tweaking to get it > right. > For me, the price point and performance of the 16-35 simply isn't worth > it. Well, since you have a lens that will serve the purpose, that makes sense. > That doesn't mean other people won't fall in love with this lens. I'm not really in love with the lens, I am aware of its limitations, but there isn't a good alternative out there. The Sigma 17-35 f2.8-4 HSM absolutel sux rocks, I had one, and the Nikkor you have won't AF on my camera, so, to me, thats' not an option. Here's an > example of how *ANY* lens can be hyped beyond the point of absurdity. I > was [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > equipment you buy and use no matter what the reviews or anyone else say > about it. Yup. SignatureSkip Middleton www.shadowcatcherimagery.com www.pbase.com/skipm > That's the garage of the local Ferrari/Lamborghini/Aston > Martin/Lotus/Bugatti dealer. There must have been $10m worth of cars [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > compared to the Ferrari above. > http://www.pbase.com/skipm/image/71261896 All I have to say is amazing! > Here's another one you might find fun, > http://www.pbase.com/skipm/image/72664583 > A little light fall off in the upper and lower left, hard to tell on > the right, the lighting is so poor. Now this one I really like! The real low perspective really brings this car to life and removes all the distracting clutter surrounding it. Getting on your knees was probably not low enough? In all honesty you have to look for light falloff in the corners and it really isn't there or standing out. The background lighting and shadowing really add so much depth to this. Was that the overhead shop light(s) or did you bounce some fill flash? Rita >> That's the garage of the local Ferrari/Lamborghini/Aston >> Martin/Lotus/Bugatti dealer. There must have been $10m worth of cars [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > background lighting and shadowing really add so much depth to this. Was > that the overhead shop light(s) or did you bounce some fill flash? That was just the lighting in the shop. And I was down on my stomach for that shot. SignatureSkip Middleton www.shadowcatcherimagery.com www.pbase.com/skipm >> Well, Rich, if you'd look at the link Rita provided, you'd see that >> the much vaunted Nikkor 17-35 ain't a whole lot better. And, in real [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > stuff on the edges are to save face. Most Nikkon shooters would moan in > disgust with that much softness and cropping needed to get a usable image. Now that I'm better rested, why did you say that I'd cropped the hell out of it? Just wondering, since the only cropping was to get it from 2:3 to 4:5 aspect ratio... The cool thing about that car is that it was one of two sitting side by side. I'd seen those cars in magazines, racing at Nurburgring and other places, as a teenager, but to see the pair of them, right there, was a tad overwhelming. Not legendary 330P3s, of course, but still outstanding in their own right. SignatureSkip Middleton www.shadowcatcherimagery.com www.pbase.com/skipm > Now that I'm better rested, why did you say that I'd cropped the hell > out of it? Just wondering, since the only cropping was to get it > from 2:3 to 4:5 aspect ratio... The aspect ratio was one reason and the general look and feel of the shot leads one to believe you did a bit more than change the aspect ration. I'm not saying that cropping is bad; it works nicely in this shot no matter how much cropping you did. I don't know why some people feel so negatively about cropping? It happens. Rita >> Now that I'm better rested, why did you say that I'd cropped the hell >> out of it? Just wondering, since the only cropping was to get it [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > much cropping you did. I don't know why some people feel so negatively > about cropping? It happens. Well, it sounded like you had a negative attitude toward it, "and you've cropped the hell out of it." Original: http://www.pbase.com/skipm/image/72664811 Crop: http://www.pbase.com/skipm/image/71261853 Not a huge difference... SignatureSkip Middleton www.shadowcatcherimagery.com www.pbase.com/skipm >> Rita Ä Berkowitz wrote: >> > Does anyone really use this lens on their 5D or 1Ds? After looking at [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > >http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/57631694/original First of all, it looks as if the shot was at a fairly long exposure time (no details on the web page) so the overall slight softness may be due to a touch of shake. The really interesting point, though, is that the edge softness (which I agree is quite visible) seems to my eye to be noticeably worse on the left side - the right seems much less affected, except the thing in the foreground which is probably out of focus. This suggests one of the lens elements is slightly misaligned, which is usually due to the lens having been dropped at some point in its existence. David SignatureDavid Littlewood >>> Rita Ä Berkowitz wrote: >>> > Does anyone really use this lens on their 5D or 1Ds? After looking at [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > > David Too, the things in the foreground are much closer than the supposed focal point, so depth of field has probably come into play. SignatureSkip Middleton www.shadowcatcherimagery.com www.pbase.com/skipm >>> Rita Ä Berkowitz wrote: >>> > Does anyone really use this lens on their 5D or 1Ds? After looking at [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >(no details on the web page) so the overall slight softness may be due >to a touch of shake. I'm a little unsure the shot was taken with a 5D or a 17-40L. I know I've seen this shot before, and I'm thinking it was the one RichA used to show the weakness of the 18-55mm "kit" lens? Regardless, it begs the question ... Why does someone who can take shots like this http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/58362807/large ... spend so much effort taking bad shots of the camera case display in Henry's using equipment he does not own, does not like, and will never buy? (Rich, FWIW, I think the Toranto Old City Hall Clock Tower is an interesting shot. The crop is a little too tight for my taste, the lines are a little skewed, and I would have changed position to remove the gargoyle peeking around the corner on the right side.) TR |
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.