 |
 | 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 / February 2007HORRIBLE vignetting with FF DSLRs
And here I thought it was only with WAs. These are not my shots, I noticed them after one of the shots was posted. Good shots, hampered by the camera lens. Telelphoto wide open. http://www.pbase.com/logear/image/74000263 WA stopped down, but look, actually image CUT OFF! Not just vignetting! http://www.pbase.com/logear/image/70768650 I'd say it's time Canon pulled it's finger out and DESIGNED lenses for digital sensors. Enough with relying on ancient film lenses to do a half-assed job. > And here I thought it was only with WAs. These are not my shots, I > noticed them after one of the shots was posted. > Good shots, hampered by the camera lens. LOL! This is why you make a $15 investment and buy a adapter so you can use your Nikkors on the 5D. You never see these problems on the 5D when the 17-35/2.8 or the 28-70/2.8 Nikkors are installed. I just can't see the logic in buying Canon's flagship dSLR for $7K and crippling it with cheap glass. Rita > And here I thought it was only with WAs. These are not my shots, I > noticed them after one of the shots was posted. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > digital sensors. > Enough with relying on ancient film lenses to do a half-assed job. Are you sure that the w/a shot wasn't from incorrect - or incorrectly fitted lens hood or filter(s)? Looks like that to me. I had a look at it in PTLens - and it's beyond repair IMO. I thought an expensive lens like 16-35 f2.8L would not be so bad. > I had a look at it in PTLens - and it's beyond repair IMO. > I thought an expensive lens like 16-35 f2.8L would not be so bad. Unfortunately, the 16-35/2.8 has been a major embarrassment for Canon on FF bodies. This really isn't anything new since this lens suffered from the same ailments when use with film. This is the driving force for many Canon shooters to buy the 17-35/2.8 Nikkor. Generally, any lens you have to use software to correct optical flaw isn't worth using. Rita >> I had a look at it in PTLens - and it's beyond repair IMO. >> I thought an expensive lens like 16-35 f2.8L would not be so bad. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > shooters to buy the 17-35/2.8 Nikkor. Generally, any lens you have to use > software to correct optical flaw isn't worth using. Rita, stop spreading and augmenting Rich's lies. The 16-35 is nowhere near as bad as that, and that obviously a poorly fitted or chosen lens hood on that shot. Since the lower corners are not as bad as the upper, my vote is for the poorly fitted hood. And there is no identification of the actual lens used, is there? Rita, additionally, there are so few people actually buying that Nikkor to mount on their 5D as to be insignificant. The only instances I've seen reported, other than you, of people using that lens on a 5D is by people who already had the lens because they already had Nikon gear and got tired of waiting for Sony to finally get off their corporate a.s and supply Nikon with a 35mm sized sensor.  SignatureSkip Middleton www.shadowcatcherimagery.com www.pbase.com/skipm And there is no identification of the actual > lens used, is there? The lens data is in the EXIF of the jpeg. I > And there is no identification of the actual >> lens used, is there? > > The lens data is in the EXIF of the jpeg. saw no lens brand ID in the EXIF, could you elucidate> SignatureSkip Middleton www.shadowcatcherimagery.com www.pbase.com/skipm > I >> And there is no identification of the actual >>> lens used, is there? >> The lens data is in the EXIF of the jpeg. >> > saw no lens brand ID in the EXIF, could you elucidate> You need to save the file on to your computer, and open it with an EXIF viewer that reads all of the fields. >> I >>> And there is no identification of the actual [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > You need to save the file on to your computer, and open it with an EXIF > viewer that reads all of the fields. oops - change that - EXIFRead didn't read it. PTLens did. With the other (telephoto) image PTLens identifies it as a 28-300 f3.5-5.6 EF L @ 200mm. > oops - change that - EXIFRead didn't read it. > PTLens did. > With the other (telephoto) image PTLens identifies it as a 28-300 > f3.5-5.6 EF L @ 200mm. You get what you pay for with a 28-300 lens. SignatureThomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: D281 77A5 63EE 82C5 5E68 00E4 7868 0ADC 4EFB 39F0 > And there is no identification of the actual >> lens used, is there? > > The lens data is in the EXIF of the jpeg. By the way, in light of the lack of lens ID, if that were a Canon lens, I'd suspect that it's a 24-105 f4, given the focal lengths and apertures used. The tele shot maybe, if it's a Canon, a 70-200 f2.8L, but there are other mfrs who produce that focal length and aperture in a lens. And the "vignetting" in the first shot isn't vignetting, I'd suspect the photographer is shooting through something that causes the effect at the edges. SignatureSkip Middleton www.shadowcatcherimagery.com www.pbase.com/skipm >> And there is no identification of the actual >>> lens used, is there? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > photographer is shooting through something that causes the effect at the > edges. Too bad the EXIF data doesn't record what filter was mounted! The second image sure looks like a filter is vignetting http://www.pbase.com/logear/image/70768650 > >> I had a look at it in PTLens - and it's beyond repair IMO. > >> I thought an expensive lens like 16-35 f2.8L would not be so bad. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > for the poorly fitted hood. And there is no identification of the actual > lens used, is there? You are talking rubbish. We see this all the time and you can't blame it on a lens hood. Reviews SAID that the 17-40L (for instance) has FIVE STOPS of light fall off at the edge of the frame with FF Canons. In addition, one of those shots is with a 200mm lens! What did he do, put a foot long lens hood on it?? On Feb 6, 10:58 pm, "Skip" <shadowcatc...@cox.net> wrote: > "Rita Ä Berkowitz" <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote in > messagenews:12si4pp7auhcj94@news.supernews.com... [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > for the poorly fitted hood. And there is no identification of the actual > lens used, is there? >You are talking rubbish. We see this all the time and you >can't blame >it on a lens hood. >Reviews SAID that the 17-40L (for instance) has FIVE >STOPS of light >fall off at the edge of the frame with >FF Canons. In addition, one of those shots is with a >200mm lens! >What did he do, put a foot long lens hood on it?? Rich, you are the one talking rubbish. You don't have the lens, have never used the lens, and probably have no intention of finding out if the rubbish you spew is based in fact. The dark, and sharp, edges of the alleged vignetting show that it is not light fall off, it is something blocking the light. Show me a review, other than yours, that shows 5 stops of light falloff. You can't, because it doesn't exist. 1-2 stops is all anyone reputable has come up with. The second shot is not vignetting, either. As I said, it looks as if the photographer is shooting through something, like vertical blinds. I've gotten a similar effect when shooting through a chain link fence, but square, rather than just on the sides. Keep showing how much of a fool you are, Rich, you have absolutely no credibility. Even Rita doesn't give you any, he just takes it as an opportunity to spout more about the Nikkor. SignatureSkip Middleton www.shadowcatcherimagery.com www.pbase.com/skipm > On Feb 6, 10:58 pm, "Skip" <shadowcatc...@cox.net> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > -- > Skip Middletonwww.shadowcatcherimagery.comwww.pbase.com/skipm Go out with your 5D (you do own one, right?) take your 17-40L lens (you do own one, right?) take a shot of a uniform area like the sky, -1 stop down with the lens set at f5.6, f4.0 and f2.8. Then pretend there is no vignetting. >> On Feb 6, 10:58 pm, "Skip" <shadowcatc...@cox.net> wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > set at f5.6, f4.0 and f2.8. > Then pretend there is no vignetting. He said he's never seen a reputable review showing more than one or two stops. You know, Rich, it's pretty easy to pretend you're right when you argue against things nobody has said. -Or perhaps you can show me where Skip said there is zero vignetting? SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson On Feb 8, 12:19 am, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote: > >> "RichA" <rander3...@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 64 lines] > -Or perhaps you can show me where Skip said there is zero vignetting? > -- Fine. He didn't say "no vignetting." The vignetting is documented enough on the net. When Canon finally does release lenses that don't (if they ever see fit to) you people will be fawning all over them. Then MAYBE you'll admit a problem exists with the current ones. IMO, vignetting runs a distant second to other edge ruining aberrations that can't be corrected in software. > On Feb 8, 12:19 am, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number > here)@cox..net> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 75 lines] > IMO, vignetting runs a distant second to other edge ruining > aberrations that can't be corrected in software. Who is fawning? There is definitely some vignetting at super-wide with large apertures. When someone comes up with a better alternative, I'll consider that alternative. Simple, really, and not the big deal you seem to think it is. SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson On Feb 8, 10:27 pm, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote: > > On Feb 8, 12:19 am, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number > > here)@cox..net> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 80 lines] > When someone comes up with a better alternative, I'll consider that > alternative. Simple, really, and not the big deal you seem to think it is. So the 200mm image edge darkening was all due to the lens hood? Why should this vignetting surprise anyone? I see vignetting with most lenses, but rarely as severe as that. > On Feb 8, 10:27 pm, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number > here)@cox..net> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 88 lines] > Why should this vignetting surprise anyone? I see vignetting with > most lenses, but rarely as severe as that. It has to be that, or some other obstruction. I haven't seen that on my 200mm lens. WIDE angle at large apertures show some vignetting, but that shot is far from wide angle. SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson > Fine. He didn't say "no vignetting." The vignetting is documented > enough on the net. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > IMO, vignetting runs a distant second to other edge ruining > aberrations that can't be corrected in software. Canon's 50/1.2 was supposed to be the new "Noct Killer" to hit the streets. Still amazingly enough most serious Canon shooters would rather spend $3,000+ for an old used worn out Noct than they would a brand new shiny Canon 50/1.2 at $1,500. The day Canon makes a lens that performs will be the day I throw all my Nikon gear in the dumpster. Rita > > Fine. He didn't say "no vignetting." The vignetting is documented > > enough on the net. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Rita I think if Canon had intended to do this, they'd have done it long ago. They haven't dragged their feet when it comes to sensors, but for whatever reason, they've decided to minimize their efforts on some lenses. Odd, coming from a company that has the material means to do much better. >> Fine. He didn't say "no vignetting." The vignetting is documented >> enough on the net. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Canon 50/1.2 at $1,500. The day Canon makes a lens that performs will be > the day I throw all my Nikon gear in the dumpster. You're well past the "dumster dues" date by your statement above. As I've mentioned to you before, Canon and others have lenses that outsharp / outcontrast the nominally equivalent Nikkor. Everyone can play the cherry picking game and come up with the "best line" from each manufacturer that makes the others look less than stellar. You can cherry pick a Nikkor line too. And you should. As to the 58mm Noct it is a very limited interest lens, now out of production and a rarity. That's where the high street price comes from. If it was such a "hot" lens, Nikon would be making them (or an updated version) still. As Canon are actually selling 50 f/1.2's, the price reflects cost and sales volume. While I prefer the Nikon metering system to Canon, if it came to a choice it would be hands down Canon. As much for the lenses as any other factor. Cheers, Alan 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: Remove FreeLunch. On Feb 11, 12:02 pm, Alan Browne <alan.bro...@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote: > >> Fine. He didn't say "no vignetting." The vignetting is documented > >> enough on the net. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > manufacturer that makes the others look less than stellar. You can > cherry pick a Nikkor line too. And you should. As they do, as the poster pointed out. But you know what some people (fanatical, admittedly) who own the 5D are doing? Having the mirrors "shaved" down to allow Leica lenses to fit. Not THATS a statement of lens quality if every there was one! > As to the 58mm Noct it is a very limited interest lens, now out of > production and a rarity. That's where the high street price comes from. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > As Canon are actually selling 50 f/1.2's, the price reflects cost and > sales volume. I'm pretty sure Canon "cheaped down" that lens for modern consumption. A 50mm lens with a handground aspherical element (as opposed to molded, cast or pressed) would cost far more than their current offering. Some info on earlier 50mm lenses: http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/canon/fdresources/fdlenses/50mm.htm > While I prefer the Nikon metering system to Canon, if it came to a > choice it would be hands down Canon. As much for the lenses as any > other factor. I think Canon macro and long, fast teles are pretty good, from most accounts. > On Feb 11, 12:02 pm, Alan Browne <alan.bro...@Freelunchvideotron.ca> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > "shaved" down to allow Leica lenses to fit. Not THATS a statement of > lens quality if every there was one! Who is doing this? -Someone who already HAS Leica lenses, and figures they may as well utilize them... I'd put money on the assertion that nobody is doing that who doesn't already own the glass... SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson >> As they do, as the poster pointed out. But you know what some people >> (fanatical, admittedly) who own the 5D are doing? Having the mirrors [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > utilize them... I'd put money on the assertion that nobody is doing that > who doesn't already own the glass... That's a bet you would actually lose, unless the guys at the "alternative systems" forum on fredmiranda are full of it. To those guys, prized "L" glass for their 5D's doesn't come with a red ring. >> Who is doing this? >> -Someone who already HAS Leica lenses, and figures they may as well [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > "alternative systems" forum on fredmiranda are full of it. To those > guys, prized "L" glass for their 5D's doesn't come with a red ring. You got it! They lust for the classic Nikkors. Rita >> That's a bet you would actually lose, unless the guys at the >> "alternative systems" forum on fredmiranda are full of it. To those >> guys, prized "L" glass for their 5D's doesn't come with a red ring. > > You got it! They lust for the classic Nikkors. In your dreams, maybe. Leica. Or simetimes Zeiss. Not often Nikkor. >>> As they do, as the poster pointed out. But you know what some people >>> (fanatical, admittedly) who own the 5D are doing? Having the mirrors [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > systems" forum on fredmiranda are full of it. To those guys, prized "L" > glass for their 5D's doesn't come with a red ring. That doesn't contradict what Mark said, from what I read on FM, those guys did have the glass, already. SignatureSkip Middleton www.shadowcatcherimagery.com www.pbase.com/skipm >>>> As they do, as the poster pointed out. But you know what some >>>> people (fanatical, admittedly) who own the 5D are doing? Having [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > That doesn't contradict what Mark said, from what I read on FM, those > guys did have the glass, already. Right. And the point is simple: Very FEW folks are doing this. SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson >> That doesn't contradict what Mark said, from what I read on FM, those >> guys did have the glass, already. > > Right. > And the point is simple: Very FEW folks are doing this. I'd say you'd have to be pretty damned anal about your photography to accept all that hassle, yes. >>>>> As they do, as the poster pointed out. But you know what some >>>>> people (fanatical, admittedly) who own the 5D are doing? Having [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >Right. >And the point is simple: Very FEW folks are doing this. Mark, You think these two (or is it three*) jokers want to pay attention to trivial distractions like facts? They are having too much fun in whatever la-la land they occupy. *They must be breeding - serves us right for feeding them. David SignatureDavid Littlewood > You think these two (or is it three*) jokers want to pay attention to > trivial distractions like facts? They are having too much fun in > whatever la-la land they occupy. LOL! Some people, mostly Canon users, get caught up with trying to save face instead of accepting the fact that WA Nikkors work so much better on the 5D than anything Canon can produce. Hey, if you're happy shooting with substandard lenses, by all means knock yourself out. Rita >> You think these two (or is it three*) jokers want to pay attention to >> trivial distractions like facts? They are having too much fun in [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >than anything Canon can produce. Hey, if you're happy shooting with >substandard lenses, by all means knock yourself out. If you read what I wrote (and what I was responding to), instead of just repeating your views, you will see that I have made no comment of any kind about how good Nikkors would be on a Canon body. I have never tried it, and I try to avoid expressing specific views about things of which I have no direct knowledge. What I actually commented on was assertions such as "most serious Canon shooters would rather spend $3,000 for an old worn out Noct than they would a brand new shiny Canon 50/1.2 at $1,500" (posted 1:05:52 on 10 February). I have never met, or seen, such a person, and at least in the UK have never seen it commented on in the photographic press. Tony Polson gave a much more sensible view: "Still, I would not pretend that this community (i.e. those using kludges to fit other brand lenses) represents a large proportion of Canon DSLR users". David SignatureDavid Littlewood >> LOL! Some people, mostly Canon users, get caught up with trying to >> save face instead of accepting the fact that WA Nikkors work so much [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > never tried it, and I try to avoid expressing specific views about > things of which I have no direct knowledge. LOL! Right! You've been doing a good job of bashing the D40 even though you haven't tried one. Have you tried the D200? I'll venture a guess not. > What I actually commented on was assertions such as "most serious > Canon shooters would rather spend $3,000 for an old worn out Noct [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > kludges to fit other brand lenses) represents a large proportion of > Canon DSLR users". It would seem like you are overestimating your importance again. What bearing does your observations or lack of have on the real world? Rita >>> LOL! Some people, mostly Canon users, get caught up with trying to >>> save face instead of accepting the fact that WA Nikkors work so much [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >though you haven't tried one. Have you tried the D200? I'll venture a >guess not. You seem determined to prove you are not following the plot. I do not recall ever mentioning the Nikon D40 here, or in any other forum. I have no first-hand knowledge of it. All the published comments I have seen about it seem favourable. Where do you allege I made these comments. >> What I actually commented on was assertions such as "most serious >> Canon shooters would rather spend $3,000 for an old worn out Noct [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >It would seem like you are overestimating your importance again. What >bearing does your observations or lack of have on the real world? Initially, about as much as yours. As you go on your current path ... well, I'll let others judge. David SignatureDavid Littlewood >> LOL! Right! You've been doing a good job of bashing the D40 even >> though you haven't tried one. Have you tried the D200? I'll [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > seen about it seem favourable. Where do you allege I made these > comments. It must be a terminal case of oldtimer's disease setting in or you find it necessary to use selective memory? Which is it? It must have been some other David Little"wood" that was crying like a child about the D40 not having an AF drive motor. Like if anyone really cares your comments are archived in Google should they want to refresh their memory. >> It would seem like you are overestimating your importance again. What >> bearing does your observations or lack of have on the real >> world? > Initially, about as much as yours. As you go on your current path ... > well, I'll let others judge. Unlike you, I'm not trying to convince anybody of anything. My comments are put out for the reader's general information and entertainment. And should they fail to get either from my comments that's on them, not me. Rita > My comments are > put out for the reader's general information and entertainment. And should > they fail to get either from my comments that's on them, not me. <<Encroyable>>. The height of his (/"Rita's"/) arrogance. Signaturelsmft >>> LOL! Right! You've been doing a good job of bashing the D40 even >>> though you haven't tried one. Have you tried the D200? I'll [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >having an AF drive motor. Like if anyone really cares your comments are >archived in Google should they want to refresh their memory. I repeat, I have never made a single comment, anywhere, about the D40. If you think I did, prove it with a reference. >>> It would seem like you are overestimating your importance again. What >>> bearing does your observations or lack of have on the real [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >put out for the reader's general information and entertainment. And should >they fail to get either from my comments that's on them, not me. I think that just about says all we need to know. David SignatureDavid Littlewood >>>>> As they do, as the poster pointed out. But you know what some >>>>> people (fanatical, admittedly) who own the 5D are doing? Having [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >Right. >And the point is simple: Very FEW folks are doing this. On the contrary, many have. Mass production of Leica R and Contax to EF mount adapters plus the significant rise in used prices of Leica and Contax glass is no coincidence. It has now become difficult to find used Leica R and Contax lenses because so many of them are doing duty on Canon EOS DSLR bodies. I'm partly responsible, with six Contax lenses. ;-} Still, I would not pretend that this community represents a large proportion of Canon DSLR users. >>>>>> As they do, as the poster pointed out. But you know what some >>>>>> people (fanatical, admittedly) who own the 5D are doing? Having [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > Still, I would not pretend that this community represents a large > proportion of Canon DSLR users. But, Tony, are they buying the Leica R and Contax lenses after they buy the 5D, or did they already own them before they bought the 5D? SignatureSkip Middleton www.shadowcatcherimagery.com www.pbase.com/skipm >>>And the point is simple: Very FEW folks are doing this. >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >But, Tony, are they buying the Leica R and Contax lenses after they buy the >5D, or did they already own them before they bought the 5D? Personally, I bought all my Contax lenses after buying the 5D. However, I am sure that many Leica R and Contax users must have seen the Canon EOS 5D (or 1Ds) as the perfect upgrade path to digital, subject to the limitatons of using an adapter. So you have a point. On the other hand, the online forums at FredMiranda.com do suggest that many Canon users have picked up Leica R and Contax glass to use on their Caon DSLR bodies. As to the split of numbers of Leica R/Contax users upgrading to digital, versus the numbers of Canon owners discovering the delights of "German" glass, that is anyone's guess. And I would not even want to hazard a guess as to what that split might be. I use the word "German" with care because much of the Leica glass used was made in Canada or even Japan, and most of the Carl Zeiss for Contax glass came from Kyocera Yashica. >> Still, I would not pretend that this community represents a large >> proportion of Canon DSLR users. >> > But, Tony, are they buying the Leica R and Contax lenses after they > buy the 5D, or did they already own them before they bought the 5D? Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Does it really matter? The whole idea that someone is doing it speaks volumes about Canon's inability to make anything beyond mediocre WA glass. You have even demonstrated your disgust in the 16-35/2.8. It's sad when you have to crop off 35% of an image to hide the defects since "nobody cares or looks at the corners." Rita >>> Still, I would not pretend that this community represents a large >>> proportion of Canon DSLR users. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > in the 16-35/2.8. It's sad when you have to crop off 35% of an image to > hide the defects since "nobody cares or looks at the corners." Rita, find a single instance of me "demonstrating" my disgust with that lens. Go on, show us all. And then show us side by side comparisons of the Nikkor 17-35 and the Canon 16-35, wide open, and the widest focal length, on the 5D. You're really the only person here capable of doing so, since you have the 5D, Nikkor and the adaptor for it. Time to prove your point, rather than just babble about it. SignatureSkip Middleton www.shadowcatcherimagery.com www.pbase.com/skipm >> Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Does it really matter? The >> whole [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > adaptor for it. Time to prove your point, rather than just babble > about it. Wasn't it you that claimed, "nobody cares or looks at the corners" or is there another Skip out here? Like you, I'll just give the lame excuse that "it's not worth it to me renting" a 16-35. Maybe you'd send me yours for a few days? Naw, never mind... Hey, in the end it really doesn't matter, does it? Your happy with vignetting and major light fall off and I'm happy with clear crisp images. Rita >>> Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Does it really matter? The >>> whole [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > happy > with clear crisp images. I didn't claim that, and that hardly "demonstrates" any disgust with the lens, anyway. And for me, it's a case of purchasing the adaptor, not renting the lens. I don't have to rent it, I can snag one on load for a little while, long enough to use it, anyway. You already have the adaptor, so, what the heck. And I'm happy with images that are sharp, too, especially with the 16-35 wide open, which is where it spends an awful lot of time. SignatureSkip Middleton www.shadowcatcherimagery.com www.pbase.com/skipm >> Wasn't it you that claimed, "nobody cares or looks at the corners" >> or is there another Skip out here? Like you, I'll just give the [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > are sharp, too, especially with the 16-35 wide open, which is where > it spends an awful lot of time. Buy the adapter and borrow the legendary 17-37/2.8 so you can see what you're missing. It's a shame you have to crop 35% of an image taken with the 16-35/2.8. So sad. Rita >>> Wasn't it you that claimed, "nobody cares or looks at the corners" >>> or is there another Skip out here? Like you, I'll just give the [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > you're missing. It's a shame you have to crop 35% of an image taken with > the 16-35/2.8. So sad. I don't, and what do you do about the soft center image when you have to use the 17-35 wide open? I guess you just don't have the stones to back up your claims... SignatureSkip Middleton www.shadowcatcherimagery.com www.pbase.com/skipm >> Buy the adapter and borrow the legendary 17-37/2.8 so you can see >> what you're missing. It's a shame you have to crop 35% of an image >> taken with the 16-35/2.8. So sad. > > I don't, and what do you do about the soft center image when you have > to use the 17-35 wide open? Tell people that I'm shooting L glass, they understand and sympathize. > I guess you just don't have the stones to back up your claims... Nope. Rita >>> Buy the adapter and borrow the legendary 17-37/2.8 so you can see >>> what you're missing. It's a shame you have to crop 35% of an image [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Tell people that I'm shooting L glass, they understand and sympathize. If they shoot L glass, they wouldn't believe you >> I guess you just don't have the stones to back up your claims... > > Nope. Thought not. SignatureSkip Middleton www.shadowcatcherimagery.com www.pbase.com/skipm >>>> Wasn't it you that claimed, "nobody cares or looks at the corners" >>>> or is there another Skip out here? Like you, I'll just give the [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > to use the 17-35 wide open? > I guess you just don't have the stones to back up your claims... You're far too patient, Skip. Kill file the "gentleman" and let him crawl back under his bridge... SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson >>>>> Wasn't it you that claimed, "nobody cares or looks at the corners" >>>>> or is there another Skip out here? Like you, I'll just give the [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > You're far too patient, Skip. > Kill file the "gentleman" and let him crawl back under his bridge... If I kill filed him, I couldn't bait him. But it has gotten tiresome, which is why I called his bluff. He folded, so I'll walk away from the table. Besides, I've got about 400 images of a girl (I WAY over shot, but she was cute!) to edit down by Sunday, so I don't have the time to play around, here. SignatureSkip Middleton www.shadowcatcherimagery.com www.pbase.com/skipm > If I kill filed him, I couldn't bait him. But it has gotten > tiresome, which is why I called his bluff. He folded, so I'll walk > away from the table. Besides, I've got about 400 images of a girl (I > WAY over shot, but she was cute!) to edit down by Sunday, so I don't > have the time to play around, here. You only walked away from the table in disgust and shame because you couldn't bait me. That's why I gave you a simple and straightforward "NO" to your childish pissing contest. I mean, Skip, you really shouldn't get disgusted since my only goal was to simply help you improve your WA performance. What's the point of using FF when you have to surgically remove 35% of an image by cropping? That being the case, you might as well just slap the old 16-35/2.8 on a 20D so you can hide those pesky corners. Oh, you can killfile me if you want. It won't change the facts since it didn't in Mark's case. Look at Mark, he "claims" he has me in there, but he knows he hasn't the balls to admit he's wrong and live up to his end of his little pissing contest by honoring his word he voluntarily agreed to. Shameful. I have more respect for you Skip. That's why I was trying to help you with your WA dilemma. Rita >> If I kill filed him, I couldn't bait him. But it has gotten >> tiresome, which is why I called his bluff. He folded, so I'll walk [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > help > you with your WA dilemma. That was not a "childish pissing contest." That was a call for you to back up what you say, since you provide no evidence that what you say is the truth. The only way you could actually help anyone, including me, is to show an actual comparison of the two lenses. So far, all the evidence you've ever provided was a link to a site on which, besides the extremely over sharpened Nikon and Leica images, the Nikoncentric site owner conceded that the 16-35 Canon was sharper at the center, wide open, than the Nikkor equivalent. Since the reason I even own the lens is the need to shoot it wide and wide open, having a lens that is less sharp under those conditions would be not only silly, but a disservice to my clients. Not to mention the fact that the Nikkor won't function as designed on my 5D, i.e. it won't autofocus. I don't have to crop by 35%, I'm not cropping by any more than to change the ratio from 3:2 to 4:5, if that. We're talking just a few millimeters in any given direction. My disgust is only about your refusal to actually provide evidence that backs up your outlandish claims, not just about the 17-35 vs the 16-35, but other Canon lenses, too. You were not trying to help me, or anyone else. You were just engaging in empty crowing, and you know it. You are way too predictable. And you have not added anything useful to the conversation, at any point, despite what you say. Because you have not backed up what you've said. SignatureSkip Middleton www.shadowcatcherimagery.com www.pbase.com/skipm >>> If I kill filed him, I couldn't bait him. But it has gotten >>> tiresome, which is why I called his bluff. He folded, so I'll walk >>> away from the table. Besides, I've got about 400 images of a girl (I >>> WAY over shot, but she was cute!) to edit down by Sunday, so I don't >>> have the time to play around, here. > My disgust is only about your refusal to actually provide evidence > that backs up your outlandish claims, not just about the 17-35 vs the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > useful to the conversation, at any point, despite what you say. Because > you have not backed up what you've said. Come on Skip, you're not fooling me, but I know you might be fooling yourself. As I said earlier, and you have admitted that you're just baiting me. I have no problems backing up what I say. I will do it on my terms, not yours or anyone else's. You're playing the same childish game Mark played. I knew Mark wouldn't live up to his end of the bargain, but I still gave him the benefit of the doubt. Like Mark, you are as predictable. Just in case you forgot what you said a couple posts back, "If I kill filed him, I couldn't bait him." Like the old saying, "Toby doesn't play these games." As for the images from the 5D with the 17-35/2.8, I'll tell you what Mark told me, "I'll post them when I get around to it." The difference is I will post my images. Rita >>>> If I kill filed him, I couldn't bait him. But it has gotten >>>> tiresome, which is why I called his bluff. He folded, so I'll walk [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > will > post my images. I don't care on whose terms you do it, just do it. And what "childish game" is it I'm supposed to be playing? Or, for that matter, Mark? SignatureSkip Middleton www.shadowcatcherimagery.com www.pbase.com/skipm >>>>> If I kill filed him, I couldn't bait him. But it has gotten >>>>> tiresome, which is why I called his bluff. He folded, so I'll [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > And what "childish game" is it I'm supposed to be playing? Or, for > that matter, Mark? I think he's referring to my office picture...where I used IS at wide angle and slow shutter speed. Rita crapped a brick over that, and blathered on and on about how IS is useless for anything below 50mm. Sheesh, is he still obsessing over that? He seems to think that any time some arse such as himself asks for a test comparison within the context of his being a complete a.s, that I'm supposed to jump. What a laugh. Frankly I don't see what the beef is. It's true that there is much less to be gained using IS at wide angle. So what? I shot at 24mm at 1/10th and 1/4th second using IS, which Rita feels is pointless. I think he said something like "lean against the door frame" or some such suggestion...as though my goal was to photograph my office. :) I wanted to shoot an image where I specifically did NOT use bracing...since (shock and horror) there ARE times where there is nothing to brace against but your own face or other body part...so I tried just that. What's funny to me is that he's apparently been an complete a.s over that for MONTHS...even with no direct contact with me. He's either obsessive-compulsive, has no life aside from me...or he's in love with me (possible...seeing as he's a man using a woman's name, for crying out loud). I guess what it really comes down to is, as evidenced by what I do see of his posts) the fact that Rita is simply an a.s in general...so I shouldn't be surprised. I did a little comparison with and without IS, and to a certain extent, and as I've said...it becomes less and less beneficial the wider you go...but not to the point of making ZERO difference up to 50mm as he likes to insist. If you're reading this, Rita...give it a rest...or...continue with your pathetic little obsession. Whatever, chum. We're in partial agreement here, but if you're going to piss and moan on and on because I don't completely agree...that's your own moronic problem, and I could give a rat's arse whether you obsess for the next year or ten. Personally, I don't see anything from Rita other than echoes of his constant trolling via other people's posted quotes. RIP, Rita...or whatever your real chump name is... Go back to shooting ducks in a pond, or whatever it is you do with your camera... SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson >> I don't care on whose terms you do it, just do it. >> And what "childish game" is it I'm supposed to be playing? Or, for [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > time some arse such as himself asks for a test comparison within the > context of his being a complete a.s, that I'm supposed to jump. LOL! No obsession, I just foolishly expected and predicted you wouldn't live up to your end of the agreement of posting your pictures after I posted mine. We both know you were wrong, but the child in you doesn't let you admit this in public. Same applies to Skip, he knows the old 17-35/2.8 Nikkor is so much better than the 16-35/2.8 on the 5D that he won't admit it in public. He'd rather play your baiting game as a diversionary tactic. BTW, how's that IS working on the wide end that you were bragging about? LOL! Rita >> As for the images from the 5D with the 17-35/2.8, I'll tell you what >> Mark told me, "I'll post them when I get around to it." The >> difference is I will >> post my images. > > I don't care on whose terms you do it, just do it. No. Rita >>> As for the images from the 5D with the 17-35/2.8, I'll tell you what >>> Mark told me, "I'll post them when I get around to it." The [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > No. (shrug) SignatureSkip Middleton www.shadowcatcherimagery.com www.pbase.com/skipm >>>> Still, I would not pretend that this community represents a large >>>> proportion of Canon DSLR users. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >have the 5D, Nikkor and the adaptor for it. >Time to prove your point, rather than just babble about it. Skip, s/he won't, because s/he can't. Besides, random scattergun insults are *so* much more fun, and easier... David SignatureDavid Littlewood > Skip, s/he won't, because s/he can't. Besides, random scattergun > insults are *so* much more fun, and easier... Why do you find it insulting that the 16-35/2.8 has so much light falloff? That monkey is on your back, not mine since I use the legendary 17-35/2.8. Rita >> Skip, s/he won't, because s/he can't. Besides, random scattergun >> insults are *so* much more fun, and easier... > > Why do you find it insulting that the 16-35/2.8 has so much light falloff? > That monkey is on your back, not mine since I use the legendary 17-35/2.8. Quit finding excuses to not prove your point, and do it. Otherwise, your "credibility" may suffer. ;-) SignatureSkip Middleton www.shadowcatcherimagery.com www.pbase.com/skipm >> Why do you find it insulting that the 16-35/2.8 has so much light >> falloff? That monkey is on your back, not mine since I use the >> legendary 17-35/2.8. > > Quit finding excuses to not prove your point, and do it. Otherwise, > your "credibility" may suffer. ;-) The legendary 17-35/2.8 Nikkor has no credibility issues. Rita >>> Why do you find it insulting that the 16-35/2.8 has so much light >>> falloff? That monkey is on your back, not mine since I use the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > The legendary 17-35/2.8 Nikkor has no credibility issues. It doesn't, you do. Quit stalling and get to work. Or are you afraid of what you might find? SignatureSkip Middleton www.shadowcatcherimagery.com www.pbase.com/skipm >> The legendary 17-35/2.8 Nikkor has no credibility issues. > > It doesn't, you do. Quit stalling and get to work. Or are you > afraid of what you might find? No worries on my end. Rita >>> The legendary 17-35/2.8 Nikkor has no credibility issues. >> >> It doesn't, you do. Quit stalling and get to work. Or are you >> afraid of what you might find? > > No worries on my end. The "lady" protests too much. SignatureSkip Middleton www.shadowcatcherimagery.com www.pbase.com/skipm >>>>> David Littlewood writes: David> Skip, s/he won't, because s/he can't. Besides, random scattergun David> insults are *so* much more fun, and easier... Please do not feed the trolls, they like it and it just increases the annoyance factor they crave. SignatureAndrew Hall (Now reading Usenet in rec.photo.digital.slr-systems...) On Feb 11, 4:05 pm, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote: > > On Feb 11, 12:02 pm, Alan Browne <alan.bro...@Freelunchvideotron.ca> > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > them... I'd put money on the assertion that nobody is doing that who > doesn't already own the glass... You'd lose mightily. There are plenty of instances of people who only have Canon gear asking for advise on which alternate lens to buy. Just read the forum messages if you are really curious. >> Who is doing this? >> -Someone who already HAS Leica lenses, and figures they may as well [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > have Canon gear asking for advise on which alternate lens to buy. > Just read the forum messages if you are really curious. You're not kidding! After putting the 17-35/2.8 and Noct on the old 5D those two lenses are now married to it. They will never go back on the Nikon dSLRs nor will the 5D ever be touched with Canon glass again. Rita >> Canon's 50/1.2 was supposed to be the new "Noct Killer" to hit the >> streets. Still amazingly enough most serious Canon shooters would [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > You're well past the "dumster dues" date by your statement above. Maybe or maybe not. > As I've mentioned to you before, Canon and others have lenses that > outsharp / outcontrast the nominally equivalent Nikkor. Everyone can > play the cherry picking game and come up with the "best line" from > each manufacturer that makes the others look less than stellar. You > can cherry pick a Nikkor line too. And you should. They certainly aren't on the wide end. Canon seems to have the edge in the marketing department for IS on the long end. And people that feel they need IS/VR on 400mm+ lenses are gravitating towards Canon. I've even briefly thought about going long with Canon. As for cherry picking, you're right. There's no shame in using both platforms to get the best tools for your needs. > As to the 58mm Noct it is a very limited interest lens, now out of > production and a rarity. That's where the high street price comes > from. If it was such a "hot" lens, Nikon would be making them (or an > updated version) still. Well, from what I gather from what I've read the Noct and 28/1.4 were discontinued because the manufacturing process contained lead and wasn't to environmentally friendly. How true this is I'm not sure, but I don't think you'll find too many inner-city kids cutting teeth on a Noct. I wish they would introduce an AF-S version of the old Noct so that everyone can have easy access to one. Would it be as good as the classic? I doubt it. > As Canon are actually selling 50 f/1.2's, the price reflects cost and > sales volume. I'm really not convinced it costs Nikon or Canon a lot to make either one of these lenses. Personally, I would like to see Canon come up with some killer glass. I would buy it in a heartbeat. I wonder how many 50/1.2s Canon sold to date? Any way to find out? > While I prefer the Nikon metering system to Canon, if it came to a > choice it would be hands down Canon. As much for the lenses as any > other factor. Like I said a long time ago, if you are just starting out and trying to decide which platform to chose it would come down to flipping a coin. Rita >> As to the 58mm Noct it is a very limited interest lens, now out of >> production and a rarity. That's where the high street price comes [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > discontinued because the manufacturing process contained lead and wasn't to > environmentally friendly. How true this is I'm not sure, but I don't think That would do it, OTOH there are other "rare earth" elements used in glass making that can make up for the change from lead. RoHS rules in Europe also have to be complied to (and Pb is abig no-no among many others). > you'll find too many inner-city kids cutting teeth on a Noct. I wish they > would introduce an AF-S version of the old Noct so that everyone can have [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > killer glass. I would buy it in a heartbeat. I wonder how many 50/1.2s > Canon sold to date? Any way to find out? No idea. The costs in these lenses are high as they cannot be done on an automated serial production process (without at least a massive capital investment which would also drive up the costs). Each piece of glass has a lot of "touch" labour on it. >> While I prefer the Nikon metering system to Canon, if it came to a >> choice it would be hands down Canon. As much for the lenses as any >> other factor. > > Like I said a long time ago, if you are just starting out and trying to > decide which platform to chose it would come down to flipping a coin. It comes down to the co. that has affordable FF sensors and control over its own sensor fab and glass making. That's Canon. Nikon are beholden to Sony (or other sensor makers like Kodak if they go that way). Cheers, Alan 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: Remove FreeLunch. >>> As to the 58mm Noct it is a very limited interest lens, now out of >>> production and a rarity. That's where the high street price comes [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >Europe also have to be complied to (and Pb is abig no-no among many >others). Yes, we seem to have more than our fair share of terminally stupid bureaucrats in Europe. How many SLR lenses do they think will end up in landfill, and how much lead will leach out of the glass if they did? Probably a lot less than the lead which is going to leach out of the lead ore that will now be left in the ground! The ancient Greeks had a wonderful proverb: "Those whom the gods wish to destroy, they first make mad". I think the modern-day version should be "Those whom the gods wish to destroy, they first give bureaucrats". David "If all the bureaucrats in the world were put in a line between here and the Sun, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . the world would be a much better place. (Anon) SignatureDavid Littlewood www.pbase.com/skipm On Feb 7, 9:27 pm, "Skip" <shadowcatc...@cox.net> wrote: > "RichA" <rander3...@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] > -- > Skip Middletonwww.shadowcatcherimagery.comwww.pbase.com/skipm >Go out with your 5D (you do own one, right?) take your 17-40L lens >(you do own one, right?) >take a shot of a uniform area like the sky, -1 stop down with the lens >set at f5.6, f4.0 and f2.8. >Then pretend there is no vignetting. No, I do not have a 17-40, I have a 5D and a 16-35. I've posted links to images shot with the combination, wide open and stopped down to f8. I never said there was no vignetting, I said that what was in that image was not vignetting, it appears to be a misaligned lens hood. Is your reading comprehension really that bad? Just in case you don't remember those links I posted, and I know you looked at them, because you commented on them, they are: http://www.pbase.com/skipm/image/50900668 And: http://www.pbase.com/skipm/image/50900669 And avoid the implication that I don't have the equipment in question, since you don't, and you don't shoot any images of consequence with the equipment in question, you really shouldn't go there. SignatureSkip Middleton www.shadowcatcherimagery.com > Just in case you don't remember those links I posted, and I know you looked > at them, because you commented on them, they are:http://www.pbase.com/skipm/image/50900668 > And:http://www.pbase.com/skipm/image/50900669 It's pretty bad wide open, isn't it! How is it at f/4? Closer to f/2.8 or to f/8? On Feb 9, 5:57 am, achilleaslazari...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: > > Just in case you don't remember those links I posted, and I know you looked > > at them, because you commented on them, they are:http://www.pbase.com/skipm/image/50900668 > > And:http://www.pbase.com/skipm/image/50900669 > > It's pretty bad wide open, isn't it! Bad=soft here. > On Feb 9, 5:57 am, achilleaslazari...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Bad=soft here. At the edges, yes, but don't forget that you have DOF issues involved, here, too, on a lens that wide. SignatureSkip Middleton www.shadowcatcherimagery.com www.pbase.com/skipm >> Just in case you don't remember those links I posted, and I know you >> looked [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > It's pretty bad wide open, isn't it! How is it at f/4? Closer to f/2.8 > or to f/8? It's not nearly as bad as Rich makes it out to be, though. One stop down, it's closer to f2.8 than f8, of course. SignatureSkip Middleton www.shadowcatcherimagery.com www.pbase.com/skipm > <achilleaslazari...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > It's not nearly as bad as Rich makes it out to be, though. One stop down, > it's closer to f2.8 than f8, of course. I posted a reply to Rich, to the effect that I have shots from a Nikon 18-70 with a thick polariser that show the same effect (as well as from various wideangles on my ancient Minolta XD7). I was asking because it seems pretty soft to me compared to the 17-40 that I once used for a while (although on a 20D, and I didn't use it much either). Is it really that worse at f/4? > FF Canons. In addition, one of those shots is with a 200mm lens! > What did he do, put a foot long lens hood on it?? Hell no! That's a Budweiser can. Rita > > Rita, stop spreading and augmenting Rich's lies. The 16-35 is nowhere near > > as bad as that, and that obviously a poorly fitted or chosen lens hood on [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > FF Canons. In addition, one of those shots is with a 200mm lens! > What did he do, put a foot long lens hood on it?? What do you see all the time? The effect seen on the photograph with light being blocked at the edges (the one that is blocked) is very obviously a too-thick filter or some other attachment to the front of the lens. There's not much point arguing about it, I can show you exactly the same effect on my Nikon 18-70mm with a polariser when wide open at 18mm, and I also have some slides from a Minolta XD7 with who knows what wide angle that I borrowed and fit a cheap polariser on. It is true that there is some pretty impressive falloff on some of the canon zooms, but this isn't an example of it (and it's not so extreme). > What do you see all the time? The effect seen on the photograph with > light being blocked at the edges (the one that is blocked) is very [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > open at 18mm, and I also have some slides from a Minolta XD7 with who > knows what wide angle that I borrowed and fit a cheap polariser on. I can see pretty much the same effect - but not quite such sharp and severe cut-off with a Nikkor 18-70 @ either 18 or 70mm fully wide - without any filter on at all. Fortunately for that lens, the effect essentially vanishes at >20mm or so (where the lens is a stellar performer), or when stopped down. I thought it was the filter ring, but a few test shots confirmed that it wasn't. Even my ultra-wide Sigma 10-20 has no (mechanical) vignetting fully wide @ 10mm with a normal (not slim) filter fitted - although it does have similar (but better as it is less defined and more easily corrected) light fall-off than the 18-70. Not that you usually get real life situations where you need to correct this - as @10mm illumination in/from the sky varies wildly, a bit of light fall-off isn't noticed. But I do routinely use PTLens to correct light fall-off when stitching panoramas containing blue sky - and that is IMO the WTG for completely banding-free stitched skies. > achilleaslazari...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: > > the lens. There's not much point arguing about it, I can show you [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > performer), or when stopped down. I thought it was the filter ring, but > a few test shots confirmed that it wasn't. OK, I almost never use that lens to be honest. Maybe I'll get it out tomorrow and check (if I remember). But I have a polariser that, when fitted to it, gives exactly this effect when wide open (ie it's too thick). > Even my ultra-wide Sigma 10-20 has no (mechanical) vignetting fully wide > @ 10mm with a normal (not slim) filter fitted - although it does have > similar (but better as it is less defined and more easily corrected) > light fall-off than the 18-70. Not that you usually get real life > situations where you need to correct this - as @10mm illumination > in/from the sky varies wildly, a bit of light fall-off isn't noticed. Yes, the Sigma 10-20 is a suprisingly good lens. Besides the vignetting (which isn't as bad as I'd expect) and slight softening on the left bottom and when wide open on mine, I can't complain (ok, some flare too, but just look at the front element: of course it flares if you push it). And it's built very well too, and has full- time manual focusing, which I think is just as important. I was very pleasantly surprised by it. > Yes, the Sigma 10-20 is a suprisingly good lens. Besides the > vignetting (which isn't as bad as I'd expect) and slight softening on [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > time manual focusing, which I think is just as important. I was very > pleasantly surprised by it. For a "digital-only" lens it has a very impressive image circle. It can be used on the Canon 1D series (not 1Ds obviously) with reasonable results. There is mucho light falloff at the corners, but the image circle covers the sensor from 12mm upwards. >> And here I thought it was only with WAs. These are not my shots, I >> noticed them after one of the shots was posted. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > I had a look at it in PTLens - and it's beyond repair IMO. > I thought an expensive lens like 16-35 f2.8L would not be so bad. That second image looks like blockage to me, too. Lens vignetting isn't that abrupt. The FIRST image looks wrong, too. The entire right side is dark, rather than mainly the corners. Normal vignetting doesn't look like that. SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson >> And here I thought it was only with WAs. These are not my shots, I >> noticed them after one of the shots was posted. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >I had a look at it in PTLens - and it's beyond repair IMO. >I thought an expensive lens like 16-35 f2.8L would not be so bad. Where did you see which lens was used? I looked at the EXIF info; it's not there. SignatureSan Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom admitted to having an affair with his friend's wife while he was divorcing Fox News anchor Kimberly Guilfoyle. The city may never forgive him. If there's one thing they can't stand, it's somebody who's in bed with Fox News. The idea of "fixing" vignetting in software only goes as far as thinking that underexposed areas brought up to a normal level of illumination somehow look identical to properly exposed areas. Colour, noise, detail. Does anyone believe that? > The idea of "fixing" vignetting in software only goes as far as >thinking that underexposed areas brought up to a normal level of >illumination somehow look identical to properly exposed areas. >Colour, noise, detail. Does anyone believe that? I'll ask again: "Where did you see which lens was used? I looked at the EXIF info; it's not there." I have no idea why you wrote the above in response to my question. SignatureSenator Barack Obama announced his candidacy for president Saturday from |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message