 |
 | 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 2007Canon admits "our old FILM WA's suck!"
By "vastly improving" the peripheral sharpness (about time) on their L- glass. Canon: The EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM is set to become the ultra wide-angle zoom of choice for professionals. With vastly improved peripheral sharpness, it replaces the popular EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM as Canon's leading wide-angle zoom. A constant f/2.8 aperture ensures exceptional low light performance and depth-of-field control throughout the zoom range. > By "vastly improving" the peripheral sharpness (about time) on their L- > glass. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > low light performance and depth-of-field control throughout the zoom > range. So the EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM is going to replace the EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM ??????? >> By "vastly improving" the peripheral sharpness (about time) on their >> L- glass. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > So the EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM is going to replace the EF 16-35mm > f/2.8L II USM ??????? It's RichA... You have to adapt your reading a bit...  SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson On Feb 22, 1:54 am, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote: > >> By "vastly improving" the peripheral sharpness (about time) on their > >> L- glass. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > It's RichA... > You have to adapt your reading a bit... Admit it. All the hammering they've taken with their FF cameras FORCED them to FINALLY update a lens design. Could mean fewer people looking at cobbled-on alternative brands to achieve the image quality they want. > On Feb 22, 1:54 am, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number > here)@cox..net> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Admit it. All the hammering they've taken with their FF cameras > FORCED them to FINALLY update a lens design. Then why did they replace the 17-35 with the 16-35 a few years back? > Could mean fewer people looking at cobbled-on alternative brands to > achieve the image quality they want. Fewer than the present few? That's very "few" indeed. I don't think there's any doubt that Canon's move to full frame digital has a lot to to do with why the lens has been scrutinized more. I also think, though, that many folks have forgotten what gull-frame film did to the corners of their lenses... It wasn't perfect either... I'm just glad we have bodies that are capable of literally pushing the limits of these lenses. SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson On Feb 23, 4:47 am, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote: > though, that many folks have forgotten what gull-frame film did to the gotta love the mental image evoked by a "gull-frame" piece of film doing violence to th edge of a lens :) welcome to our website: http://soease.tiaozheng.com > On Feb 23, 4:47 am, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number > here)@cox..net> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > gotta love the mental image evoked by a "gull-frame" piece of film > doing violence to th edge of a lens :) Ya, my brain was doing the talking, but my fingers did the walking... Oops. :) SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson welcome to our website: http://soease.tiaozheng.com welcome to our website: http://soease.tiaozheng.com I also think, > though, that many folks have forgotten what gull-frame film did to the > corners of their lenses... "Gull-frame?" Isn't that camera reservered for birders? SignatureSkip Middleton www.shadowcatcherimagery.com www.pbase.com/skipm welcome to our website: http://soease.tiaozheng.com >On Feb 22, 1:54 am, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number >here)@cox..net> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >Could mean fewer people looking at cobbled-on alternative brands to >achieve the image quality they want. By this reckoning, every new model is an admission that the replaced model was an abject failure. Which means everytime you learn something new, what you knew before was just wrong. So, if you ever learn somethign new, what you say now is obviously wrong. Since you are constantly learning new things, wnat you say now is wrong. This explains a lot about what you say here, doesn't it? SignatureThe National Institutes of Health reported Monday that giving money to worthy causes stimulates exactly the same area of the brain that sex does. That explains why Bill Clinton does so much charity work. It's another way of cheating on Hillary. welcome to our website: http://soease.tiaozheng.com welcome to our website: http://soease.tiaozheng.com welcome to our website: http://soease.tiaozheng.com welcome to our website: http://soease.tiaozheng.com welcome to our website: http://soease.tiaozheng.com welcome to our website: http://soease.tiaozheng.com Improving the optical quality of a lens should be considered a Good Thing, and yet you're able to turn it into a negative. Maybe the fine folks at Henrys will let play with one - I always enjoy your "test" shots of the camera case display. FWIW, not everyone is bashing the original EF 16-35 f/2.8L USM. There are some very positive comments on.... http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=2&sort=7&thecat=27 http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/16-35.shtml OTOH, as someone suggested earlier, you need to adjust your AFDB. Remember to make sure the shiny side points out. TR >By "vastly improving" the peripheral sharpness (about time) on their L- >glass. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >low light performance and depth-of-field control throughout the zoom >range. |
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.