Canon digital bodies and Nikon lenses

wrote in message
...
"Joseph Chamberlain, DDS" writes:

Skip:
snip
Your images that were taken at 16mm look much better than mine and I can
barely see any distortion around the edges. It doesn't even look like the
typical image of a 16mm lens.

How can you tell? There are essentially no straight lines near the
edges of those images, eexcept the horizon, which basically goes
through the center of the image.

snip


A) that's not exactly a horizon...that is a shoreline.
B) there are intersecting straight lines at the right edge of the 16mm
images. You can see by the inward tilt of the buildings over there that
there is some WA type distortion.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

" + "KillFile" = "Problem Solved"

wrote in message
ups.com...
george trolls:

Not to start a war about it (especially since you asked so politely),

Trolls never want to start a war! Never! They are just asking
innocent (albeit, stupid) questions!

why are some people so adamantly opposed to top-posting?

Because it is stupid. And people with functioning brains have known
this for thousands of years. Try reading (as an example), the Talmud.

I consider that to be more polite than bottom posting (though I
generally
follow the etiquette of the thread I am replying to) because your way
(bottom posting) forces me to always scroll through a bunch of previous
posts whereas top posting immediately shows the latest and if I want
history, I can read down until the gaps a filled (I really don't
need to know that a thread asking how to color correct different light
sources began
as a thread on how to cook grits!).

You sound like a lazy-ass indeed. Advice: read more than USENET.
Read _alot_ more. Try something with depth.

Enquiring minds want to know the rationale (and why some are so militant
about it)...

More lazy-assness. Try using google to answer simple questions. Try
wikipedia. Here, go right to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_posting

and read all of it. I direct your attention to the first example
(right at the beginning) as to why top-posting is the number one sign
of a defective intellect.

Cockpit Colin top posts like a moron:

" + "KillFile" = "Problem Solved"

Oh no, killfiled by another nitwit! The agony is unbearable!

HA HA HA HA HAA!!!

Nevertheless, I know you are still reading, so I'll just mention one
last fact: the number one feature of a mark is that they _continue to
believe even in the face of evidence they have been tricked_.

"Skip M" wrote:

wrote in message
u...
"Joseph Chamberlain, DDS" writes:

Skip:
snip
Your images that were taken at 16mm look much better than mine and I can
barely see any distortion around the edges. It doesn't even look like the
typical image of a 16mm lens.

How can you tell? There are essentially no straight lines near the
edges of those images, eexcept the horizon, which basically goes
through the center of the image.

snip


A) that's not exactly a horizon...that is a shoreline.
B) there are intersecting straight lines at the right edge of the 16mm
images. You can see by the inward tilt of the buildings over there that
there is some WA type distortion.


Are you sure that isn't just a case of converging verticals, caused by
pointing the axis of the lens above the horizontal?

I relied heavily on the reviews before purchasing the 2 I mentioned - I was
left with the impression that they were both solid & reliable workhorses
that did what they were designed to do very well - my personal experience
with them has exactly mirrored my expectations.

I've read some nice things about the 70-200 F4, but I went for it's bigger
brother because (as you're aware) they don't make the F4 version with IS. I
think it's worth spelling out the difference 3 stops can make - it's obvious
when you think about it, but I just didn't think about it for a long time -
for a given situation it can mean I can use (for example) 1/25 sec instead
of 1/200 - when you think about it, it's one hell of a difference. Keeping
in mind that with F4 -v-F2.8 you'd need slower shutter speeds to start
with - so it's a double-edged sword. If you're going to have better light
available then this may not be an issue for you. The F2.8 IS version also
gives full compatability with the 2.0 teleconverter ( AF on all AF
points) - something that I need.

I looked lovingly at the 24-105 and the 70-300, but I had my suspicion that
they might get branded "jack of all trades - master of none" - the reviews
seem to support the notion that "they're good - but not as good as ..." etc,
which means "the perfectionist" in me wouldn't be happy knowing there was
something better.

In terms of weight - hmm - I dunno. They're certainly VERY solid lenses. One
salient point I remember a park ranger telling me one day - he commented how
it always amused him at how various tourists that he was guiding would argue
that their camera was better than the other guys because it was 100 grams
lighter - when both of them had 40 pound beer guts hanging over their belt.
I tend to think that if it's a couple of pounds heavier it's only about
another 1% body weight. If small and light is a priority you'd probably be
better off with a Rebel 350D on a 24-105 - but I think that with a 1D for
you, and a 20D with grip, 2 batteries, and L bracket attached for me, "light
and portable" is never going to be a reality (not to mention a solid tripod,
other lenses, 18" nodal bar etc).

Cheers,

Colin



"Joseph Chamberlain, DDS" wrote in message
.. .
Colin:

Thanks again for the tips.

I really like your suggestions and like both lens as well.

The one I've had my eyes own is the 24-105mm but was quite disappointed
with
the problems and Canon's recall because of the flaring issues. Hopefully
this lens will be out soon with the design revised and without the
problems.
The one thing about this lens I find appealing over the 24-70mm f/2.8 you
mention is the extended range that makes it such a versatile lens to
carry.
If I were to go to a place and could only take one lens I think this would
probably be the ideal lens to carry.

The 70-200mm lens is a great lens judging from all the reviews I've read
so
far. The problem is the size and weigth. This is not the kind of lens one
can carry everywhere. In case I am to travel and carry this lens with me I
better start doing some serious bodybuilding

I've been told that the 70-200mm f/4 is actually quite a nice lens while
much smaller and lighter. Here is the US the demand seem to be such for
this
lens that it is on backorder at BH Photo which is the largest reseller in
the country. The only drawbacks are the aperture (f/4 versus F/2.8 on the
lens you suggested) and the lack of IS which can be handy in many
situations.

Outside of these lenses, I have also been looking at something small to
carry with me when going on trips and simply planning to take leisure,
unpretentious photos. I've looked at both the 70-300mm DO lens and the new
70-300mm lens. Reviews on the net seem to provided mixed results. Some say
the DO is actually a great lens for what it is meant to do. The major
drawback is the flaring but this seem to happen only in situation where
the
subject is backlit and light is coming head on through the lens. The other
lens have also received some bad as well as good reviews. Some say that
image quality is actually superior to the DO lens that costs almost twice
as
much. The major complaints I've read on reviews of this lens are (1) the
slow focusing that sometimes seem to keep "hunting" the subject and the
(2)
fact that as the lens focuses it rotates the outer ring which can be a
problem if you have a filter such as a polarizer attached. Although the DO
is more compact and has better focusing (reviews compare the speed of the
focusing mechanism to that found in the best L lens), I would tend to
favor
image quality as the most important quality. Do you have any input or
suggestions you can share with me on these two lenses ?

In case anyone else wants to share opinions or point to sites that
actually
offer information from real tests conducted on lenses I would greatly
appreciate it. There was a post in one of the newsgroups a few days ago
about a web site linked to www.imaging-resource.com that was dedicated to
the evaluation of lenses and used a very strict technical/scientific
protocol to test lenses. Does anyone know the address to this site or
other
similar with tests and serious reviews on lenses ? I've tried Rob
Galbraigth
and Fred Miranda but all I can find are posts placed by users and not real
technical tests.

Any help will be greatly appreciated.

Thank you again for the great suggestions, Colin. I am going to stop at my
local reseller over the weekend and take a closer look at both lenses you
suggested.

Best regards,

Joseph

---

Dr. Joseph Chamberlain
Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery

On 11/10/05 8:13 PM, in article ,
"Cockpit Colin" wrote:

Joseph,

For what it's worth, if you're ever in the market for a couple of
general-purpose lenses, I'd be happy to recomment the Canon 24-70 F2.8L
USM
and the Canon 70-200 F2.8L IS USM.

Together they cover a wide range, and are capable of producing very sharp
images.

Cheers,

CC

I'll stop top posting the day they invent a newsreader that automatically
scrolls to the bottom of every message.

Cockpit Colin wrote:
I'll stop top posting the day they invent a newsreader that
automatically scrolls to the bottom of every message.

http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/oe-quotefix/

For Outlook Express

--
Frank S

"Verbing weirds language."
—Calvin

Thanks for that Frank, but I can't see anything about automatically
scrolling to the end of a message.

Cockpit Colin wrote:
Thanks for that Frank, but I can't see anything about automatically
scrolling to the end of a message.

It's been a long, long time since I installed it; I think there is a
choice on the setup or install menus.

Any road, it does it every time, as well as color-code messages per
poster.

--
Frank ess

Plonk to junior who thinks Wintel was the beginning of computing...

wrote in message
ups.com...
george trolls:

Not to start a war about it (especially since you asked so politely),

Trolls never want to start a war! Never! They are just asking
innocent (albeit, stupid) questions!

why are some people so adamantly opposed to top-posting?

Because it is stupid. And people with functioning brains have known
this for thousands of years. Try reading (as an example), the Talmud.

I consider that to be more polite than bottom posting (though I
generally
follow the etiquette of the thread I am replying to) because your way
(bottom posting) forces me to always scroll through a bunch of previous
posts whereas top posting immediately shows the latest and if I want
history, I can read down until the gaps a filled (I really don't
need to know that a thread asking how to color correct different light
sources began
as a thread on how to cook grits!).

You sound like a lazy-ass indeed. Advice: read more than USENET.
Read _alot_ more. Try something with depth.

Enquiring minds want to know the rationale (and why some are so militant
about it)...

More lazy-assness. Try using google to answer simple questions. Try
wikipedia. Here, go right to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_posting

and read all of it. I direct your attention to the first example
(right at the beginning) as to why top-posting is the number one sign
of a defective intellect.