If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
"Normal" Canon Zoom Lens that's worth a damn?
In article , Karl
Winkler writes What part of having high quality optics at reasonable price and actually moving instead of zooming is counterintuitive? Perspective. Moving does not replace the ability to control perspective. Moving is the only way to control perspective, apart from using a tilt/shift lens. Zooming alone can only change magnification, and leaves perspective absolutely unaltered. -- David Littlewood |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
"Normal" Canon Zoom Lens that's worth a damn?
In article , Karl
Winkler writes Maybe I'm looking for a ghost... but it seems that Canon does not really make a "normal" length zoom lens. Here's the quandry: For a 4-lens setup along with two bodies (EOS 3 and EOS 10D), I have been considering the following: 17-40mm f/4 L USM (very wide to normal) ??? (normal to short tele) 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 IS USM (long tele) 100 f/2.8 Macro USM (macro and portrait) In looking at reviews of the two potential choices for the "midrange" zoom, neither seem to be all that great: 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 II USM 28-135 f/3.5-5.6 IS USM I'd be willing to pay more if they had a really well-corrected L series slightly faster zoom, say 28-105 f/2.8-4 L USM or even a constant aperture 28-105 f/4 L USM... Any idea why they don't? I know, most of you don't work for Canon and can't speak for them. And the other option, a set of 2 or 3 prime lenses is I suppose another possibility but seems counter-intuitive for the setup I'm contemplating. Any input (other than sarcastic troll nonsense) will be much appreciated. Karl, It would help if you said what kind of work you intend to use the lenses for. I am slightly mystified as to what you are lacking. There are some superb "mid range" lenses - the 35 f/1.4, the 50/1.4 and the 85/1.8 spring to mind. The 100/2.0, 100/2.8 macro, and 135/2.0 are al superb If you need a zoom, the 28-70 f/2.8L is superb, and the 28-135 IS is excellent, though its restricted maximum aperture can be limiting. Some of the 28-105 versions are also very highly regarded. I agree a slightly wider range for the 24-70L (and IS) would be very welcome - let's say a 24-105 f/2.8L IS. For all I know they may be working on one. At the slightly wider end, the 24/3.5 TS-E is a lens I rarely leave home without. IMO, the real gap in the Canon range is at the very wide end. £1400 for the 14mm is very steep (and there is no way I am ever going to waste my money on another Sigma - I already have a Sigma 14mm which doesn't work on my 10D). I would like to see a good 12-25mm L Canon for use on the 10D. -- David Littlewood |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
"Normal" Canon Zoom Lens that's worth a damn?
David Littlewood wrote in message ...
In article , Karl Winkler writes What part of having high quality optics at reasonable price and actually moving instead of zooming is counterintuitive? Perspective. Moving does not replace the ability to control perspective. Moving is the only way to control perspective, apart from using a tilt/shift lens. Zooming alone can only change magnification, and leaves perspective absolutely unaltered. I understand what you're saying but perhaps I'm not getting my point across very well. Here's what I mean: let's say I want to take a series of portraits of someone. With a medium-range zoom, I can accomplish everything I need. Full length portraits can be done at the shorter end of the range or perhaps somewhere in the middle (~40 to 50mm on a 35mm body) and then tighter head shots can be done at the longer end (70 to 105 or even 135mm). If I used a 50mm lens, I can do the full-length portraits but it will not work to "move closer" to do the head shots. In this specific case, I could also use two fixed-length lenses (say, 50mm and 100mm), but what about the focal lengths between those two? And changing focal lengths (via zoom or by changing lenses) changes the *angle of view* of the lens, say from 90 degrees at 20mm to 60 degrees at 50mm to 30 degrees at 90mm (approximately), right? So to me, this is changing the perspective. With longer lenses, there is more foreshortening (distant objects seem closer or more "compressed") while shorter lenses do the opposite. And to me, these are important considerations. Heck, a zoom lens lets you do all three things: 1. Alter the angle of view and/or foreshortening effect, and 2. Move closer or further away if you want to, and 3. Allow you to do all of these things without changing lenses You have no argument from me that good prime lenses are (generally) superior optically. But considering the versitility of zooms and the fact that some of the current designs (Canon L series, for example) are very, very good, I think it's why it is becoming far more common to see photographers with a range of 2 or 3 zooms than 6 different prime lenses. YMMV -Karl http://www.karlwinkler.com |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
"Normal" Canon Zoom Lens that's worth a damn?
In article , Karl
Winkler writes David Littlewood wrote in message .. . In article , Karl Winkler writes What part of having high quality optics at reasonable price and actually moving instead of zooming is counterintuitive? Perspective. Moving does not replace the ability to control perspective. Moving is the only way to control perspective, apart from using a tilt/shift lens. Zooming alone can only change magnification, and leaves perspective absolutely unaltered. I understand what you're saying but perhaps I'm not getting my point across very well. Here's what I mean: let's say I want to take a series of portraits of someone. With a medium-range zoom, I can accomplish everything I need. Full length portraits can be done at the shorter end of the range or perhaps somewhere in the middle (~40 to 50mm on a 35mm body) and then tighter head shots can be done at the longer end (70 to 105 or even 135mm). If I used a 50mm lens, I can do the full-length portraits but it will not work to "move closer" to do the head shots. In this specific case, I could also use two fixed-length lenses (say, 50mm and 100mm), but what about the focal lengths between those two? And changing focal lengths (via zoom or by changing lenses) changes the *angle of view* of the lens, say from 90 degrees at 20mm to 60 degrees at 50mm to 30 degrees at 90mm (approximately), right? So to me, this is changing the perspective. Not in the normally-accepted use of the word in photography. You would get exactly the same result (apart perhaps from more grain) by using a wide and blowing up the central portion as using a long lens. With longer lenses, there is more foreshortening (distant objects seem closer or more "compressed") while shorter lenses do the opposite. And to me, these are important considerations. Only because you usually use a long lens from a long distance, and a wide from very close. If you use a long lens very close up you get the same perspective as with a wide, just less angle of view. Same if you use a wide from a mile away and blow up - very "foreshortened" appearance just as when using a tele from the same spot. Heck, a zoom lens lets you do all three things: 1. Alter the angle of view and/or foreshortening effect, and 2. Move closer or further away if you want to, and 3. Allow you to do all of these things without changing lenses True. You have no argument from me that good prime lenses are (generally) superior optically. But considering the versitility of zooms and the fact that some of the current designs (Canon L series, for example) are very, very good, I think it's why it is becoming far more common to see photographers with a range of 2 or 3 zooms than 6 different prime lenses. True; it was only the understanding of "perspective" that I was raising. David -- David Littlewood |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
"Normal" Canon Zoom Lens that's worth a damn?
"Tony Spadaro" wrote in message
. com... It is also 80 bucks brand new and one hell of a lens for the money. There is no recorder incident of the mount ever failing. I have seen the front section of an EF 50m/1.8 MKII unscrew from the mount. A brand new one, too. -- Martin Francis http://www.sixbysix.co.uk "Go not to Usenet for counsel, for it will say both no, and yes, and no, and yes...." |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
"Normal" Canon Zoom Lens that's worth a damn?
"Karl Winkler" wrote in message
om... David Littlewood wrote in message ... In this specific case, I could also use two fixed-length lenses (say, 50mm and 100mm), but what about the focal lengths between those two? In medium format I use a 50mm, 80mm and 150mm- similar FOV to 30mm, 50mm and 90mm in the "small format", and not far from the 35/50/90mm kit I had in 35mil. I also have a 120mm which I originally bought when I intended having a two lens kit (60mm and 120mm). In six months or so of working like this, my 120mm has been gathering dust in a bag like a proverbial Hoover. I just don't use it, despite the fact that it's probably the sharper lens. The nearest equivalent to a 100mm in 6x6cm mount is either 160mm or 180mm, and whilst I have a 150mm I won't consider either as a viable purchase. Yes, it may seem like a huge jump between 50mm and 100mm, but I doubt you'll really miss the in-betweenys. And hey, if you prefer 85mm, skip the 100mm and get an 85/1.8 and some tubes. And changing focal lengths (via zoom or by changing lenses) changes the *angle of view* of the lens, say from 90 degrees at 20mm to 60 degrees at 50mm to 30 degrees at 90mm (approximately), right? So to me, this is changing the perspective. Perspective is not the correct word to use in this sense, and there's no way around it; no zoom lens could ever be called a perspective control lens. Zooming is cropping with optics- field of view changes, depth of field changes, but perspective does not. With longer lenses, there is more foreshortening (distant objects seem closer or more "compressed") This is true with shorter lenses too- and with the human eye. From a distance, a howling dog can look the same size as the moon whether you're using a 14mm or 400mm- but a photographer with both lenses will probably use the 400mm. That fancy effect from "Jaws" and "Goodfellas" was done by zooming and changing perspective *at the same time* Google "perspective" and "zoom" in rec.photo.equipment.35mm for more (heated) past debate on the subject. -- Martin Francis http://www.sixbysix.co.uk "Go not to Usenet for counsel, for it will say both no, and yes, and no, and yes...." |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
"Normal" Canon Zoom Lens that's worth a damn?
That sounds like someone at the factory frogot to put in a screw or two. I'm
talking about the plastic mount on a lens or body actually breaking under pressure. The anti-Canon idiots have been claiming this can happen for many years now but have not managed to document a single case. -- http://www.chapelhillnoir.com home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto The Improved Links Pages are at http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html A sample chapter from my novel "Haight-Ashbury" is at http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html "Martin Francis" wrote in message ... "Tony Spadaro" wrote in message . com... It is also 80 bucks brand new and one hell of a lens for the money. There is no recorder incident of the mount ever failing. I have seen the front section of an EF 50m/1.8 MKII unscrew from the mount. A brand new one, too. -- Martin Francis http://www.sixbysix.co.uk "Go not to Usenet for counsel, for it will say both no, and yes, and no, and yes...." |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
"Normal" Canon Zoom Lens that's worth a damn?
David Littlewood wrote:
Not in the normally-accepted use of the word in photography. You would get exactly the same result (apart perhaps from more grain) by using a wide and blowing up the central portion as using a long lens. No you won't. Try shooting a row of trees at 17mm, 20mm, 35mm and 50mm. Now look at the center crops. David -- Sander +++ Out of cheese error +++ |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
"Normal" Canon Zoom Lens that's worth a damn?
"Martin Francis" wrote in message
... "Tony Spadaro" wrote in message . com... It is also 80 bucks brand new and one hell of a lens for the money. There is no recorder incident of the mount ever failing. I have seen the front section of an EF 50m/1.8 MKII unscrew from the mount. A brand new one, too. -- Martin Francis http://www.sixbysix.co.uk "Go not to Usenet for counsel, for it will say both no, and yes, and no, and yes...." That is impossible. I'm looking at the lens right now, and there ain't any threads, there are screw that hold the mount on. Since that is the way other lenses are built, that is a failure that could have happened with any lens, if it indeed did happen. -- Skip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
"Normal" Canon Zoom Lens that's worth a damn?
"David Littlewood" wrote in message
... In article , Karl Winkler writes What part of having high quality optics at reasonable price and actually moving instead of zooming is counterintuitive? Perspective. Moving does not replace the ability to control perspective. Moving is the only way to control perspective, apart from using a tilt/shift lens. Zooming alone can only change magnification, and leaves perspective absolutely unaltered. -- David Littlewood That, I think, was the point. Once you've gotten the perspective you want, "zooming with your feet" would disturb that. Zooming with the lens would leave that intact and only change the framing of the image. -- Skip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
what does the focal distance actually mean? | scott | Digital Photography | 10 | July 1st 04 10:51 PM |
General Lens ZOOM question.... | advid | Digital Photography | 11 | June 30th 04 10:07 PM |
50mm "normal" lens with digital SLR? | Chris Brown | Digital Photography | 5 | June 27th 04 06:58 PM |
Canon EF long lens rental Florida US | Michael C. Smith | 35mm Photo Equipment | 9 | June 25th 04 12:23 PM |
Choose a standard zoom lens for Maxxum | Bill Tuthill | 35mm Photo Equipment | 0 | June 14th 04 07:11 PM |