New Canon Digital

[Blurred]

stop being such a bitch. CJ aparently designs the gear that summit and MBS use. Im sure he knows a thing or two about this shit just as Im sure MBS and Summit know thier shit. Aside from talking shit (your not even good at that) you dont seem to do shit or know shit. so sit down and shut the fuck up. I and Im sure others enjoy reading this shit casue we can learn from it. You add nothing to the equation, so please do us all a favor...fuck off.

Put this in your mouth, and do something useful with it.

[mtbakerskier]

CJ,

As summit said trying to compare those MTF charts of two complely differenct lenses is a joke. Didnt they teach you in your first engineering class that you need to compare like with like? If you took an MTF chart of of the L series lense with the same crop factor, I'll bet that the charts are a differenct storey since you would just be ussing the center of the lense wich is by far the sharpest portion.

You seem to forget that with the crop factor you still are not comparing the same level of magifications.

Please tell me again that the EF-s lense performs as well as the L series at a given aperature. It doesnt. I would hope that you would know that MTF charts are seldome relied upon as indicators of a lenses performance in real life situations, especially in photo gear. Things such as coatings, internal flockings to reduce ireflections also come into play. Ever hear of Bokeah? Why do you think all of the Zeiss glass is so superior.

The build quality of the EF-s lense is shit compared to the L series stuff or even a lot of uper end aftermarket stuff. This IS a HUDGE deal to those of us that actually use the gear.

Have you ever owned any L series glass?

Please tell me again how digi cams deliver uniform performance at a wide range of iso's This couldnt be further from the truth, The noise associated with an increase in iso is far more noticiable than an increase in grain with a higher asa modern film.

"with modifications you could put an EF-S lens on an EF mount, execpt it'd bump into the shutter. " Actually there is a thing in the way called a Mirror (you have heard of those since you are a self proclaimed lense expert) that it would hit. Its the same deal if you tried to put one of the original APS specific lenses on a 35mm film body. Also, you would get a shit load of vignetting since it does have an image circle desinged for 35mm film. Once again being a "designer" of lense I would hope that you knew what an image circle is and the theories behind it.

"a variable aperture is more of a compromise in a field that revolves around compromise (or why it compromises optical quality at all, since it's not an element)," No shit an aperature isnt an element. But variable maximum aperature lenses arnt that way becasue of the size of aperatue. They have a vaiable maxium aperature due to there lense design. The maximum amount of light that can pass threw the lesne determins the maximum aperature this IS determined by the optical design of the lense elements and also reflects the quality of the lense.

"Most don't need or like shallow DOF" Once again WTF? People do like and want shallow depth of field. Why do you think that they will pay to have portaits taken by some one that knows how to control depth of field. It's not that complicated of a concept and dont make assertions about the general amerature photographer that arnt ture. Depth of field is the KEY to making an image look like it has some depth, and not just some shitty snap shot. Having a fast aperature in a ultrawide zoom is MUST since the lense inherantly has a hudge depth of field, a large maxiumum aperatue is needed to make the depth of field shallow enough to isolate the subject from its surroundings.

Cj,
While you may know just enough about optical desing to be dangerous, you obvioulsy dont know jack shit about lense desing and its aplication in photgraphy, so why dont you just STFU. You might actually learn something if you could get past your attitude and realise you are not as smart as you think you are.

[backpack]

Somehow it seems like Grant hasn't actually used the EF-S lens in question and CJ hasn't used the L lens... BOTH reviewed very well at various respectable online camera sites.

As far as the "EF-S only has to cover a smaller imaging circle so it's not fair to compare blahblahblah"... uh, it covers the area it was intended to cover, which happens to be smaller than FF, and it takes advantage of that. It's a specialized tool for a specific type of camera. It's like saying that, say, all 35mm lenses are inferior to MF lenses because the MF lenses have to cover a larger imaging area and if you cropped out a center area the size of 35mm the MF lens would always be better. Maybe that's true, but how is it relevant to the discussion of whether a lens provides a good image to a particular sensor size?

Also, am I the only one who cringes every time I read the world "lens" spelled "lense?" Sure, technically lense is an "alternate spelling," but it isn't the primary modern english spelling.

Anyway, ugh. I feel dirty just posting in this thread now...

[mtbakerskier]

[QUOTE=backpack]Somehow it seems like Grant hasn't actually used the EF-S lens in question QUOTE]

Actually I have tested several of them, and I do not feal that they performed very well. I have also repaired 3 of them now, and can atest to the fact they are not built very well especially for there price. Another note, I have never ever seen a 17-35 or 16-35 come in for repair, and only a few 28-70's and 70-200 all of wich where dropped.

[backpack]

Actually I have tested several of them, and I do not feal that they performed very well. I have also repaired 3 of them now, and can atest to the fact they are not built very well especially for there price. Another note, I have never ever seen a 17-35 or 16-35 come in for repair, and only a few 28-70's and 70-200 all of wich where dropped.

I was referring specifically to the EF-S 10-22mm. From what I've read you're correct: many of the EF-S lenses, especially the kit lens, are not exactly top performers, to put it mildly. That said, the 10-22 has been reviewed as a sort of "high end" EF-S.

"This lens is small, light and solidly built. Sometimes Canon's non-L series lenses can feel a bit cheap, but not this one. Focus is as fast as ever due to the USM motor, and manually focusing, if you're so inclined, is similarly smooth. The lens is in the current Canon idiom, and there is little to fault about it with regard to either fit or finish." ... "The numbers tell a positive story, but more importantly, this lens is capable of producing some very fine results in terms of prints. I wouldn't hesitate to use the Canon 10-22mm for any professional application." -- from here .

Anyway, it doesn't seem like anyone said that the build quality was the same as an "L" lens, just that the 10-22 could provide a good wide-angle perspective for reduced-frame cameras.

Oh, and just out of curiosity, do you work at a camera repair shop? It sounds interesting... I love taking broken things apart to see how they work.

[mtbakerskier]

Oh, and just out of curiosity, do you work at a camera repair shop? It sounds interesting... I love taking broken things apart to see how they work.

I have managed a high end used camera shop for 7 years. Besides selling gear I also do a lot of repairs in house.

[backpack]

I have managed a high end used camera shop for 7 years. Besides selling gear I also do a lot of repairs in house.

That sounds like fun.

In other news, dpreview has a basic (nothing too exciting) hands-on preview of the 5D.

[cj001f]

If you took an MTF chart of of the L series lense with the same crop factor, I'll bet that the charts are a differenct storey since you would just be ussing the center of the lense wich is by far the sharpest portion. I would hope that you would know that MTF charts are seldome relied upon as indicators of a lenses performance in real life situations, especially in photo gear. Things such as coatings, internal flockings to reduce ireflections also come into play.

Perhaps you could learn how to read an MTF chart from me? Bottom axis is image height in mm, left axis is Image Preservation/Modulation Contrast/ whatever you want to call it. You can compare the same crop factor by simply stopping at the 13mm image height on the chart for the 16-35mm lens.

MTF charts are one tool for a designer. Imaging systems costing millions of dollars are designed and specified with MTFs that are produced using the very same design software used by Canon, etc. Are they perfect? No. Are they relied upon, hell yes. Now the publicly available MTF's probably aren't always reliable, but that's a different story.

Sure, coatings, baffles, etc. matter but until someone actually produces public data on those are less reliable than MTFs to me. Everyone's eye is different, and humans are often influenced by packaging.

The maximum amount of light that can pass threw the lesne determins the maximum aperature this IS determined by the optical design of the lense elements and also reflects the quality of the lense.

The aperture stop always limits the light path through a system, by definition. It's generally chosen to allow the fastest possible F# that gives an "acceptable" quality image with the specified components. What "acceptable" is will very lens to lens, company to company. Are modern pro lens generally better designs? Yes. Inherently? No. Will an EF lens take an image that's very similar to an L lens at F20something? Yes, all of the image aberrations increase the further away from the optical axis a ray of light travels. Stop down the lens and they decrease substantially. Look at how similar the MTF tests are on many zoom lens at slower speeds.

As for a "variable aperture" if you take apart a "variable aperture" lens, you'll see the aperture is physically the same size throughout it's zoom range. The "fixed aperture" lenses require a moving aperture of various types. Not really an indictment of the lens optically, the designers/marketing didn't feel the added optomechanical mounting was worth the cost.

Cj,
While you may know just enough about optical desing to be dangerous, you obvioulsy dont know jack shit about lense desing and its aplication in photgraphy, so why dont you just STFU. You might actually learn something if you could get past your attitude and realise you are not as smart as you think you are.

And what would I learn from you? Spelling?

Perhaps the needs/wants of professional sports photographers? That would be interesting. Ancedotal information of camera repair, that too would be interesting.

In turn you might learn that there are plenty of people who don't need/want what you do, or they just lack the budget, and they've been able to acheive good results with equipment that isn't as good. That was the purpose of my original post (I'll bold) You can take good pictures with cropped sensors. There are decent lenses available for them. Many users, even some professionals, are happy with them We can have arguments over what makes a lens decent for unspecified uses, I can show you data, you can disagree from your experience, whatever. They still meet the needs of millions of photographers, and are better than similar things that were sold a decade ago in many, many ways.

Summit-
I'm not an expert, those are all old, grey, and as a species fast on the track to extinction All it takes now is a bit of knowledge and a computer to design a decent lens now (not a great lens, but a good design). I don't know everything, and listening to people drone on all day at seminars doesn't help my knowledge deficit or the ability to post coherently in the evening. I have had a broad experience of actually making things with optics. Specing and sourcing parts.

And I agree with you on Canon's marketing theory or pro/consumer, which is why the 1.3x sensor is going to definitely be a stopgap. There is another good camera company out there, Nikon, that makes some decent cameras and has decided on only 1 reduced sensor size, 1.5x, and makes some nice, reasonably well built lenses for them. In the longer term there is also the 4/3 format consortium, if Fry's keeps selling the Olympus kits cheap, and other do as well that may go somewhere at the consumer level.

Since I own a D70 body, I'll probably get a couple more DX lenses for it. They take pictures good enough for me, last well, and I enjoy them, which is all that matters in the end.


Backpack-
If you are interested in taking apart lenses, well, they aren't that exciting. Cameras are more interesting. Some coated bits of various different types of glass in a tube. In an older zoom lens 2 of the groups move in a proscribed manner. Modern lenses just split the function of those groups into more elements for better error correction as a broad simplification. For a decent history up into the late 80's (prime lens haven't changed much, zoom lens have become lighter/better corrected because of "ED", aka large Abbe number). Check out "A History of the Photographic Lens" by Rudolf Kingslake, if you are interested in a readable history of designs.

Didn't mean to have turn this into the stereotypical TGR trainwreck thread.

[snowballing100]

Perhaps you could learn how to read an MTF chart from me? Bottom axis is image height in mm, left axis is Image Preservation/Modulation Contrast/ whatever you want to call it. You can compare the same crop factor by simply stopping at the 13mm image height on the chart for the 16-35mm lens.

MTF charts are one tool for a designer. Imaging systems costing millions of dollars are designed and specified with MTFs that are produced using the very same design software used by Canon, etc. Are they perfect? No. Are they relied upon, hell yes. Now the publicly available MTF's probably aren't always reliable, but that's a different story.

Sure, coatings, baffles, etc. matter but until someone actually produces public data on those are less reliable than MTFs to me. Everyone's eye is different, and humans are often influenced by packaging.



The aperture stop always limits the light path through a system, by definition. It's generally chosen to allow the fastest possible F# that gives an "acceptable" quality image with the specified components. What "acceptable" is will very lens to lens, company to company. Are modern pro lens generally better designs? Yes. Inherently? No. Will an EF lens take an image that's very similar to an L lens at F20something? Yes, all of the image aberrations increase the further away from the optical axis a ray of light travels. Stop down the lens and they decrease substantially.



And what would I learn from you? Spelling?

Perhaps the needs/wants of professional sports photographers? That would be interesting.

In turn you might learn that there are plenty of people who don't need/want what you do, or they just lack the budget, and they've been able to acheive good results with equipment that isn't as good. That was the purpose of my original post (I'll bold) You can take good pictures with cropped sensors. There are decent lenses available for them. Many users, even some professionals, are happy with them We can have arguments over what makes a lens decent for unspecified uses, I can show you data, you can disagree from your experience, whatever. They still meet the needs of millions of photographers, and are better than similar things that were sold a decade ago in many ways.

Summit-
You can have the trophy. I'm not an expert, those are all old, grey, and as a species fast on the track to extinction All it takes now is a bit of knowledge and a computer to design a decent lens now (not a great lens, but a good design). I don't know everything, and listening to people drone on all day at seminars doesn't help my knowledge deficit or the ability to post coherently in the evening.

And I agree with you on Canon's marketing theory or pro/consumer, which is why the 1.3x sensor is going to definitely be a stopgap. There is another good camera company out there, Nikon, that makes some decent cameras and has decided on only 1 reduced sensor size, 1.5x, and makes some nice, reasonably well built lenses for them. In the longer term there is also the 4/3 format consortium, if Fry's keeps selling the Olympus kits cheap, and other do as well that may go somewhere at the consumer level.

Since I own a D70 body, I'll probably get a couple more DX lenses for it. They take pictures good enough for me, last well, and I enjoy them, which is all that matters in the end.

You know nothing... you're just writing shit to make yourself sound smart and important! Which you're not! Grow some balls and quit grandstanding you arrogent prick!

[snowballing100]

stop being such a bitch. CJ aparently designs the gear that summit and MBS use. Im sure he knows a thing or two about this shit just as Im sure MBS and Summit know thier shit. Aside from talking shit (your not even good at that) you dont seem to do shit or know shit. so sit down and shut the fuck up. I and Im sure others enjoy reading this shit casue we can learn from it. You add nothing to the equation, so please do us all a favor...fuck off.

He doesn't design shit! he spends his time trying to act smarter than he his to make up for his tiny limp dick! Nothing better than trying to be a God of lenses (what a fucking geek!) when you really SUCK at everything!