Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > More Canon 5D info

Reply
Thread Tools

More Canon 5D info

 
 
MarkČ
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-17-2005

"Skip M" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:VmFMe.1211$sw6.228@fed1read05...
>
> "deryck lant" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> The message <sRuMe.1113$sw6.290@fed1read05>
>> from "Skip M" <(E-Mail Removed)> contains these words:
>>
>>> "deryck lant" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message

>
>>> >
>>> > Looks like at last Canon will have a zoom lens that can cope with
>>> > full frame digital requirements. The 24-105 f/4 L IS will probably
>>> > retail around 1,500 euro.
>>> >
>>> > Deryck

>>
>>> Why doesn't the 24-70 f2.8L cope with full frame digital requirements?

>>
>> The 24-70 f2.8L is an excellent lens but shows a couple of stops of light
>> fall off in the corners on the D1s2 shown in an in-depth technical review
>> in The British Journal of Photography. There is also some colour fringing
>> in the corners.
>>
>> Deryck

>
> http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/rev...4_70/index.htm
>
> On the other hand, why do you think the 28-105 f4 L is going to be any
> more capable? The 24-70 came out about the same time as the 1Ds, so I'd
> presume it was designed with that camera in mind...


The 24-105 has greater than 4:1 zoom ratio, compared with the less than
approx. 3:1 ratio of the 24-70. If anything, this would likely lead to more
problems with the 24-105. It's saving grace MAY be it's smaller aperture,
which would prevent the revealing of trouble. The only fair comparison will
be against the 24-70 stopped down to f4. I'd put my money on the 24-70...
-But the new lens will likely still get me eventually simply due to it's
more convenient all-around nature.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
eawckyegcy@yahoo.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-17-2005
deryck lant predictably babbles;

>> Why doesn't the 24-70 f2.8L cope with full frame digital requirements?

>
> The 24-70 f2.8L is an excellent lens but shows a couple of stops of light
> fall off in the corners on the D1s2 shown in an in-depth technical review
> in The British Journal of Photography. There is also some colour fringing
> in the corners.


Answer the question, nitwit: why doesn't the 24-70/2.8L "cope with
full frame digital requirements"? One presumes that any defects
present in the lens would be just as observable should one choose to
use it with a film body.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
eawckyegcy@yahoo.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-17-2005
deryck lant wrote:

>> http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/rev...4_70/index.htm

>
>> On the other hand, why do you think the 28-105 f4 L is going to be any more
>> capable? The 24-70 came out about the same time as the 1Ds, so I'd presume
>> it was designed with that camera in mind...

>
> The excellent William L Castleman didn't specifically test for light
> fall-off. You need specialist equipment to measure it.


Gee, you need "specialist equipment" to measure a "1 to 2 stop"
falloff? But even if your blather is meaningful, rather than raise
red-herrings like this, why not answer the questions that are being
posed of you?

In this case: "why do you think the 28-105/4L is going to be any more
capable?"

Either there is evidence you can cite or there is not.

> As you know Canon use the market to beta test their products.


As you know, "derck lant" is a sycophantic market-watching lamebrain
who can't defend his own statements.

> Only after the 24-70 hit the market did it receive the baptism of fire.


Useless: you can say the same about anything.

> Also the higher res the camera so defects become more obvious as shown
> with the D1s2.
>
> Canon are now well aware of the digital full frame requirements and will
> design for it.


Why? Or are you just talking out of your ass?

> I expect the new 24-105 f/4 L IS to make a super kit lens with the 5D.


Evidence?

> Will make a killer combination for wedding large group shots and
> landscape photography.


Baseless speculation.

> Would be the equal picture quality wise to the D2X with 17-55 f2.8, but much
> better in low light.


How can an f/4 lens be "better" in low light than an f/2.8 lens?

 
Reply With Quote
 
Skip M
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-17-2005
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) oups.com...
> deryck lant predictably babbles;
>
>>> Why doesn't the 24-70 f2.8L cope with full frame digital requirements?

>>
>> The 24-70 f2.8L is an excellent lens but shows a couple of stops of light
>> fall off in the corners on the D1s2 shown in an in-depth technical review
>> in The British Journal of Photography. There is also some colour fringing
>> in the corners.

>
> Answer the question, nitwit: why doesn't the 24-70/2.8L "cope with
> full frame digital requirements"? One presumes that any defects
> present in the lens would be just as observable should one choose to
> use it with a film body.
>

One would think so, wouldn't one...

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


 
Reply With Quote
 
Bart van der Wolf
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-18-2005

"deryck lant" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
SNIP
>> Why doesn't the 24-70 f2.8L cope with full frame digital
>> requirements?

>
> The 24-70 f2.8L is an excellent lens but shows a couple of stops
> of light fall off in the corners on the D1s2 shown in an in-depth
> technical review in The British Journal of Photography.


Since you didn't provide a link to, or a quote from, the article:
- Did they compare the light fall-off with a film capture by the same
lens? That would have shown the influence of the sensor.
- Did they compare with fixed focus lenses of the same focal length,
same manufacturer? Lens design is bound by a few restrictions, like
having to allow room for the mirror.

> There is also some colour fringing in the corners.


Yes, it's a zoom which makes it extremely difficult to optimize at all
focal lengths. Fortunately, a larger frame will require less
magnification, which will reduce the visibility of fringing (whether
from CA or Raw conversion) in output. Also, some Chromatic Aberrations
are easy to fix in post-processing, applications like RSE 2005 do it
by default.

Bart

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Kamaelia 0.4.0 RELEASED - Faster! More Tools! More Examples! More Docs! ;-) Michael Python 4 06-26-2006 08:00 AM
With a Ruby Yell: more, more more! Robert Klemme Ruby 5 09-29-2005 06:37 AM
Canon should be totally ashamed of this (and some others too) HP got this basic and absolutely essential thing right in their little digicam that's cheap even for a P&S, so why can't Canon?!! Yes, I know, there's more to the Canon 20D, b Mike Henley Digital Photography 43 12-15-2004 05:21 PM
Clear the Render info & change to different info Andrea Williams ASP .Net 2 10-27-2004 10:01 PM
How to get the Operating System info like ( Wireless info, Wireless connection) Vasanth Perl 0 06-28-2004 08:56 AM



Advertisments