Another Week, Another Great Lens !

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Annika1980, Apr 19, 2006.

  1. Annika1980

    Annika1980 Guest

    To satisfy my lust for the good glass that I'll never be able to
    afford, I've started renting some of the great Canon lenses. Last week
    I had the 24mm TS-E tilt-shift lens, which is more of a specialty lens
    and probably isn't for me.

    On trial this week, the highly acclaimed Canon 24-105 f.4 IS. Once you
    click this baby onto the camera, you know it's the real deal. Much
    heavier than my 28-135 IS, a true "L" lens by any measure. Initially,
    I wasn't too thrilled with the way the lens lengthens when it zooms
    out, but I guess I'll get used to that. I'll give the lens a proper
    workout tomorrow when I go to the LPGA golf tournament in Atlanta. I'm
    sure that Natalie and Annika and all the girls will want to pose for
    the 20D and this baby. Until then, here's one I took with it today:

    http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/58864496/original
     
    Annika1980, Apr 19, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Annika1980

    Bill Tuthill Guest

    Annika1980 <> wrote:
    >
    > On trial this week, the highly acclaimed Canon 24-105 f.4 IS. Once you
    > click this baby onto the camera, you know it's the real deal. Much
    > heavier than my 28-135 IS, a true "L" lens by any measure. Initially,
    > I wasn't too thrilled with the way the lens lengthens when it zooms
    > out, but I guess I'll get used to that. I'll give the lens a proper
    > workout tomorrow when I go to the LPGA golf tournament in Atlanta. I'm
    > sure that Natalie and Annika and all the girls will want to pose for
    > the 20D and this baby.


    Can't wait to see those pix, and get your review.

    Will you do a shot-by-shot comparison with your 28-135 IS,
    or aren't you that obsessive?
     
    Bill Tuthill, Apr 19, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Annika1980

    Scott W Guest

    Bill Tuthill wrote:
    > Annika1980 <> wrote:
    > >
    > > On trial this week, the highly acclaimed Canon 24-105 f.4 IS. Once you
    > > click this baby onto the camera, you know it's the real deal. Much
    > > heavier than my 28-135 IS, a true "L" lens by any measure. Initially,
    > > I wasn't too thrilled with the way the lens lengthens when it zooms
    > > out, but I guess I'll get used to that. I'll give the lens a proper
    > > workout tomorrow when I go to the LPGA golf tournament in Atlanta. I'm
    > > sure that Natalie and Annika and all the girls will want to pose for
    > > the 20D and this baby.

    >
    > Can't wait to see those pix, and get your review.
    >
    > Will you do a shot-by-shot comparison with your 28-135 IS,
    > or aren't you that obsessive?


    And we want to see what it can do at f/4, f/10 is really not pushing
    the lens much.

    Scott
     
    Scott W, Apr 19, 2006
    #3
  4. Annika1980

    Annika1980 Guest

    >Will you do a shot-by-shot comparison with your 28-135 IS,
    >or aren't you that obsessive?


    Sure, I can do that.
    What test subject do you guys suggest?
    I know where there's a nice brick wall.
     
    Annika1980, Apr 20, 2006
    #4
  5. "Annika1980" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > >Will you do a shot-by-shot comparison with your 28-135 IS,
    >>or aren't you that obsessive?

    >
    > Sure, I can do that.
    > What test subject do you guys suggest?
    > I know where there's a nice brick wall.


    LOL.

    May I suggest a featureless blue sky. That'll at least determine its
    usefullness on a 1.6 factor cropped sensor (which is what many use).
    On a full (24x36mm) frame sensor it's reported to vignette
    significantly more than the EF 24-70 mm f/2.8 lens.

    Bart
     
    Bart van der Wolf, Apr 20, 2006
    #5
  6. Annika1980

    Annika1980 Guest

    >On a full (24x36mm) frame sensor it's reported to vignette
    >significantly more than the EF 24-70 mm f/2.8 lens.


    That's why God made Photoshop and the Vignetting slider in ACR.
     
    Annika1980, Apr 20, 2006
    #6
  7. Annika1980

    Rich Guest

    On 18 Apr 2006 19:36:53 -0700, "Annika1980" <>
    wrote:

    >To satisfy my lust for the good glass that I'll never be able to
    >afford, I've started renting some of the great Canon lenses. Last week
    >I had the 24mm TS-E tilt-shift lens, which is more of a specialty lens
    >and probably isn't for me.
    >
    >On trial this week, the highly acclaimed Canon 24-105 f.4 IS. Once you
    >click this baby onto the camera, you know it's the real deal. Much
    >heavier than my 28-135 IS, a true "L" lens by any measure. Initially,
    >I wasn't too thrilled with the way the lens lengthens when it zooms
    >out, but I guess I'll get used to that. I'll give the lens a proper
    >workout tomorrow when I go to the LPGA golf tournament in Atlanta. I'm
    >sure that Natalie and Annika and all the girls will want to pose for
    >the 20D and this baby. Until then, here's one I took with it today:
    >
    >http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/58864496/original


    The fact it lengthens is a good sign. It means Canon decided to
    go with higher quality optical performance than aesthetics and a
    likely more costly and complex internal zoom structure.
    -Rich
     
    Rich, Apr 20, 2006
    #7
  8. Annika1980

    Bill Tuthill Guest

    Bart van der Wolf <> wrote:
    >>
    >> I know where there's a nice brick wall.

    > LOL.


    Ha. If nothing else, Brett's posts are worth reading for the laughs.

    > May I suggest a featureless blue sky...
    > On a full (24x36mm) frame sensor it's reported to vignette
    > significantly more than the EF 24-70 mm f/2.8 lens.


    Where does it vignette, just at the wide end, maybe 24-28mm?
     
    Bill Tuthill, Apr 20, 2006
    #8
  9. Annika1980

    m Ransley Guest

    Another stupid post by annika pushing canon
     
    m Ransley, Apr 20, 2006
    #9
  10. "Bill Tuthill" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    SNIP
    > Where does it vignette, just at the wide end, maybe
    > 24-28mm?


    I don't have that lens (I usually stick with f/2.8 or wider lenses),
    so I can only report on what I read/saw on e.g. DPreview/RG/etc.
    Unfortunately there is little quantifiable info available.

    There are IMHO 2 factors involved in vignetting:
    1. Mechanical vignetting, due to physical lens barrel / lens element
    diameter restrictions. These will usually go away beyond a certain
    reduced aperture.
    2. Geometrical effects or light fall-off, such as the larger
    magnification in the corners which will reduce exposure as a result of
    rectilinear projection. This is going to be present in all designs and
    is practically *not* affected by smaller apertures
    (http://www.xs4all.nl/~bvdwolf/main/foto/Imatest/LightFalloff.png).

    Factor 1 is IMHO the most important suspect with visually significant
    vignetting, and typically is more prominent towards the wide angle
    designs, but doesn't have to be with proper design.

    Given the inescapable retro-focus wide-angle lens design used on most
    35mm dSLRs, the effect of the 2nd factor is probably not getting worse
    with lenses shorter than some 40mm focal length.

    Bart
     
    Bart van der Wolf, Apr 21, 2006
    #10
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. harryph

    another c@@p week

    harryph, Jul 7, 2004, in forum: MCSE
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    441
    Consultant
    Jul 7, 2004
  2. Jim Waggener

    Canon vs Nikon...huge lens lines...great competitors

    Jim Waggener, Aug 21, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    658
    Larry Miracle
    Aug 21, 2003
  3. William Graham
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    452
    Tony Spadaro
    Aug 23, 2004
  4. Alan Browne
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    338
    Roland Karlsson
    Mar 15, 2005
  5. Replies:
    13
    Views:
    4,635
    Doug Jewell
    May 31, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page