Canon EF 8-15mm f/4L Fisheye USM

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Bruce, Sep 2, 2010.

  1. Bruce

    Bruce Guest

    I saw the announcement for this lens about a week ago but don't recall
    it being discussed in the rec.photo.* newsgroups. As the header says,
    it is a zoom fisheye lens. It has full frame (24x36) coverage at 15mm
    and the usual circular fisheye image within the full frame at 8mm.

    I'm not a fisheye fan, so would be unlikely to buy one. But it must
    appeal to some, otherwise why design, develop and manufacture it?

    Available from 1/1/11.

    http://preview.tinyurl.com/366efnj
    or:
    http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/profe...lineup/lens_uw_pro/ef_8_15mm_f_4l_fisheye_usm
     
    Bruce, Sep 2, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. On Thu, 02 Sep 2010 18:54:29 +0100, Bruce <> wrote:

    >I saw the announcement for this lens about a week ago but don't recall
    >it being discussed in the rec.photo.* newsgroups. As the header says,
    >it is a zoom fisheye lens. It has full frame (24x36) coverage at 15mm
    >and the usual circular fisheye image within the full frame at 8mm.
    >
    >I'm not a fisheye fan, so would be unlikely to buy one. But it must
    >appeal to some, otherwise why design, develop and manufacture it?


    For the same reason that I use an excellent (zero CA) fish-eye adapter on
    my superzoom cameras to seamlessly zoom from 9mm-36mm. For one simple
    example, when shooting aurora. I can instantly go from a horizon to horizon
    9mm full-sky inventory to a more moderate 16mm wide-angle, to more closely
    frame some of the important or interesting and colorful areas of the
    auroral activity. Or documenting meteors during strong storms. It's also
    great for capturing, and properly framing, sunset/rise and mountain vistas,
    or wide sweeps of colors in fall-foliage. Some sunrise/sets can easily take
    2-3 frames done at 16mm and then pano-stitched. Macro photography where you
    wish to frame a deep subject (now all in focus) with wide washes of
    background colors and hues.There are many uses, once you use one. This is
    generally not something the typical pretend-photographer troll can imagine
    in their mind unless they've actually put one to use. The other added
    advantage is that this is all available for under $100 at f/2.0 or f/2.4.
    (Depending on which superzoom camera the fish-eye adapter is used on. It
    does not detract from the camera's own original widest aperture.) That's a
    $1,300 savings with a 2-stop advantage. Not to mention the extra seamless
    non-vignetted zoom range of 16mm-36mm that's not covered by this $1,400
    8-15mm lens. Oh, one other thing. I won't be getting my cameras' sensors
    dirty nor any condensation on the mirror and focusing-screen by changing to
    my fish-eye and super-wide-angle range. Nor will my camera have to make
    special auto-focusing allowances to prevent front/back focusing problems
    inherent in all phase-focusing cameras.

    I suspect that DSLR owners will finally learn how a lens of this range can
    be put to good use. Like I've been using regularly for all manner of
    subjects for the last 9 years. Better late than never, I guess. They're
    always so far behind though.
     
    Superzooms Still Win, Sep 2, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. On Thu, 02 Sep 2010 18:54:29 +0100, Bruce <> wrote:

    >I saw the announcement for this lens about a week ago but don't recall
    >it being discussed in the rec.photo.* newsgroups. As the header says,
    >it is a zoom fisheye lens. It has full frame (24x36) coverage at 15mm
    >and the usual circular fisheye image within the full frame at 8mm.
    >
    >I'm not a fisheye fan, so would be unlikely to buy one. But it must
    >appeal to some, otherwise why design, develop and manufacture it?


    For the same reason that I use an excellent (zero CA) fish-eye adapter on
    my superzoom cameras to seamlessly zoom from 9mm-36mm. For one simple
    example, when shooting aurora. I can instantly go from a horizon to horizon
    9mm full-sky inventory to a more moderate 16mm wide-angle, to more closely
    frame some of the important or interesting and colorful areas of the
    auroral activity. Or documenting meteors during strong storms. It's also
    great for capturing, and properly framing, sunset/rise and mountain vistas,
    or wide sweeps of colors in fall-foliage. Some sunrise/sets can easily take
    2-5 frames done at 16mm and then pano-stitched. For example, this sunset
    shot with four 16mm frames in portrait orientation and stitched.
    <http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4133/4952676314_9a6cfb0a6a_z.jpg> (N.E.
    Quetico Nat. Park) Some cropping after-stitching for better composition. Or
    macro photography where you wish to frame a deep subject (now all in focus)
    with wide washes of background hues.

    There are many uses, once you use one. This is generally not something the
    typical pretend-photographer troll can imagine in their mind unless they've
    actually put one to use. The other added advantage is that this is all
    available for under $100 at f/2.0 or f/2.4. (Depending on which superzoom
    camera the fish-eye adapter is used on. It does not detract from the
    camera's own original widest aperture.) That's a $1,300 savings with a
    2-stop advantage. Not to mention the extra seamless non-vignetted zoom
    range of 16mm-36mm that's not covered by this $1,400 8-15mm lens. Oh, one
    other thing. I won't be getting my cameras' sensors dirty nor any
    condensation on the mirror and focusing-screen by changing to my fish-eye
    and super-wide-angle range. Nor will my camera have to make special
    auto-focusing allowances to prevent front/back focusing problems inherent
    in all phase-focusing cameras.

    I suspect that DSLR owners will finally learn how a lens of this range can
    be put to good use. Like I've been using regularly for all manner of
    subjects for the last 9 years. Better late than never, I guess. They're
    always so far behind though.
     
    Superzooms Still Win, Sep 2, 2010
    #3
  4. Bruce

    Peter Guest

    "Bowser" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Thu, 02 Sep 2010 17:13:06 -0500, Superzooms Still Win
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>On Thu, 02 Sep 2010 18:54:29 +0100, Bruce <> wrote:
    >>
    >>>I saw the announcement for this lens about a week ago but don't recall
    >>>it being discussed in the rec.photo.* newsgroups. As the header says,
    >>>it is a zoom fisheye lens. It has full frame (24x36) coverage at 15mm
    >>>and the usual circular fisheye image within the full frame at 8mm.
    >>>
    >>>I'm not a fisheye fan, so would be unlikely to buy one. But it must
    >>>appeal to some, otherwise why design, develop and manufacture it?

    >>
    >>For the same reason that I use an excellent (zero CA) fish-eye adapter on
    >>my superzoom cameras to seamlessly zoom from 9mm-36mm. For one simple
    >>example, when shooting aurora. I can instantly go from a horizon to
    >>horizon
    >>9mm full-sky inventory to a more moderate 16mm wide-angle, to more closely
    >>frame some of the important or interesting and colorful areas of the
    >>auroral activity. Or documenting meteors during strong storms. It's also
    >>great for capturing, and properly framing, sunset/rise and mountain
    >>vistas,
    >>or wide sweeps of colors in fall-foliage. Some sunrise/sets can easily
    >>take
    >>2-3 frames done at 16mm and then pano-stitched. Macro photography where
    >>you
    >>wish to frame a deep subject (now all in focus) with wide washes of
    >>background colors and hues.There are many uses, once you use one. This is
    >>generally not something the typical pretend-photographer troll can imagine
    >>in their mind unless they've actually put one to use. The other added
    >>advantage is that this is all available for under $100 at f/2.0 or f/2.4.
    >>(Depending on which superzoom camera the fish-eye adapter is used on. It
    >>does not detract from the camera's own original widest aperture.) That's a
    >>$1,300 savings with a 2-stop advantage. Not to mention the extra seamless
    >>non-vignetted zoom range of 16mm-36mm that's not covered by this $1,400
    >>8-15mm lens. Oh, one other thing. I won't be getting my cameras' sensors
    >>dirty nor any condensation on the mirror and focusing-screen by changing
    >>to
    >>my fish-eye and super-wide-angle range. Nor will my camera have to make
    >>special auto-focusing allowances to prevent front/back focusing problems
    >>inherent in all phase-focusing cameras.
    >>
    >>I suspect that DSLR owners will finally learn how a lens of this range can
    >>be put to good use. Like I've been using regularly for all manner of
    >>subjects for the last 9 years. Better late than never, I guess. They're
    >>always so far behind though.

    >
    > Sounds interesting. Please post some samples.



    Don't hold your breath.

    --
    Peter
     
    Peter, Sep 3, 2010
    #4
  5. Bruce

    Peter Guest

    "Superzooms Still Win" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Fri, 03 Sep 2010 18:20:29 -0400, Bowser <> wrote:
    >
    >>
    >>I'm not. Just calling out an imbeclie to embarass themselves further
    >>by offering silly excuses as to why it won't post samples. It's
    >>claimed that it's done it already, so I've asked it for a link.
    >>
    >>Still not holding my breath.

    >
    > Still not reading all the posts either, I see. Let me know when you spot
    > that omelet covering your face.
    >
    > I.e. "an imbeclie to embarass themselves further".
    >



    Bowser used the expression as it should be used where, as here the object
    suffers from multiple personality disorder.

    --
    Peter
     
    Peter, Sep 4, 2010
    #5
  6. Bruce

    Peter Guest

    "LOL!" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Sat, 4 Sep 2010 17:26:14 -0700, Savageduck
    > <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >
    >>On 2010-09-04 16:42:41 -0700, Bowser <> said:
    >>
    >>> On Fri, 3 Sep 2010 16:30:54 -0700, Savageduck
    >>> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> On 2010-09-03 16:17:03 -0700, "Peter" <>
    >>>> said:
    >>>>
    >>>>> "Superzooms Still Win" <> wrote in message
    >>>>> news:...
    >>>>>> On Fri, 03 Sep 2010 18:20:29 -0400, Bowser <> wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> I'm not. Just calling out an imbeclie to embarass themselves further
    >>>>>>> by offering silly excuses as to why it won't post samples. It's
    >>>>>>> claimed that it's done it already, so I've asked it for a link.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Still not holding my breath.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Still not reading all the posts either, I see. Let me know when you
    >>>>>> spot
    >>>>>> that omelet covering your face.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> I.e. "an imbeclie to embarass themselves further".
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Bowser used the expression as it should be used where, as here the
    >>>>> object suffers from multiple personality disorder.
    >>>>
    >>>> I believe he ( Der Troll) is referring to the two spelling errors, the
    >>>> transposed "i & l" in "imbecile" and the single "r" in "embarrassed."
    >>>> Just his version of net-coppery.
    >>>
    >>> Typos and spelling errors. Shocking.
    >>>
    >>> I've never seen any fisheye images from it. Have you?

    >>
    >>Not one.

    >
    > Really? You've never seen these two image taken with a superzoom and
    > fish-eye adapter before?
    >
    > 9mm EFL
    > <http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4080/4958733232_ab5e5a8663_b.jpg>
    >
    > 16mm EFL
    > <http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4148/4958733238_92f1584d67_b.jpg>
    >
    > They've both been posted no less than a dozen times in the last year, to
    > the very threads in which you fuckingly useless trolls were trying to drag
    > everything off-topic yet again. Just as you are trying to do now. I guess
    > that's what you troll cunts get for poking your own eyes out to retain
    > your
    > much-sought-after bliss of self-induced ignorance.
    >
    > Only this time they are ultra-JPG-degraded, instead of the originals that
    > show they are pixel-detail sharp and have zero CA right to the edges. Just
    > because you all deserve it for so blatantly lying about never having seen
    > these and others before.
    >
    > LOL!
    >


    Congratulations and thank you for posting!
    Those technically and esthetically vomitatious images have just reinforced
    my reasons for using my Nikon.

    --
    Peter
     
    Peter, Sep 5, 2010
    #6
  7. Bruce

    SMS Guest

    On 9/2/2010 10:54 AM, Bruce wrote:
    > I saw the announcement for this lens about a week ago but don't recall
    > it being discussed in the rec.photo.* newsgroups. As the header says,
    > it is a zoom fisheye lens. It has full frame (24x36) coverage at 15mm
    > and the usual circular fisheye image within the full frame at 8mm.
    >
    > I'm not a fisheye fan, so would be unlikely to buy one. But it must
    > appeal to some, otherwise why design, develop and manufacture it?
    >
    > Available from 1/1/11.
    >
    > http://preview.tinyurl.com/366efnj
    > or:
    > http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/profe...lineup/lens_uw_pro/ef_8_15mm_f_4l_fisheye_usm


    With the advent of digital, fisheye lenses actually are more useful than
    they were for film. Besides the usual uses (meterology), you can use
    postprocessing to get a very wide FOV, with only slight loss of detail.
    An MSRP of $1400 means it'll likely retail for around $1100, which is
    not unreasonable for an L lens with Fluorine coating.

    There are some fisheye adapters available for P&S cameras--like all of
    the P&S lens adapters, the quality varies from mediocre to abysmal, but
    they can be fun to play with anyway.
     
    SMS, Sep 5, 2010
    #7
  8. Bruce

    SMS Guest

    On 9/4/2010 9:09 PM, Savageduck wrote:
    > On 2010-09-04 20:37:57 -0700, Outing Trolls is FUN!
    > <> said:
    >
    >> On Sat, 04 Sep 2010 20:14:22 -0700, SMS <>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>> On 9/2/2010 10:54 AM, Bruce wrote:
    >>>> I saw the announcement for this lens about a week ago but don't recall
    >>>> it being discussed in the rec.photo.* newsgroups. As the header says,
    >>>> it is a zoom fisheye lens. It has full frame (24x36) coverage at 15mm
    >>>> and the usual circular fisheye image within the full frame at 8mm.
    >>>>
    >>>> I'm not a fisheye fan, so would be unlikely to buy one. But it must
    >>>> appeal to some, otherwise why design, develop and manufacture it?
    >>>>
    >>>> Available from 1/1/11.
    >>>>
    >>>> http://preview.tinyurl.com/366efnj
    >>>> or:
    >>>> http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/profe...lineup/lens_uw_pro/ef_8_15mm_f_4l_fisheye_usm
    >>>>

    >
    > With
    >>>>
    >>> the advent of digital, fisheye lenses actually are more useful than
    >>> they were for film. Besides the usual uses (meterology), you can use
    >>> postprocessing to get a very wide FOV, with only slight loss of detail.
    >>> An MSRP of $1400 means it'll likely retail for around $1100, which is
    >>> not unreasonable for an L lens with Fluorine coating.

    >>
    >> Fluorine? LOL

    >
    > I guess you are too brilliant to read the URL's posted.
    >
    > In the one directly above, you will find the following:
    > "It features UD glass for suppression of chromatic aberration, a
    > Subwavelength coating for reduced ghosting, a newly developed Fluorine
    > coating that keeps soiling, smears and fingerprints to a minimum,"
    >
    > Who cares if it works, or not. What is demonstrated yet again is your
    > psychotic arrogance based on ignorance.


    Is he Rod Speed and John Navas rolled into one?
     
    SMS, Sep 5, 2010
    #8
  9. Bruce

    SMS Guest

    On 9/4/2010 10:30 PM, Savageduck wrote:

    <snip>

    >> Is he Rod Speed and John Navas rolled into one?

    >
    > No, he is more like the serial killer "Buffalo Bill" from "Silence of
    > The Lambs" and Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber rolled into one.
    > Even Navas has some redeeming qualities. He is capable of taking good
    > photographs (even with a super zoom), he has some skills & knowledge
    > when it comes to competitive sailing, and he seems to have a social
    > conscience.
    >
    > Though sometimes he is capable of provoking a head pounding argument.
    > Especially when he and George Kerby go at each other. At that point I
    > just move to the side lines as rationality has gone out the window.


    The shtick of our favorite troll and the shtick of Navas got old a long
    time ago. Nothing ever based on rationality. It's what's destroying
    Usenet. Kill-files help, but the trolls still drive normal people away.
    It seems to all come from an almost insane jealousy that there are
    people that know so much more than they do.
     
    SMS, Sep 5, 2010
    #9
  10. Bruce

    John Turco Guest

    SMS wrote:

    <edited for brevity>

    > With the advent of digital, fisheye lenses actually are more useful than
    > they were for film. Besides the usual uses (meterology), you can use
    > postprocessing to get a very wide FOV, with only slight loss of detail.
    > An MSRP of $1400 means it'll likely retail for around $1100, which is
    > not unreasonable for an L lens with Fluorine coating.
    >
    > There are some fisheye adapters available for P&S cameras--like all of
    > the P&S lens adapters, the quality varies from mediocre to abysmal, but
    > they can be fun to play with anyway.



    Hmmm..."Fluorine" coating, you say? I'd gather that those "L" lenses have
    healthy teeth, as a result of such foresight on Canon's part.

    --
    Cordially,
    John Turco <>

    Marie's Musings <http://fairiesandtails.blogspot.com>
     
    John Turco, Sep 6, 2010
    #10
  11. Bruce

    Martin Brown Guest

    On 05/09/2010 05:09, Savageduck wrote:
    > On 2010-09-04 20:37:57 -0700, Outing Trolls is FUN!
    > <> said:
    >
    >> On Sat, 04 Sep 2010 20:14:22 -0700, SMS <>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>> On 9/2/2010 10:54 AM, Bruce wrote:
    >>>> I saw the announcement for this lens about a week ago but don't recall
    >>>> it being discussed in the rec.photo.* newsgroups. As the header says,
    >>>> it is a zoom fisheye lens. It has full frame (24x36) coverage at 15mm
    >>>> and the usual circular fisheye image within the full frame at 8mm.
    >>>>
    >>>> I'm not a fisheye fan, so would be unlikely to buy one. But it must
    >>>> appeal to some, otherwise why design, develop and manufacture it?
    >>>>
    >>>> Available from 1/1/11.
    >>>>
    >>>> http://preview.tinyurl.com/366efnj
    >>>> or:
    >>>> http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/profe...lineup/lens_uw_pro/ef_8_15mm_f_4l_fisheye_usm
    >>>>

    >
    > With
    >>>>
    >>> the advent of digital, fisheye lenses actually are more useful than
    >>> they were for film. Besides the usual uses (meterology), you can use
    >>> postprocessing to get a very wide FOV, with only slight loss of detail.
    >>> An MSRP of $1400 means it'll likely retail for around $1100, which is
    >>> not unreasonable for an L lens with Fluorine coating.

    >>
    >> Fluorine? LOL

    >
    > I guess you are too brilliant to read the URL's posted.
    >
    > In the one directly above, you will find the following:
    > "It features UD glass for suppression of chromatic aberration, a
    > Subwavelength coating for reduced ghosting, a newly developed Fluorine
    > coating that keeps soiling, smears and fingerprints to a minimum,"


    Unfortunately it does. But this only proves that Canons ad copywriters
    are completely clueless about chemistry. Flourine can attack glass and
    would damage the surface finish - lens coatings are usually thin layers
    of inorganic fluorides. Most commonly MgF2 with traces of other stuff -
    it is exceptionally insoluble.

    Elemental fluorine is far too reactive to survive in the environment -
    it will oxidise atmospheric oxygen. It is possible they are using one of
    a new generation of fluoropolymers on this lens but it is inconceivable
    that there is any free fluorine on the lens surface!
    >
    > Who cares if it works, or not. What is demonstrated yet again is your
    > psychotic arrogance based on ignorance.
    >
    > LOL, indeed.


    In this particular case he has a point though. It is the same mistake as
    the silicon (sic) breast implants. Right element wrong chemistry.

    Regards,
    Martin Brown
     
    Martin Brown, Sep 6, 2010
    #11
  12. On Mon, 6 Sep 2010 00:30:19 -0700, Savageduck
    <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:


    >. I wonder if
    >anybody has told Canon of the error in their document.


    Probably not. The average reader is not very intelligent. You and the SMS
    troll's average IQs added together probably wouldn't amount to 100. Neither
    of you spotted it. I spotted it just from the crap that you fuckingly
    stupid trolls relentlessly copy and paste from web-pages or text from other
    equally stupid trolls on the net, trying to act like you might know
    something. The best that any of you can muster is, "Oh, this sounds like
    really smart and impressive stuff! I better copy it and post it somewhere
    so people will think I'm smart too! Let's see, what was that keyboard
    shortcut again? Oh, yeah. CTRL-C. Now we open our newsreader thingy and
    hit, ... ummm... damn, was that CTRL-B? NO WAIT! I remember now. It's
    CTRL-V! Oh-BOY! I remembered! I remembered!" How often do you mumble that
    to yourself? Probably never. You have to use the slower and dumbed-down
    "user friendly" context-menu options designed with idiots like you in mind.

    Now do you understand why all you troll-cunts always appear to be nothing
    but total idiots? Because you ARE total idiots.
     
    Outing Trolls is FUN!, Sep 6, 2010
    #12
  13. Bruce

    Peter Guest

    "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
    news:2010090422301850878-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
    > On 2010-09-04 22:15:54 -0700, SMS <> said:
    >
    >> On 9/4/2010 9:09 PM, Savageduck wrote:
    >>> On 2010-09-04 20:37:57 -0700, Outing Trolls is FUN!
    >>> <> said:
    >>>
    >>>> On Sat, 04 Sep 2010 20:14:22 -0700, SMS <>
    >>>> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> On 9/2/2010 10:54 AM, Bruce wrote:
    >>>>>> I saw the announcement for this lens about a week ago but don't
    >>>>>> recall
    >>>>>> it being discussed in the rec.photo.* newsgroups. As the header says,
    >>>>>> it is a zoom fisheye lens. It has full frame (24x36) coverage at 15mm
    >>>>>> and the usual circular fisheye image within the full frame at 8mm.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> I'm not a fisheye fan, so would be unlikely to buy one. But it must
    >>>>>> appeal to some, otherwise why design, develop and manufacture it?
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Available from 1/1/11.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> http://preview.tinyurl.com/366efnj
    >>>>>> or:
    >>>>>> http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/profe...lineup/lens_uw_pro/ef_8_15mm_f_4l_fisheye_usm

    >
    >
    > With
    >
    > the
    >>>>>>
    >>>>> advent of digital, fisheye lenses actually are more useful than
    >>>>> they were for film. Besides the usual uses (meterology), you can use
    >>>>> postprocessing to get a very wide FOV, with only slight loss of
    >>>>> detail.
    >>>>> An MSRP of $1400 means it'll likely retail for around $1100, which is
    >>>>> not unreasonable for an L lens with Fluorine coating.
    >>>>
    >>>> Fluorine? LOL
    >>>
    >>> I guess you are too brilliant to read the URL's posted.
    >>>
    >>> In the one directly above, you will find the following:
    >>> "It features UD glass for suppression of chromatic aberration, a
    >>> Subwavelength coating for reduced ghosting, a newly developed Fluorine
    >>> coating that keeps soiling, smears and fingerprints to a minimum,"
    >>>
    >>> Who cares if it works, or not. What is demonstrated yet again is your
    >>> psychotic arrogance based on ignorance.

    >>
    >> Is he Rod Speed and John Navas rolled into one?

    >
    > No, he is more like the serial killer "Buffalo Bill" from "Silence of The
    > Lambs" and Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber rolled into one.


    Strange you mention that. Some of his postngs have a erie similarity to a
    recent interview with Charles Manson.



    --
    Peter
     
    Peter, Sep 6, 2010
    #13
  14. Bruce

    Peter Guest

    "SMS" <> wrote in message
    news:4c832c09$0$1627$...
    > On 9/4/2010 10:30 PM, Savageduck wrote:
    >
    > <snip>
    >
    >>> Is he Rod Speed and John Navas rolled into one?

    >>
    >> No, he is more like the serial killer "Buffalo Bill" from "Silence of
    >> The Lambs" and Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber rolled into one.
    >> Even Navas has some redeeming qualities. He is capable of taking good
    >> photographs (even with a super zoom), he has some skills & knowledge
    >> when it comes to competitive sailing, and he seems to have a social
    >> conscience.
    >>
    >> Though sometimes he is capable of provoking a head pounding argument.
    >> Especially when he and George Kerby go at each other. At that point I
    >> just move to the side lines as rationality has gone out the window.

    >
    > The shtick of our favorite troll and the shtick of Navas got old a long
    > time ago. Nothing ever based on rationality. It's what's destroying
    > Usenet. Kill-files help, but the trolls still drive normal people away. It
    > seems to all come from an almost insane jealousy that there are people
    > that know so much more than they do.



    I think its based more on some type of sick desire to screw things up and/or
    a bid for attention. I'm sure someone with a decent amount of psychological
    training could give us a better explanation.


    --
    Peter
     
    Peter, Sep 6, 2010
    #14
  15. Bruce

    Peter Guest

    "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
    news:2010090600301922503-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
    > On 2010-09-06 00:05:24 -0700, Martin Brown
    > <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> said:
    >
    >> On 05/09/2010 05:09, Savageduck wrote:
    >>> On 2010-09-04 20:37:57 -0700, Outing Trolls is FUN!
    >>> <> said:
    >>>
    >>>> On Sat, 04 Sep 2010 20:14:22 -0700, SMS <>
    >>>> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> On 9/2/2010 10:54 AM, Bruce wrote:
    >>>>>> I saw the announcement for this lens about a week ago but don't
    >>>>>> recall
    >>>>>> it being discussed in the rec.photo.* newsgroups. As the header says,
    >>>>>> it is a zoom fisheye lens. It has full frame (24x36) coverage at 15mm
    >>>>>> and the usual circular fisheye image within the full frame at 8mm.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> I'm not a fisheye fan, so would be unlikely to buy one. But it must
    >>>>>> appeal to some, otherwise why design, develop and manufacture it?
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Available from 1/1/11.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> http://preview.tinyurl.com/366efnj
    >>>>>> or:
    >>>>>> http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/profe...lineup/lens_uw_pro/ef_8_15mm_f_4l_fisheye_usm

    >
    >
    > With
    >
    > the
    >>>>>>
    >>>>> advent of digital, fisheye lenses actually are more useful than
    >>>>> they were for film. Besides the usual uses (meterology), you can use
    >>>>> postprocessing to get a very wide FOV, with only slight loss of
    >>>>> detail.
    >>>>> An MSRP of $1400 means it'll likely retail for around $1100, which is
    >>>>> not unreasonable for an L lens with Fluorine coating.
    >>>>
    >>>> Fluorine? LOL
    >>>
    >>> I guess you are too brilliant to read the URL's posted.
    >>>
    >>> In the one directly above, you will find the following:
    >>> "It features UD glass for suppression of chromatic aberration, a
    >>> Subwavelength coating for reduced ghosting, a newly developed Fluorine
    >>> coating that keeps soiling, smears and fingerprints to a minimum,"

    >>
    >> Unfortunately it does. But this only proves that Canons ad copywriters
    >> are completely clueless about chemistry. Flourine can attack glass and
    >> would damage the surface finish - lens coatings are usually thin layers
    >> of inorganic fluorides. Most commonly MgF2 with traces of other stuff -
    >> it is exceptionally insoluble.
    >>
    >> Elemental fluorine is far too reactive to survive in the environment - it
    >> will oxidise atmospheric oxygen. It is possible they are using one of a
    >> new generation of fluoropolymers on this lens but it is inconceivable
    >> that there is any free fluorine on the lens surface!
    >>>
    >>> Who cares if it works, or not. What is demonstrated yet again is your
    >>> psychotic arrogance based on ignorance.
    >>>
    >>> LOL, indeed.

    >>
    >> In this particular case he has a point though. It is the same mistake as
    >> the silicon (sic) breast implants. Right element wrong chemistry.
    >>
    >> Regards,
    >> Martin Brown

    >
    > I guess there was something lost in the Japanese-English translation that
    > the proof readers, and the citizenry did not question. I wonder if anybody
    > has told Canon of the error in their document.
    >



    Don't be so quick to concede a point.

    http://www.cerac.com/pubs/proddata/thf4.htm



    --
    Peter
     
    Peter, Sep 6, 2010
    #15
  16. Bruce

    Peter Guest

    "Martin Brown" <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
    news:Ko0ho.11475$...
    > On 05/09/2010 05:09, Savageduck wrote:
    >> On 2010-09-04 20:37:57 -0700, Outing Trolls is FUN!
    >> <> said:
    >>
    >>> On Sat, 04 Sep 2010 20:14:22 -0700, SMS <>
    >>> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> On 9/2/2010 10:54 AM, Bruce wrote:
    >>>>> I saw the announcement for this lens about a week ago but don't recall
    >>>>> it being discussed in the rec.photo.* newsgroups. As the header says,
    >>>>> it is a zoom fisheye lens. It has full frame (24x36) coverage at 15mm
    >>>>> and the usual circular fisheye image within the full frame at 8mm.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> I'm not a fisheye fan, so would be unlikely to buy one. But it must
    >>>>> appeal to some, otherwise why design, develop and manufacture it?
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Available from 1/1/11.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> http://preview.tinyurl.com/366efnj
    >>>>> or:
    >>>>> http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/profe...lineup/lens_uw_pro/ef_8_15mm_f_4l_fisheye_usm
    >>>>>

    >>
    >> With
    >>>>>
    >>>> the advent of digital, fisheye lenses actually are more useful than
    >>>> they were for film. Besides the usual uses (meterology), you can use
    >>>> postprocessing to get a very wide FOV, with only slight loss of detail.
    >>>> An MSRP of $1400 means it'll likely retail for around $1100, which is
    >>>> not unreasonable for an L lens with Fluorine coating.
    >>>
    >>> Fluorine? LOL

    >>
    >> I guess you are too brilliant to read the URL's posted.
    >>
    >> In the one directly above, you will find the following:
    >> "It features UD glass for suppression of chromatic aberration, a
    >> Subwavelength coating for reduced ghosting, a newly developed Fluorine
    >> coating that keeps soiling, smears and fingerprints to a minimum,"

    >
    > Unfortunately it does. But this only proves that Canons ad copywriters are
    > completely clueless about chemistry. Flourine can attack glass and would
    > damage the surface finish - lens coatings are usually thin layers of
    > inorganic fluorides. Most commonly MgF2 with traces of other stuff - it is
    > exceptionally insoluble.
    >
    > Elemental fluorine is far too reactive to survive in the environment - it
    > will oxidise atmospheric oxygen. It is possible they are using one of a
    > new generation of fluoropolymers on this lens but it is inconceivable that
    > there is any free fluorine on the lens surface!
    >>
    >> Who cares if it works, or not. What is demonstrated yet again is your
    >> psychotic arrogance based on ignorance.
    >>
    >> LOL, indeed.

    >
    > In this particular case he has a point though. It is the same mistake as
    > the silicon (sic) breast implants. Right element wrong chemistry.



    Some simple research says that there are fluoride compound that are used as
    gaseous optical coatings.


    --
    Peter
     
    Peter, Sep 6, 2010
    #16
  17. Bruce

    Martin Brown Guest

    On 06/09/2010 14:46, Peter wrote:
    > "Martin Brown" <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
    > news:Ko0ho.11475$...
    >> On 05/09/2010 05:09, Savageduck wrote:
    >>> On 2010-09-04 20:37:57 -0700, Outing Trolls is FUN!
    >>> <> said:
    >>>
    >>>> Fluorine? LOL
    >>>
    >>> I guess you are too brilliant to read the URL's posted.
    >>>
    >>> In the one directly above, you will find the following:
    >>> "It features UD glass for suppression of chromatic aberration, a
    >>> Subwavelength coating for reduced ghosting, a newly developed Fluorine
    >>> coating that keeps soiling, smears and fingerprints to a minimum,"

    >>
    >> Unfortunately it does. But this only proves that Canons ad copywriters
    >> are completely clueless about chemistry. Flourine can attack glass and
    >> would damage the surface finish - lens coatings are usually thin
    >> layers of inorganic fluorides. Most commonly MgF2 with traces of other
    >> stuff - it is exceptionally insoluble.
    >>
    >> Elemental fluorine is far too reactive to survive in the environment -
    >> it will oxidise atmospheric oxygen. It is possible they are using one
    >> of a new generation of fluoropolymers on this lens but it is
    >> inconceivable that there is any free fluorine on the lens surface!
    >>>
    >>> Who cares if it works, or not. What is demonstrated yet again is your
    >>> psychotic arrogance based on ignorance.
    >>>
    >>> LOL, indeed.

    >>
    >> In this particular case he has a point though. It is the same mistake
    >> as the silicon (sic) breast implants. Right element wrong chemistry.

    >
    >
    > Some simple research says that there are fluoride compound that are used
    > as gaseous optical coatings.


    That is *exactly* the point. inorganic *fluoride* optical coatings are
    common and have been since it was possible to do reliable vapour phase
    deposition. There are even a handful of exotic APO lenses and somewhat
    more telescopes with one element made out of single crystal CaF2.

    But the critical point is that it is *NOT* elemental fluorine as their
    crazy advertising copy claims. Right element but the wrong chemistry.

    Regards,
    Martin Brown
     
    Martin Brown, Sep 6, 2010
    #17
  18. Bruce

    SMS Guest

    On 9/6/2010 7:56 AM, Martin Brown wrote:

    <snip>

    > But the critical point is that it is *NOT* elemental fluorine as their
    > crazy advertising copy claims. Right element but the wrong chemistry.


    Nowhere do they claim "elemental fluorine." It's pretty clear what they
    mean. They've been using "Fluorine" coatings on their BWLs for years.
     
    SMS, Sep 6, 2010
    #18
  19. Bruce

    SMS Guest

    On 9/3/2010 9:57 AM, Bowser wrote:

    > Sounds interesting. Please post some samples.


    LOL. You'll be dead before that happens.
     
    SMS, Sep 6, 2010
    #19
  20. On 9/6/2010 2:05 AM, Martin Brown wrote:

    > Unfortunately it does. But this only proves that Canons ad copywriters are completely clueless about
    > chemistry. Flourine can attack glass and would damage the surface finish - lens coatings are usually
    > thin layers of inorganic fluorides. Most commonly MgF2 with traces of other stuff - it is
    > exceptionally insoluble.


    MgF2 is the material usually used in single-layer coatings. Modern
    multilayer coatings uses a variety of oxides, including SiOx (where 0 < x < 2),
    TiO2, ZrO2, HfO2, Y2O3, Al2O3, and Ta2O5



    >
    > Elemental fluorine is far too reactive to survive in the environment - it will oxidise atmospheric
    > oxygen. It is possible they are using one of a new generation of fluoropolymers on this lens but it
    > is inconceivable that there is any free fluorine on the lens surface!


    It's probably a fluoropolymer. However, I distrust those to last forever.

    Fluorine doesn't oxidize oxygen at ambient pressure and temperature. I've used
    a lot of the stuff ... I own part of the long-expired patent for making
    fluoropolymer coatings using molecular fluorine.


    >
    > In this particular case he has a point though. It is the same mistake as the silicon (sic) breast
    > implants. Right element wrong chemistry.
    >


    Indeed! "Silicones" don't exist except in the gas phase. They
    polymerize much more rapidly than ketones to make polysiloxanes.

    When an undergrad I did a lots of stuff with reactions of SiF2 ...
    very interesting stuff. It polymerizes to the Si analog of Teflon,
    which has the same physical properties as Teflon, but it catches fire
    in air.

    Doug McDonald
     
    Doug McDonald, Sep 6, 2010
    #20
    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. peter
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    5,168
    peter
    Jul 11, 2003
  2. Jimmy Smith

    10D and 15mm fisheye lens?

    Jimmy Smith, Nov 15, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    505
    Chris Brown
    Nov 15, 2003
  3. Michael A. Covington

    Canon 18-55 EF-S: USM or not USM?

    Michael A. Covington, Oct 26, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    422
    Skip M
    Oct 26, 2004
  4. Joe Smith
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    393
  5. fr@nk
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    976
    Barry
    Jul 12, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page