New Canon EF-S 60mm F2.8 Macro?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by John A. Stovall, Mar 30, 2005.

  1. On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 01:09:01 GMT, John A. Stovall
    <> wrote:

    Has anyone actual seen one of these?

    Here's the link...

    http://consumer.usa.canon.com/app/pdf/lens/EFLensChart.pdf


    A better link.

    http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?act=ModelDetailAct&fcategoryid=155&modelid=11156


    ******************************************************

    "All the territorial possessions of all the political
    establishments in the earth--including America,
    of course-- consist of pilferings from other people's
    wash. No tribe, howsoever insignificant, and no nation,
    howsoever mighty occupies a foot of land that was not
    stolen."

    Mark Twain
    "Following the Equator"
    John A. Stovall, Mar 30, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. John A. Stovall

    grenner Guest

    I spoke with a Canon rep last weekend at local photo store and he said it is
    due out the end of April.

    Greg
    "John A. Stovall" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 01:09:01 GMT, John A. Stovall
    > <> wrote:
    >
    > Has anyone actual seen one of these?
    >
    > Here's the link...
    >
    > http://consumer.usa.canon.com/app/pdf/lens/EFLensChart.pdf
    >
    >
    > A better link.
    >
    > http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?act=ModelDetailAct&fcategoryid=155&modelid=11156
    >
    >
    > ******************************************************
    >
    > "All the territorial possessions of all the political
    > establishments in the earth--including America,
    > of course-- consist of pilferings from other people's
    > wash. No tribe, howsoever insignificant, and no nation,
    > howsoever mighty occupies a foot of land that was not
    > stolen."
    >
    > Mark Twain
    > "Following the Equator"
    grenner, Mar 30, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. John A. Stovall

    Musty Guest

    "John A. Stovall" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 01:09:01 GMT, John A. Stovall
    > <> wrote:
    >
    > Has anyone actual seen one of these?
    >
    > Here's the link...
    >
    > http://consumer.usa.canon.com/app/pdf/lens/EFLensChart.pdf
    >
    >
    > A better link.
    >
    >

    http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?act=ModelDetailAct&fcategoryid=155&modelid=11156
    >
    >


    Personally, I am more excited about this 30mm f/1.4 sigma lens:

    http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp?id=3300&navigator=6

    The 30mm focal length on my 20D will behave the same as the very popular
    50mm primes on the 35mm SLRs, and f/1.4 is just awesome for low light
    shooting.

    Does anyone know, when this one will be available ?
    Musty, Mar 30, 2005
    #3
  4. John A. Stovall

    Tumbleweed Guest

    > Personally, I am more excited about this 30mm f/1.4 sigma lens:
    >
    > http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp?id=3300&navigator=6
    >
    > The 30mm focal length on my 20D will behave the same as the very popular
    > 50mm primes on the 35mm SLRs, and f/1.4 is just awesome for low light
    > shooting.
    >

    The Canon EF 28 1.8 is around already and is excellent.
    It's pretty much the same F.O.V and 1 stop slower.
    (Out of interest, 50mm was a compromise "standard" with 45mm being reckoned
    to be closer to "eyeball" FOV)

    The build quality is as to be expected from Canon - hopefully the 30mm will
    not be as expected from Sigma.

    In termes of usability the 1.8 will give you the bright viewfinder and
    shallow DOF you crave.
    It will also be less of a risk.

    Finally, I'll bet you can find a used one for around the same cost as the
    Sigma.....
    Tumbleweed, Mar 30, 2005
    #4
  5. In article <d2dr4m$6em$>, Tumbleweed
    <> writes
    >> Personally, I am more excited about this 30mm f/1.4 sigma lens:
    >>
    >> http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp?id=3300&navigator=6
    >>
    >> The 30mm focal length on my 20D will behave the same as the very popular
    >> 50mm primes on the 35mm SLRs, and f/1.4 is just awesome for low light
    >> shooting.
    >>

    >The Canon EF 28 1.8 is around already and is excellent.
    >It's pretty much the same F.O.V and 1 stop slower.


    Actually nearer half a stop (0.62 stops to be picky, but these things
    are not that precise).

    >(Out of interest, 50mm was a compromise "standard" with 45mm being reckoned
    >to be closer to "eyeball" FOV)
    >
    >The build quality is as to be expected from Canon - hopefully the 30mm will
    >not be as expected from Sigma.


    It will also work on a 35mm film body or a full-frame sensor body (1D/s
    series). The Sigma 30mm will, as admitted by Sigma, not cover the full
    field of such cameras.
    >
    >In termes of usability the 1.8 will give you the bright viewfinder and
    >shallow DOF you crave.
    >It will also be less of a risk.


    The only lenses I have ever had problems with have been Sigma ones.
    >
    >Finally, I'll bet you can find a used one for around the same cost as the
    >Sigma.....
    >
    >

    David
    --
    David Littlewood
    David Littlewood, Mar 30, 2005
    #5
  6. "Tumbleweed" <> wrote in message
    news:d2dr4m$6em$...
    >> Personally, I am more excited about this 30mm f/1.4 sigma lens:
    >>
    >> http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp?id=3300&navigator=6
    >>
    >> The 30mm focal length on my 20D will behave the same as the very popular
    >> 50mm primes on the 35mm SLRs, and f/1.4 is just awesome for low light
    >> shooting.
    >>

    > The Canon EF 28 1.8 is around already and is excellent.
    > It's pretty much the same F.O.V and 1 stop slower.
    > (Out of interest, 50mm was a compromise "standard" with 45mm being
    > reckoned to be closer to "eyeball" FOV)
    >
    > The build quality is as to be expected from Canon - hopefully the 30mm
    > will not be as expected from Sigma.
    >
    > In termes of usability the 1.8 will give you the bright viewfinder and
    > shallow DOF you crave.
    > It will also be less of a risk.
    >
    > Finally, I'll bet you can find a used one for around the same cost as the
    > Sigma.....
    >


    According to the Canon MTF data neither of the two 28mm lenses are that
    sharp. Either of the 24mm are better but best is one of the 35mm.
    Lester Wareham, Mar 31, 2005
    #6
  7. In article <424c417c$0$29915$>, Lester Wareham
    <> writes
    >
    >"Tumbleweed" <> wrote in message
    >news:d2dr4m$6em$...
    >>> Personally, I am more excited about this 30mm f/1.4 sigma lens:
    >>>
    >>> http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp?id=3300&navigator=6
    >>>
    >>> The 30mm focal length on my 20D will behave the same as the very popular
    >>> 50mm primes on the 35mm SLRs, and f/1.4 is just awesome for low light
    >>> shooting.
    >>>

    >> The Canon EF 28 1.8 is around already and is excellent.
    >> It's pretty much the same F.O.V and 1 stop slower.
    >> (Out of interest, 50mm was a compromise "standard" with 45mm being
    >> reckoned to be closer to "eyeball" FOV)
    >>
    >> The build quality is as to be expected from Canon - hopefully the 30mm
    >> will not be as expected from Sigma.
    >>
    >> In termes of usability the 1.8 will give you the bright viewfinder and
    >> shallow DOF you crave.
    >> It will also be less of a risk.
    >>
    >> Finally, I'll bet you can find a used one for around the same cost as the
    >> Sigma.....
    >>

    >
    >According to the Canon MTF data neither of the two 28mm lenses are that
    >sharp. Either of the 24mm are better but best is one of the 35mm.
    >
    >

    Well, according to the "EF Lens Work III" book published by Canon, the
    various 20, 24, 28 and 35mm EF lenses all look fairly similar, except
    that the two L lenses (24/1.4 and 35/1.4) hold their performance better
    to the edge of the frame. In view of their price and exotic design, this
    is as it should be.

    I have the 35/1.4, and it is indeed an excellent lens. I thought however
    that it would be a bit expensive for the OP.

    David
    --
    David Littlewood
    David Littlewood, Mar 31, 2005
    #7
  8. "David Littlewood" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In article <424c417c$0$29915$>, Lester Wareham
    > <> writes
    >>
    >>"Tumbleweed" <> wrote in message
    >>news:d2dr4m$6em$...
    >>>> Personally, I am more excited about this 30mm f/1.4 sigma lens:
    >>>>
    >>>> http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp?id=3300&navigator=6
    >>>>
    >>>> The 30mm focal length on my 20D will behave the same as the very
    >>>> popular
    >>>> 50mm primes on the 35mm SLRs, and f/1.4 is just awesome for low light
    >>>> shooting.
    >>>>
    >>> The Canon EF 28 1.8 is around already and is excellent.
    >>> It's pretty much the same F.O.V and 1 stop slower.
    >>> (Out of interest, 50mm was a compromise "standard" with 45mm being
    >>> reckoned to be closer to "eyeball" FOV)
    >>>
    >>> The build quality is as to be expected from Canon - hopefully the 30mm
    >>> will not be as expected from Sigma.
    >>>
    >>> In termes of usability the 1.8 will give you the bright viewfinder and
    >>> shallow DOF you crave.
    >>> It will also be less of a risk.
    >>>
    >>> Finally, I'll bet you can find a used one for around the same cost as
    >>> the
    >>> Sigma.....
    >>>

    >>
    >>According to the Canon MTF data neither of the two 28mm lenses are that
    >>sharp. Either of the 24mm are better but best is one of the 35mm.
    >>
    >>

    > Well, according to the "EF Lens Work III" book published by Canon, the
    > various 20, 24, 28 and 35mm EF lenses all look fairly similar, except that
    > the two L lenses (24/1.4 and 35/1.4) hold their performance better to the
    > edge of the frame. In view of their price and exotic design, this is as it
    > should be.
    >
    > I have the 35/1.4, and it is indeed an excellent lens. I thought however
    > that it would be a bit expensive for the OP.
    >
    > David
    > --
    > David Littlewood


    I would not agree with your view of the MTF charts. The 28mm f2.8 is OK for
    APS-C but of course no USM. The 24mm f1.4 is much better than the 28mm f1.8
    particularly over the centre of the frame. Both the 35mm have the best
    performance.

    Thus my statement that if you want performance at a low cost and don't need
    USM and FT-M go for the 35mm f2.

    I agree if you must have a wider view then the 24mm f2.8 and 28mm f2.8 have
    similar performance for APS-C but the 24mm better for full frame 35mm.

    The main thrust of the response was to warn that the 28mm f1.8 is not the
    sharpest lens about from Canon's own data.

    This is most obvious if you overlay the MTF data for various lenses. Take a
    look at http://www.zen20934.zen.co.uk/photography/lensselection.htm#28mm.

    Lester
    Lester Wareham, Apr 2, 2005
    #8
  9. In article <424e3585$0$5485$>, Lester Wareham
    <> writes
    >
    >"David Littlewood" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >>>

    >> Well, according to the "EF Lens Work III" book published by Canon, the
    >> various 20, 24, 28 and 35mm EF lenses all look fairly similar, except that
    >> the two L lenses (24/1.4 and 35/1.4) hold their performance better to the
    >> edge of the frame. In view of their price and exotic design, this is as it
    >> should be.
    >>
    >> I have the 35/1.4, and it is indeed an excellent lens. I thought however
    >> that it would be a bit expensive for the OP.
    >>
    >> David
    >> --
    >> David Littlewood

    >
    >I would not agree with your view of the MTF charts. The 28mm f2.8 is OK for
    >APS-C but of course no USM. The 24mm f1.4 is much better than the 28mm f1.8
    >particularly over the centre of the frame. Both the 35mm have the best
    >performance.
    >
    >Thus my statement that if you want performance at a low cost and don't need
    >USM and FT-M go for the 35mm f2.
    >
    >I agree if you must have a wider view then the 24mm f2.8 and 28mm f2.8 have
    >similar performance for APS-C but the 24mm better for full frame 35mm.
    >
    >The main thrust of the response was to warn that the 28mm f1.8 is not the
    >sharpest lens about from Canon's own data.
    >
    >This is most obvious if you overlay the MTF data for various lenses. Take a
    >look at http://www.zen20934.zen.co.uk/photography/lensselection.htm#28mm.
    >
    >Lester
    >

    Clearly we are looking at different data; the charts I looked at show
    exactly what I said they did. Looking at a single arbitrary cut-off
    point, though making mechanical comparisons a lot easier, does rather
    lose a lot of meaningful data; there are many cases of lines dipping
    below your limits and then rising back above them, suggesting a much
    better performance than implied by your cut-off point.

    I found your web site interesting, but some things puzzled me. You state
    in the preamble that "Clearly comparing maximum aperture data for lenses
    of different max apertures is of limited significance so only the f/8
    data is presented here". However, reading your data and remarks for,
    say, the 28/1.8, your crossing points - supposedly for f/8 - match
    almost exactly the crossing points shown for f/1.8 in my source. The
    corresponding figures for my source would be 17 and N/A for 10 lp/mm;
    and 5 and 11 for 30 lp/mm (note that the 11 is a very pessimistic figure
    as the MTF curve drops below 0.5 and then rapidly rises back above it to
    the edge of the frame.

    There are other significant differences, but I'm not sure it is worth
    going on; it simply shows that if we talk from different data sets we
    are likely to reach differing conclusions.

    It's an interesting exercise you did. I don't personally see the
    validity of ignoring the open-aperture performances; I didn't buy my
    35/1.4 because it has superior performance at f/8, but because I needed
    a lens which I could use at f/1.4 in museums etc. In fact its f/1.4
    performance is not that different from the f/2 performance of the 35/2
    (you could say, tongue in cheek, that its f/1.4 performance is decidedly
    superior to that of the other lens). The only fair and meaningful
    comparison of these two lenses would be at f/2.0, i.e. at the lower of
    the two maximum apertures. Unfortunately the data are not available.
    --
    David Littlewood
    David Littlewood, Apr 2, 2005
    #9
  10. "David Littlewood" <> wrote in message
    news:78+Eh5B$...
    > In article <424e3585$0$5485$>, Lester Wareham
    > <> writes
    >>
    >>"David Littlewood" <> wrote in message
    >>news:...
    >>>>
    >>> Well, according to the "EF Lens Work III" book published by Canon, the
    >>> various 20, 24, 28 and 35mm EF lenses all look fairly similar, except
    >>> that
    >>> the two L lenses (24/1.4 and 35/1.4) hold their performance better to
    >>> the
    >>> edge of the frame. In view of their price and exotic design, this is as
    >>> it
    >>> should be.
    >>>
    >>> I have the 35/1.4, and it is indeed an excellent lens. I thought however
    >>> that it would be a bit expensive for the OP.
    >>>
    >>> David
    >>> --
    >>> David Littlewood

    >>
    >>I would not agree with your view of the MTF charts. The 28mm f2.8 is OK
    >>for
    >>APS-C but of course no USM. The 24mm f1.4 is much better than the 28mm
    >>f1.8
    >>particularly over the centre of the frame. Both the 35mm have the best
    >>performance.
    >>
    >>Thus my statement that if you want performance at a low cost and don't
    >>need
    >>USM and FT-M go for the 35mm f2.
    >>
    >>I agree if you must have a wider view then the 24mm f2.8 and 28mm f2.8
    >>have
    >>similar performance for APS-C but the 24mm better for full frame 35mm.
    >>
    >>The main thrust of the response was to warn that the 28mm f1.8 is not the
    >>sharpest lens about from Canon's own data.
    >>
    >>This is most obvious if you overlay the MTF data for various lenses. Take
    >>a
    >>look at http://www.zen20934.zen.co.uk/photography/lensselection.htm#28mm.
    >>
    >>Lester
    >>

    > Clearly we are looking at different data; the charts I looked at show
    > exactly what I said they did. Looking at a single arbitrary cut-off point,
    > though making mechanical comparisons a lot easier, does rather lose a lot
    > of meaningful data; there are many cases of lines dipping below your
    > limits and then rising back above them, suggesting a much better
    > performance than implied by your cut-off point.
    >
    > I found your web site interesting, but some things puzzled me. You state
    > in the preamble that "Clearly comparing maximum aperture data for lenses
    > of different max apertures is of limited significance so only the f/8 data
    > is presented here". However, reading your data and remarks for, say, the
    > 28/1.8, your crossing points - supposedly for f/8 - match almost exactly
    > the crossing points shown for f/1.8 in my source. The corresponding
    > figures for my source would be 17 and N/A for 10 lp/mm; and 5 and 11 for
    > 30 lp/mm (note that the 11 is a very pessimistic figure as the MTF curve
    > drops below 0.5 and then rapidly rises back above it to the edge of the
    > frame.


    Hmm note that the presented plots are the worst case of the meridional and
    sagittal at each point.

    I checked the raw data for the 28/1.8 and this looks very close to the data
    on the USA web
    http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?act=ModelDetailAct&fcategoryid=151&modelid=7302,
    which I used as the primary source. But in the back of EF LENS WORK III the
    f/8 meriodional is much better although the other curves look the same.

    This is the second Canon data discrepancy I have seen. Which to believe? I
    see clearly the web data is wrong as the M and S for f/8 at 10lp/mm must be
    the same at the optimal centre by definition (should have seen this before
    bit it's been a lot of work).

    I delibratly used the worst case and the first drop below the MTF thresholds
    to maximise the differential between the lenses. If you take the average of
    everything then its is difficult to differentiate.

    >
    > There are other significant differences, but I'm not sure it is worth
    > going on; it simply shows that if we talk from different data sets we are
    > likely to reach differing conclusions.


    At least that trace is different for this lens. I begin to wonder how
    reliable the data is.

    >
    > It's an interesting exercise you did. I don't personally see the validity
    > of ignoring the open-aperture performances; I didn't buy my 35/1.4 because
    > it has superior performance at f/8, but because I needed a lens which I
    > could use at f/1.4 in museums etc. In fact its f/1.4 performance is not
    > that different from the f/2 performance of the 35/2 (you could say, tongue
    > in cheek, that its f/1.4 performance is decidedly superior to that of the
    > other lens). The only fair and meaningful comparison of these two lenses
    > would be at f/2.0, i.e. at the lower of the two maximum apertures.
    > Unfortunately the data are not available.


    There is in fact a section on maximum apature performance in
    http://www.zen20934.zen.co.uk/photography/lensselection.htm#Maximum Aperture Performance.
    As you say it is difficult when there is just one common aperture between
    all the lenses.

    Doubly so if Canon have two sets of data for the same lens!

    I'll update the web to use the Lens Works data, thanks for pointing this
    out.


    Lester
    Lester Wareham, Apr 2, 2005
    #10
  11. In article <424efcd4$0$5480$>, Lester Wareham
    <> writes
    >>>

    >> Clearly we are looking at different data; the charts I looked at show
    >> exactly what I said they did. Looking at a single arbitrary cut-off point,
    >> though making mechanical comparisons a lot easier, does rather lose a lot
    >> of meaningful data; there are many cases of lines dipping below your
    >> limits and then rising back above them, suggesting a much better
    >> performance than implied by your cut-off point.
    >>
    >> I found your web site interesting, but some things puzzled me. You state
    >> in the preamble that "Clearly comparing maximum aperture data for lenses
    >> of different max apertures is of limited significance so only the f/8 data
    >> is presented here". However, reading your data and remarks for, say, the
    >> 28/1.8, your crossing points - supposedly for f/8 - match almost exactly
    >> the crossing points shown for f/1.8 in my source. The corresponding
    >> figures for my source would be 17 and N/A for 10 lp/mm; and 5 and 11 for
    >> 30 lp/mm (note that the 11 is a very pessimistic figure as the MTF curve
    >> drops below 0.5 and then rapidly rises back above it to the edge of the
    >> frame.

    >
    >Hmm note that the presented plots are the worst case of the meridional and
    >sagittal at each point.


    Yes; I noticed (and followed) this.
    >
    >I checked the raw data for the 28/1.8 and this looks very close to the data
    >on the USA web
    >http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?act=ModelDetailAct&fcategory
    >id=151&modelid=7302,
    >which I used as the primary source. But in the back of EF LENS WORK III the
    >f/8 meriodional is much better although the other curves look the same.
    >
    >This is the second Canon data discrepancy I have seen. Which to believe? I
    >see clearly the web data is wrong as the M and S for f/8 at 10lp/mm must be
    >the same at the optimal centre by definition (should have seen this before
    >bit it's been a lot of work).
    >
    >I delibratly used the worst case and the first drop below the MTF thresholds
    >to maximise the differential between the lenses. If you take the average of
    >everything then its is difficult to differentiate.
    >
    >>
    >> There are other significant differences, but I'm not sure it is worth
    >> going on; it simply shows that if we talk from different data sets we are
    >> likely to reach differing conclusions.

    >
    >At least that trace is different for this lens. I begin to wonder how
    >reliable the data is.
    >
    >>
    >> It's an interesting exercise you did. I don't personally see the validity
    >> of ignoring the open-aperture performances; I didn't buy my 35/1.4 because
    >> it has superior performance at f/8, but because I needed a lens which I
    >> could use at f/1.4 in museums etc. In fact its f/1.4 performance is not
    >> that different from the f/2 performance of the 35/2 (you could say, tongue
    >> in cheek, that its f/1.4 performance is decidedly superior to that of the
    >> other lens). The only fair and meaningful comparison of these two lenses
    >> would be at f/2.0, i.e. at the lower of the two maximum apertures.
    >> Unfortunately the data are not available.

    >
    >There is in fact a section on maximum apature performance in
    >http://www.zen20934.zen.co.uk/photography/lensselection.htm#Maximum Ap
    >erture%20Performance.
    >As you say it is difficult when there is just one common aperture between
    >all the lenses.
    >
    >Doubly so if Canon have two sets of data for the same lens!
    >
    >I'll update the web to use the Lens Works data, thanks for pointing this
    >out.
    >
    >
    >Lester
    >
    >

    Of course, as I think we both know, the only meaningful fact is "does it
    give the quality you need in actual use?". Of the lenses we have
    discussed, the only one I have is the 35/1.4, which is splendid.
    Actually I can't recall having a Canon lens which I thought was poor - I
    have had about 20, but I have always avoided the real cheap ones.
    Experience has shown me that cheap tools are too expensive...

    PS - my favourite Canon wide is the 24/3.5 TS-E; once you have owned one
    (at least if you do buildings photography) nothing else will replace it.

    Regards,

    David
    --
    David Littlewood
    David Littlewood, Apr 2, 2005
    #11
  12. John A. Stovall

    Guest

    In message <>,
    David Littlewood <> wrote:

    >PS - my favourite Canon wide is the 24/3.5 TS-E; once you have owned one
    >(at least if you do buildings photography) nothing else will replace it.


    If it were 15mm or less I'd be more interested. 24mm just isn't very
    wide with a 1.6x crop factor.
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
    , Apr 3, 2005
    #12
  13. In article <>,
    writes
    >In message <>,
    >David Littlewood <> wrote:
    >
    >>PS - my favourite Canon wide is the 24/3.5 TS-E; once you have owned one
    >>(at least if you do buildings photography) nothing else will replace it.

    >
    >If it were 15mm or less I'd be more interested. 24mm just isn't very
    >wide with a 1.6x crop factor.


    You have a point - but I use it a lot with my 10D, and it's still one of
    my favourites.
    --
    David Littlewood
    David Littlewood, Apr 3, 2005
    #13
  14. John A. Stovall

    Guest

    In message <toeBkVA$>,
    David Littlewood <> wrote:

    >In article <>,
    >writes
    >>In message <>,
    >>David Littlewood <> wrote:
    >>
    >>>PS - my favourite Canon wide is the 24/3.5 TS-E; once you have owned one
    >>>(at least if you do buildings photography) nothing else will replace it.

    >>
    >>If it were 15mm or less I'd be more interested. 24mm just isn't very
    >>wide with a 1.6x crop factor.

    >
    >You have a point - but I use it a lot with my 10D, and it's still one of
    >my favourites.


    I'm not saying I wouldn't find a use for it; it's just not wide enough
    for me to spend the money right now. I just went from paying fairly low
    rent in a small apartment to owning a large apartment, and my monthly
    bills have gone up $750/month, and I won't see any tax returns for the
    deductibles until 2006. I have had a rude awakening to the concept of
    "budget", and I have a new found respect for people I once thought of as
    "cheapskates".
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
    , Apr 3, 2005
    #14
  15. <> wrote:
    >
    > I'm not saying I wouldn't find a use for it; it's just not wide enough
    > for me to spend the money right now. I just went from paying fairly low
    > rent in a small apartment to owning a large apartment, and my monthly
    > bills have gone up $750/month, and I won't see any tax returns for the
    > deductibles until 2006. I have had a rude awakening to the concept of
    > "budget", and I have a new found respect for people I once thought of as
    > "cheapskates".


    Don't forget the earthquake insurance: here's a friend's condo after a
    recent one here.

    http://kayoicho.hp.infoseek.co.jp/cgi-bin/joyful/img/3922.jpg

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
    David J. Littleboy, Apr 3, 2005
    #15
  16. In article <>,
    writes
    >In message <toeBkVA$>,
    >David Littlewood <> wrote:
    >
    >>In article <>,
    >>writes
    >>>In message <>,
    >>>David Littlewood <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>PS - my favourite Canon wide is the 24/3.5 TS-E; once you have owned one
    >>>>(at least if you do buildings photography) nothing else will replace it.
    >>>
    >>>If it were 15mm or less I'd be more interested. 24mm just isn't very
    >>>wide with a 1.6x crop factor.

    >>
    >>You have a point - but I use it a lot with my 10D, and it's still one of
    >>my favourites.

    >
    >I'm not saying I wouldn't find a use for it; it's just not wide enough
    >for me to spend the money right now. I just went from paying fairly low
    >rent in a small apartment to owning a large apartment, and my monthly
    >bills have gone up $750/month, and I won't see any tax returns for the
    >deductibles until 2006. I have had a rude awakening to the concept of
    >"budget", and I have a new found respect for people I once thought of as
    >"cheapskates".


    Ouch! If it's any consolation, the first 10 years are the worst; after
    that it doesn't seem too bad. My mortgage is now down to about a month's
    income - after 23 years!

    Regards,

    David
    --
    David Littlewood
    David Littlewood, Apr 3, 2005
    #16
  17. "David Littlewood" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In article <424efcd4$0$5480$>, Lester Wareham
    > <> writes
    >>>>
    >>> Clearly we are looking at different data; the charts I looked at show
    >>> exactly what I said they did. Looking at a single arbitrary cut-off
    >>> point,
    >>> though making mechanical comparisons a lot easier, does rather lose a
    >>> lot
    >>> of meaningful data; there are many cases of lines dipping below your
    >>> limits and then rising back above them, suggesting a much better
    >>> performance than implied by your cut-off point.
    >>>
    >>> I found your web site interesting, but some things puzzled me. You state
    >>> in the preamble that "Clearly comparing maximum aperture data for lenses
    >>> of different max apertures is of limited significance so only the f/8
    >>> data
    >>> is presented here". However, reading your data and remarks for, say, the
    >>> 28/1.8, your crossing points - supposedly for f/8 - match almost exactly
    >>> the crossing points shown for f/1.8 in my source. The corresponding
    >>> figures for my source would be 17 and N/A for 10 lp/mm; and 5 and 11 for
    >>> 30 lp/mm (note that the 11 is a very pessimistic figure as the MTF curve
    >>> drops below 0.5 and then rapidly rises back above it to the edge of the
    >>> frame.

    >>
    >>Hmm note that the presented plots are the worst case of the meridional and
    >>sagittal at each point.

    >
    > Yes; I noticed (and followed) this.
    >>
    >>I checked the raw data for the 28/1.8 and this looks very close to the
    >>data
    >>on the USA web
    >>http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?act=ModelDetailAct&fcategory
    >>id=151&modelid=7302,
    >>which I used as the primary source. But in the back of EF LENS WORK III
    >>the
    >>f/8 meriodional is much better although the other curves look the same.
    >>
    >>This is the second Canon data discrepancy I have seen. Which to believe? I
    >>see clearly the web data is wrong as the M and S for f/8 at 10lp/mm must
    >>be
    >>the same at the optimal centre by definition (should have seen this before
    >>bit it's been a lot of work).
    >>
    >>I delibratly used the worst case and the first drop below the MTF
    >>thresholds
    >>to maximise the differential between the lenses. If you take the average
    >>of
    >>everything then its is difficult to differentiate.
    >>
    >>>
    >>> There are other significant differences, but I'm not sure it is worth
    >>> going on; it simply shows that if we talk from different data sets we
    >>> are
    >>> likely to reach differing conclusions.

    >>
    >>At least that trace is different for this lens. I begin to wonder how
    >>reliable the data is.
    >>
    >>>
    >>> It's an interesting exercise you did. I don't personally see the
    >>> validity
    >>> of ignoring the open-aperture performances; I didn't buy my 35/1.4
    >>> because
    >>> it has superior performance at f/8, but because I needed a lens which I
    >>> could use at f/1.4 in museums etc. In fact its f/1.4 performance is not
    >>> that different from the f/2 performance of the 35/2 (you could say,
    >>> tongue
    >>> in cheek, that its f/1.4 performance is decidedly superior to that of
    >>> the
    >>> other lens). The only fair and meaningful comparison of these two lenses
    >>> would be at f/2.0, i.e. at the lower of the two maximum apertures.
    >>> Unfortunately the data are not available.

    >>
    >>There is in fact a section on maximum apature performance in
    >>http://www.zen20934.zen.co.uk/photography/lensselection.htm#Maximum Ap
    >>erture%20Performance.
    >>As you say it is difficult when there is just one common aperture between
    >>all the lenses.
    >>
    >>Doubly so if Canon have two sets of data for the same lens!
    >>
    >>I'll update the web to use the Lens Works data, thanks for pointing this
    >>out.
    >>
    >>
    >>Lester
    >>
    >>

    > Of course, as I think we both know, the only meaningful fact is "does it
    > give the quality you need in actual use?". Of the lenses we have
    > discussed, the only one I have is the 35/1.4, which is splendid. Actually
    > I can't recall having a Canon lens which I thought was poor - I have had
    > about 20, but I have always avoided the real cheap ones. Experience has
    > shown me that cheap tools are too expensive...
    >
    > PS - my favourite Canon wide is the 24/3.5 TS-E; once you have owned one
    > (at least if you do buildings photography) nothing else will replace it.


    This is on the want list. They seem quite good value considering what one is
    getting. The S&T adjustment range must be enormous on a 1.6 crop factor
    camera.

    I agree with you that there are probably no really bad Canon lenses. This
    probably goes for most of the major manufactures. This is why I had to
    compare worst cases.

    I guess the wide range zooms will be rather soft by comparison but probably
    only notable for largest than 10x8, but then you have the zoom flexibility -
    I just find I don't need that often. On the old system I had a 70-210 which
    was heavy and long (for me) and was hardly ever used.

    I checked some of the other charts on the USA and Japanese web against the
    Eyes of EOS charts and for a few differences, but none that were obviously
    wrong like the 28 f1.8. So I have just listed these in the introduction
    section.

    Cheers


    Lester
    Lester Wareham, Apr 3, 2005
    #17
  18. John A. Stovall

    Confused Guest

    In message <>
    David Littlewood <> wrote:

    > ...
    > PS - my favourite Canon wide is the 24/3.5 TS-E; once you have owned one
    > (at least if you do buildings photography) nothing else will replace it.


    I've come to hate barrel distortion and have been wondering why SLR
    users over the years haven't demanded, requested, or begged for more
    rectilinear lenses. It's the 21st century; we can make replacement
    lenses for the human eye; Canon only makes 1 rectilinear lens...
    (EF 14mm f/2.8L USM)

    Canon's sample photo for the TS-E 24mm f/3.5L ...


    <http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?act=ModelDetailAct&fcategoryid=156&modelid=7328>

    .... is very distorted. The camera location should have been moved to
    keep the pole out of the way and then elevated so the perspective
    correction looked natural. (On the other hand Canon did show how
    badly the lens is distorted. The ventricle lines on the building are
    ventricle at the expense of horizontal being off, but the sign pole
    which should be straight is bent like me... ;^)

    How does the TS-E do with table-top shots?

    Do the viewfinder focus points light up when focusing?

    Jeff
    Confused, Apr 3, 2005
    #18
  19. In article <>, Confused
    <> writes
    >In message <>
    >David Littlewood <> wrote:
    >
    >> ...
    >> PS - my favourite Canon wide is the 24/3.5 TS-E; once you have owned one
    >> (at least if you do buildings photography) nothing else will replace it.

    >
    >I've come to hate barrel distortion and have been wondering why SLR
    >users over the years haven't demanded, requested, or begged for more
    >rectilinear lenses. It's the 21st century; we can make replacement
    >lenses for the human eye; Canon only makes 1 rectilinear lens...
    >(EF 14mm f/2.8L USM)


    Which is *bloody* expensive...
    >
    >Canon's sample photo for the TS-E 24mm f/3.5L ...
    >
    >
    ><http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?act=ModelDetailAct&fcategor
    >yid=156&modelid=7328>
    >
    >... is very distorted. The camera location should have been moved to
    >keep the pole out of the way and then elevated so the perspective
    >correction looked natural. (On the other hand Canon did show how
    >badly the lens is distorted. The ventricle lines on the building are
    >ventricle at the expense of horizontal being off, but the sign pole
    >which should be straight is bent like me... ;^)


    I saved the picture and opened it in Photoshop. Magnified to the point
    where it starts to fall apart, and using a ruler, I still cannot see any
    significant curvilinear distortion - though the subject is not ideal for
    testing this, as the various lines on the building are not continuous
    across the mid point. The signpost is also not of constant diameter -
    the brass bit at the top is wider - which could make it look bent.

    As far as I can tell, the lens suffers from almost no curvilinear
    distortion, like my specimen. I think you are confusing curvilinear
    distortion with cack-handed operation. The photographer of that test
    shot clearly did not keep the camera back vertical and left some
    converging in the verticals of the corners of the building and the post.
    This is not a problem with the lens.

    It is somewhat hit-and-miss to make a buying decision on the basis of a
    crappy little jpeg done by a cack-handed photographer!
    >
    >How does the TS-E do with table-top shots?


    Fine.
    >
    >Do the viewfinder focus points light up when focusing?


    Yes.
    >
    >Jeff


    David
    --
    David Littlewood
    David Littlewood, Apr 4, 2005
    #19
  20. John A. Stovall

    Confused Guest

    In message <>
    David Littlewood <> wrote:

    > >I've come to hate barrel distortion and have been wondering why SLR
    > >users over the years haven't demanded, requested, or begged for more
    > >rectilinear lenses. It's the 21st century; we can make replacement
    > >lenses for the human eye; Canon only makes 1 rectilinear lens...
    > >(EF 14mm f/2.8L USM)

    >
    > Which is *bloody* expensive...


    I want one... can't justify the cost... :(

    > >Canon's sample photo for the TS-E 24mm f/3.5L ...

    <http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?act=ModelDetailAct&fcategoryid=156&modelid=7328>
    > ...
    >
    > I saved the picture and opened it in Photoshop. Magnified to the point
    > where it starts to fall apart, and using a ruler, I still cannot see any
    > significant curvilinear distortion - though the subject is not ideal for
    > testing this, as the various lines on the building are not continuous
    > across the mid point. The signpost is also not of constant diameter -
    > the brass bit at the top is wider - which could make it look bent.
    > As far as I can tell, the lens suffers from almost no curvilinear
    > distortion, like my specimen. I think you are confusing curvilinear
    > distortion with cack-handed operation. The photographer of that test
    > shot clearly did not keep the camera back vertical and left some
    > converging in the verticals of the corners of the building and the post.
    > This is not a problem with the lens.


    I took another look at it, and you're right.
    The reflections and blackness of the pole and
    background fooled my eye. It needs a caption:

    How NOT to use this lens.

    From that camera position the building needs
    some perspective for it to look right.

    > It is somewhat hit-and-miss to make a buying decision on the basis
    > of a crappy little jpeg done by a cack-handed photographer!


    LOL... yeah, you're right. I wonder if Canon
    wonders why they don't sell many of them. Since
    the auto-focus points on the cameras light up
    they could call it a semi-automatic lens. :)

    Jeff
    Confused, Apr 4, 2005
    #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. greg

    Which Nikon macro lens, 60mm or 105mm?

    greg, Sep 5, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    18
    Views:
    1,430
  2. J. Cod
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    411
    J. Cod
    Sep 29, 2004
  3. Siddhartha Jain

    Mamiya Sekor 60mm f/2.8 1:1 macro

    Siddhartha Jain, Oct 13, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    2,896
    Peter Marquis-Kyle
    Oct 14, 2005
  4. Canon S80 Macro button vs Digital Macro?

    , Feb 26, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    1,351
    Bill P
    Mar 2, 2006
  5. Geoffrey

    Canon efs 60mm f2.8 macro underexposure wide-open

    Geoffrey, Oct 11, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    323
    Geoffrey
    Oct 11, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page