Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2007/04/09
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]On 4/9/07 5:58 PM, "Eduardo Albesi" <eduardoalbesi@ciudad.com.ar> typed: > Mark, > > Just for the record, I agree with you in every point you said about > the zooms vs primes. They flare more, they weight more, they are > uglier, they are huge, they promote photographer laziness. But they > are just tools, and they are more convenient for certain jobs than a > prime in the same way than a 135/2.8 soft focus is more appropriate > for a portrait than a 100/2.8 macro lens, even if this latter > outperforms in several technical aspects the other. > > But for instance, the Canon EF35/2 had more spherical aberration at > the corners at f/2.8 than the old EF20-35/2.8L at the same focal > length and aperture. The EF20/2.8 had more vignetting AND spherical > aberration than the EF17-35/2.8L. Canon L glass is just plainly > better quality than their consumer grade primes. I don't know if it > is a reason of quality assurance or what. > > Ed > PS. Just for the record, I love my M8, even if it is noisier than my > 5d, and its colors are difficult to treat. It's just the more > appropriate tool for the job I want to do, and it suits my shooting > style more than the 5d. > But for clinical macro photography, it is absolutely unuseable (yes, > I have tried with a Visoflex), and the 5d becomes the right tool to > use. Sorry for the lack of time to respond as deserved. > > > El 09/04/2007, a las 10:06, Mark Rabiner escribi?: > >> On 4/9/07 6:55 AM, "Eduardo Albesi" <eduardoalbesi@ciudad.com.ar> >> typed: >> >>> I'm sorry, Mark, but I sold the 35/2, 20/2.8 and 24/2.8 and >>> 20-35/2.8L. >>> >>> I'm working (about to start) at the ER. Tomorrow I will try to post >>> some images shot in the studio comparing the 17-35/2.8L to the 28/2.8 >>> and 35/1.4L. >>> >>> I never said Canon primes are on the weak side. I have high regard >>> for the 50/1.4 and 1.8, 85/1.8, 85/1.2L(I), 135/2.8 soft focus, >>> 100/2, 200/2.8L, 300/4L. I love primes. One of the reasons why I love >>> my M8. >>> >>> And I am not a bit surprised by this. The super L zooms cost at least >>> as the sum of the primes they replace. Almost all L zooms are newer >>> optical designs, have better mechanical construction assuring better >>> collimation and centration, etc. >>> >>> IMO, I seem to remember that on the Nikkor field, a zoom like the AF- >>> S 17-35/2.8 ED (and a long list of other letters I don't remember >>> anymore) performs at least as good as most of the same age primes it >>> intends to 'replace' at similar apertures. But I don't have any of >>> them anymore. >>> >>> Saluti, >>> >>> Ed >> >> Ed I'm with you on a lot of this. DSLRs and SLR's are great tools. Macro and long tel. and for the use of shooting zooms. Especially ultra wide zooms. And all kinds of other stuff The best images I've been getting lately is with a 300mm AI Nikkor lens I shoot with my D200 and its a 450mm. I never had long tele before and I'm making up for lost time. I cant get a bad shot with this lens. I'd like to try it out on Cheryl Teigs. Unlike many committed image makers I don't care for the 2.8 zooms but vastly prefer more compact variable aperture versions some of whom are kit lens made of plastic which make shockingly excellent results for chump change. As long as you don't bump it. Or get the wrong one. And keep it conservative. But as for terminology. " a zoom like the AF- S 17-35/2.8 ED (and a long list of other letters I don't remember anymore) performs at least as good as most of the same age primes it intends to 'replace' at similar apertures" I think if you had Forest Gump sitting on a bench next to his girlfriend the Princess Bride with the sun from behind I'm not even saying "backlit". And shot it with a prime 35mm what ever lens old slow new fast. Then shot it with this zoom you mention or other zooms which contain the number "35" in them. Put the two 11x4 prints side to side. The prime lens shot is going to look better. As in on the kitchen table with the lights down low. Stoned. If the sun is in their face then its up for grabs. But who cares like I'm going to shoot a picture of someone with the sun in their face? I probably have a few of those. I'm thinking of a shot of Georgia O'Keefe. But didn't shoot it. Also I'll like to say for the record that I don't under estimate zooming. Zooming is an amazing thing. And beats roller skates any day. Love my 12-24. 55-200. Others. I have to replace my f3.5-4.5 Nikkor 24-85 G AF-S ED IF which I shot this with. http://rabinergroup.com/EastWest/images/EW061021_132602%20(3).jpg Does this look washed out now or is it me? Can your images fade if the sun shines on your hard disk? This was cropped by a good 33 and a 3rd percent. I took that lens into a waterfall in Oregon. So an element needs to be replaced. Goldfish droppings on the inside. As in the whole lens someone tells me. 359 USD. The price of a Linhof lens cap. A lens designed for 24x36 format. Your not likely to have much trouble in the edges. As you'll never come close to seeing them. I'd not sell a Viso short. But bad for waterfalls. Not well Sealed. Arf. Clap. Mark Rabiner 8A/109s New York, NY markrabiner.com