Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

New 20D needs lenses

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
December 26, 2004 12:46:16 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Santa was very good and brought a 20D. Now the next challenge is what
lenses to buy? My subjects will be the family holiday pictures and this
years Rose Parade and Rose Bowl Game (50 yard line seats!). I am so enjoy
Yosemite type scenery.

Any ideas and suggestions would be appreciated.

More about : 20d lenses

Anonymous
December 26, 2004 2:09:39 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

> Santa was very good and brought a 20D. Now the next challenge is what
> lenses to buy? My subjects will be the family holiday pictures and this
> years Rose Parade and Rose Bowl Game (50 yard line seats!). I am so enjoy
> Yosemite type scenery.
>
> Any ideas and suggestions would be appreciated.

Since you didn't give us a budget, and want to hit the football shots...

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=produ...

Now, back to budgets of mortal proportions. As for family holiday
pictures, I really, really like my Sigma 28-105 f/2.8:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=produ...

Sharp, good pictures, and the 2.8 f-stop helps both with softening the
background of portraits, and letting in lots of light in indoor settings if
you don't have a good flash. With the 20D, that will come out to the
equivalent of about a 45-170mm. I was worried that I would miss the
wide-angle shots, but I have to say that my Canon 18-55 just sits in the
bag, and is never missed. : )

For the longer shots, I've used a Sigma 70-300 macro-capable lens for just
a few minutes, and found nothing wrong with it upon a superficial inspection
of the shots:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=produ...

The equivalent on the D20 would be 112-480, which is pretty long. In
macro mode, the minimum focal distance is something like 3 feet (more like
6-10 at max zoom, if I recall), but with an equivalent 480mm focal length,
it doesn't take much to fill the frame.

I thought about the Sigma 18-125 DC lens (made for the APS-C sensor, no
crop factor), but there were a lot of reports of vignetting, and the
smallest aperture is 3.5. If you have a good flash, that shouldn't be a
problem - but if you're only using the flash on the camera, every f-stop
counts.

steve
December 26, 2004 12:51:37 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

if you like Canon try...

28-135, 17-40, 50 f1.8, 85 f1.8 , 400 f5.6 (or 100-400 which doesn't get
quite as good comments)

"Dale" <daleirvine@deloitte.com> wrote in message
news:cqlj78$h57$1@ngspool-d02.news.aol.com...
> Santa was very good and brought a 20D. Now the next challenge is what
> lenses to buy? My subjects will be the family holiday pictures and this
> years Rose Parade and Rose Bowl Game (50 yard line seats!). I am so enjoy
> Yosemite type scenery.
>
> Any ideas and suggestions would be appreciated.
>
>
>
Related resources
Anonymous
December 26, 2004 1:21:52 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Steve Wolfe" <unt@codon.com> wrote in message
news:3372srF3sob7nU1@individual.net...
>
> Now, back to budgets of mortal proportions. As for family holiday
> pictures, I really, really like my Sigma 28-105 f/2.8:
>
> http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=produ...
>
> Sharp, good pictures, and the 2.8 f-stop helps both with softening the
> background of portraits, and letting in lots of light in indoor settings
> if
> you don't have a good flash. With the 20D, that will come out to the
> equivalent of about a 45-170mm. I was worried that I would miss the
> wide-angle shots, but I have to say that my Canon 18-55 just sits in the
> bag, and is never missed. : )
>
> For the longer shots, I've used a Sigma 70-300 macro-capable lens for
> just
> a few minutes, and found nothing wrong with it upon a superficial
> inspection
> of the shots:
>
> http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=produ...
>
> The equivalent on the D20 would be 112-480, which is pretty long. In
> macro mode, the minimum focal distance is something like 3 feet (more like
> 6-10 at max zoom, if I recall), but with an equivalent 480mm focal length,
> it doesn't take much to fill the frame.
>
> steve
>
>

I bought that Sigma 28-105 f2.8-4 for my wife for Christmas a few years ago,
it was the single worst lens I have ever seen in my photographic life. It
gave new life to the term soft. And for the price of the Sigma 70-300, you
can buy the Canon 75-300 USM, a better lens.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
December 26, 2004 2:11:41 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"dylan" <no@nospam.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:cqm1jd$e9n$1@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
> if you like Canon try...
>
> 28-135, 17-40, 50 f1.8, 85 f1.8 , 400 f5.6 (or 100-400 which doesn't get
> quite as good comments)

28-135 USM IS ? That piece of junk ?

But agree on the rest of your list...
Anonymous
December 26, 2004 2:11:42 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

That lens is not piece of junk. Do you actually have any experience of it?
I have 16x20s with that lens that are great, 13x19s that are outstanding.

http://www.shutterspeedway.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?user...

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
"Chuck" <nospammm@no_spam.com> wrote in message
news:3385t7F3n4gfqU1@individual.net...
>
> "dylan" <no@nospam.com> a écrit dans le message de
> news:cqm1jd$e9n$1@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
>> if you like Canon try...
>>
>> 28-135, 17-40, 50 f1.8, 85 f1.8 , 400 f5.6 (or 100-400 which doesn't get
>> quite as good comments)
>
> 28-135 USM IS ? That piece of junk ?
>
> But agree on the rest of your list...
>
>
December 26, 2004 4:19:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Just one small point, even though the 18-125 is made for digital, the
designation is still as per normal lenses. On an APS-C sensor the lens
is actually 28-200.
Anonymous
December 26, 2004 6:42:39 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

> I bought that Sigma 28-105 f2.8-4 for my wife for Christmas a few years
ago,
> it was the single worst lens I have ever seen in my photographic life. It
> gave new life to the term soft. And for the price of the Sigma 70-300,
you
> can buy the Canon 75-300 USM, a better lens.

There's also a much cheaper 28-105 f/3.8 lens, but I'll assume that you
really had the f/2.8 model. In any event, the two that I have used have
both produced sharp, clear images when I and the camera have done our
parts - but I don't doubt that you had a bad experience with yours. Without
having the two lenses in question to fiddle with, there's not much I can
say. : )

As for canon-vs-sigma in the 75-300 models, the canon doesn't have a macro
capability, but that's a side concern. I'd love to hear in which ways the
Canon lens has worked out better for you than the Sigma, as I may be
purchasing a lens of that range soon.

steve
December 26, 2004 6:52:35 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Dale" <daleirvine@deloitte.com> wrote in message
news:cqlj78$h57$1@ngspool-d02.news.aol.com...
> Santa was very good and brought a 20D. Now the next challenge is what
> lenses to buy? My subjects will be the family holiday pictures and this
> years Rose Parade and Rose Bowl Game (50 yard line seats!). I am so enjoy
> Yosemite type scenery.
>
> Any ideas and suggestions would be appreciated.
>

Have you considered the EF-S IS 17-85mm f/4-5.6 ?

It has excellent range, the IS is wonderful and the pictures come out very
sharp. It is also lighter than say the 17-40 f/4L. It is built for Canon
20D.

I also recommend the 70-200mm f/4L which is great value under $600. If you
can spend extra $$'s, you can get the IS version which would be great for
the football stuff, but at twice the price.

I have a 20D with the 17-85 EF-S and the 70-200mm f/4L and I am very please
with both.

Thanks
Musty.
Anonymous
December 26, 2004 7:39:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Thanks to all for a lively reply. I have some good direction to follow-up
with.


"Dale" <daleirvine@deloitte.com> wrote in message
news:cqlj78$h57$1@ngspool-d02.news.aol.com...
> Santa was very good and brought a 20D. Now the next challenge is what
> lenses to buy? My subjects will be the family holiday pictures and this
> years Rose Parade and Rose Bowl Game (50 yard line seats!). I am so enjoy
> Yosemite type scenery.
>
> Any ideas and suggestions would be appreciated.
>
>
>
Anonymous
December 26, 2004 8:09:23 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Dale wrote:
> Santa was very good and brought a 20D. Now the next challenge is what
> lenses to buy? My subjects will be the family holiday pictures and this
> years Rose Parade and Rose Bowl Game (50 yard line seats!). I am so enjoy
> Yosemite type scenery.
>
> Any ideas and suggestions would be appreciated.
>
>
>

A lens I use on both a 10D and a 20D is the Canon 28-135 IS. While some
of you dislike it, it gives me generally excellent performance. Any
faults can be easily adjusted for in Photoshop (now using CS). And its
price is excellent. However, for a wider-angle lens, you may want to
consider one of the zooms starting at 17mm (or thereabouts); the Canon
17-40mm gets very high marks, and there are also much cheaper non-Canon
zooms in that range.

Take a look at the reviews on http://www.fredmiranda.com for more info.

Bill P
Anonymous
December 26, 2004 8:09:42 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Dale wrote:
> Santa was very good and brought a 20D. Now the next challenge is what
> lenses to buy? My subjects will be the family holiday pictures and this
> years Rose Parade and Rose Bowl Game (50 yard line seats!). I am so enjoy
> Yosemite type scenery.
>
> Any ideas and suggestions would be appreciated.
>
>
>

A lens I use on both a 10D and a 20D is the Canon 28-135 IS. While some
of you dislike it, it gives me generally excellent performance. Any
faults can be easily adjusted for in Photoshop (now using CS). And its
price is excellent. However, for a wider-angle lens, you may want to
consider one of the zooms starting at 17mm (or thereabouts); the Canon
17-40mm gets very high marks, and there are also much cheaper non-Canon
zooms in that range.

Take a look at the reviews on http://www.fredmiranda.com for more info.

Bill P
December 26, 2004 9:55:59 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Skip,

The guy is a basher. He also called the EF-S 17-85mm IS lens a piece of
junk. Obviously does not own any equipment or has any experience with Canon
EOS system. Please ignore his posts.

BTW, love the shots.

Musty.

"Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote in message
news:LlDzd.4408$yW5.3534@fed1read02...
> That lens is not piece of junk. Do you actually have any experience of
it?
> I have 16x20s with that lens that are great, 13x19s that are outstanding.
>
>
http://www.shutterspeedway.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?user...
>
> --
> Skip Middleton
> http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
> "Chuck" <nospammm@no_spam.com> wrote in message
> news:3385t7F3n4gfqU1@individual.net...
> >
> > "dylan" <no@nospam.com> a écrit dans le message de
> > news:cqm1jd$e9n$1@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
> >> if you like Canon try...
> >>
> >> 28-135, 17-40, 50 f1.8, 85 f1.8 , 400 f5.6 (or 100-400 which doesn't
get
> >> quite as good comments)
> >
> > 28-135 USM IS ? That piece of junk ?
> >
> > But agree on the rest of your list...
> >
> >
>
>
Anonymous
December 26, 2004 9:56:00 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Thanks!
I figured him for a basher, but wanted to set the record straight for the
OP.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
"Musty" <musty@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:3PDzd.6460$wD4.2808@fe1.texas.rr.com...
> Skip,
>
> The guy is a basher. He also called the EF-S 17-85mm IS lens a piece of
> junk. Obviously does not own any equipment or has any experience with
> Canon
> EOS system. Please ignore his posts.
>
> BTW, love the shots.
>
> Musty.
>
> "Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:LlDzd.4408$yW5.3534@fed1read02...
>> That lens is not piece of junk. Do you actually have any experience of
> it?
>> I have 16x20s with that lens that are great, 13x19s that are outstanding.
>>
>>
> http://www.shutterspeedway.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?user...
>>
>> --
>> Skip Middleton
>> http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
>> "Chuck" <nospammm@no_spam.com> wrote in message
>> news:3385t7F3n4gfqU1@individual.net...
>> >
>> > "dylan" <no@nospam.com> a écrit dans le message de
>> > news:cqm1jd$e9n$1@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
>> >> if you like Canon try...
>> >>
>> >> 28-135, 17-40, 50 f1.8, 85 f1.8 , 400 f5.6 (or 100-400 which doesn't
> get
>> >> quite as good comments)
>> >
>> > 28-135 USM IS ? That piece of junk ?
>> >
>> > But agree on the rest of your list...
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>
December 26, 2004 11:01:34 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote in message
news:UFEzd.4415$yW5.499@fed1read02...
> Thanks!
> I figured him for a basher, but wanted to set the record straight for the
> OP.

I am fairly new to the DSLR and DigiCam newsgroups, but I am appalled at the
amount of bashers especially in regard to the 20D. The funny thing is that
when you hear from actual owners, they are very happy. Having said that,
there are also some very knowledgable posters, so overall it is a positive
experience.

BTW, that was a Maserati, right?

>
> --
> Skip Middleton
> http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
> "Musty" <musty@nospam.net> wrote in message
> news:3PDzd.6460$wD4.2808@fe1.texas.rr.com...
> > Skip,
> >
> > The guy is a basher. He also called the EF-S 17-85mm IS lens a piece of
> > junk. Obviously does not own any equipment or has any experience with
> > Canon
> > EOS system. Please ignore his posts.
> >
> > BTW, love the shots.
> >
> > Musty.
> >
> > "Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote in message
> > news:LlDzd.4408$yW5.3534@fed1read02...
> >> That lens is not piece of junk. Do you actually have any experience of
> > it?
> >> I have 16x20s with that lens that are great, 13x19s that are
outstanding.
> >>
> >>
> >
http://www.shutterspeedway.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?user...
> >>
> >> --
> >> Skip Middleton
> >> http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
> >> "Chuck" <nospammm@no_spam.com> wrote in message
> >> news:3385t7F3n4gfqU1@individual.net...
> >> >
> >> > "dylan" <no@nospam.com> a écrit dans le message de
> >> > news:cqm1jd$e9n$1@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
> >> >> if you like Canon try...
> >> >>
> >> >> 28-135, 17-40, 50 f1.8, 85 f1.8 , 400 f5.6 (or 100-400 which doesn't
> > get
> >> >> quite as good comments)
> >> >
> >> > 28-135 USM IS ? That piece of junk ?
> >> >
> >> > But agree on the rest of your list...
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
Anonymous
December 27, 2004 12:43:39 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Musty" <musty@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:yMEzd.6475$wD4.6296@fe1.texas.rr.com...
>
> "Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:UFEzd.4415$yW5.499@fed1read02...
>> Thanks!
>> I figured him for a basher, but wanted to set the record straight for the
>> OP.
>
> I am fairly new to the DSLR and DigiCam newsgroups, but I am appalled at
> the
> amount of bashers especially in regard to the 20D. The funny thing is that
> when you hear from actual owners, they are very happy. Having said that,
> there are also some very knowledgable posters, so overall it is a positive
> experience.
>
> BTW, that was a Maserati, right?
>
>>

Yep, the trident is a dead giveaway. A6GC, I believe.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
December 27, 2004 10:25:34 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Bill P" <sorry.but@nospam.hey> wrote in message
news:41CEF057.6090006@nospam.hey...
> Dale wrote:
> > Santa was very good and brought a 20D. Now the next challenge is what
> > lenses to buy? My subjects will be the family holiday pictures and this
> > years Rose Parade and Rose Bowl Game (50 yard line seats!). I am so
enjoy
> > Yosemite type scenery.
> >
> > Any ideas and suggestions would be appreciated.
> >
An interesting observation I'll share with you is the way this group is
fanatically Canon biased. Canon make some pretty awful lenses. They make a
lot of pretty good ones too but when someone tells you about one of the
awful lenses, everyone seems to give out a flood of "you don't know what you
are talking about" disciple jargon.

Sigma make a lot of bloody awful lenses but they make some pretty good ones
too. Whenever someone recommends one of the better Sigma lenses which
incidentally are as good optically as the corresponding Canon lens, the
disciples start with their flood of "you don't know what you are talking
about" posts.

So let me give you some 'good' advise. Unless you intend to spend big bucks,
stay away from an "IS" lens. The cheaper ones from Canon are so slow that to
focus on a scratching dog, he will have time to get up and leave the room
before the lenses can go from 300 mm infinity to their close range!

If price is a prime consideration you will go a long way before faulting the
Sigma EX, DG range of lenses with Canon mounts. One in particular that
stands out is the 24~70 f2.8 DG, DF lens. This is 1/3 rd the price of the
Canon version and apart from a slower focus motor and the occasional
inability to grab focus on low contrast, low light subjects, is optically
close to equal to the Canon lens.

The Canon 17~55 plastic lens which comes with the 20D kit is a pretty good
all-round lens for most people. It is sharp and relatively free of flair. At
the price it is a rare bargain. Pity it only fits a D300 or D20 but I guess
that's the price of digital only lenses. This would suit your scenery
photography in all but the most demanding situations. Use it between 20mm
and 45mm and never stop down past f11 for the best results.

If you need reach (and you will for football games) you really have no
alternative but to spend money. The 100~300 f4 Sigma is no match for Canon's
lens. Pity about the cost but sometimes you have to cough up or go without.
Stay right away from monster range zoom lenses. Lenses like 28~300 are no
value at all when at some point of their range they are poor... That'll be
the range you need!

Good luck,
Doug
December 27, 2004 10:25:35 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Ryadia" <ryadia@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:338o8oF3ufdvnU1@individual.net:

> An interesting observation I'll share with you is the way this group
> is fanatically Canon biased. Canon make some pretty awful lenses. They
> make a lot of pretty good ones too but when someone tells you about
> one of the awful lenses, everyone seems to give out a flood of "you
> don't know what you are talking about" disciple jargon.
>
> Sigma make a lot of bloody awful lenses but they make some pretty good
> ones too. Whenever someone recommends one of the better Sigma lenses
> which incidentally are as good optically as the corresponding Canon
> lens, the disciples start with their flood of "you don't know what
> you are talking about" posts.
>
> So let me give you some 'good' advise. Unless you intend to spend big
> bucks, stay away from an "IS" lens. The cheaper ones from Canon are so
> slow that to focus on a scratching dog, he will have time to get up
> and leave the room before the lenses can go from 300 mm infinity to
> their close range!

I am sorry but you don't know what you are talking about! I use the 28-135
IS lens all the time on my 10D and I have found it to be quite fast at AF
even in fairly low light. Unlike the 75-300 IS (which is really quite
poor), the 28-135 IS has the ring-type USM with full-time manual focus.
The sharpness and contrast won't equal what you get on a good 'L' zoom, but
the price doesn't match either.

Of course it is possible that you may have experience of a 'bad' 28-135 IS
that had a serious problem with its AF.

--
Mark Heyes (New Zealand)
See my pics at www.gigatech.co.nz (last updated 12-Nov-04)
"There are 10 types of people, those that
understand binary and those that don't"
Anonymous
December 27, 2004 10:25:36 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

> Of course it is possible that you may have experience of a 'bad' 28-135 IS
> that had a serious problem with its AF.

It seems more and more to me that for any given lens that costs less than
$1000, you will find at least one person who has had a terrible experience
with it. : )

steve
Anonymous
December 27, 2004 5:10:07 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"MarkH" <markat@atdot.dot.dot> wrote in message
news:41cf348b$1_4@127.0.0.1...
>
> I am sorry but you don't know what you are talking about! I use the
>
See? What did I tell you?
Always a deciple of EOS prepared to sacrifice their credibility and jump to
Canon's defence.
I never even mentioned that lens but he sure as hell knew which one I
included in my assessment!

Good onya,
Mark
Anonymous
December 27, 2004 5:10:08 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Ryadia" <ryadia@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:339fv9F3t9n5lU1@individual.net...
>
> "MarkH" <markat@atdot.dot.dot> wrote in message
> news:41cf348b$1_4@127.0.0.1...
>>
>> I am sorry but you don't know what you are talking about! I use the
>>
> See? What did I tell you?
> Always a deciple of EOS prepared to sacrifice their credibility and jump
> to
> Canon's defence.
> I never even mentioned that lens but he sure as hell knew which one I
> included in my assessment!
>
> Good onya,
> Mark
>
>

Doug, you said "stay away from an IS lens," which would imply any IS lens,
since you didn't mention a particular one. The 28-135 that I have focuses
fast, as fast as the 18-55 kit lens or the 100-300 that my wife has. Yes,
the 75-300 is slow, and so is the 100-400 IS, if you don't use the focus
limiter, but the latter is moving a lot of mass, internally.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
December 27, 2004 5:10:08 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Ryadia" <ryadia@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:339fv9F3t9n5lU1@individual.net:

>
> "MarkH" <markat@atdot.dot.dot> wrote in message
> news:41cf348b$1_4@127.0.0.1...
>>
>> I am sorry but you don't know what you are talking about! I use the
>>
> See? What did I tell you?
> Always a deciple of EOS prepared to sacrifice their credibility and
> jump to Canon's defence.

I was not jumping to Canon's defence, I was defending a lens that I like
and use that definitely does not behave in the way you suggested. Just
because you bought a lens with some weird slow focus problem does not mean
that everyone should avoid that lens.

> I never even mentioned that lens but he sure as hell knew which one I
> included in my assessment!

You never mentioned that lens? You replied to someone mentioning that lens
to say that people should avoid Canon's sub-$1000 lenses. If you were not
referring to that lens then why did you throw your opinion in reply to
someone recommending the 28-135 IS?

I find it interesting that you only quoted my tongue in cheek statement
(you said that when criticizing Canon people would reply saying you don't
know what you are talking about, so I opened with that statement), but you
snipped out the part of my post where I gave my opinion based on my real-
world experience with this particular lens.


--
Mark Heyes (New Zealand)
See my pics at www.gigatech.co.nz (last updated 12-Nov-04)
"There are 10 types of people, those that
understand binary and those that don't"
December 27, 2004 5:33:07 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Ryadia" <ryadia@hotmail.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:338o8oF3ufdvnU1@individual.net...
>
> "Bill P" <sorry.but@nospam.hey> wrote in message
> news:41CEF057.6090006@nospam.hey...
> > Dale wrote:
> > > Santa was very good and brought a 20D. Now the next challenge is
what
> > > lenses to buy? My subjects will be the family holiday pictures and
this
> > > years Rose Parade and Rose Bowl Game (50 yard line seats!). I am so
> enjoy
> > > Yosemite type scenery.
> > >
> > > Any ideas and suggestions would be appreciated.
> > >
> An interesting observation I'll share with you is the way this group is
> fanatically Canon biased. Canon make some pretty awful lenses. They make a
> lot of pretty good ones too but when someone tells you about one of the
> awful lenses, everyone seems to give out a flood of "you don't know what
you
> are talking about" disciple jargon.
>
> Sigma make a lot of bloody awful lenses but they make some pretty good
ones
> too. Whenever someone recommends one of the better Sigma lenses which
> incidentally are as good optically as the corresponding Canon lens, the
> disciples start with their flood of "you don't know what you are talking
> about" posts.

In french we say "Chat échaudé craint l'eau froide" loosely translated to
"scalded cat fears cold water" Many of us have tried Sigma lenses and from
most of the post I have read, many were dissapointed with their purchase, I
was too and would not buy another one, ever! Even after reading glowing
reviews from any site on the web, I would not take the time and the
aggravation to buy, try and possibly having to return one again. I never
had this problem with a Canon lens as of yet and with 6 different ones I did
not have a bad lens so MY confidence in Canon products is still very high.

> So let me give you some 'good' advise. Unless you intend to spend big
bucks,
> stay away from an "IS" lens. The cheaper ones from Canon are so slow that
to
> focus on a scratching dog, he will have time to get up and leave the room
> before the lenses can go from 300 mm infinity to their close range!

IS lenses, especially longer focal lenghts are the way to go, plain and
simple it works! As for focussing speed, the 75-300 (IS or not) is indeed
slow but that is not due to the IS but to a slow focussing motor. My 70-300
DO IS focusses very fast and the second generation IS is even better than my
old 75-300 IS.

> If price is a prime consideration you will go a long way before faulting
the
> Sigma EX, DG range of lenses with Canon mounts. One in particular that
> stands out is the 24~70 f2.8 DG, DF lens. This is 1/3 rd the price of the
> Canon version and apart from a slower focus motor and the occasional
> inability to grab focus on low contrast, low light subjects, is optically
> close to equal to the Canon lens.

Slow focussing is very very annoying, noisy focussing motors are very very
annoying, try 'em before you buy 'em!

> The Canon 17~55 plastic lens which comes with the 20D kit is a pretty good
> all-round lens for most people. It is sharp and relatively free of flair.
At
> the price it is a rare bargain. Pity it only fits a D300 or D20 but I
guess
> that's the price of digital only lenses. This would suit your scenery
> photography in all but the most demanding situations. Use it between 20mm
> and 45mm and never stop down past f11 for the best results.
>
> If you need reach (and you will for football games) you really have no
> alternative but to spend money. The 100~300 f4 Sigma is no match for
Canon's
> lens. Pity about the cost but sometimes you have to cough up or go
without.
> Stay right away from monster range zoom lenses. Lenses like 28~300 are no
> value at all when at some point of their range they are poor... That'll be
> the range you need!

A 70-200 f4 is a good buy, I have the f2,8 variant but it is too heavy to
carry around all the time, for increased range, a 1.4X teleconverter with
the 70-200 f4 would be OK to carry around.

Jean
December 27, 2004 10:14:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Before you go Sigma
http://www.tawbaware.com/sigma_tokina_test1.htm





"Ryadia" <ryadia@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:338o8oF3ufdvnU1@individual.net...
>
> "Bill P" <sorry.but@nospam.hey> wrote in message
> news:41CEF057.6090006@nospam.hey...
> > Dale wrote:
> > > Santa was very good and brought a 20D. Now the next challenge is
what
> > > lenses to buy? My subjects will be the family holiday pictures and
this
> > > years Rose Parade and Rose Bowl Game (50 yard line seats!). I am so
> enjoy
> > > Yosemite type scenery.
> > >
> > > Any ideas and suggestions would be appreciated.
> > >
> An interesting observation I'll share with you is the way this group is
> fanatically Canon biased. Canon make some pretty awful lenses. They make a
> lot of pretty good ones too but when someone tells you about one of the
> awful lenses, everyone seems to give out a flood of "you don't know what
you
> are talking about" disciple jargon.
>
> Sigma make a lot of bloody awful lenses but they make some pretty good
ones
> too. Whenever someone recommends one of the better Sigma lenses which
> incidentally are as good optically as the corresponding Canon lens, the
> disciples start with their flood of "you don't know what you are talking
> about" posts.
>
> So let me give you some 'good' advise. Unless you intend to spend big
bucks,
> stay away from an "IS" lens. The cheaper ones from Canon are so slow that
to
> focus on a scratching dog, he will have time to get up and leave the room
> before the lenses can go from 300 mm infinity to their close range!
>
> If price is a prime consideration you will go a long way before faulting
the
> Sigma EX, DG range of lenses with Canon mounts. One in particular that
> stands out is the 24~70 f2.8 DG, DF lens. This is 1/3 rd the price of the
> Canon version and apart from a slower focus motor and the occasional
> inability to grab focus on low contrast, low light subjects, is optically
> close to equal to the Canon lens.
>
> The Canon 17~55 plastic lens which comes with the 20D kit is a pretty good
> all-round lens for most people. It is sharp and relatively free of flair.
At
> the price it is a rare bargain. Pity it only fits a D300 or D20 but I
guess
> that's the price of digital only lenses. This would suit your scenery
> photography in all but the most demanding situations. Use it between 20mm
> and 45mm and never stop down past f11 for the best results.
>
> If you need reach (and you will for football games) you really have no
> alternative but to spend money. The 100~300 f4 Sigma is no match for
Canon's
> lens. Pity about the cost but sometimes you have to cough up or go
without.
> Stay right away from monster range zoom lenses. Lenses like 28~300 are no
> value at all when at some point of their range they are poor... That'll be
> the range you need!
>
> Good luck,
> Doug
>
>
Anonymous
December 28, 2004 11:15:47 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Steve" <SB@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:6aZzd.268721$V41.39599@attbi_s52...
> Before you go Sigma
> http://www.tawbaware.com/sigma_tokina_test1.htm
>
>
The only problem with ad-hoc tests like this is that there is no mention of
a mechanical check of the lenses before photographs. It is quite possible
that the Sigma lens has a back focus issue and the Tokina in the test does
not. My own personal tests proved exactly the opposite to the results in
this test. Otherwise I would be using Tokina instead of Sigma. The
difference is I had the 20D camera calibrated for back focus when I bought
it.

I had the Sigma lens calibrated to suit the camera when I bought it. The
Tokina? I just opend the box and shot 20 frames. All of them out of focus.
Same deal with a Canon 50mm f1.8. Just put 'em back on the shelf and don't
buy. The interesting part of this is that the camera was forward focusing
with a 50mm f1.4 lens and that is the one it was calibrated for so the
camera, was correctly focusing before I put any other lenses on it.

Maybe ever 4th or 5th Sigam 'EX' series lens will not focus as well as a USM
Canon lens out of the box but for a small fee $75 or so, you can have the
lens calibrated to match the camera and get the same or better focus results
as with a Canon lens. Do the math and you'll see that (aussie dollars)
$942.08 plus $75 for calibration is a long way short of $2497.35 for a
Canon lens.

Tokina's will benefit from the same calibration too. In fact every camera
and lens (USM and L series included) should be calibrated after purchase or
you may be asking yourself for a long, long time, why your photos are not as
sharp as other people's.

Doug
Anonymous
December 28, 2004 3:32:19 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Dale" <daleirvine@deloitte.com> wrote in message
news:cqlj78$h57$1@ngspool-d02.news.aol.com...
> Santa was very good and brought a 20D. Now the next challenge is what
> lenses to buy? My subjects will be the family holiday pictures and this
> years Rose Parade and Rose Bowl Game (50 yard line seats!). I am so enjoy
> Yosemite type scenery.
>
> Any ideas and suggestions would be appreciated.
>
>
>

For a good all round lens I would go for a 28 -135mm with a good F stop
range (f2.8) but that WILL be Very expensive, so the f3.5 up will be fine.
This is a great lens for panoramic/landscape with the ability to use it as a
portrait lens.

I have this lens on my 20D & it is as I say, a great all rounder.
Anonymous
December 28, 2004 3:35:26 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Excuse top posting, nice shots my friend.


"Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote in message
news:LlDzd.4408$yW5.3534@fed1read02...
> That lens is not piece of junk. Do you actually have any experience of
> it? I have 16x20s with that lens that are great, 13x19s that are
> outstanding.
>
> http://www.shutterspeedway.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?user...
>
> --
> Skip Middleton
> http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
> "Chuck" <nospammm@no_spam.com> wrote in message
> news:3385t7F3n4gfqU1@individual.net...
>>
>> "dylan" <no@nospam.com> a écrit dans le message de
>> news:cqm1jd$e9n$1@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
>>> if you like Canon try...
>>>
>>> 28-135, 17-40, 50 f1.8, 85 f1.8 , 400 f5.6 (or 100-400 which doesn't get
>>> quite as good comments)
>>
>> 28-135 USM IS ? That piece of junk ?
>>
>> But agree on the rest of your list...
>>
>>
>
>
Anonymous
December 28, 2004 3:35:27 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Sorry, forgot to move my replies to the bottom, now we've made a mess of
this thread, haven't we? <G>
Thanks for the compliment, but I had some great things to photograph, that
day!

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
"Mac Tabak" <yertiz@dreckly.com> wrote in message
news:cqrju8$g9m$1@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
> Excuse top posting, nice shots my friend.
>
>
> "Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:LlDzd.4408$yW5.3534@fed1read02...
>> That lens is not piece of junk. Do you actually have any experience of
>> it? I have 16x20s with that lens that are great, 13x19s that are
>> outstanding.
>>
>> http://www.shutterspeedway.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?user...
>>
>> --
>> Skip Middleton
>> http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
>> "Chuck" <nospammm@no_spam.com> wrote in message
>> news:3385t7F3n4gfqU1@individual.net...
>>>
>>> "dylan" <no@nospam.com> a écrit dans le message de
>>> news:cqm1jd$e9n$1@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
>>>> if you like Canon try...
>>>>
>>>> 28-135, 17-40, 50 f1.8, 85 f1.8 , 400 f5.6 (or 100-400 which doesn't
>>>> get
>>>> quite as good comments)
>>>
>>> 28-135 USM IS ? That piece of junk ?
>>>
>>> But agree on the rest of your list...
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
Anonymous
December 28, 2004 11:37:45 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On 2004-12-27, Ryadia <ryadia@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> "Steve" <SB@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:6aZzd.268721$V41.39599@attbi_s52...
>> Before you go Sigma
>> http://www.tawbaware.com/sigma_tokina_test1.htm
>>
>>
> The only problem with ad-hoc tests like this is that there is no mention of
> a mechanical check of the lenses before photographs. It is quite possible
> that the Sigma lens has a back focus issue and the Tokina in the test does
> not. My own personal tests proved exactly the opposite to the results in
> this test. Otherwise I would be using Tokina instead of Sigma. The
> difference is I had the 20D camera calibrated for back focus when I bought
> it.

Calibrated for back focus/front focus? So what do I do when I use both
types? Do I send the body into the camera shop to be recalibrated every
time I change lenses?

> I had the Sigma lens calibrated to suit the camera when I bought it. The
> Tokina? I just opend the box and shot 20 frames. All of them out of focus.
> Same deal with a Canon 50mm f1.8. Just put 'em back on the shelf and don't
> buy. The interesting part of this is that the camera was forward focusing
> with a 50mm f1.4 lens and that is the one it was calibrated for so the
> camera, was correctly focusing before I put any other lenses on it.

Oh, you're saying that it's the lens that has to be calibrated?

> Maybe ever 4th or 5th Sigam 'EX' series lens will not focus as well as a USM
> Canon lens out of the box but for a small fee $75 or so, you can have the
> lens calibrated to match the camera and get the same or better focus results
> as with a Canon lens. Do the math and you'll see that (aussie dollars)
> $942.08 plus $75 for calibration is a long way short of $2497.35 for a
> Canon lens.

Do they do this as you wait, or is this one of those "We'll put it in
the shop, and it'll have to wait its turn..." deals?

> Tokina's will benefit from the same calibration too. In fact every camera
> and lens (USM and L series included) should be calibrated after purchase or
> you may be asking yourself for a long, long time, why your photos are not as
> sharp as other people's.
>
> Doug

I've never heard of this sort of thing, actually. Your post suggests
that this is common knowledge. I'm right willing to admit there's much
I don't know so I'm ready to learn something new. Will you point me
towards what I've been missing all this time?

Thanks,

Will D.
Anonymous
December 29, 2004 11:25:10 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Will D." <willd@no.spam> wrote in message
news:10t3h0pp9fsce1@corp.supernews.com...
> On 2004-12-27, Ryadia <ryadia@hotmail.com> wrote:

> I've never heard of this sort of thing, actually. Your post suggests
> that this is common knowledge. I'm right willing to admit there's much
> I don't know so I'm ready to learn something new. Will you point me
> towards what I've been missing all this time?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Will D.
>
No idea whether you are baiting me or not but...
Background:
All production SLR cameras need some pretty tightly controlled lens rear
element to film plane dimensions to produce exactly what you see in the
viewfinder, focus wise. Also the lens rear element to mirror to penta prism
relationship is critical to focus too although not so much with auto focus.
The distance between the film plane and the rear lens element is know as the
"back focus". Presumably the lens focus would then be the 'front focus'?

Auto focus lenses can be adjusted for where they focus within their depth of
field. This I'll call "calibration of the focus point". Large format and
other bellows focusing cameras use the back focus exclusively and don't
suffer from back focus errors.

I first discovered this relationship after buying an Olympus camera in the
'80s. A 600 mm lens I'd sold my car to buy wouldn't take a sharp picture on
this camera. The Oly service centre put thin shims between the lens mount
and the body to correct the problem. They had a test lens specifically for
this problem. After that they adjusted the penta prism to match the new back
focus distance and I went on to take some of the best wild life pictures of
my life with that combination.

Now... When I buy a new body, the first thing I do is get the back focus
checked before ever taking a picture. My 10D was focusing behind the focus
point, out of the box. The 20D was forward focusing - out of the box. The
technician I use charged me $180 to fix the (brand new) 10D but only $85 for
the 20D. When I queried the difference he told me of the nightmare he'd had
with the 10D compared to the 20D.

OK... So with a camera body that is calibrated to focus at the focus point
with a f1.4 lens... All other lenses *should* be able to produce a sharp
picture. So why then did the brand new Canon f1.8 lens and the Tokina lens
not do that? It is because they were calibrated for a camera type with
sloppier back focus needs than the 20D (or 300D)... EOS SLRs.

The Sigma 24~70 f2.8 lens I bought has optical glass as good as or better
than a USM Canon lens. It too was manufactured with sloppier tolerances than
these 20Ds will handle so I had that calibrated for the 20D body I had
previously got adjusted. The lens focuses correctly on my EOS 3 and a
friend's EOS 1. I haven't tried it on any other cameras although I will as
soon as my new Kodak DSLR arrives in the new year.

Somehow or another the concept that you can buy new merchandise and it is
going to work as it is supposed to, is flawed when a lot of merchandise you
buy has to be returned for repair or adjustment before it does. I just
accept this situation and work with it, like a lot of other photographers
do. Get your new cameras fine tuned and get every accessory tuned to work in
harmony with it and you at least remove the uncertainty of sloppy
manufacture from the thing that can go wrong.

Doug
Anonymous
December 29, 2004 11:25:11 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On 2004-12-28, Ryadia <ryadia@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> "Will D." <willd@no.spam> wrote in message
> news:10t3h0pp9fsce1@corp.supernews.com...
>> On 2004-12-27, Ryadia <ryadia@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I've never heard of this sort of thing, actually. Your post suggests
>> that this is common knowledge. I'm right willing to admit there's much
>> I don't know so I'm ready to learn something new. Will you point me
>> towards what I've been missing all this time?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Will D.
>>
> No idea whether you are baiting me or not but...

Never bait people when I don't know what the hell I'm talking about.

> Background:
> All production SLR cameras need some pretty tightly controlled lens rear
> element to film plane dimensions to produce exactly what you see in the
> viewfinder, focus wise. Also the lens rear element to mirror to penta prism
> relationship is critical to focus too although not so much with auto focus.
> The distance between the film plane and the rear lens element is know as the
> "back focus". Presumably the lens focus would then be the 'front focus'?

Yep, got that.

> Auto focus lenses can be adjusted for where they focus within their depth of
> field. This I'll call "calibration of the focus point". Large format and
> other bellows focusing cameras use the back focus exclusively and don't
> suffer from back focus errors.

Okay, that sounds right.

> I first discovered this relationship after buying an Olympus camera in the
> '80s. A 600 mm lens I'd sold my car to buy wouldn't take a sharp picture on
> this camera. The Oly service centre put thin shims between the lens mount
> and the body to correct the problem. They had a test lens specifically for
> this problem. After that they adjusted the penta prism to match the new back
> focus distance and I went on to take some of the best wild life pictures of
> my life with that combination.

Heh! Shims between the mount and body, and reset the pentaprism.
Wonder how that works with interchangeable prisms, reset the flange I'd
guess (thinking of the LX...) Probably easier with a system rig.

> Now... When I buy a new body, the first thing I do is get the back focus
> checked before ever taking a picture. My 10D was focusing behind the focus
> point, out of the box. The 20D was forward focusing - out of the box. The
> technician I use charged me $180 to fix the (brand new) 10D but only $85 for
> the 20D. When I queried the difference he told me of the nightmare he'd had
> with the 10D compared to the 20D.

Okay...

> OK... So with a camera body that is calibrated to focus at the focus point
> with a f1.4 lens... All other lenses *should* be able to produce a sharp
> picture. So why then did the brand new Canon f1.8 lens and the Tokina lens
> not do that? It is because they were calibrated for a camera type with
> sloppier back focus needs than the 20D (or 300D)... EOS SLRs.

Sloppier back focus needs? What type is that? Film bodies in general?

> The Sigma 24~70 f2.8 lens I bought has optical glass as good as or better
> than a USM Canon lens. It too was manufactured with sloppier tolerances than
> these 20Ds will handle so I had that calibrated for the 20D body I had
> previously got adjusted. The lens focuses correctly on my EOS 3 and a
> friend's EOS 1. I haven't tried it on any other cameras although I will as
> soon as my new Kodak DSLR arrives in the new year.

Okay, so how does the lens itself get calibrated? Shim the lens' mount?

> Somehow or another the concept that you can buy new merchandise and it is
> going to work as it is supposed to, is flawed when a lot of merchandise you
> buy has to be returned for repair or adjustment before it does. I just
> accept this situation and work with it, like a lot of other photographers
> do. Get your new cameras fine tuned and get every accessory tuned to work in
> harmony with it and you at least remove the uncertainty of sloppy
> manufacture from the thing that can go wrong.

Now I've got some questions:

1) We all understand that you get what you pay for. And we all
understand that what we pay for is not the design or the materials,
but the quality of manufacture. That quality is mostly a matter of
assembly tolerances, IIUC.

Is it in fact the case that it is *this particular tolerance* that is
the one most responsible for quality variance between lenses of the same
type and manufacture? If so, then perhaps this fine tuning of equipment
by calibration would level the playing field noticably. What is the
reality here? Anyone know?

2) Are digital bodies inherently more sensitive to this calibration
than film bodies, or is it a matter of brand and type/model? Would you
elaborate?

3) Can you check this yourself, or does that need a technician's
knowledge and equipment?

4) What can you tell an amateur about the best way to go about this?
You mention getting the work done right away. Does that mean that it
goes to the technician before you take delivery, or after you find out
that it's necessary? You talk about rejecting lenses at the camera
counter, that suggests a simple test, right?

5) Does this mean that knowledgeable folk don't buy from mail order
houses, even like B&H?.

6) Maybe most important, if this is all true, why has this not been
routinely discussed in the photography forums, or is it and I've just
missed the whole thing? Anybody know?

Thanks for the information!

Will D.
Anonymous
December 29, 2004 11:25:12 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Ryadia wrote:
<snip>

Maybe the focus problems associated with having the
> rear element so close to the sensor mean they can't keep the
> tolerance in manufacture to guaranteed focus? Who know? All I know is
> I have a rail in my workshop with a tripod head on it and whenever
> one of my photographer friends buys a new camera, I get a six pack
> while they test the back focus!
>

Could we see pictures of this? Sounds like a worthwhile project.


--
Frank ess
Anonymous
December 29, 2004 2:26:43 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote in message
news:LlDzd.4408$yW5.3534@fed1read02...
> That lens is not piece of junk. Do you actually have any experience of
it?
> I have 16x20s with that lens that are great, 13x19s that are outstanding.
>
>
http://www.shutterspeedway.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?user...

I would agree that it's not a piece of junk, but my experience of it (had
one for a year or so) is that it's not the sharpest lens going. I was glad
to get rid of mine.

Lenses I've used and would recommend....
Canon 50mm f1.8 - an absolute bargain.
Canon 17-40L f4 - very good wide to standard zoom. Makes a good carry around
lens for 10D or 20D
Canon 70-200L f4 - A beauty of a lens. Light enough to handhold easily.
Sharpness is excellent for a zoom and background blurs out beautifully.
Canon 400L f5.6 - Tack sharp. I've had good results handholding this one.
Great value long lens when used on 10D or 20D.
Sigma 50mm f2.8 macro - I haven't used the Canon macros so I can't compare,
but I've been happy with the results from this on. It's sharp.

Hopefully I'll be able to add the 135L f2 to this list in the next few days
:-)

Lenses to avoid imho...
Canon 75-300 f4-5.6 - the greatest piece of junk I've ever had the
misfortune to possess.
Canon 28-135IS - not particularly sharp, build quality isn't great, IS is
slow and not particularly useful given the focal range.

--
Colm
Anonymous
December 29, 2004 5:48:31 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Ryadia" <ryadia@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:33eu41F3spb7oU1@individual.net...
SNIP
> Anyway... Canon 300D and 20D are more likely than a film
> camera to have a back focus problem due to the closeness
> of the sensor to the lens.

Strange, I could have sworn that a 50mm lens focused at infinity
produces focal points at exactly the same distance regardless of
camera body used, but perhaps I misread you? Besides, your use of the
term "back focus" is confusing, as you seem to mean rear focus
distance. Backfocus is normally used to indicate focussing behind the
subject that was focused upon.

SNIP
> Set your camera up using a carpenters square so it is at 45
> degree angle to the board.

This will often result in wrong focus, because the sensor will focus
anywhere within range of the entire sensor (so anywhere from the
closest point to the most distant point covered by the sensor). The
actual sensor is much larger than the indicator that is projected on
the viewfinder screen!

A better test is to autofocus on a flat (parallel to the sensor plane)
target, switch to manual focus, and vary the camera to target distance
by e.g. using a focus rail or copystand. A suitable target can be
made, but the flat/parallel focus plane needs to be much larger than
the focus sensor (indicator). Then, and only then, conclusions can be
drawn about focus consistency and need for recalibration of either
lens, camera, or both. You may also find optimal center focus to
differ a bit from other areas in the image. A close to flat focal
plane can only be expected in lenses designed for that, e.g. dedicated
macro lenses.

Also consider that only fast lenses allow critical autofocus, due to
small DoF wide open. Slower and wide angle lenses have considerably
larger DoF, and anything "close enough" will be within an acceptable
range for the AF algorithm (either at the closer or more distant
position within the "acceptable" range).

Bart
Anonymous
December 30, 2004 12:32:46 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Frank ess" <frank@fshe2fs.com> wrote in message
news:c4idnRO5Ee-V2E_cRVn-3A@giganews.com...
> Ryadia wrote:
> <snip>
>
> Maybe the focus problems associated with having the
> > rear element so close to the sensor mean they can't keep the
> > tolerance in manufacture to guaranteed focus? Who know? All I know is
> > I have a rail in my workshop with a tripod head on it and whenever
> > one of my photographer friends buys a new camera, I get a six pack
> > while they test the back focus!
> >
>
> Could we see pictures of this? Sounds like a worthwhile project.
>
>
> --
> Frank ess
>
Just send 'em over to my place Frank, I don't mind sharing the beer!
Sure. I go back to work on the 11th, I'll take a pic and post the link.

Doug
Anonymous
December 30, 2004 1:48:44 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In message <10t3bo23eu9kvb6@corp.supernews.com>,
"Will D." <willd@no.spam> wrote:

>The 50mm f1.4 is not an L lens, and from what I've heard, they don't get
>much sharper than that.

That's a myth. There are much sharper lenses than it, though it is
sufficient in many cases.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
December 30, 2004 1:59:22 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On 2004-12-29, Bart van der Wolf <bvdwolf@no.spam> wrote:
>
> "Ryadia" <ryadia@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:33eu41F3spb7oU1@individual.net...
> SNIP
>> Anyway... Canon 300D and 20D are more likely than a film
>> camera to have a back focus problem due to the closeness
>> of the sensor to the lens.
>
> Strange, I could have sworn that a 50mm lens focused at infinity
> produces focal points at exactly the same distance regardless of
> camera body used, but perhaps I misread you? Besides, your use of the
> term "back focus" is confusing, as you seem to mean rear focus
> distance. Backfocus is normally used to indicate focussing behind the
> subject that was focused upon.

Rear focus distance instead of back focus sounds better. Isn't lens
performance in general independent of the camera body?

Will D.
Anonymous
December 30, 2004 2:47:43 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

JPS@no.komm wrote:

> In message <10t3bo23eu9kvb6@corp.supernews.com>,
> "Will D." <willd@no.spam> wrote:
>
>
>>The 50mm f1.4 is not an L lens, and from what I've heard, they don't get
>>much sharper than that.
>
>
> That's a myth. There are much sharper lenses than it, though it is
> sufficient in many cases.

Please: What Canon lenses are much sharper, or even just sharper?

--
John McWilliams
Anonymous
December 30, 2004 2:59:11 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In message <zmHAd.824931$8_6.124488@attbi_s04>,
John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote:

>JPS@no.komm wrote:
>
>> In message <10t3bo23eu9kvb6@corp.supernews.com>,
>> "Will D." <willd@no.spam> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>The 50mm f1.4 is not an L lens, and from what I've heard, they don't get
>>>much sharper than that.
>>
>>
>> That's a myth. There are much sharper lenses than it, though it is
>> sufficient in many cases.
>
>Please: What Canon lenses are much sharper, or even just sharper?

The 500mm f4L IS, 300mm f4L IS, 300mm f2.8L IS, 400mm f2.8L IS, 70-200mm
f2.8L IS ... Tamron macros are sharper, the Sigmna 50mm f2.8 EX Macro is
sharper ...

Look at Caonon's MTF chart! It only approaches one for low-contrast,
stopped down only:

http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?act=ModelDe...

Some of the lenses I mentioned hug the 1 for all lines!
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
December 30, 2004 11:14:57 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Bart van der Wolf" <bvdwolf@no.spam> wrote in message
news:41d2b69e$0$6211$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...
>
> Strange, I could have sworn that a 50mm lens focused at infinity
> produces focal points at exactly the same distance regardless of
> camera body used, but perhaps I misread you? Besides, your use of the
> term "back focus" is confusing, as you seem to mean rear focus
> distance. Backfocus is normally used to indicate focussing behind the
> subject that was focused upon.

Where you come from Bart there may be different descriptions of the distance
between the sensor and the rear element. For 43 years it hss been called
back focus in my vocalubary and I don't intend to change it anytime soon to
accomodate you. I also don't intend to change other descriptions
'tech-heads' in this group have pulled me up on either. Your version of how
to check for 'back focus' variations may suit you but it never gave me any
reliable results in the past. Your method is as prone to errors as mine.
This is why I suggested making several shots.

Now I pose the question:
Are there actually any photographers lurking in this group or are you all
tech-heads who take pictures? Maybe I made the wrong assumption about the
name of the group. I thought photo in the first part meant it was a
photographers group. I guess it is more for digital SLR followers after
lurking here for a few weeks.

Doug
(a Photographer)
Anonymous
December 30, 2004 11:14:58 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Ryadia" <ryadia@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:33go9dF3u99nvU1@individual.net...
SNIP
> Now I pose the question:
> Are there actually any photographers lurking in this group or are
> you all tech-heads who take pictures?

I can't speak for others, but I'm (amongst others) a certified pro
photographer. For me it is important to know the limitations or strong
points of my gear, ever since before my first Canon (original F1). I'd
rather control the camera, than having the camera control me.

> Maybe I made the wrong assumption about the name of the group.

The "digital" part means that one can suspect a certain level of
technical interest/knowledge is present with some of the contributers,
and photographs being the obvious final goal.

Bart
Anonymous
December 30, 2004 12:56:21 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Will D." <willd@no.spam> wrote in message
news:10t6dma2s0vds0d@corp.supernews.com...
> On 2004-12-29, Bart van der Wolf <bvdwolf@no.spam> wrote:
> >>
> Rear focus distance instead of back focus sounds better. Isn't lens
> performance in general independent of the camera body?
>
> Will D.

OK I'll call it rear focus.
Once a camera has the correct distance setting for rear focus, then the lens
performance is independent of the camera. Having said that, if the rear
element to mount flange of the lens is not precise then the lens will still
not focus properly. My experience tells me that apart from the optical
variations, lenses are more closely manufactured than cameras.

If you can satisfy yourself that the camera is correctly rear focusing, you
can reasonably expect to get sharp photos from a variety of lenses. If you
try one and it doesn't focus sharply, it's a fair bet it need to be
calibrated or recalibrated. If it's new, don't buy it.

Interestingly I tried several Canon f1.8, 50mm lenses on my adjusted 20D and
got 2 that didn't focus correctly! When I think about it, probably the only
reason my camera supplier puts up with me is because I buy a lot of stuff. I
tried 3, Tokina lenses which are well reported in the media as 'good lenses'
and none of them focused as sharply as either a Canon 24~70 f2.8 or the
Sigma alternative yet the Sigma is not receiving the comments it deserves
due to "poor focus" tests.

At the end of the day, if you can't tell the difference and don't have a
camera you know absolutely has correct rear focus, it's probably better to
stick with a Canon lens. Plenty of people say some of them are soft focus
but on a calibrated camera, none should be.

Doug
Anonymous
December 30, 2004 12:56:22 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On 2004-12-29, Ryadia <ryadia@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> "Will D." <willd@no.spam> wrote in message
> news:10t6dma2s0vds0d@corp.supernews.com...
>> On 2004-12-29, Bart van der Wolf <bvdwolf@no.spam> wrote:
>> >>
>> Rear focus distance instead of back focus sounds better. Isn't lens
>> performance in general independent of the camera body?
>>
>> Will D.
>
> OK I'll call it rear focus.
<snip>

Thanks for the comments and information!

I think I'll do focus tests on my gear now and see what I find. I've
got a few fast lenses for each system, which is what I'll use, as slow
lenses obviously provide little insight here. I've read through some of
the available discussions, particularly by Bob Atkins, and it looks
like this is not just a digital issue, although digital bodies are more
sensitive.

I guess we've all known about this stuff, but it's often hard to tell
just what is and is not really important until we read of the
experiences of others. This thread has done that, and now off to set up
a optical bench (of sorts). I have this table saw that has a POS motor
but a very usable fence, and I've got clamps and stuff...

Will D.
Anonymous
January 2, 2005 12:27:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Care to elaborate on your comments about the 28-135 IS. I've been reasonably
pleased with it thru-out all lengths and apertures.

Steve

>>
>> 28-135, 17-40, 50 f1.8, 85 f1.8 , 400 f5.6 (or 100-400 which doesn't get
>> quite as good comments)
>
> 28-135 USM IS ? That piece of junk ?
>
> But agree on the rest of your list...
>
>
Anonymous
January 2, 2005 10:35:32 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Chuck wrote:
> "dylan" <no@nospam.com> a écrit dans le message de
> news:cqm1jd$e9n$1@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
>>if you like Canon try...
>>
>>28-135, 17-40, 50 f1.8, 85 f1.8 , 400 f5.6 (or 100-400 which doesn't get
>>quite as good comments)
>
>
> 28-135 USM IS ? That piece of junk ?
>
> But agree on the rest of your list...
>
>

One mans trash is another mans treasure. The 28-135 is a good lens to have.

nick
January 3, 2005 12:25:32 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Musty wrote:

> "leo" <someone@somewhere.net> wrote in message
>
> Ofcourse f/2.8 will also give very shallow
> DOP for portraits and other isolation shots.

Pardon my butting in with ignorant comments but I just realized that a
fast lense (or ability to simulate with high ISO) gives both the ability
to get narrow or deep DOF. Am I understanding this correctly?

I'm still trying to grasp all the possibilities.
January 3, 2005 8:32:26 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"paul" <paul@not.net> wrote in message
news:iL-dnV_ygNfMSkXcRVn-hQ@speakeasy.net...
> Musty wrote:
>
> > "leo" <someone@somewhere.net> wrote in message
> >
> > Ofcourse f/2.8 will also give very shallow
> > DOP for portraits and other isolation shots.
>
> Pardon my butting in with ignorant comments but I just realized that a
> fast lense (or ability to simulate with high ISO) gives both the ability
> to get narrow or deep DOF. Am I understanding this correctly?
>
> I'm still trying to grasp all the possibilities.

Deep DOF uses small apertures (high f number), so this is correct. A fast
lens has the advantage that it gives you shallower DOF due to larger
apertures. Having a small aperture, is not any issue with most lenses I
imagine (all you need is f/22). So in essence a "fast" lense provides a
wider range of depth of field. Also keep in mind that DOF is a function of
focal length so the smaller the focal length (eg 17mm vs 28mm) will give you
larger DOF.
January 3, 2005 8:32:27 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Musty wrote:

> "paul" <paul@not.net> wrote in message
> news:iL-dnV_ygNfMSkXcRVn-hQ@speakeasy.net...
>
>>Musty wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"leo" <someone@somewhere.net> wrote in message
>>>
>>>Ofcourse f/2.8 will also give very shallow
>>>DOP for portraits and other isolation shots.
>>
>>Pardon my butting in with ignorant comments but I just realized that a
>>fast lense (or ability to simulate with high ISO) gives both the ability
>>to get narrow or deep DOF. Am I understanding this correctly?
>>
>>I'm still trying to grasp all the possibilities.
>
>
> Deep DOF uses small apertures (high f number), so this is correct. A fast
> lens has the advantage that it gives you shallower DOF due to larger
> apertures. Having a small aperture, is not any issue with most lenses I
> imagine (all you need is f/22). So in essence a "fast" lense provides a
> wider range of depth of field. Also keep in mind that DOF is a function of
> focal length so the smaller the focal length (eg 17mm vs 28mm) will give you
> larger DOF.


OK so a telephoto lense limits your depth of field. So if I'm shooting
macro, I would want a short lense right? But Telephoto enlarges things
so it counteracts that benefit in terms of DOF. So if I used a wide
angle lense (short?) that would mean I'd have to be be 1/2 inch from my
flower but I could have decent depth of field vesus sitting 2 feet away
with a telephoto lense.

Am I getting the general idea? What goes into an ideal macro lense?
January 3, 2005 10:23:20 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"paul" <paul@not.net> wrote in message
news:146dneY8bbQHQEXcRVn-vw@speakeasy.net...
> Musty wrote:
>
> > "paul" <paul@not.net> wrote in message
> > news:iL-dnV_ygNfMSkXcRVn-hQ@speakeasy.net...
> >
> >>Musty wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>"leo" <someone@somewhere.net> wrote in message
> >>>
> >>>Ofcourse f/2.8 will also give very shallow
> >>>DOP for portraits and other isolation shots.
> >>
> >>Pardon my butting in with ignorant comments but I just realized that a
> >>fast lense (or ability to simulate with high ISO) gives both the ability
> >>to get narrow or deep DOF. Am I understanding this correctly?
> >>
> >>I'm still trying to grasp all the possibilities.
> >
> >
> > Deep DOF uses small apertures (high f number), so this is correct. A
fast
> > lens has the advantage that it gives you shallower DOF due to larger
> > apertures. Having a small aperture, is not any issue with most lenses I
> > imagine (all you need is f/22). So in essence a "fast" lense provides a
> > wider range of depth of field. Also keep in mind that DOF is a function
of
> > focal length so the smaller the focal length (eg 17mm vs 28mm) will give
you
> > larger DOF.
>
>
> OK so a telephoto lense limits your depth of field. So if I'm shooting
> macro, I would want a short lense right? But Telephoto enlarges things
> so it counteracts that benefit in terms of DOF. So if I used a wide
> angle lense (short?) that would mean I'd have to be be 1/2 inch from my
> flower but I could have decent depth of field vesus sitting 2 feet away
> with a telephoto lense.
>
> Am I getting the general idea? What goes into an ideal macro lense?

I am not an expert on macro photography, but I dont believe you need a great
DOF for macro shots. For example compare two scenarios:

1) Shooting a landscape where you want to capture maybe several miles of
distance - here you will need massive DOF

2) Shooting a flower macro more where you want to have "acceptable" focus
probably over an inch or two - This is not a large DOF, its a tiny DOF

So generally macro shooting is done not with wide lenses (since you want to
magnify and limit DOF). If you look at Canon EF lenses that are designated
"macro" here are some examples:

EF 180mm F3.5L macro
EF 65mm F3.5L macro
EF 100mm F2.8 macro
EF 50mm f2.5 macro

So you can see that focal length is not wide by any means (50 to 180mm). The
main features of a macro lens would be as follows (I would think):
- Long enough focal length to "magnify" the subject
- Large aperture (small f) to limit DOF (you want to focus that one flower
or insect)
- Small focusing distance (eg the 50mm can focus as close as 23cm) which
would give awesome magnification with 50mm focal length.

Thanks
Musty.
Anonymous
January 3, 2005 10:23:21 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Musty wrote:
> "paul" <paul@not.net> wrote in message
> news:146dneY8bbQHQEXcRVn-vw@speakeasy.net...
>> Musty wrote:
>>
>>> "paul" <paul@not.net> wrote in message
>>> news:iL-dnV_ygNfMSkXcRVn-hQ@speakeasy.net...
>>>
>>>> Musty wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> "leo" <someone@somewhere.net> wrote in message
>>>>>
>>>>> Ofcourse f/2.8 will also give very shallow
>>>>> DOP for portraits and other isolation shots.
>>>>
>>>> Pardon my butting in with ignorant comments but I just realized
>>>> that a fast lense (or ability to simulate with high ISO) gives
>>>> both the ability to get narrow or deep DOF. Am I understanding
>>>> this correctly?
>>>>
>>>> I'm still trying to grasp all the possibilities.
>>>
>>>
>>> Deep DOF uses small apertures (high f number), so this is correct.
>>> A fast lens has the advantage that it gives you shallower DOF due
>>> to larger apertures. Having a small aperture, is not any issue with
>>> most lenses I imagine (all you need is f/22). So in essence a
>>> "fast" lense provides a wider range of depth of field. Also keep in
>>> mind that DOF is a function of focal length so the smaller the
>>> focal length (eg 17mm vs 28mm) will give you larger DOF.
>>
>>
>> OK so a telephoto lense limits your depth of field. So if I'm
>> shooting macro, I would want a short lense right? But Telephoto
>> enlarges things
>> so it counteracts that benefit in terms of DOF. So if I used a wide
>> angle lense (short?) that would mean I'd have to be be 1/2 inch from
>> my flower but I could have decent depth of field vesus sitting 2
>> feet away with a telephoto lense.
>>
>> Am I getting the general idea? What goes into an ideal macro lense?
>
> I am not an expert on macro photography, but I dont believe you need
> a great DOF for macro shots. For example compare two scenarios:
>
> 1) Shooting a landscape where you want to capture maybe several miles
> of distance - here you will need massive DOF
>
> 2) Shooting a flower macro more where you want to have "acceptable"
> focus probably over an inch or two - This is not a large DOF, its a
> tiny DOF
>
> So generally macro shooting is done not with wide lenses (since you
> want to magnify and limit DOF). If you look at Canon EF lenses that
> are designated "macro" here are some examples:
>
> EF 180mm F3.5L macro
> EF 65mm F3.5L macro
> EF 100mm F2.8 macro
> EF 50mm f2.5 macro
>
> So you can see that focal length is not wide by any means (50 to
> 180mm). The main features of a macro lens would be as follows (I
> would think):
> - Long enough focal length to "magnify" the subject
> - Large aperture (small f) to limit DOF (you want to focus that one
> flower or insect)
> - Small focusing distance (eg the 50mm can focus as close as 23cm)
> which would give awesome magnification with 50mm focal length.
>

At macro scales, lighting can be a major consideration: unless you are
otherwise equipped, common solutions are more easily applied with larger
lens-to-subject distances.


--
Frank ess
!