Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Canon Lenses

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Feb 26, 2004, 9:39 PM   #1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 332
Default Canon 28-300 IS

Any thoughts on the newly announced Canon 28-300 IS lens (See Steve's PMA News)? $2,500 compared to the same Tamron lens for less than $400 - without IS, of course. Is this kind of investment worth it if it meets most of our lens needs?
fporch is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Feb 26, 2004, 10:21 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 3,748
Default

Quote:
Canon 28-300 IS lens (See Steve's PMA News)? $2,500 compared to the same Tamron lens for less than $400
Tamron's MTF rating is 2.6 and I doubt very much that Canon's comes close to that less than worthy rating, since Canon's 28-300 is an "L" series lens. I looked around and can't find an MTF rating, but I don't think it's foolish to suggest that the rating is probably above 3.8, and that's being conservative. I don't think too many "L" lenses will rate below 4 in an MTF test.

I'd guess that one is paying for fast focus, excellent MTF rating, sturdy build and basic quality overall.

Your phrasing, "most of our needs" is the essential question. Who is most of us? If most of us are addicted to attempting to get the sharpest, clearest, and most worthwhile looking photo, then the cost is secondary, since buying anything less is buying something that is not enough. Useless, in other words. And frustrating as well. If you have high demands for your pictures, then purchasing a cheap lens will only bring frustration and perhaps even more than that in some cases, such as busting your camera against the nearest log or wall because it won't do what you want it to do. It's like feeding your worker bark and wondering why he or she won't produce.


My guess.
Normcar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 27, 2004, 11:51 AM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 332
Default

THX Normcar. Educate me, if you would - what's MTF? It sounds as though the higher, the better......
fporch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 27, 2004, 2:10 PM   #4
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

FYI

It's a curve not just single number (they should agree on the method 1st before assigning a number :P): http://www.photodo.com/art/Unde5.shtml
Quote:
Also, lens selection should not be based entirely on MTF curves. Other factors such as size, weight, and price should also be considered.
We already know about the price... Someone should check up the weight on that lens not that it is particular fast either, but for someone covering a sporting events it'll be hard to beat, especially if it means missing a shot while the lens is being swapped!
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 27, 2004, 5:48 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 332
Default

NHL - As always, your answers are enlightening and your links superb. I can see why a $2,400 IS lens would have advantages over a $400 lens with same range based on the MTF rating. I will say that a. - contrast is easily adjusted in editing and b. - I have noted good blurring on telephoto shots with the Tamron ; see the Happy Dog Shot in the More Mountain Beauty Album and the Putting Out to Sea in the Virginia Beauty album at ;

http://community.webshots.com/user/johnwmitchell100

I'm not sure what resolving power means, could you explain.
You are correct NHL, I do not change my lens very often unless I need a low ight or wide angle shot, the 28-300 meets most needs. The opportunity to add IS to this mix and better MTF factors is very intriguing, but what a price!! I'll have to find some serious "throw-away money" to even consider!
fporch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 28, 2004, 2:43 AM   #6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 577
Default

The new 28-300 IS is a heavy one, its 3.7 lbs! Consider that if it is going to be your only lens. That is not something I would want to carry around all day around my neck as my 'walkaround' lens.

On the other hand it is a 'L' lens and it has the latest generation of IS, which is very nice.

I believe it is a push-pull design, which some people love and some hate.


Barthold
barthold is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 28, 2004, 8:23 AM   #7
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fporch
I'm not sure what resolving power means, could you explain.
The "experts" can do it better: "High resolution power is useful for high contrast charts (subjects) and the copying of printed materials but it is not as important for general photography..." http://www.photodo.com/art/Lens6.shtml
:P :P :P

The resolving power is only one parameter in a lens selection. It's of course important, but when is it the last time you take a ruler and measure it from a print (if it's at all possible)? I'm sure if a manufacturer want to optimize just one particular aspect of a lens like sharpness, they can and that's the easy part. The goal however is to balance all other parameters as well as having the lens performed over a wide range of aperture... and also remembering that this is a Function which varies accross the lens surface, ie measured at least in 3-Dimensions (and not counting the changing focal lenghts in zooms) :?

Have you ever look through different lenses placed side by side? "Color Reproduction" is also often ignored... Or the effect of the anti-glare coating treatment? On some lenses it looks like a 1A filter is built-in alreadyl... Which is good/bad depending on their owner, correct?
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 28, 2004, 10:12 AM   #8
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 332
Default

I think I'll use my "Power of Resolution" to stop fixating on technical stats and just eyeball the results instead :? You're right Barthold - going on four pounds in weight is a beast! THX everyone for your responses, as always your feedback helps me be less confused.
fporch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 28, 2004, 10:43 AM   #9
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fporch
I think I'll use my "Power of Resolution" to stop fixating on technical stats and just eyeball the results instead :? You're right Barthold - going on four pounds in weight is a beast! THX everyone for your responses, as always your feedback helps me be less confused.
... and I agree! :lol: :lol: :lol:

The arbitrary grade assigned to each lens is based on a weighted averaging of many MTF measurements. For telephotos where the center is more critical a higher grade is useful, but not as meaningful on a wide angle for example where the peripherals are more important for landscape and will score less on a weighted scale "favoring" the center only! :P
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 29, 2004, 1:48 AM   #10
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 332
Default

NHL - Could repeat that in the King's English??
fporch is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 2:07 PM.