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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old May 18, 2004, 9:58 AM   #11
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

Do you mean guys?

http://www.stevesforums.com/forums/v...131847#p131847
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 18, 2004, 6:28 PM   #12
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 332
Default

Hi GUYS! Been away for a few days. I shot tests with the Cannon 50 mm 1.4 & the Tamron 28-300 at 50 mm - the Tamron looks better, no kidding. Better saturation and contrast. Now I'm really confused. Makes me wonder even more about the concept of having a couple of really good fixed lens high ends available as opposed to switching around lens. I know that sounds really odd, but I keep coming back to the result from my Olympus cameras and that good glass......:O That A2 sounds pretty interesting.....
fporch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 18, 2004, 10:27 PM   #13
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 332
Default

.....and Warren, you have to keep an open mind. "Is this guy serious" was seen in many forums not too long ago when the first mention of digital replacing film was posted......:idea:
fporch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 19, 2004, 3:08 AM   #14
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 192
Default

Quote:
I shot tests with the Cannon 50 mm 1.4 & the Tamron 28-300 at 50 mm - the Tamron looks better, no kidding. Better saturation and contrast. Now I'm really confused. Makes me wonder even more about the concept of having a couple of really good fixed lens high ends available as opposed to switching around lens
In another thread, I talk about my observations of colour balance issues with Tamron lenses. You can see some samples for yourself off a link there. Others have mentioned this issue. Although you can subjectively prefer the effect of the Tamron, and nobody is going to argue with you if you just like it better, I don't think that you can make a case for it being more right, especially in comparison to the 50 1.4. Here's what Canon says about it:

Quote:
This is an essential standard lens for EOS family. This lens starts with the optical design concept of the FD 50mm f/1.4, which has always been highly regarded for its superior sharpness and color balance. Two high-refraction glass lens elements minimize flare at maximum aperture and eliminate astigmatism. Improvements in the quality of the focused image and a beautiful, natural blur of the background are realized. A micro USM (Ultrasonic Motor) provides fast, silent AF and full-time manual focusing. Color balance is virtually identical to the ISO recommended reference values.
http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/c...50_14_usm.html


My own shots show that the Canon 50 1.8 II is without a doubt sharper and clearer than my Tamron 28-200 Super-duper XR... The Canon 50 1.4 is demonstrably better than the 50 1.8, and the Tamron 28-200 is likely as good as the 28-300. I think we might have a case of two sets of results probably showing similar effects, but the observers drawing different conclusions. And that's fine -- it's good for everyone to draw their own conclusions. Mine are however the opposite of yours.
Madwand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 19, 2004, 2:45 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 332
Default

MadWand - I've noted before that part of the beauty of photography is that there is more than one answer and method to capture the image being sought, so we are basically in agreement. I'm going to spend some more time shooting with the kitlens that came with the DRebel and the 1.4 50 mm. I went back and looked at Steve's test shots, and to me the DRebel shots (I'm assuming with the kit lens) appeared to be clearly superior than the Olympus C-8080 and Minolta A2 test shots (SURPRISE- more purple fringing in the Minolta than the Olympus!)- so at least I've answered that question I posted about fixed lens vs. interchangeable lenses. I still am still going to upgrade my C-730 back-up camera at some point when I can find a good price on a fixed lens model, but I've decided to move ahead with learning more about the lenses available for my DRebel. THX everyone for your feedback, helpful as always.
fporch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 19, 2004, 2:58 PM   #16
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 62
Default

Incidentally, on comparing lenses, I was looking at Canon's MTF charts for the 17-40 L, 18-55 S, and 50mm 1.4. At first the MTF for the 18-55 looked spectacular... but when I looked closer I realized the horizontal axis (distance from lens center) on the EF-S chart only goes to 13mm where the others go to 22mm. So the graphs are highly misleading. The curve on the EF-S is actually dropping nearly twice as fast as it appears due to the difference in scale.
mrc01 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 19, 2004, 11:23 PM   #17
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 332
Default

mrc01 - THX for the info. These technical specs make my head hurt after a while, though :-) In the end, I have to rely on what I think looks best in the final print - I think its the only way I can ever make a decision about which lens to use!
fporch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 20, 2004, 7:09 AM   #18
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

FYI

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/peepers.shtml
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 20, 2004, 8:06 AM   #19
Senior Member
 
Setiprime's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 484
Default

fporch -



Thats why I asked if you were serious. You can over due the "technical specs" to the point of silliness. Its OK if you are just killing time on the internet but, the only real result is whether or not you like what your shots end up like.

It's kinda like the ridiculous threads about the color of camera bodies.......

In 40 years of shooting, I have NEVER had someone ask me the color ofthe camera when they commented on the shot. I guess stupidity does have its limits.

Jon F.
Setiprime is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 20, 2004, 10:35 AM   #20
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 62
Default

I don't worry too much about the specs myself. I just wanted to mention what I saw regarding the MTF graphs because it is highly misleading and would likely dupe anyone who didn't look very closely at the graphs.

The only reason I noticed is because the curve for the EF-S 18-55 was as flat as that for the 50mm 1.4, and that didn't seem right. And on closer inspection, it wasn't.
mrc01 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 1:35 AM.