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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jul 14, 2005, 7:12 AM   #11
Senior Member
 
LBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 661
Default

It must be love
LBoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 14, 2005, 7:27 AM   #12
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

How this for "consistency":

Tomsch consistenly put out eloquent remarks, accurate and to the point
LBoy consistenly insults everyone differing in opinion :?
Canon is consistenly pricey :-) :lol: :G
... and Sigma cosnsistenly get beat up!!!
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 14, 2005, 9:14 AM   #13
Senior Member
 
LBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 661
Default

Well I'm a little bored. And its too hot in here.



I hope no-one is so sensitive as to be insulted by some of the light-hearted remarks. Apart from the three Sigma Stooges that is....:-):-):-):-)who are obviously only as solidly built as the lenses they covet.

At least the mods understand a laff when they see it.

Take care.

Buy L.


LBoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 16, 2005, 11:11 AM   #14
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 155
Default

I'm not a pro, but I've been shooting with SLRs since my Canon FT and Nikon F in 1967 and 1968, respectively, including a year of 'shooting' in Vietnam. Ask about my pictures of Bob Hope and Racquel Welch in Lai Khe.

I agree thatthe overwhelming majority oflens trashing you read here and other places is almost certainly newbies who can't use their new cameras. The May Pop Photography did a report on the Canon 18-55mm--probably the most widely criticized lens anywhere--and found it to be a pretty darn good lens and an extraordinary value. That lens' reputation suffered because it came on the Digital Rebel, which was the first SLR for tens of thousands of Americans with money but no knowledge or experience. Those people took many bad pictures and had to blame something other than their own inadequacy--like the guy I saw trying to shoot an eagle at 300 yards at dusk with his popup flash. I'm sure he later explained to his wife, "It's that cheap lens that came with the camera. If I just had a better lens, I could get good pictures!"

Handling is likely a factor, too, causing originally in-spec equipment to become off spec due to twisting, mashing, dropping. I have the unfortunate luck of often ending up with other people-with-cameras (not to be confused with "photographers") around me. I have seen so much nice equipment dropped or otherwise abused, I would never buy a used camera or lens.

That said, however, I think the manufacturers' specs havesome leeway, so you might well get a lens that is within spec but not nearly as good as one that happened to fall right in the middle of the +/- range of key specifications. Connect that lens to a camera lens mount with its own +/- in-spec range and a sensor aligned within its +/- spec. If two of those are at the same extreme of barely in spec, then they might combine to a bad camera-lens combination. I suggest that because I have had a Canon tech offer that if I would ship them my 20D, 500mm F4 and 2xII extender, that they would calibrate the combination so that it was sharper, even though each of those three components individually were almost certainly within factory specs.

So there you go. You ask a Yes or No question, and you get "it depends".
wburychka 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 1:09 AM.