|
|
|||||||
| sponsored links |
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
| sponsored links |
27th of August 2005 (Sat)
|
#2 |
|
Senior Member
|
Macro Lens Comparisons by Working Distance vs. Price
Choosing a Canon macro lens by working distance vs. price
Most macro lenses render images with satisfying contrast. And after all, contrast is sharpness. Canon, Nikon, Minolta, Olympus, Pentax, Sigma, Tamron, and Tokina, Zeiss, etc. macro lenses are all sharp. Little is gained obsessively comparing macro lens brands and focal lengths. An alternative way to choose a lens is by comparing subject working distance when at close focus 1:1 magnification versus price. Macro lenses optimize sharpness across a flat image field at minimum focus distance, with low lens curvature distortion. Macro lens performance does vary at normal subject distances. The following are my impressions at close focus working distances. What is working distance? Working Distance (WD) is the distance from the lens front objective to subject (without hood) when at closest focus, or 1:1 life size reproduction. WD = published minimum focus distance specified for a lens - lens length - distance from lens mount flange to sensor/film plane (approx. 4.4 cm for Canon EOS system). Lens manufacturers publish minimum focus distance (MFD): the closest focus distance from the sensor/film plane to the subject. MFD is less useful than knowing WD. Along with light loss (effective aperture), WD is a limiting factor using macro lenses . Get as much WD as you need and can afford. 1x life size WD compared with lens price. Macro lens price points align with WD more than other features. Major price deviations are for faster apertures, internal focusing floating elements, and image stabilization. 35mm Tokina f/2.8 macro est 3.5 cm WD @ $300 60mm EF-S f/2.8 macro USM = 9. cm WD @ $400 60mm Tamron f/2 Di II LD IF est 10. cm WD @ $500 70mm Sigma f/2.8 EX DG macro = 11.2 cm WD @ $500 100mm EF f/2.8 USM macro = 14.9 cm WD @ $520 100mm EF f/2.8L IS macro USM = 14.6 cm WD @ $945 150mm Sigma EX IF macro HSM = 19.4 cm WD @ $730 180mm EF f/3.5L USM = 25 cm WD @ $1,370 180mm Tamron macro = 26 cm WD @ $690 Other lenses TS-E 24mm Canon f/3.5L II (+1.4x TC & ext. tube) @$1,990 50mm Canon f/2.5 1:2 Compact macro @265 50mm Zeiss Makro-Planar f/2 ZE 1:2 macro @ $1,290 65mm Canon MP–E 65mm f/2.8 1-5x macro @930 TS-E 90mm Canon f/2.8 (+1.4x TC & ext. tube) $1,210 100mm Zeiss Makro-Planar T* f/2 ZE 1:2 macro @ $1,850 300mm Canon f/4L IS (+2 Diopter 500D & 1.4x TC) @$1,275 Internal focus (IF). Determine if you can afford an internal focus floating element lens design. The 90-100-105mm ‘price-point’ macro lens offerings from Tamron, Sigma, and Tokina are satisfactorily sharp, but their lens barrels extend in length during focus. Decide for yourself if barrel extension affects your photography. A lens barrel that does not extend during close focus is a $100 convenience. Barrel extension doesn’t affect image quality, but impacts focusing on insects, which exhibit evasive behavior when detecting nearby shadows. Actual focal length at close focus is less than stated on the lens for IF floating element macro lenses. APS-C sensor & macro lens focal length vs. field-of-view Ignore the impact of APS-C sensor size field-of-view crop factor (FOVC) on lens effective focal length when selecting a macro lens for use at close focus distances. Sensor FOVC is relevant at normal photography distances, not close up. Choose a macro lens for its handling, features, and working distance. How focal length FOVC affects subject framing is more important at normal photography distances. Manual and infinity focus. Most macro lenses focus continuously from close-up to infinity (not Canon MP-E 65mm). This enables alternative uses for macro lenses, but slows auto focus and leads to focus hunting on low contrast subjects or in lower light. This is normal and expected because optical elements must travel farther inside the lens barrel moving between close and infinity focus. Once they miss and defocus, they really defocus. Macro photographers manually focus extensively. Many Canon bodies have coarse focus screens. During manual focus the screens snap decisively in or out at the precise point of focus. FOVC cameras have smaller, darker, viewfinders compared to more advanced or full 35mm frame models. Viewfinder brightness and size have a greater impact on focusing and composition than whether the camera has 35mm or smaller sensor. 60mm Canon EF-S f/2.8 macro USM = 9cm+ WD. While longer macro lenses are better WD values, this is wonderful when you want 50-60mm focal length. This petite lens has world class resolving power way above its price, uses Canon’s best lens coatings, has a circular aperture which renders nice out-of-focus areas between f/2.8-5.6, and Canon’s best Ring USM focus motor. It is portable, discreet, and hand-holdable. The 60mm is limited to EF-S mount cameras, while the Sigma 70mm can be used on any camera. Sometimes 60mm has insufficient WD, or camera and photographer casts shadows on the subject. Users respecting the Nikon 60mm f/2.8 micro Nikkor waited years for Canon to make an equal. It happens to be EF-S. Carry the Canon EF-S 60mm macro: a) when using EF-S mount body; b) for pocket portability field or travel use without tripod; c) handholding in lower light at slower shutter speeds with less camera shake than longer lenses; d) in a limited three lens travel kit (e.g., 17-55mm and 70-300mm) - the EF-S 60mm becomes lower (if not quite low) light lens as well as close-up; e) using as studio portrait or product lens. The EF-S 60mm is Canon’s only USM macro where filter removal is not necessary when attaching Canon 14EX or 24EX macro flash. Hood purchase is extra. Canon 50mm Compact macro f/2.5 shares 52mm thread feature. 100mm Canon macro EF USM = 15cm WD. You pay over $100 to add 5cm WD from Canon 60mm to 100mm. 5cm is a 50% WD distance increase. 90-105mm is considered the most flexible focal length macro for wide variety of needs. With IF floating internal elements, the Canon EF 100mm USM has a shorter actual focal length at 1:1 reproduction, likely 80mm+/-, maintaining a good field of view at 15cm WD. This is an excellent flexible lens. Commonly used for medium telephoto or portraits, though sometimes almost too ‘clinical’ in rendering. It is honest; revealing skin blemishes. Hood must be purchased extra. Better Canon Ring USM focus motor. Everyone respects this lens. Almost double your cost for the 100mm f/2.8L IS version, which offers outstanding hand hold-ability, a circular aperture, hood, weather resistance, snappy AF speed for a macro lens, and AI Servo II AF and distance feedback to 1D Mark IV and 7D bodies. Wonderful improvements if you hand hold, and if budget allows. 150mm Sigma macro HSM = 20cm WD. Pay $200 additional for another 5cm WD increase from the Canon 100mm. The Sigma 150mm comes with a hood, tripod collar, HSM auto focus with full-time manual override (I manually focus much of the time), making it an excellent lens, if focal length fits needs. It is a Sigma lens contributing to photography performance - not another a ‘me-too’ price-point product. There is nothing wrong with this lens. It has internal focus so lens barrel length does not change during focus, unlike the Sigma 105mm. The Sigma 150mm takes beautiful photos and promises to be popular. The color rendition tends to warmer yellow tones. The Sigma 150mm stops down to f/22. Most users never have enough light to stop down that far, and diffraction limits sharpness even if light permits stopping down to f/22+. Thus, for most users this is a non-issue. But some users of Canon 180mm macro do stop down beyond f/22, and the Sigma does not. A Canon 72mm Macro Lite thread adaptor is needed to connect the Canon 14 EX or 24 EX macro flash. 180mm Canon macro f/3.5L EF USM = 25cm WD. Pay $550 more for the next (last) 5cm WD gained from the Sigma 150mm. Good for bugs and snakes. The last macro lens you’ll ever buy (unless you need greater magnification from the Canon MP-E65mm 1-5x). It is a ‘L’uxury lens. Optimized for close focus, it is not in Canon’s top sharpness league at normal distances to infinity. It is not even Canon’s most resolving macro lens. Its mainfeature is working distance. Other features include: a) Canon’s best lens coatings of its time. b) Unlike most macro lenses losing two f/stops of exposure when close focused, the 180mm L loses 1 1/3 stops. Thus, the f/3.5 aperture is not a disadvantage compared to f/2.8 lenses. c) It’s big and long and prefers to be used tripod mounted, except when butterfly hunting. d) Maintains optical sharpness and low diffraction stopped down beyond f/22. e) Ultimate WD. The longer focal length makes it easier to compose shots. Isolate subjects, eliminate clutter, and get the lens plane position parallel to where you want the maximum depth of field on a subject. f) Works well with the Canon 1.4x teleconverter, for 140% life size at the lens’ close focus. Back away from 25cm close focus and still obtain life size reproduction. With the 1.4x TC, manual focus is required under 80cm. g) A Canon 72mm Macro Lite thread adaptor is needed to connect the Canon 14 EX or 24 EX macro flash. 180mm Tamron = 26cm WD. Tamron is the longest WD versus price value winner, but I did not use it because a non-standard lens front filter adjuster may prevent using the MT 24-EX Macro Flash. Other Lenses Wide angle, extension tubes, and Tilt-shift lens close-ups. Using close focusing wide-angle lenses with extension tube enable ‘thing in its environment’ close-ups. These are useful, sometimes stunning, and popular for environmental documentary photography; pulling viewers into the frame. Lenses include Canon 17-40mm f/4L, 16-35 f/2.8L (native magnification about 0.22x), Sigma 15mm f/2.8 Fisheye, Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4.5. You lose infinity focus. The Tokina fisheye 10-17mm f/3.5-4.5 has very good native magnification for stunning thing in its environment close ups. The Canon TS-E 90mm Tilt-Shift lens has native 0.29x magnification and the TS-E 24mm f/3.5L II has native 0.34x. Combined with a 1.4x teleconverter and/or extension tubes, TS-E lenses make outstanding, versatile, costly, close-up lenses for flowers in the field to tabletop still life close-ups. These lenses overcome depth of field limitations, at moderate f/stops, posed by macro lenses. The Gaussian blur optical design of the TS-E 90mm renders pleasing out-of-focus areas rivaling Canon’s lenses most appreciated for their fine out-of-focus area qualities. Manual stop-down and manual focus lenses. Some users buy Nikon-EOS, Olympus OM-EOS, Leica-EOS mount adaptors and use these lenses as manual focus & manual stop-down macro lenses on their Canon cameras. Others use normal lenses with reversing rings. These are esoteric fun, sharp, good in a studio, sometimes expensive, and not too convenient for fast-pace fieldwork. The Zeiss 50mm and 100mm Makro lenses only achieve 0.5x life size reproduction, and are expensive, but highly regarded for image quality among manual focus Canon macro lenses. The Canon 50mm f/2.5 1:2 Compact macro has a fast maximum aperture. It is a rugged and easy to carry lens, highly resistant to flare due to recessed objective, moderately priced, and available used for $200. If you do not have an EF-S mount body, this is what’s available cheaply in EF mount in normal focal length. While only achieving ½ life size, it is regarded for uses such as distortion free product photography and copy work. This lens is easy to carry in a pocket walking about. The color rendition is not as good as the EF-S 60mm macro. The lens barrel extends during focusing. The Canon MP–E 65mm f/2.8 1-5x Macro is a specialized macro lens beginning at 1x life size reproduction and extending to 5x reproduction. It is designed, and succeeds, as an easier to use and operate alternative to bellows. Since it does not focus to infinity, it is not considered here, and can be evaluated at many other web information sites. Canon EF 300mm f/4L IS (or telephoto zoom lenses) for dual use field close-ups. There are a number of reasons why a Canon 300mm f/4L IS (or Canon 100-400mm L IS, 70-300mm IS, 70-300mm L IS, or 70-200mm L IS) lenses with a 1.4x TC and/or 500D +2 diopter work are well suited for field close-ups. The Canon 180mm f/3.5L macro is a stunning lens. But it prefers a tripod. The IS lenses offer hand holding benefits. a) If you are ‘never close enough,’ prefer giving subjects space, like using a tele or tele zoom for sports or landscapes, this combination works because many times in the field 1x magnification is not needed. b) The 300mm f/4L has 0.25x native magnification, good for a telephoto. Other lenses like Canon 200 f/2.8L, the 135mm f/2L, etc, have 0.15 to 0.20x magnification. Native magnification affects gain when TC and dioptor are added. The longer the focal length and greater the lens magnification, the more the subject magnification increases when using a dioptor. c) There is no light loss using Canon 500D +2 Diopter close-up filter, unlike using extension tubes. Focusing is easier. The 1.4x TC can be used or not, varying the magnification. Though you lose 1/stop with the TC, most Canon bodies will still auto focus at f/5.6. d) The 300mm f/4L IS is a wonderful lens for sports and larger wildlife. With the 1.4x TC you have a f/5.6 ‘almost’ bird lens. The only downside is if 300mm is too long for your non-macro uses, like youth soccer on a small field. Close-up < life size. Macro is life size, 1:1 reproduction, 1x magnification or greater. There is loads of fun close-up photography at less than life size, 0.25x to 0.70x (butterfly and dragonfly hunting) you can do with extension tubes, close-up filters (diopters), or close focusing zoom lenses. A modest Canon 100mm-300mm zoom with a Canon 500D ($140) +2 diopter makes a good butterfly hunter, providing about 0.4-0.7x life size reproduction, depending on lens focal length and maximum magnification specification. Depth of field vs. background blur. It is a struggle to obtain sufficient DoF under macro conditions. Focal length is less important than framing angle on the subject. The common opinion is, given lenses of similar optical design, the shorter the focal length, the greater the DoF; the longer the focal length, the more distance is compressed behind the plane of focus (less DoF). But this is too simplistic, and does not hold up under close focus distances with floating element macro lenses. http://www.vanwalree.com/optics/dof.html is very good amateur read on the subject. Navigate to sections where macro DoF is considered. Author makes the case a telephoto macro lens for many applications offers three advantages over its more symmetrical competitors of shorter focal length: an increased working distance, an increased depth of field, and a narrower field of view that comes with a more (absolutely) blurred and less obtrusive background. Light loss. Camera lens f/stops are designed for infinity focus. As magnification increases (focus distances get closer and lens elements move away from sensor or film plane) the actual aperture (effective f/stop) becomes darker. The classic formula was about 2 f/stops light loss at close focus 1x reproduction. There is less loss, 1 1/3 stops, with Canon 180mm internal floating element lens. The camera TTL meter automatically measures this light loss. We experience a darker viewfinder and f/stop-shutter speed challenges at macro magnification. E.g., A scene set at f/8 that a camera meters for 1/200 as a normal exposure with a regular lens, is metered as 1/50 with a macro at close focus. We experience it as slower shutter speed or lower f/stop macro challenges, requiring tripod and flash use. A few among almost unlimited web sources of macro information Tom Hicks 3-part macro for beginners with dioptors and extension tubes: http://www.natureswildscapes.com/ind...ry/zzzArticles Steve Hoffman on macro flash, using Canon’s MP-E65mm lens, and other topics: http://www.sphoto.com/techinfo/phototech.html Lester Wareham of the UK has a good technical site on using Canon macro lenses, including the MP-E65: http://www.zen20934.zen.co.uk/photog..._Equipment.htm A section of Nikonian’s web on macro and close-up photography. Good explanation of reversing rings and bellows: http://www.nikonians.org/html/resour...o/macro_0.html A sight that explains DoF alternatives under macro reproduction: http://toothwalker.org/optics/dof.html Bob Atkins has many pieces of information on general and Canon macro lens magnification calculations: http://www.bobatkins.com/photography...q/closeup2.htm http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/eosfaq/closeup.htm Phillip Greenspun macro introduction from “early days” of the web: http://www.photo.net/learn/macro/ Explains diopter close-up filters, and also has other useful information: http://www.rogercavanagh.com/article...0d_filter.html Italian photographer has a good technical site on macro magnification, and a review of Nikon’s macro and non-macro lenses: http://xoomer.virgilio.it/ripolini/Close_up.htm Original thread with further discussion here Last edited by J Rabin : 12th of September 2010 (Sun) at 20:54. Reason: Updated for new lens introductions |
|
|
14th of September 2005 (Wed)
|
#3 |
|
Cream of the Crop
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Southeastern WI, USA
Posts: 18,517
|
Re: Constant Aperture Zooms?
Why Are Constant Aperture Zooms made/preferable?
The reason that zooms with a constant aperture were designed is so that the exposure won't change when zooming. Assume that you are using manual exposure mode with a lens such as a (mythical, for illustration) 24-70mm f4.0-f5.6. You set the shot up and meter the scene using the camera's meter with the lens zoomed to 24mm. The exposure settings you choose are 1/125 second shutter speed and f8. Now, you zoom to 70mm. Because this example lens has a 1 f-stop change because of zooming, you now are going to underexpose by a full f-stop because the light coming through the lens has dimmed by a stop. You would have to adjust either shutter speed or aperture to keep a proper exposure. With zoom lenses having a constant aperture, you can set your exposure and forget it. Zoom away, touch up focus at each focal length, and shoot. Hope this makes sense. It's why I have purchased only zooms with constant apertures. They are more expensive, but they will pay for themselves when the chips are down and I am working fast.
__________________
Skip Douglas A few cameras and over 45 years behind them ..... ..... but still learning all the time. Last edited by CyberDyneSystems : 14th of September 2005 (Wed) at 11:27. |
|
|
| sponsored links |
|
14th of September 2005 (Wed)
|
#4 |
|
Moderator
Cocker Spaniel Mod 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Kensington, MD USA
Posts: 65,150
|
Re: Constant Aperture Zooms?
How Are Constant Aperture Zooms Made?
What actually changes is the apparent aperture, or the entry pupil of the lens. As the magnifying front element/group moves relative to the physical aperture at the diaphragm when you zoom, it, not surprisingly, magnifies the aperture as seen from the front of the lens (the "entry pupil"). Constant aperture lenses are designed so that, in addition to all the other corrections that are made to the lens, the entry pupil varies in direct 1:1 ratio with the focal length of the lens as you zoom. Original thread here
__________________
Jon ---------- EOS, Powershot and Domke - it doesn't get any better than this!
T90 and stuff | F-1n, New F-1, FTb and more stuff out on loan Cocker Spaniels Maryland and Virginia activities DC Cherry Blossoms Image Posting Rules and Image Posting FAQ Report SPAM, Don't Answer It! (link) PERSONAL MESSAGING REGARDING SELLING OR BUYING ITEMS WITH MEMBERS WHO HAVE NO POSTS IN FORUMS AND/OR WHO YOU DO NOT KNOW FROM FORUMS IS HEREBY DECLARED STRICTLY STUPID AND YOU WILL GET BURNED. Last edited by CyberDyneSystems : 15th of September 2005 (Thu) at 21:08. |
|
|
31st of December 2005 (Sat)
|
#5 |
|
Boosting Ruler Sales
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Maryland, USA
Posts: 4,165
|
Re: Canon Drop-in Filters
What are "drop in filters" ? How do the drop in filters differ from rear mounted Gel filters?
The long lenses come with a drop-in filter that is a clear glass. Something is required to fill the hole, and the clear glass is actually part of the optical formula. The 17-40 and other such wide lenses do not actually use a drop-in filter, but rather a sheet of plastic (gel) that slides into a holder at the back end of the lens. They are not supplied with a filter. Hope this helps. Have Fun, Last edited by CyberDyneSystems : 1st of January 2006 (Sun) at 13:26. |
|
|
|
1st of January 2006 (Sun)
|
#6 |
|
Wait, all that time and all I get is "Cream of the Damn Crop" ?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
Re: Canon Drop-in Filters
Canon makes two sizes of Drop in filters. Are they interchangeable?
To some extent .. yes and no. Regarding Canon's long telephoto drop in filters,. just some additional info; When Canon switched from there previous generation of long AF telephotos to the newer models that have Image Stabilization and weather sealing,. they changed the drop in filter holder,. and subsequent size of the glass filter required from 48mm to the current 52mm I have lenses that require both types,. and it turns out that despite the differences,. there is some level interoperability. For instance,. the 48mm drop in polarizer functions fine in the 500mm f/4L IS which is supposed to use 52mm drop ins. Upon further investigation I found that despite the fact that the outer diameter of the glass filters installed differs .. the opening within the metal holders for each of the clear glass "stock" units is an identical 40mm (yes 40mm... the extra 8mm or 12mm is the metal surround) Also,. the distance to the center of the glass filter from the inner edge of the holders cap is the same,. ie: if the 48mm fits in the lens opening of a 52mm lens like the 500mm f/4L IS,. it not only just "fits" it fits in a way that the filter glass and that 40mm opening is placed exactly correctly .. it should not in any way impair the lens function or light gathering. Now,. mind you the 52mm filters do not fit in the older lens,. well at least not into the 200mm f/1.8L that I have to experiment with. I mention all this because this came as great news to me,. as I had invested a significant sum in the 48mm drop in filters for the 200mm prior to getting the 500mm. It was greatly comforting to be spared having to purchase these filters all over again. The 52mm is of course weather sealed,. the 48mm is not. Last edited by CyberDyneSystems : 9th of September 2006 (Sat) at 13:49. |
|
|
|
4th of January 2006 (Wed)
|
#7 |
|
Member
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 280
|
Shedding light on wide angle polarizing/polarising filters
Shedding Light On Polarising Filters *More Discussion in original thread Here* Well after doing a lot of surfing and gleaning information from many helpful people on POTN, I think I can now give back this info in one thread. Hopefully this will reduce the confusion for the next person who tries to research this subject. So, you've purchased an ultra wide angle lens for your DSLR and you would like to buy a polarizing filter for it? Unless you've been down this path before, the many brands and models are extremely confusing. The questions of whether or not to go with warming, Kaesseman, slim, circular, linear, graduated... etc etc just makes it worse. The major thing that everyone seems to be in agreement with, is that you should buy a good quality filter. "Don't put a $10 piece of junk on your several hundred (or thousand) dollar lens." The brands that I have read through many forums and reviews which have been recommended include B+W, Hoya, Heliopan and Kenko. I'm sure there are many others, but they seem to be mentioned by lots of people as being quite reliable. The other agreed points are that with auto focus in digital cameras, you need to get a circular polariser; the linear polarisers can interfere with the autofocus. Also a filter with "multicoating" is a good idea, as these can be more effective in preventing lens flare (coupled with your lens hood of course). The first big issue with ultra wide angle lenses and polarisers (possibly other filters too, but I did not research them in any detail) is the possibility of vignetting. From my understanding, this is because the lens is so wide, it perceives the shadow of the edge of the filter. (I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm way off base.) This is where the first debate begins: how wide a lens can we use a polariser on before this problem begins to occur? ie: Which lenses cause this concern; 10-22mm... or maybe the 12-24 lenses? AND does having different lens factors (ie 5D full frame vs the Rebel's 1.6) have a further effect on this issue? I don't know the answer, as there were many theories out there. Hopefully someone will test this theory. (or they already have and I just couldn't find them!) The next part of the debate is whether or not a "slim" filter design is required. These are filters that are lower in profile, thus creating less of a "lip" out from your lens- and hopefully less vignette. They are generally more expensive than their "regular" counterparts. Many of the slim filters out there have no front thread, which means you cannot stack lenses (which is debatably not neccessary anyway... more about that later) and more frustratingly, (for me anyway) you can't attach your normal clip-on lens cap. All of the filters with the no-front-thread-design that I looked at, provided you with a plastic slip-on cap. Reportedly, they don't stay on very well (I remember my G2 had one and it was constantly falling off- but it also had a safety cord) and are easy to lose. Many people have spoken very favourably of these filters and were able to tolerate the lens cap issue. One possible solution, is to have a lens cap saving device attached- basically a little plastic "dot" that sticks to the lens cap and then is attached to the lens via elastic. I've got one on my kit lens; very cheap to buy. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00...lance&n=502394 Just to give a comparison here (all filters quoted in 77mm): The B+W 77mm Circular Polarizer (MRC) Multi-Resistant Coating Glass Filter is $144.95 at B&H. The B+W 77mm Circular Polarizer (MRC) Multi-Resistant Coating Glass Filter Slim is $164.95. Another filter type that was thrown into my selection pile, just to create more confusion, was the Kaesemann. As per B+W's blurb: "Kaesemann ("encased") filters are completely edge-sealed for maximum durability under extreme climatic conditions." Some of the other filter manufacturers (Heliopan for example) also make Kaesemann versions of their filters. One of the generous people on here suggested to me that it was a bit of overkill purchasing this for normal landscape/travel photography and I agreed that the extra cost wasn't worth it to me. Others might find the extra protection useful. FYI: The B+W 77mm Kaesemann Circular Polarizer Glass Filter is $164.95 at B&H; and The B+W 77mm Kaesemann Circular Polarizer Glass Filter Slim is $174.95. Two other options I was able to find, was the "Moose" filter. http://www.moosepeterson.com/gear/moosefilter.html (also available on other vendors' sites) and the Hoya or Kenko Pro 1 filters. The Moose filter (made by Hoya for a nature photographer) is a combined "warming" filter and polariser which has a front thread. The disadvantage is that if you don't want the warming effect, you can't separate it from the polariser. (For an explanation on "warming", check out the link above.) The other thing I could not find any literature on, was whether or not this filter is multicoated. If it is, then it could be a decent buy, because it "works on any lens up to 17mm and WILL NOT VIGNETTE regardless of which f/stop is used!" (quote from his site). Ah!- only 17mm. This filter still remains a bit of a mystery to me. The creator raves about it (as he would of course), but uses a Nikon D2X (1.5 crop factor) and lists the Nikon 12-24 as one of his lenses. Maybe he doesn't use his polariser below 17mm. Anyway, I wasn't able to find many reviews out there about his filters, but at $118.50 from B&H or $99 direct from his site, they're worth investigating further. As I had to make a decision tonight and make my purchase, I left it up to others to "run with the ball" if they're interested. Now, onto the Hoya & Kenko Pro 1's... These two are both slim filters, but they also have a front thread! condyk suggested the Kenko to me as he (and from many other resources out there online) believes that Kenko and Hoya are one and the same... and Kenko is cheaper. Unfortunately for those of us in the US of A, it seems that the Kenko Pro 1 is marketed here as "Hoya Pro 1" and marked up considerably. As far as I was able to figure out, the same filter is marketed in the UK, Hong Kong and Australia as "Kenko Pro 1". This info could be wrong, but all evidence I've been able to find points in this direction. FYI: The Hoya 77mm Circular Polarizing Pro 1 Digital Multi-Coated Glass Filter is $194.95 at B&H. I then found the Kenko on the link below for $108.95AU (approx $80USD): http://cgi.ebay.com.au/Kenko-77mm-Pr...QQcmdZViewItem Again, I cannot categorically say that these are the same filter, but if they are, then perhaps people with more time and patience than me could ship them over. Alternatively, if you live somewhere where the Kenko is available, lucky you! I read many favourable comments about the Hoya Pro 1, so taking everything above into account and unable to find someone who had actually tested the Tokina 12-24 with a normal sized polarising filter, I chose that one. FYI, I was able to get it from: http://www.2filter.com/hoya/hoya_pro1_digital.html for $156.86 (normally $194.63). One of the forums I was browsing through pointed out you need to actually click on "order" to reflect any discounts they might have at that moment. I was able to find one person who tried a normal sized UV filter on his 12-24, and apparently didn't experience too much of a problem with vignetting. http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/top...5396/0#2756574 Still not 100% convinced, I still bought the Pro 1. I would love to hear about peoples' actual experiences with any of the ultra wide angle lenses and these filters. The easiest thing of course, would be to walk into a shop and try this out, but none of the shops in my area stock anything! One final note, I was really interested in ND graduated filters and started looking into those as a possibility. A pro pointed out to me that with digital, the only thing you can't duplicate in Photoshop (or similar software) is polarising. I found a fantastic tutorial for duplicating the ND graduated effect in Photoshop here: http://www.fredmiranda.com/article_2/ I've been experimenting with it and it's fantastic! Many different effects, normally achieved through a filter (like warming for example) can be achieved through software- so save your dough for a good polariser! Hopefully this dribble helps someone. I apologise if any of this is incorrect; I am by no means a professional and my intentions are only to prevent someone from going through the confusing headache I did. Maybe if there's anything to add or amend here, it could be made a "sticky" down the track; especially when some people have provided feedback of their own personal experiences. There are other variations on the examples of basic polarisers I mentioned and they can be much more expensive. I just focussed on the ones under $200 and went from there. Thanks for reading and happy shooting!  *More Discussion in original thread Here*
__________________
My Gear Last edited by CyberDyneSystems : 15th of February 2006 (Wed) at 09:04. |
|
|
|
8th of January 2006 (Sun)
|
#8 | |
|
Wait, all that time and all I get is "Cream of the Damn Crop" ?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
Re: -=FAQ=- EF LENS FAQ -READ FIRST-
Canon EF Image Stabilization.
There are five "versions" in Three "generations" There are 1st generation IS lenses and second generation IS lenses, and the most recent are 3rd Gen; (Including the 70-200mm f/4L IS, 200mm f/2L IS and 800mm f/5.6L IS) These are the ones that claim 4 stop IS. Canon has made lenses with more than two types of IS functionality, which can be a source of confusion. Do not however confuse IS functionality with "Generation" as in 1st and 2nd Generations there are multiple sets of "functionality" In the first Gen there were lenses with mode 1 & 2 (ie: panning) 100-400mm and 300mm f/4L IS for example... as well as ones that did not have Mode 2. These were the first 75-300mm IS and the 28-135mm IS. 1st Gen IS lenses had to have the IS manually turned off when mounted on a tripod or solid arrangement, as the IS could introduce image anomalies and otherwise unwanted behavior if left on while tripod mounted. At first, all second generation IS lenses have Mode 1 & 2, but recently some of the newer models at the wide ends also lack the Mode 2 function. In addition to faster start up times, and improvements that Canon claims add more "stops" to your hand-hold-ability, The current 2nd and 3rd generation of IS only adds one set of features in addition to those already found in 1st gen multi mode IS. That feature is Tripod detection and tripod vibration mode. (I don't actually know the name of this,. so that's my own lame term. Canon states this "the IS mechanism automatically goes into a special mode which is designed to detect and correct for mirror slap and shutter movement at slow shutter speeds" ) The basic 2nd or 3rd generation IS will disable IS when it detects that the lens is mounted solidly such as on a tripod. SuperTelephoto lenses with 2nd / 3rd Gen IS also detect tripod mounting. Rather than disable the IS, 2nd gen Superteles will use IS to counter subtle vibrations that are present and magnified by super teles even when on a tripod. This includes mirror slap vibration. Canon documentation: Canon USA Image Stabilizer Basics Canon U K Image Stabilizer Lens List Canon CPS Knowledge Bank Image Stabilization Some additional discussion; http://photography-on-the.net/forum/...ad.php?t=71933 Quote:
Last edited by CyberDyneSystems : 9th of July 2009 (Thu) at 10:43. |
|
|
|
|
9th of January 2006 (Mon)
|
#9 |
|
Moderator
Cocker Spaniel Mod
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Kensington, MD USA
Posts: 65,150
|
Re: -=FAQ=- EF LENS FAQ -READ FIRST-
One further note on the second-generation IS. At least with the 70-200, Canon still recommends that you turn off IS when using the lens on a tripod.
__________________
Jon ---------- EOS, Powershot and Domke - it doesn't get any better than this!
T90 and stuff | F-1n, New F-1, FTb and more stuff out on loan Cocker Spaniels Maryland and Virginia activities DC Cherry Blossoms Image Posting Rules and Image Posting FAQ Report SPAM, Don't Answer It! (link) PERSONAL MESSAGING REGARDING SELLING OR BUYING ITEMS WITH MEMBERS WHO HAVE NO POSTS IN FORUMS AND/OR WHO YOU DO NOT KNOW FROM FORUMS IS HEREBY DECLARED STRICTLY STUPID AND YOU WILL GET BURNED. |
|
|
|
19th of March 2006 (Sun)
|
#10 | |
|
Wait, all that time and all I get is "Cream of the Damn Crop" ?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
Why are my images darker on the edges? What is Light Fall off?
Light Fall Off or Dark Edges on photos.
Often dark edges around a photo is caused by "Light Fall Off" Light fall off is often confusingly referred to as "Vignette" In fact it seems common for the terms to be used interchangeably these days.. However doing so has created a lot of confusion as the two phenomena are caused by different things, behave differently, and are remedied differently too. Vignette is caused by a physical object blocking the light path. The wrong hood, deep filters, and your hands can cause vignette. It is fixed by removing the object blocking the angle of view of the lens. Light falloff is inherent to and caused by the optic assembly of the lens itself.. Pretty much all lenses have a measurable degree of light fall off, but how perceptual it is varies significantly with differing lenses. Light fall off is always at it's worst when shooting wide open. Fixing it is done by simply stopping down the lens. How much one needs to stop down to make light fall off disappear also varies from lens to lens. Like overall sharpness, or contrast, a measure of a lens' quality and usefulness in the wide open settings is how much (or little) light fall off the lens displays,. and how far one needs to stop down to eliminate it's visibility. On some lenses,. light falloff is still noticeable wide open even on 1.6X crop cameras. Obviously on a full frame it will be much more noticeable. How noticeable in any case often depends a lot on the nature of the shot. Quote:
Last edited by CyberDyneSystems : 28th of July 2007 (Sat) at 15:14. |
|
|
|
|
27th of August 2006 (Sun)
|
#11 | ||||||||||||||||||
|
Canon Fanosapien
|
Lens Testing and sharpness
**EDIT**
In this link there is a PDF Document that both describes a good focus test as well as providing the necessary printable charts.Download Test Charts here HOW TO Perform a lens focus test Following is a consolidation of posts in a thread called "Concerned About Lens Sharpness - Epiphany".... Mr. Clean Wrote: Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
YES! Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Tom 5D III, 7D, & various lenses Last edited by CyberDyneSystems : 28th of February 2008 (Thu) at 11:15. |
||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
22nd of September 2006 (Fri)
|
#12 |
|
Wait, all that time and all I get is "Cream of the Damn Crop" ?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
Re: -=FAQ=- EF LENS FAQ -READ FIRST- Before asking "What Lens?"
What is "The Holy Trinity"
A term originally coined By POTN member Schmoelzel, The Holy Trinity is a collection of three of Canon's finest black L series Prime Lenses. |
|
|
|
22nd of September 2006 (Fri)
|
#13 |
|
Wait, all that time and all I get is "Cream of the Damn Crop" ?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
Re: -=FAQ=- EF LENS FAQ -READ FIRST- Before asking "What Lens?"
What are "The Four Riders Of the Apocalypse"
In keeping with the "Holy Trinity" tradition, the Four Riders of the Apocalypse was coined by Yours truly to describe Canon's less subtle range of sledge hammer big white beast L lenses. Last edited by CyberDyneSystems : 25th of July 2010 (Sun) at 23:39. |
|
|
|
5th of October 2006 (Thu)
|
#14 |
|
Senior Member
|
Canon 70-300mm DO IS - Getting best images from a controversial lens.
Canon 70-300mm DO IS - Getting best images from a controversial lens.
Canon's 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS lens will always remain a controversial lens. The 70-300 DO is a high quality lens, with extremely fast focus speed (rear element USM), with FT-M, a non rotating front element, outstanding mode 1 and 2 IS, absence of chromatic aberrations, that takes good pictures, and then suddenly -BAM- frustrates users at critical moments in difficult lighting. I thought POTN members might benefit from a thread where members share their experiences extracting the MAXIMUM image quality from the 70-300 DO IS, not bashing it. Xavier (Fovea) has an excellent 70-300 DO IS handling tips web page: http://www.fovegraphy.com/70_300DO_TipsE.php Luminous-Landscape's M.R. uses it effectively getting strong travel images: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...70-300mm.shtml. His best tip is at the end, in regarding adopting PK Sharpener. I have used the 70-300 DO IS enough to put experiences in the captions of 13 images: http://aesop.rutgers.edu/~rabin/Pers...Lens/index.htm I have the luck to use the 70-300 DO IS for its strength, and L zooms for their intended use. 70-300 DO IS experience leads me to use it with an integrated workflow to extract the maximum potential from images: 1. DO images respond best to RAW capture and post processing. This is not a lens for JPEG shooters. RAW capture is the only way to use this lens if you follow Xavier's tips. Being able to set black point, WB, etc., makes a world of difference. I have rendered decent 70-300 DO images under hazy days with bad veiling flare lighting: http://aesop.rutgers.edu/~rabin/Farm...pDusting09.htm by using Canon's "Clear" Picture Style.A Decision Tree. Users need to think about the 70-300 DO IS differently. Understand the DO IS makes specific compromises as a professional level 70-300 mm travel zoom with a compact mass. 1. If you do not like digital darkroom post processing or shooting RAW capture, do not buy this lens.If you want/need some compromise of the above, the DO is a lens to providing it. For portable, discreet, rugged street photography, with IS, there is not too much competition. Jack Last edited by CyberDyneSystems : 20th of October 2006 (Fri) at 09:51. |
|
|
|
15th of October 2006 (Sun)
|
#15 |
|
Cream of the Crop
|
Focal Length and Frame/Sensor format on a DSLR
How Does Frame/Sensor size or "format" effect focal length choice?
Many times I see threads about 'what focal length' and both the question and the reply are couched in non-specifics about the frame size for which the comment is made. Remember, FRAME SIZE DICTATES the context in which a given focal length will behave. To borrow from another thread this point: 28mm is not 'wide' when it is used on a APS-C format dSLR like 350 or 30D 'Normal' is typically defined by the diagonal measure of the film frame. A 'true normal' for 35mm film (or 5D and 1DsII) is 43mm! But the industry has long settled on the convention that 50mm (or thereabouts) is 'normal' for that size frame. On that frame, 35mm is kind of 'in between'...semi normal and semi wide angle. 28mm is generally considered a true 'wide' , and 24mm is 'very wide' and 20mm is 'super wide'. At the longish end of things, 70mm-100mm are 'short tele' and '135-200' are 'tele' and 300mm and longer are 'long tele' and 'super tele' by convention. In the world of portraiture, the shooting distance from the subject defines the facial perspective that we generally find most pleasing and 'realistic'. The focal length for a given shooting distance defines the 'framing' of the person and how fully they fill the frame area. Convention has found that about 70-90mm is good for waist-up portraits, 90-110mm is good for head and shoulder portraits, and 120-150 is good for headshots (a modelling and acting type of shot for sending out to casting people). Of course, different photographers will tell you that THEY do not follow these conventions, but it is generally true that most professionals and amateurs in past decades with 35mm film have found these ranges to be valid ones -- until you discover your own style and preferences! Reminder: All of the above statements are in the context of 35mm film cameras. For APS-C dSLR, divide the above by 1.6 in order to find the equivent for your camera. So 28-30mm would fall smack into the 'normal' range, 17mm is a 'wide' but is not 'very wide'. You need a 15mm to get into 'very wide' and a 12mm to get into 'super wide'. So for portraiture for APS-C format camera, the numbers mentioned two paragraphs ago would translate to: about 50-60mm is good for waist-up portraits, 60-70mm is good for head and shoulder portraits, and 80-90 is good for headshots (a modelling and acting type of shot for sending out to casting people). So the next time YOU 'recommend' a particular focal length, it is important to state the frame of reference that YOU are making the statement in (APS-C or FF, for example) and also to take into consideration the camera that might be listed in the OP signature line. And equally important, if you are the OP member, tell us which camera you are asking about! With the advent of FF digital, and with novices having the financial ability to 'buy the best' regardless of their level of skill, we cannot assume APS-C format is what they are referring to, either!
__________________
Canon dSLR system, Olympus OM 35mm system, Bronica ETRSi 645 system, Horseman LS 4x5 system, Metz flashes, Dynalite studio lighting, and too many accessories to mention Keep POTN alive and well with member support http://photography-on-the.net/forum/donate.php Last edited by CyberDyneSystems : 16th of October 2006 (Mon) at 17:43. |
|
|
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| -=FAQ=- Teleconverter/T-Con Tele extender FAQ | CyberDyneSystems | Canon EF and EF-S Lenses | 20 | 9th of April 2013 (Tue) 21:05 |
| FAQ - What studio lighting? - ** READ THIS FIRST ** | tim | Small Flash and Studio Lighting | 21 | 18th of December 2012 (Tue) 09:58 |
| -=FAQ=- EOS FAQ -=READ FIRST=- | CyberDyneSystems | Canon EOS Digital Cameras | 11 | 25th of August 2010 (Wed) 16:57 |
| FAQ - EOS Flash - ** READ THIS FIRST ** | scottbergerphoto | Small Flash and Studio Lighting | 40 | 7th of January 2007 (Sun) 11:01 |
| Good lens faq? | PekkaM | Canon EOS Digital Cameras | 1 | 12th of December 2003 (Fri) 09:18 |
Linear Mode
