That zoom is "Primelike" and other big lies. Roger Cicala sets us straight.

Charlie wrote in post #18279488
I dont think the article depicts real life shooting. Test charts are a flat surface and are not done at varying distances. when a lens is shot wide open, things like field curvature or tilted elements may not be factored into that shot. What matters more is if in focus shots are sharp or not.

You can tell if it's not sharp if you have enough experience with whatever lens you use. I've used multiple copies of the 70-200, havent met a soft one. As long as you land AF, with good shutter speeds, you're golden. If your settings are iffy, all the test charts in the world wont save the photo.

While I agree with all of your post, I guess my audiophile background keeps telling me..... the source is the most important. Without a good foundation (turntable, CD player, lens, etc.) everything further down the chain will be compromised.

I'm not as worried about my new 70-200 f/2.8 ll as I'm projecting. I already determined that it focuses very quickly and that shots at both 70 and 200mm are sharp enough to satisfy me. I'm not one of those people who expects every pixel to be sharp while shooting at f/2.8.

Charlie wrote in post #18279488
I dont think the article depicts real life shooting. Test charts are a flat surface and are not done at varying distances. when a lens is shot wide open, things like field curvature or tilted elements may not be factored into that shot. What matters more is if in focus shots are sharp or not.

You can tell if it's not sharp if you have enough experience with whatever lens you use. I've used multiple copies of the 70-200, havent met a soft one. As long as you land AF, with good shutter speeds, you're golden. If your settings are iffy, all the test charts in the world wont save the photo.

OTOH, zooms very commonly have pincushion distort at the wide end of the zoom range, and folks conveniently ignore the presence of that in the photos. They used WA zooms for real estate photography and ignore the distortions introduced by the lens. So the photographic world does need a degree of realism brought to their perceptions about their zooms and their imperfections in spite of their owners' false reality...clearly seen in Elton Balch's avatar photo (post 11).

'primelike' would be much more free of pincushion distortion.

BTW I do use WA zooms in spite of their distortions, but I also have a fixed FL lens for my real estate and architectural interior shots because the pincushion distortion of the zooms is objectionable for that application.

Wilt wrote in post #18279518
OTOH, zooms very commonly have pincushion distort at the wide end of the zoom range, and folks conveniently ignore the presence of that in the photos. They used WA zooms for real estate photography and ignore the distortions introduced by the lens. So the photographic world does need a degree of realism brought to their perceptions about their zooms and their imperfections in spite of their owners' false reality

well even primes can distort, and there are profile corrections you can apply.

stopped down performance to F4 and smaller, you'de be hard pressed to find differences between sharpness of the canon 24-70ii, OM 24 f2.8, rokinon 24 f1.4. I dont recall offhand if the rokinon has much distortion, but the OM and canon seem to have similar amounts.

the 70-200ii has been able to match sharpness of my 135L and 200mm primes. the longer primes tend to have least distortion, but wide primes seems fairly common to have quite a bit of distortion.

Wilt wrote in post #18279518
OTOH, zooms very commonly have pincushion distort at the wide end of the zoom range, and folks conveniently ignore the presence of that in the photos. They used WA zooms for real estate photography and ignore the distortions introduced by the lens. So the photographic world does need a degree of realism brought to their perceptions about their zooms and their imperfections in spite of their owners' false reality...clearly seen in Elton Balch's avatar photo (post 11).

'primelike' would be much more free of pincushion distortion.

BTW I do use WA zooms in spite of their distortions, but I also have a fixed FL lens for my real estate and architectural interior shots because the pincushion distortion of the zooms is objectionable for that application.

Wow!! Thats the first comment I've ever gotten on my avatar, Wilt Heres a full size and crop from that same shoot. The fireplace is my wife's pride and joy! These were shot with my 16-35 f/4L at 16mm.

Charlie, not trying to create an argument, here. I will freely admit that FFL lenses do have their distortions, but generally speaking the distortions are much better controlled when the optical designer doesn't need to consider moving elements to accommodate variable FL.

• Canon 24mm f/1.4: -1.4% pincushion distortion
  
• Canon 24mm f/2.8: 1.5% barrel distortion
  
• Canon 24mm f/3.5: 0.5% barrel distortion
  
• Sigma 24mm f/1.4: 0.9% barrel distortion
  
• Canon 24-105mm at 24mm: 4.3% barrel distortion
  
• Canon 24-105mm II at 24mm: 3.2% barrel distortion
  
• Canon 24-70mm at 24mm: 2.6% barrel distortion
  
• Canon 17-40mm at 20mm: 2.5% barrel distortion
  
• Sigma 12-24mm at 24mm: 1.2% pincushion distortion
  
• Sigma 24-70mm at 24mm: 2.9% barrel distortion
  
• Sigma 24-105mm at 24mm: 3.7% barrel distortion
  
• Tamron 24070mm at 24mm: 3.8% barrel distortion
  
• Tokina 16-28mm at 24mm: 0.6% barrel distortion
  

Elton Balch wrote in post #18279562
Wow!! Thats the first comment I've ever gotten on my avatar, Wilt Heres a full size and crop from that same shoot. The fireplace is my wife's pride and joy! These were shot with my 16-35 f/4L at 16mm.

I see barrel distortion (and perspective distortion -- blame the photographer, not the lens, for that! ) in the avatar, yet your recently posted shots show much reduced evidence of same!

Wilt, my previous avatar was corrupted so I just picked a replacement without looking closely at which one it was. I'll replace it with the "better" shot at some point

Wow, that's a walk-in luxury fireplace !

.

Elton Balch wrote in post #18279775
Wilt, my previous avatar was corrupted so I just picked a replacement without looking closely at which one it was.

.
Might I ask, how does one's avatar photo get "corrupted"? .What does that even mean?

I must say, your fireplace is absolutely wonderful, and I can understand why your wife loves it so much. I do brick and stone masonry myself, and can fully appreciate the design, patience, and craftsmanship that went into its construction.

.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18279929
.

.
Might I ask, how does one's avatar photo get "corrupted"? .What does that even mean?

I must say, your fireplace is absolutely wonderful, and I can understand why your wife loves it so much. I do brick and stone masonry myself, and can fully appreciate the design, patience, and craftsmanship that went into its construction.

.

I resumed posting here after a couple year absence; my original avatar was out of focus and distended. I simply changed it. I have no idea how that may have happened.

The fireplace is one of three, all part of a large center chimney. The original owner/builder wanted a house that was new, with colonial detail. Needless to say, my wife loves it! here's an outside picture with my "primelike" 100-400 L ii.

.
What a beautiful home, Elton!

It looks like at some point you may be in the market for a back step/landing and patio ......... what a shame that I don't live in your area - I would love to design such a project for you!

.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18279987
.
What a beautiful nome, Elton!

It looks like at some point you may be in the market for a back step/landing and patio ......... what a shame that I don't live in your area - I would love to design such a project for you!

.

Thank you--it's my wife's hobby. I do get to take pictures of it though!

We have never lost a sale due to real estate photos being taken with WA. You just live with the distortion. Also, since most MLS sites only allow a 1024 on the long end, the photos are very small and they only serve the purpose of getting a showing scheduled. Now those in the high end markets where listing photos are larger and do more for a sale, more care has to be taken on which lenses to use, and perhaps a TS is more warranted at that point.

Elton Balch wrote in post #18279562
Wow!! Thats the first comment I've ever gotten on my avatar, Wilt Heres a full size and crop from that same shoot. The fireplace is my wife's pride and joy! These were shot with my 16-35 f/4L at 16mm.

Hosted photo: posted by Elton Balch in
./showthread.php?p=182​79562&i=i257691225
forum: Canon Lenses

Hosted photo: posted by Elton Balch in
./showthread.php?p=182​79562&i=i261686385
forum: Canon Lenses

Is it wrong that the cast iron is WAY more interesting to me than whether a zoom is prime-like?



But I susppose the cookware is similar to glass in that hopefully it gets used and leads to the shot/meal envisioned. I have a collection of both and make sure they are all in rotation, whether primes/old cast or zooms/modern commodity cast. They all have their place.

I bet if you downsize two images to around 640x480, one taken by the infamous 75-300mm at 300mm and f5.6 and the other by the 300mm f2.8L IS II at f5.6, you probably wouldn't see the difference...