john_f._lemke

One of Sports Illustrated's top photographers, John Biever (Canon shooter),

with 17 of his favorite pictures. Exposure information included.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/multimedia/photo_gallery/0711/gallery.canon.bie

ver/content.1.html?bcnn=yes

Hey David,

Thanks.

I'd be interested in finding out if the shot above is a good representation of the F2.8 or not or if anyone thinks it's even possible to tell here.

I'll be looking forward to seeing your 2.0 images. It's clear you put a lot of care, concentration and heart into your photography.

Thanks again.

Hey Mark,

Interesting, maybe I can learn a bit more here.

Is it impossible to give an accurate representation of the specific character of a given lens here? Can someone, for example, shoot, scan, postprocess, post and then accurately say, "This is a good representation of this particular lens"? Can an image transcend compression, monitors, etc. and get broadly close?

Are the differences between the various 24mm Fd lenses so slight that you wouldn't see any differences? In a previous thread some of the characteristics of the 135mm f2.0 were obvious. Is that something native to that particular focal length in the FD system?

Is it impossible to post an image here that does a good job representing the color, contrast, bokeh of a given lens?

Is there some dividing line where you can or can't demonstrate a certain signature within a line of optics? For instance comparing Zeiss glass with Canon, Nikon, Minolta, etc or are there just too many variables that make comparison via compressed images, etc. impossible?

Thanks...........

I'd love to see some images taken with the F1.4L and F2.0 versions. Read a lot

of comments about each FD version Canon made.

Whatchya got David? :-)<div></div>