johann_fuller

Err......whatever........zzzzzzzzzzz

I use it regularly for architectural interiors - no distortion whatsoever that I can detect - i.e straight lines at the edge are perfectly straight. Resolution is good but not as good IMO as the 50mm.

"No doubt it's all part of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. ;-)" - no just basic economic practice. The real conspiracy is that DSLR's are derived from reverse engineered UFO technology and every camera is subsidised by dark forces in governments as they are infact secret surveillence devices that track your every move and everything you see.

In addition to your very basic requirements it must have the following built in features to be of any practical use to me; phone, MP3 player, GPS navigation, good composition indicator, a 10-500mm zoom with a constant F2 aperture and IS that is no more than the size of a 50mm 1.8, at least 22mp so it can compete with medium format digital backs, a built in 250gb HD so you don't have to mess about with CF cards and 1200x900 pixel diplay with a 3d colour space veiwing histogram. I'm pretty sure that canon can easily make such a thing for under ?1000 but they are just giving us rubbish like the 20D which is obsolete before you have even taken it out of the box and barely capable of rendering anything that looks remotley like a conventional photograph even on 6x4 paper at a 10foot veiwing distance.

In a rapidly dissolving 35mm film market what is behind Zeiss's thinking? There are enough M lens and body options already available (new and Used) to more than satisfy current and future 35mm film users. It can only be a collectors market they are aiming for.

BTW the out of focus areas look horrible.

Sell you 180 and 100 and buy a 50 and 150 - same filter size and a perfect lens combo for anything.

If you are looking to replicate wet darkroom - forget it. Digital looks different and thats all there is to it. Also as in wet darkroom - it's still the skill of the operator that make the biggest difference.

USB is marginaly faster but for a printer I doubt you will see any speed advantage of either over 'ordinary' USB1.

It's not as good - but for small to moderate enlargements, especialy from larger medium format films like 6x7, and where you have properly exposed film with no realy dense areas, it's good enough.

Raymond - not true - a 90mm lens is a 90mm lens. DOF is a calculation based on format and enlargement ratio - most DOF scales were set a long time ago and are not very good. You cannot alter DOF between lens designs if you use the same DOF calculation for each lens although you may change things like Bokeh. Additionaly large format lenses only work better at smaller apertures due to the reduced effect of diffraction - the physical size of the aperture is much bigger at say F22 on a 5x4 lens than it is on a 35mm format lens - you can stop down much further before defraction becomes a limit to resolution. F stops are calculations not physical aperture diameters. This is why digicam's with their very short focal length lenses and small glass diameters do not stop down beyond F8 in many cases as the aperture size would be so small and seriously deteriorate quality. If I claimed that my modest 50mm EF 1.8 will outperform my Hassleblad 50mm on a 36x24mm film crop would you think it a fairer example of how using the so called 'sweet spot' of a lens designed for a larger coverage than the intended format does not give you better resolution (and can be worse) than one designed especialy for that format.

But who uses low contrast tranny film? In teh real world you can only get the full range of a tranny with a drum scan - you get a very usable dynamic range with RAW.

Very very rare - good luck!

In camera processing is always optimised for speed - far better to do anything like this in photoshop - everything infact.

"Hey! Let's get things in perspective" - OK so I was illustrating a point by stretching it a bit - the theory still stands and BTW the DOF on a 90mm lens is the same on 4x5, 35mm, APS or 10X8.

OK lets think of a simple test - shoot the same scene with 2 90mm lenses; 1 for a 35mm camera and 1 from 5x4 camera. Enlarge the same 24x36mm area and compare. Logicaly from what others are saying the 90mm lens for 5x4 should be way better as it is only using the very center of the lens - it's sweet spot. The 35mm has to use all it's coverage inc the outer fuzzy areas and is likely to be compromised. I can say with some certainty that the exact opposite is true but does this mean that large format is inferior in resolution? No - the magnification factor for large format is much lower than for any smaller format and therefore the absolute resolving power of the lenses does not need to be so high. Same with EF lenses - they were never designed to enlarge a much reduced image recording area and with higher density pixels set to become potentialy higher that situation is set to get worse. Canon will have to bring out more EF-S lenses optimised for the smaller recording area - but hey I'm not going to hold my breath.

"magnifying the central part of the lens is still a better idea than having to magnify the edges and corners of the frame" - In exactly what situation to you do this? DSLR sensors may well have higher resolution than film but if that excededs the optical resolution of the lens you are going nowhere.

"It's not a magnification, it's a crop" - sorry but it is the magnification. No matter what you use (film or digital sensor) the smaller the recording area the bigger the magnification needed to produce a given print size.

Setting a scratch size the same as RAM is too low - at least 2x is a starting point.

"None of the canon DSLR's can do much better than about 6.5 stops,and that's stretching it" - which is better than tranny film.

I have done numerous tests comparing bicubic with multistage resampling - I could detect no difference. Bicubic smooth is my current default setting in CS. Additionaly I have noticed artefacts when using CS RAW to resample - exporting the file at it's actual resolution and using PS to do the resample (even normal bicubic) is definatley better.

Jon - you didn't think I was serious did you?

Using the central part of the lens is not such a great idea as the magnification means any flaws or shortcommings in the lens are magnified. If you use the central part of a medium format lens or a large format lens you are likely to find it is not as sharp as one designed for 35mm. My 50mm Hassleblad lens is not as good as my 50mm F2 summicron if I enlarge the same film area to the same degree. EF lenses were designed for enlargements of 35mm film - many way before digital was ever a realistic option for image capture. Ask some of the very average performing EF lenses (Pick any canon non L wide) to cope with a substantial crop factor and consequently larger enlargement factors and the shortcommings of the designs become evident.

Have you looked at any RAW files?

Yes it's a complete con and deliberate cost saving/consumer rip off - next time you buy an EF lens ask for a 40% discount from your dealer.

Looks like blooming -caused by overexposure. Look at the back of the leg where the correctly exposed white is against the black - no blooming.

Have you looked on the Epson website for the latest driver?