david_kieltyka1

Well, you're getting narrower coverage than you expected with the 70mm lens not because of the image circle size but because of the focal length. Any 70mm lens will give you the same coverage.

I've used the Loreo Lens-In-A-Cap for a Holga-like look. Works quite well. This is a fixed-focus 35mm lens with multiple apertures. I think the largest is f/5.6, and you can go down to f/32.

http://www.loreo.com/pages/products/loreo_lenscap.html

-Dave-

>> I think so many people really WANTED to like this lense when it came out (myself included) because it seemed to offer so much, and it seems many many people are bitterly disappointed that it didn't deliver... <<

When it comes to lenses (or cameras) the only people I pay any attention to are those who've actually used the gear in question under actual shooting conditions. I don't mean test shots, I mean *use*. This disqualifies probably 80% of 'Net forum comments on the DO.

I've owned the lens for a year now and have shot thousands of photos with it. It performs very well indeed. Forum noise means nothing in the face of actual real-world results.

-Dave-

The lens is not being recalled. It'll be up to you whether or not the flare issue warrants a repair. Sounds like there's an internal reflective surface Canon missed in QA testing.

-Dave-

>> However good something looks, it's only good in relation to something worse. It's not good in relation to something better. If Galen Rowell had had the fortune to take that rainbow shot in Tibet with a Canon 1Ds2, it would have been better. Better still! Okay? <<

I think we're talking past each other here. You're defining "better" in a strictly technical sense whereas I'm defining it in aesthetic terms. I don't care much about the technical nuts & bolts of photography. I care about how my prints look. Obviously I need to know a certain amount about how my gear works in order to have control over the final printed result. But beyond that the technical stuff is just a distraction.

If I have questions about how the 5D performs with various lenses I don't spend time theorizing about it...I go get my hands on a 5D and take a bunch of photos. This is in fact what I did. A friend of mine recently loaned me his new 5D for a couple weeks. I shot with just about every lens I own, in low & high contrast conditions. Not test charts, not brick walls but actual real-world photos. My initial comments in this thread were based on what I've seen.

My 12x18" prints from the 5D are superior in terms of tonality to my 12x18 prints from scanned 35mm film. If I were using a drum scanner the gap would narrow, but film grain is also a limiting factor. With low-ISO digital files you can enlarge a great deal and still retain tonal smoothness whereas with film the grain degrades tonality beyond a certain point. Of course some folks (me included at times) like grain effects...aesthetics overriding technical purity again. Resolution isn't so important here. A Velvia slide contains at least as much spatial detail as a 5D file and both are sufficient for crisp 12x18 or 16x20 prints. Smooth tonal gradation (or the increasing lack thereof as you enlarge more) is the limiting factor with 35mm film. Contrast is something you can control in Photoshop or similar apps provided there's enough of it in the film scan or RAW file to record detail.

What I meant to counter in my initial post was the notion that using a 5D will reveal lens flaws that in turn will lead to poorer print quality than can be had by using 35mm film or a D-SLR with a smaller-than-24x36mm sensor. The photos I've taken with the 5D tell me this is not the case. Reports of poor corner performance are IMO either exaggerated or not based on real-world photos. Even a relatively inexpensive lens like the Canon 24-85mm performs well on the 5D. But people need to be realistic in their expectations. Stop down to f/8 or f/11 at the wide end and you'll be hard-pressed to see any difference in print between a 24-85 photo and one taken at the same focal length & aperture with an L lens. Canon's pre-USM 35-135mm f/3.5-4.5 is another inexpensive lens I really like on the 5D. Wide open at the long end it makes a darn good portrait lens.

Galen's 35mm photos look great even at 20x30" because of his technique, his use of low-speed, fine-grained film and most importantly his aesthetic sensibilities. If he'd been using a 5D instead of Kodachrome or Velvia the larger prints would be smoother & cleaner technically. But better? Don't know, and I don't think it matters much. The best of his photos have soul...and the prints convey this.

-Dave-

>> David, Shouldn't one get BETTER results with first rate lenses on a 5D. (I'm assuming here that in order to get first rate results on 35mm you really must have first rate lenses because we all know how severely film can degrade the image). <<

Don't assume anything. With proper technique you can get great 16x20" prints from 35mm film. Go check out Galen Rowell's gallery in central/eastern California for first-hand evidence. Some of those photos were taken with consumer-level zooms too. Galen's most well-known photo, of a rainbow over the Potala Palace in Tibet, has been printed at 20x30" and still looks mighty fine. For the photo Galen used a Nikon 35-70mm lens...you can pick one up used at KEH for around US$170.

-Dave-

>> Although most consumer lenses perform reasonably at f8 unfortunately I rarely shoot with that small an aperture. I'm not a pixel peeper, but I wouldn't swap my lens collection for a bunch of consumer zooms and a heap of money. They just wouldn't do what I want. I need low light capability and small DoF, just need it, that's all. <<

I'm not advocating downgrading anyone's lens kit. :-) I own some of those fast lenses too, and use 'em when desired. My point is that the 5D (or 1Ds series) by itself doesn't obsolete any EF lens. If you've been getting first-rate results with your lenses on 35mm film you'll get first-rate results with the same lenses on the 5D.

Now if you're printing larger than in the past *this* may prompt you to upgrade your lens kit. But this is a different issue...

-Dave-

Canon's implementation of mirror lockup stinks across the board, but with the 5D it's particularly galling considering they found room on the body for a Direct Print button. This button belongs on Rebel cameras rather than US$3000+ bodies.

I know a Canon field tester, and with every new body he mentions the poor MLU implementation in his feedback. Judging by what he hears from fellow pros Canon gets the same message from lots of folks. Yet they do nothing about it. Annoying.

-Dave-

Personally I long for the day when camera/lens image quality will progress to the point of irrelevancy. Let's see then how much Web space is taken up by people discussing the creative & aesthetic qualities of their photos. ;-)

-Dave-

I think Reichmann's point is that the 5D interests him as a photographer's tool, not a gadget for shooting test charts. He's already commented that overall image quality with the various Canon D-SLRs is essentially the same. (My own experience bears this out.) Your choice of a particular model should thus be guided by how large you print and how rugged a body you need.

-Dave-

I think film emulations should be standard equipment with RAW converters. In fact I'm surprised they don't already exist. No need to stop with films, though. There could be user-created profiles for color responses & palettes never seen in any film. (The capability to create profiles already exists with some RAW converters but it's not exactly user-friendly.)

While I like the ability to adjust color after-the-fact I also like shooting with a fixed palette. IMO working within boundaries encourages creative focus. Working without boundaries tends to encourage endless experimentation.

-Dave-

Being a nit-picker my first comment is "full frame what?" Obviously you mean 35mm digital. But the smaller APS-C or DX or whatever-we-should-call-it format is also "full frame." The frame just happens to be smaller than a 35mm frame. I think the issue here is the smaller format has never been promoted as a *format*, so people generally think of it as cut-down 35mm rather than as a separate entity. The fact that we can use the same lenses with both formats (with a handful of exceptions) reinforces this.

I do think we're seeing another shift downward in the format sizes required to get particular levels of quality. This has certainly happened before...it's how the 35mm format gained a foothold in the pro & dedicated amateur markets. Once the quality level hits a certain threshold photographers tend to opt for the convenience or flexibility or reduced costs (or perhaps all three together) of the smaller format.

OTOH 35mm is a bit different than previous popular formats. It was so entrenched among consumers and amateurs in the 1980s & 90s that for some people it represents a digital Holy Grail of sorts. Beyond technical considerations there's an emotional attachment involved. I expect the camera companies will take advantage of this if it proves possible cost-wise to do so. In such a case the APS-C format could eventually occupy a lowest-cost niche segment of the D-SLR market with 35mm dominating.

We shall see...

-Dave-

Actually, swapping out the 20D's focusing screen is easy. There's nothing to unscrew. You simply use a toothpick to disengage the metal frame holding the screen in place, remove the screen, put the new screen in place (with tweezers) and reattach the frame. I did this procedure a few days ago...took about 10 minutes. Now I have a screen with split-image and microprism focusers. Works great and puts all my old manual focus Pentax Takumars and Zeiss Jenas, not to mention Contax-mount Zeiss glass, back into the game.

As to the original question, I have a pair of Bob Shell's Y/C-to-EOS adapters as well as one from Stephen Gandy at CameraQuest. Both types work fine but there's less potential for play with the CameraQuest adapter. It uses a small integral clip to secure itself to the lens while the Shell adapter uses a screw. Most lenses are snug with either adapter but a few (my 25mm Distagon for example) wiggle a bit with the Shell design.

Personally I'd only choose the Zeiss 200mm f/4 over the Canon f/2.8 if I were planning to use it with both Contax and Canon cameras. (I know Trevor owns Contax gear so this may be the case.) The Canon 200mm is an excellent lens.

-Dave-

The DOF issue with digital cameras depends entirely on the size of the sensor (and thus the focal lengths used). Harvey or anyone else using a Nikon D70 should have no trouble whatsoever getting shallow DOF, with pleasantly blurred backgrounds, if that is the desired look. With the D70 for a given field-of-view and aperture you gain 1/2 stop of DOF compared to using a 35mm camera. (In macro territory the formula is different, but I won't go into that here.) Using, say, a 50mm f/1.4 lens on the D70 is like using a 75mm f/1.7 on a Leica M or any other 35mm-format body. Shallow DOF is most certainly possible with a 75mm lens at f/1.7. So if Harvey's photos have too much DOF for your taste it's due to his (or his editor's) choice.

-Dave-

This isn't a replacement for the 20D, as the price alone should make clear. It's the first camera in a new category. Should appeal to pros & serious amateurs wanting a 35mm-format body without the weight, bulk & cost of the 1Ds series.

-Dave-

The FZ30's lens loses speed over the FZ20's at the long end. But the new lens uses a different optical design and has a different actual focal length range. Despite talk of "28mm," "35mm," etc. the true focal length ranges are 6-72mm (FZ20) and 7.4-88.8mm (FZ30). The FZ30 uses a larger sensor than the FZ20...both camera/lens combos provide a field-of-view range equivalent to a 35-420mm lens (give or take a little) in the 35mm format. Don't know whether the aperture reduction is for cost or performance reasons. Maybe both.

I like the FZ20. But it lacks the ability to save RAW files. The FZ30 can do this, which to me makes it a much more attractive camera.

-Dave-

I think there are some other goodies offered with the "LE" camera. But I think I'll wait awhile to see if the camera has any gremlins before considering a purchase. Besides I'd rather have a black finish.

-Dave-

Just to note, Cosina's lenses using the Voigtländer brand are made in Japan. RingFoto has marketed other products as well with the Voigt name...this particular zoom may be among them.

-Dave-

>> It is sad to say, both / all, Canon, Nikon, & others are jumping on the band wagon to accommodate the cropped image sensor with lenses. <<

Probably has something to do with the fact that 95%+ of all D-SLRs sold to date are not 35mm format cameras. :-) I'm sure users of larger format cameras were grumbling too when 35mm took over most camera/lens R&D back in the 1950s. That's how it goes.

I think someone, maybe not Canon, will come out with a semi-fisheye lens offering a 180 degree diagonal field-of-view with APS-style sensors. Nikon already has their 10.5mm. I'd love to have one in EF mount myself.

-Dave-

I think throughout the history of photography there have been people who've tried to convey reality as accurately as possible through their photos while other people have embraced and made creative use of the fact that photos haven't looked like reality.

Are high-end digital photos "more like reality?" Dunno. Maybe in the sense that the most obvious artifact of film-based photos--grain--is absent. This is probably the clarity Speilberg is refering to. But I've seen gorgeous large prints made from photos shot on 4x5 with a BetterLight scanning back, and I can still tell they're photos and not open portals onto the world. I think there's still plenty a moviemaker can do with lighting and color palette as well to make their movies look as non-real as they want.

-Dave-

>> How come the mirror doesn't hit the optical center of a superwideanglelens? <<

It does, sorta. But the optical center of a super-wide SLR lens is located behind the lens' rear element, so there's nothing physically there. :-)

-Dave-

Hey, my link works without using HTML mode. Is photo.net entering the 21st Century? :-)

-Dave-

I also have both, and with my copies there's very little difference in performance at same focal lengths & apertures. If anything the 17-85mm is a little sharper at the wide end than the 17-40mm. The 17-85 does suffer from noticeable chromatic aberration at the wide end in high-contrast areas. Best to shoot in RAW mode and dial out the CA with Adobe's converter or (PC-only unfortunately) RAW Shooter Essentials. The 17-40 does very well in this regard. The 17-85 focuses down to 35cm at all focal lengths, quite handy for close-up stuff in the absence of a macro lens.

Here's the URL of a dpreview post I made a few days ago, showing a tripod-shot comparison of the two lenses at 35mm and f/5.6. Focus was at or close to infinity. I'm not in HTML mode here so you'll need to cut & paste the URL.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=13888373

-Dave-

Irwin's review is fine & dandy, but I'm also a member of the "I must see it for myself" school. The new 'Lux is a lens I'd definitely like to check out.

-Dave-

My favorite warm tone is one I pinched from the LensWork website. I love the warm-ish tone they use for photos in the magazine and was happy to find it in their web images too. I loaded one of the web photos in Photoshop, took R, G & B curves readings from it at levels 32, 64, 128, 160, 192 and 224 and saved this as a custom curve. I'm at work now and so can't post an example, but the LensWork site has many of 'em.

-Dave-

The Zeiss 60mm in question is a Yashica/Contax mount macro lens, the version capable of 1:1 magnification. (Zeiss also made a more compact 1:2 version, with 1:1 available only via extension tube.)

-Dave-