jorge_ituarte3

"You can use higher ISO settings and save hundreds on fast glass"

 

One stop would put you at ISO 800. 10D at ISO 800 is pretty damn good. That's the best noise reduction system in my book. I would have used a 50mm 1.8 for your low light shoot at ISO 400. Cheaper than neat image!

Roberto I think we are getting off the subject here. This discussion deals with the ridiculous assumption that good quality zooms vs. cheap ones like the 28-80 do not have a substantial and obvious affect on image quality with the 10D. Canon makes some superb non-L primes.

Ron what brand name of old lenses are you referring to. One of the hallmarks of SMC coated glass is very high contrast. I don't consider most old glass very good. The SMC Takumars were produced in the late 60s and 70s. I have made no suggestion of "old glass" in general in any of my comments. Most old pre-multicoated glass is pretty lousy.

"So either I'm the world's most unlucky photographer who gets the worst examples of all these otherwise magnificent lenses, or my eyesight is so bad it's a wonder I can walk across a room without banging ito the walls"

 

What can I say Bob?. My heart goes out to you buddy.

Typo; Tack sharp wide open at all focal lengths

What's the point of these masses shooting with or lugging around an SLR system then Kelly? You can buy a Leica C1 AF Point and Shoot with a F/4 38-105mm lens that is tack sharp wide open at all apertures for $339.00 at B&H and it fits in your pocket.

A very good point O. S. I think this is the basic reason that the image quality of consumer optics has steady declined over the last 15 years and continues to do so. One basic example would be Canons 28-80 3.5/5.6 II USM vs. the newer and even worse Canon 28-80 3.5/5.6 IV USM.

That's very true Chip as well as lens contrast playing an enormous role in AF accuracy as well.

Here's and interesting article by Michael Reichmann about microcontrast;

 

http://luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/lens-contrast.shtml

By the way you don't have to really spend the money to get it. Screw mount SMC Takumars with an EOS adapter are superb and build quality is a work of art.

Bob again with all due respect it's not a DOF issue. I see this mostly in my wide angle landscape work at smaller apertures. Let's just say that I and 80% of everyone else see it and you don't. I hate to sound snooty but no I don't have cramped living quarters both my homes are rather large and paid for by the sale of my prints. You know I guess it is that mystical, hard to define, "Leica like" quality of "good glass". I love it and I will spend the money to get it. The last thing I need to worry about as a photographer while capturing images is my optics. I know pretty much what my output will look like before I push the trigger. That is everything for me.

I think I am starting to see a pattern here. I think this amounts to; if you own good lass and bad glass and you massacre all of your images in Photoshop they will all look about the same.

David the difference for me is night and day from across the room.

I also think it is important to state that when we speak of contrast in a lens it has noting to do with global image contrast. Global or overall contrast refers to how the overall tonal gradation is distributed in an image from lightness to darkness When we discuss contrast in a lens we are referring to "micro-contrast" something entirely different. Micro-contrast refers to the ability of the lens to differentiate between smaller and smaller details of more and more nearly similar tonal value. This is actually what creates dimentiality in an image because it allows the viewer to perceive greater amount of differentiation between boundaries at a higher level between areas of slightly different tonal values. Micro-contrast is for me the hallmark of high quality glass not resolution.

Bob I respect your opinion but I whole hartedly disagree. I think maybe we are looking for different qualities in our optics. For me good glass is that with will resolve well but also (and more importantly) give a higher degree of 3 dimensionality to a printed image. I want to make the surface disappear. This is essential for me compositionally. I want to establish relationships between foreground and background object via the illusion of 3 dimensions on a 2 dimensional plane. I don't see this being pulled off very effectively with most consumer glass. I also find a lens which is only useful at f/8 to be totally useless for my needs. I need my tools to give me the creative flexibly to work with spatial relationship at different aperture settings and focal lengths.

I see you just posted Bob. My previous comment was not directed at you obviously. So, previous responder to my post was questioning my having read posts in this regard or fabricating an observed recent line of thinking on this forum.

I in regard to fabrication on my part to posts in this regard on this forum this would be pretty lame don't you think. Read some posts butt head. I don't like being called a liar. Here is a quote from a post that was deleted (for some strange reason) a couple of days ago.

 

Jim Larson wrote: "But back to the topic: Suuure => the 10D is a cheap APS with a price worthy of a top end 1V price. . the atrocity is made worse by the fact that the "L" lenses we like are not effectively used as a result."

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=005s2a

I know what I see and I know what I sell Bob. Lines per millimeter are a very small portion of the pie as far as optical quality is concerned.

Derek, I am aware and agree with posts to the contrary. But every since Bob's review of cheap Canon zooms on the 10D there has been a rash on this forum of people believing that the quality glass on a 10D makes no difference. You need to read through post since that review and you will see what I mean. I hate to sound like am stating the obvious but it doesn't seem to be that way for some folks. It's just so ridiculous I had to post.

The myth that the difference between good and bad glass is not apparent on the 10D.

The image quality difference with good glass is as drastically

different with the 10D as it is with film. It's not a slight

difference. You would have to be absolutely blind not to see it.

Unless you are printing 4x6 prints at Walmart. Even then so! This is

the most RIDICULOUS new myth on this forum. Why it is being

proliferated I have no idea. It is categorically untrue.

"GIGO", Garbage in Garbage Out

Gee, I wish I had a PC that could handle 800 frames a week.

Ralph, how does it compare as far as sharpness (at f/2.8 for example). How well does it perform in f/8 to f/14 range.

I have to confess, I have pretty much made my mind up about getting the 135mm f/2.0L. However I'm not as certain about the 24mm f/1.4L. If all I am going to gain with the 24mm /f1.4L is speed then I'll keep my 24mm f/2.8. I prefer its smaller size. However, if the 24mm f/1.4L has more "pop" I'll buy it. It's not as easy as it is for most to go to a shop and see for myself. I'm about 90 miles from the nearest one. I also feel a little cheesy taking up that much of a sales clerks time when I know I'm going to buy it from B&H. Ordering from B&H trying it out and sending it back after having been a customer for so many years wears a little thin as well.