matt_bennett3

<p>Hi Jonny, thanks for that. I think I am coming to the same conclusion. It's a damn fine lens at any rate, the Canon, and will be largely used stopped down. I may lust after the quality of the Nikon but I'm not sure that I'll be missing out on too much with the Canon, not to mention the ease of complete system compatibility from the word go, along with filter usability. Cheers, Matt</p>

<p>Thanks all for your input. Scott, yes I had just finished skimming that article you linked to when I posted the

question, but had mistakenly thought you were limited in your aperture selection. The Nikon certainly seems

like the new definition of what's possible. I just cannot understand why Canon is so poor on the wides. (even though

the 14mm II is great, it's blown away by that Nikon) Even if Canon's lacking in ideas you'd think a bit of reverse

engineering should prompt some insights... John, to tell you the truth, I spent on hour yesterday afternoon wondering

if it might be time to sell all and convert to the enemy, starting with the 14-24 and the new D3X :-)... then I saw the

D3X price!<br>

To those who pointed it out - yes there is a huge difference between 21mm and 14mm and I certainly would be

aiming for the lower after using the 17-35mm. Armando, yes I have read so much about the high IQ of the 21mm, I

almost bought it but I hate paying more than the lens ever was new and I'm not sure it's wide enough - may leave me

wanting at times...</p>

<p

>David, thanks for all your indirect input into these decision-making processes, it really is much appreciated. I will ke

ep my eye out for that next review. Dean, looked at the Canon 24mm (looks even longer than its predecessor) but wo

n't be wide enough and my 24-105L has already got that covered, albeit at f/4. I definitely have a habit of keeping m y

eye on 'the-dig-pic" for all new reviews, the one for the 24mm II can't be too far off.<br>

 

I guess the truth is, wide landscapes at these focal lengths are largely going to be shot at f/11 - f/22 so performance w

ide open is probably not as important. Any opinions on the Leica R wides? Thanks again.</p>���������������

������������

����������������������

������������

������������������������

������������

��������

<p>I have been researching for some time the various ultra-wide angle options, (to use on 5D II, 50D and Elan 7 bodies) since getting rid of my not-so-sharp older model of the Sigma 17-35mm HSM. It seems that the late model Contax Distagon T 21mm f2.8 is THE lens of choice for wide work - but of course it will set me back US$2500 second hand plus adapter costs. I am also reading rave reviews about the Nikon 14-24, which of course does not easily adapt to the Canon bodies. My question is, if I wait for the release of the Contax 21mm ZE (which will interact fully with the bodies apart from manual focus), am I guaranteed to get as good a quality lens in terms of corner to corner sharpness, low distortion and minimal CA etc as the original Zeiss Contax 21mm or is it a completely reworked lens which will have to run the gauntlet of being re-reviewed on its own terms? And does anybody have an idea of its release date? If you feel this is not the best way to go, feel free to recommend alternatives (Canon 14mm II?) - as far as I'm concerned, with this purchase, the wider the better. I want this lens to be AS SHARP AS POSSIBLE as it will likely be my workhorse for a long time to come. Money's probably a secondary consideration to IQ for this purchase. I do mainly landscape work. Cheers. M</p>

You probably still don't have enough DOF to satisy you at f/8-f/11. Realistically, as far as the eye is concern on moderate sized pictures (say up to 16-20 inches), loss of image quality due to diffraction won't be too noticable at f/22. Try taking the picture at around there and see what you get. Make sure the image quality on the camera is set to highest resolution too.

You're welcome Jennifer, definitely not having a go at you! Just didn't want a learner starting out with slightly incorrect picture of things and then clinging to that where it might make more confusion as he/she learns further. Best,

 

Matt

Phoenix,

 

Jennifer has given you a good simplified explanation of what you need to know. The is only one mistake: at f/2.8, the aperture is not "roughly 1/3 open", that is essentially meaningless. The aperture is actually open an amount equal to the focal length divided by 2.8. For example, if using a 28mm lens at f/2.8 your "hole size" will be 28/2.8 = 10mm (1cm). So it's not really the diameter of the hole that's crucial, it's the RELATIONSHIP or RATIO of it's size to the focal length that's important.

 

Hope that's clear :-)

To simplify my concern - I am unable to open the CR2 files in photoshop. Can anyone help me?

Hi and thanks in advance for your help.

 

Have just started to download my first lot of RAW pics from the new 50D into Adobe Bridge and am finding that,

despite having the "Advanced Options' clicked, there is still no preview thumbnails appearing in the display box and

the program seems unable to open up these '.CR2' images from the 50D. (The few jpeg ones opened and

downlaoded fine)? Any help..

Thanks guys, unfortunately Jim, he's living on the other side of Australia at the moment so I have to post it over. Guess I can only try and see - can always give the money back :-)

Has there been any problems with the old (2001 era) Sigma 17-35mm HSM lens when used in conjunction with the

Canon 400D? I am about to sell my lens to my brother and since I've only been using film bodies to date I didn't want

to unknowingly give him a dud lens for his digital. Thanks.

Cheers for that John. Yes, I'm one of those that doesn't have 5 grand to blow so I think the Canon will probably do just fine. The Contax was more about lust :-) Will do a bit of further reading on the Z1.4 though, following what you have told me. Thanks.

Just wondering (if $ were not an issue), has anyone done a head-to-head comparison of the relative performances of

these two lenses? I have read almost nothing but exceptional praise for the Canon lens, barring the wide open

peripheral CA, and given that it has full electronic compatibility with the EOS bodies, it would obviously result in

more 'keepers'. But manual focus etc aside, is the performance of one any better than the other in anyone's opinion

who has experience with these lenses? Just intrigued.....

Thanks for your answers guys. Jon, I thought that too but the hole is actually a fair bit bigger than the 3/8 screw. That's why I was wondering what size it actually was. There seems to be a 5/8 bushing described on B&H (not Toyo made) so I was wondering if anyone knew if that would fit the bill.... My measurements suggest the hole is just shy of 16mm (in the real language ;-) so makes sense, but I didn't want to risk damage to the inside if it screws in too far etc etc.

 

Tony, I will look into you suggestion, thanks mate.

 

Matt

I yesterday finally received my new Toyo View 45AX from B&H. Upon opening it, I

have noticed two things that I did not anticipate. The first, and most

important was that there is only one bushing supplied and it has a 1/4in size

hole for the tripod screw. I was assured the camera could accommodate both 1/4

and 3/8 sizes and therefore assumed they supplied both bushings. (guess which

my Arca Swiss plate has...) I cannot find a Toyo bushing with a 3/8in screw

hole for sale on the B&H site, anyone suggest where to get one or a no-name

brand that will do the same job? (by the way, what is the thread size for the

hole in the camera base itself?)

 

The other question, did anyone else receive with this camera a ground glass

protective cover or does that only come with the 45AII?

 

Thanks in advance from a brand new LF user.

 

Cheers,

 

 

Matt

Thanks Michael. I see where I went wrong. Think I'll prob stick to the 180mm for better lighting options, my outdoor/nature needs probably don't call for much more than 1:1 and the format allows for quite a bit of enlarging anyway. Cheers.

 

Matt

Hi Guys,

 

First post on here as I am a new LF user and have not even received my gear

yet. My question is, will the movements on my new Toyo View 45AX (I think

about 320mm max extension) limit what I could do with the new Rodenstock 180mm

f/5.6 Apo-Macro-Sironar or is it more advantageous to get the longer macro

lens (as opposed to the 120mm say) for increased lens-object working distance?

I think I've been a bit confused by all the formulae on here and thought the

macro lenses were maximised for sharpness at bellows extensions of around

their focal length (1:1)? Thanks in advance.

 

Matt