golem_bngolem

<p>` <br> <br> Cheezcake, or more spezifiklee Beevcake, is always<br> lauded as *FINE ART* when it's on the ceiling of the<br> Sistern Chapel. It's in the "infalliability clause" ;-) <br> <br> ` </p>

<p>` <br> <br> Lesseeeeee ..... a FF lens is being compared to a crop frame<br> lens on a crop frame camera and no one has so far thought<br> this odd ? So the FF lens is inferior or "only" equal in IQ to a<br> crop frame lens ? Gosharootie ! I'm SHOCKED and appalled !<br> And feeling a more than a bit wooozzeeeieee ....<br> <br> Get an adapter and try a Hasselblad lens on a crop frame<br> camera. What you'll find is that rather than a sooper sharp<br> 26mm center circle [intended for 16X enlargement] thaz<br> surrounded by a 76mm image circle that can hardly stand<br> up to a 4X enlargement .... rather than that, you'll find a<br> 76mm image circle that, in its entirety, can easily support<br> about an 8X enlargement. <br> <br> BTW, those ridiculously sharp mural sized prints from 4x5<br> and 8x10 inch negs ? They were shot with lenses that can<br> *NOT* ... even if cropped to the very center of the image<br> circle, the very best region, cannot produce an image thaz<br> sharp enuf to justify mounting such lens on a 10 year old<br> 12MP digital camera, crop or FF. <br> <br> OTOH, the lens on your Smart Phone is most likely waaay<br> sharper than any megabucks sooper lens from Canon for<br> FF or crop frame. Said lens cannot cover even 1/4 of the<br> sensor on your 5D MkIII, but it does have lazer razer IQ ! </p>

<p>I've got the old film era 50 f1.8 and I understand that<br> despite my having hoarded 1/2 dozen of them there's<br> still plenty more of them out there to buy. I couldn't<br> bring myself to buy the current version ... I'd find the<br> sheckels somehow for one of the alternatives I'm sure. <br> <br> I've been using the STM 40 as my go-to for about a<br> year now. It's as if my 5D2 has become a fixed lens<br> [noninterchangablelens] machine. Sooooo much is<br> Just Right about this lens that I refuse to be bugged<br> by its modest maximum aperture :-) OTOH, you use<br> a crop sensor so the 26 would be the equivalent. I<br> can't speak for the optical testing results for either<br> of these lenses. It's not that I don't care about that<br> stuff, but I just don't care about that stuff. I'll prolly<br> get the STM 26 for my SL1 just based on how happy<br> I am with the STM 40 on the 5D2. It's really not any<br> headbanging decision given the low price. <br> </p>

<p>` <br> <br> Main ingredients of high quality imagery: <br> f:8 and be there.<br> <br> BTW, do you bring a heavy tripod every time you need<br> top quality to the Nth degree ? I mean one that weighs<br> several pounds or more ? You do ? OK, maybe you'd<br> benefit from getting rid of the AA filter glass. Get you<br> an 810E and have at it. OW STFU re: IQ. <br> </p>

<p>+1 to all above comments concerning how progress<br> over a relatively short time puts newer 1.6X sensors<br> ahead of even slightly older FF sensors. Noisewise my<br> SL1 is at least 1EV better than my 5DII, and both are<br> similar as to pixel count [18 vs 20 mp]. <br> <br> We are rapidly approaching a situation where the only<br> real need of FF sensors is to get full use of existing<br> hoards of FF lenses. Technically, there will always be<br> some kinda IQ advantage to a bigger sensor, but that<br> advantage will soon be of use only to those who can<br> make, frame, and display print sizes measured in<br> feet rather than inches ! <br> </p>

<p>I don't know why you would adapt the<br> Retina 200mm to an EOS or Nikon or<br> any real SLR. It's a very compromised<br> clunky lens whose optical design is all<br> about minimizing the rear element to<br> use immediately ahead of a leaf shutter. <br> 200mm primes, and excellent 70-210<br> mid-speed zooms, are a drug on the<br> market, sellers just wanna kiss them<br> goodbye. And they focus to reasonable<br> near limits, too. Why torment yourself ?<br> </p>

<p>BTW, as I thinkyou know [from your ability to calculate<br> that a 0.125dioptre picks up at the 8 meter limit of your<br> Retina 200mm] the strength of the Sigma is easy to<br> figger. Mebbe it's already occured to you, but if not,<br> just focus your 200 to infinity, place the Sigma dioptre<br> in front, and see where the focus falls. The inverse of<br> the "infinity focus" is the dioptre power. IOW, if focus<br> falls at 2 metres, it's a 0.50 dioptre, 4 metres would be<br> a 0.25 dioptre [2 means 1/2, 4 means 1/4, etc etc].</p>

<p>All this talk of 2-element "better" dioptres, etc is<br> rather unproductive. 8 metres is a terrible near<br> focus limit and finding aa 0.125 dioptre is just<br> about impossible. However, it's a pretty"weak"<br> power as these things go, so don't worry about<br> using a simple single element, which you will<br> prolly hafta acquire from an optician, most likely<br> in optical plastic. Find a cheap filter built with a<br> threaded retainer ring and have a 0.125 dioptre<br> cut to fit. <br> <br> Frankly, I'd worry less about an exact match to<br> the "gap" and go for some overlap. It's a two-fer:<br> 1. The overlap is convenient.<br> 2. It will use a slightly weaker dioptre [better<br> image quality].<br> <br> You're gonna hafta avoid shooting wide open.<br> Thaz unavoidable reality. <br> </p>

<p>I found them on every camera I've ever used.<br> Apparently, almost no one else inspects their<br> images the way I inspect mine. <br> <br> They do come and go, altho they will return at<br> exactly the same spot. When they are "gone"<br> it's not from using lower ISO or setting brighter<br> exposures. Nearly identical subjects, same ISO,<br> same room lighting, shutter times, etc ... the<br> hot pixels can appear today, not tomorrow and<br> then return the day after. <br> </p>

<p>Just some thawtz .... <br /> <br /> Photography is basically born yesterday [or just this morning]. <br /> There are works of 'modern art', very different from 'classics'<br /> that preceded them, and these modern works are a full 100<br /> years younger than photography. These young works change<br /> hands for millions at auction, but they somehow share a long<br /> history of centuries or even millennia with other 'plastic arts'<br /> [art resulting in an 'art object']. <br /> <br /> Photography, whatever else it may also be, is printmaking. If<br /> pricing of "art objects" is at least one of many paradigms by<br /> which we judge "Art", then compare photos to other graphics<br /> and serigraphs, NOT to paintings, etc.<br /> <br /> Not all those antique mega valuable items in Art Museums<br /> were Works-of-Art when they were originally produced by<br /> those commissioned [or forced] to craft them. Especially<br /> the cave paintings, do not [likely] reflect a creative nature<br /> nor an urge to communicate. They are generally believed<br /> to serve as ceremonial, religious, or superstitious totems<br /> to ensure material well being [successful hunt or harvest],<br /> or to instruct novitiates in the communal belief system.</p> <p>"Decorative Arts" such as neolithic bead work may in some<br /> instances be for tribal identity or to "bring luck" but sooner<br /> or later such decoration came to be something done for no<br /> other reason than to please the eye. Pleasing the eye is not<br /> enuf to qualify as High Art or Fine Art, yet surviving pieces<br /> of such decorative art are valued partly for their sheer age<br /> of antiquity, but also as "artistic expression". <br /> <br /> A lotta what we now value a high art may have been simply<br /> Skilled Craft in its time of origin. <br> <br> There are at least two kinds of "Fool's Gold": Iron Pyrite and<br> Aurum. I'm not speaking from, nor promoting, asceticism.<br /> <br /> In case you fail to grasp whatever argument I'm possibly<br /> making or supporting, forget it. I'm just thinking out loud,<br /> as the thread title apparently encourages.</p>

<p>You can read Tiffen's specs for UV/Haze filters. Actual<br /> reduction in UV transmission varies from a few percent<br /> to about 25% at 400nm. There's one exception, which<br /> almost nobody really uses. IIRC it's the "Haze 2A" and<br /> that cuts 39%. So, as a genre, the filters peeps use as<br /> mainly protective of their lens will generally transmit<br /> 85% to 100% of the UV incident upon them. <br /> <br /> The real problem is not really the UV incident upon the<br /> filter. You could even be shooting a distant scene with<br /> a ridiculously tunnel-like lens shade, yourself and your<br /> camera indoors shooting out a window, etc ... IOW not<br /> much UV radiation incident upon your lens, yet film is<br /> gonna show a heavy blue cast cuz the scene is soaked<br /> in UV that scattering in a zillion directions [by all the<br /> micro particle in the air]. You can't filter that out cuz<br /> most of it's not headed for your lens. The air is simply,<br /> basically, glowing blue, visible blue, and film is also<br /> rather over-sensitive to visible blue. It's this blue that<br /> these mild warming filters attempt to correct.</p> <p>Corroberative of above statement is that back when <br /> color film was seldom printed, mostly viewed as the<br /> original transparency, "UV/Have/Skylite" filters were<br /> NOT labeled or graded according to their ability to<br /> cut varying small degrees of UV transmission, but<br /> were labeled according to which films they were [at<br /> best] able to correct. IOW, you had filters optimized<br /> for Kodachrome, Anscochrome, Agfachrome, etc etc.<br /> Thaz cuz what's being corrected is a film's response <br /> characteristics, not the UV content of the rays that <br /> form the image upon that film.<br /> <br /> OTOH, if you wanna get uselessly picky, just get away<br /> from the 400nm typical cutoff standard for pictorial<br /> imaging. Then you find that glass filter do cut 90% or<br /> even 100% of UV ... not just the "UV" filters, but ALL<br /> your glass filters, even a blue filter. Get to the shorter<br /> wavelengths [beyond 400nm] and if you do forensic<br /> imaging or astrophoto [on film acoarst], you can't even<br /> use glass lenses. Your lens needs be ground from some<br /> other transparent material, typically it's quartz crystal. <br> IOW, glass is simply opaque to UV the ranges below<br> approximately 400nm. Glass or concrete both look the<br> same to shorter wavelength UV. </p> <p> </p>

<p>The various STM lenses may be the best bunch from which<br> to select a general purpose lens. I have only one STM, the<br> 40:2.8, and I have no idea how it would be ranked by pixel<br> peeping image-corners inspectors ... but what I do know is<br> that is has the most decisive AF of ANY of my several EF<br> lenses. All the rest will almost always require a couple of<br> exra taps on the AF button to finally settle on a focus point,<br> and that point can very if you AF to some other spot and<br> then swing your view back to the intended spot. IOW all<br> the other lenses are both indecisive and inaccurate most<br> of the time. OTOH the STM 40 hits focus in one tap, and<br> any extra taps will not cause it to refocus. Plus it will hit<br> the same focus point over and over, exactly, even if you<br> de-focus it and then AF it again. <br> <br> I would like IS for my low light work but currently my only<br> IS lens is the 75-300:4.0-5.6. Being toadally unafeared of<br> working at f:5.6 I'm GASsing for the STM 24-105 ! Would<br> love to hear from anyone thaz using that lens. I've never<br> seen a shot taken at 135mm that couldn't just as well be<br> taken at 105mm, and I've never been a member of the<br> Bokeh Cult, so 105:5.6 is cool by me if thaz the ticket to<br> a midrange STM lens. <br> <br> Acoarst the STM 24-105 is a FF lens, but any of the EF-S<br> STMs would be a great choice for a noob with an SL-1 :-)<br> </p>

<p>It's clear enuf that the lack of compatability over time<br> is less due to the gear and more due to the user being<br> less than compatible with the methods of operating the<br> older less automated gear. <br> <br> All Nikons back to and including the original 'F' are<br> quite automated ...... <br> <br> <br> <br> <br> <br> <br> The oldest models just don't happen to automate focus<br> and exposure. But thaz no problem. Anyone can focus a<br> Nikon F. The procedure is self-evident, unlike modern<br> multi-mode AF. Exposure ? "f:11 and be there ... ". OK,<br> so exposure is not so self evident as focus. But every<br> other function is highly automated:<br> <br> The shutter cocks when you advance the film.<br> Accidental double exposure is impossible.<br> The iris closes to the preset aperture just before exposure.<br> The iris reopens itself immediately after exposure.<br> The mirror returns to viewing position immediately after exposure.<br> If you add the motor unit, the film advances itself.<br> If you add the Photomic unit, the meter reads at full open aperture.<br> You do not hafta insert a darkslide to protect the film when winding the FP shutter.<br> <br> You used to hafta do all ... or most ... of that stuff for every exposure<br> before the advent of highly automated reflex cameras like the Nikon F. <br> </p>

<p>` <br> <br> You did clean the lens's interface/communication contacts ? <br> </p>

<p>Having read this whole damnt thread I think there's<br> a big hole in the discussion.<br> <br> Unlike film, sensors living behind an array of micro<br> lenslettes do not play nice with image rays arriving<br> at an angle, such as occurs toward edges and corners<br> of the format.<br> <br> This is why deep-set [aka non-retrofocus] wide angle<br> lenses are not well-received by digital cameras. Back<br> in the pre-SLR-dominance days, wide angles had a<br> back focus as short as their shorter focal length. This<br> meant compressing the bellows or placing most of the<br> physical lens behind the lens flange of a rigid body. If<br> the rigid body happened to have a flipping SLR mirror<br> then the mirror ad to be raised out of the way of the<br> lens, such that the camera was not functionally an<br> SLR when using such a lens.<br> <br> Sooooo, somebody [i think is was Angenieux] had to<br> invent the retrofocus wide angle lens so as to remove<br> the physical presence of the lens from the path of the<br> flipping mirror, thus restoring SLR functionality when<br> using wide lenses. <br> <br> Now we have a new-ish reason for using retrofocus<br> designs, which is to minimize the angle of imaging<br> light rays in the more off-axis regions of the format,<br> by projecting the image rays onto the sensor from a<br> greater physical distance than would 'normally' be<br> implied by a lens's focal length. <br> <br> IOW, the retrofocus hocus pocus non-wide normal<br> FOV lenses should [aint heard of anyone testing yet]<br> deliver rather less improvement in IQ [compare to<br> a good Gauss lens] when the degree of improvement<br> is judged using a film body instead of a digital body.<br> <br> I'm not saying that retrofocus 50's are a scam or all<br> smoke and mirrors. I am suggesting that the IQ we<br> hear rave reviews about may be partly just "pure"<br> optical quality, and partly a simple case of a more<br> appropriate way of shining light onto sensors, that<br> be to shine it from a greater distance thus more<br> "square on" to the micro lenses and the receptors<br> behind them. <br> <br> IOW, built to similar levels of resolving power [as<br> tested using FILM] the a 40mm retrofocus would<br> have superior resolving power off axis compared<br> to, say a 40mm pancake when the same lenses<br> are tested on a digital sensor instead of film. <br> <br> </p>

<p>I find with my lenses, which are older film era Canon EF,<br> that what is above called "bumping" is an absolutely very<br> necessary procedure for accurate focus, and bumping is<br> waaaay easier by back-button-AF. It's one thing to hold<br> the shutter button at the 1/2way point to lock focus but<br> bumping requires a short sequence of hits on the AF and<br> that is much trickier when using the shutter button. <br> </p>

<p>` <br> <br> Oyeah, +1 on the MF approach. Go ahead<br> and try it .... *all* the cool kids are doin' it.</p> <p>Myselves, can't even imagine tryin do that<br> kinda stuff in AF. I mean, I can't imagine<br> *me* doing it in AF ... I'm not doubting a<br> minute that you do what you say you do.<br> But I do bleeb that once you go it in MF<br> you'll be hooked no going back. You're in<br> a controlled situation. Turn of the AF. <br> </p>

<p>Using a 5D2 for low light stills, and using the older lenses<br> you might encounter shopping used gear, I find the AF to<br> be indecisive for critical focus. When you have very little<br> DOF, the viewer's eye is naturally drawn to the nominal<br> point of focus ... and nominal doesn't cut it. When the eye<br> lands there, there better be real detail, however minimal,<br> IN FOCUS. In contrast to the 5D2's focus results with old<br> lenses, I find the 40/2.8 STM to be supernaturally able<br> to hit focus dead on first time and every time. I really<br> recommend including this lens in whatever kit of other<br> [and older] lenses you may purchase. It's cheap to buy<br> the 40mm brand new, it takes no space in your bag, it<br> has a great general purpose FOV, and can save your<br> butt when other lenses are acting confused ! </p>

<p>Concerning bent pins and taking care to always<br /> orient the card properly into the reader ... I've<br /> marked all my readers clearly indicating which<br /> side of the slot is for the wider groove of the<br /> card and which side is for the narrow groove.<br> Never found need of marking the card itself as<br> it's easy enuf to see which groove is wider. </p> <p>I mark stuff with nail polish, but I spoze you<br /> can use a felt marker, paint marker, etc. I've<br /> never found need to mark the card slot in the<br /> camera. Even if I'm not paying close attention<br /> the slot in the camera apparently is precise<br /> enuf to distinctly refuse to allow a card thaz<br /> attempted to insert backwards.</p>

<p>` <br> <br> Noticing the concern that UV filters block little<br> to zero actual UV transmission, I wanna mention<br> that this is normal. Excess UV results in excess<br> blue response ... from FILM. The purpose of UV/<br> Skylite/Haze filters is NOT for them to do the<br> impossible [can't filter out radiation with a nearly<br> toadally clear glass] but simply to do something<br> reasonable, which is that these filters do NOT<br> cut UV, they just cut BLUE, to somewhat help<br> rebalance the final image away from excess blue. <br> <br> Little does of reality never hurts [bIG doses can<br> be painful, I know .... ]. </p>