Another Week, Another Lens !

Discussion in '35mm Cameras' started by Annika1980, Apr 19, 2006.

  1. Annika1980

    Annika1980 Guest

    To satisfy my lust for the good glass that I'll never be able to
    afford, I've started renting some of the great Canon lenses. Last week
    I had the 24mm TS-E tilt-shift lens, which is more of a specialty lens
    and probably isn't for me.

    On trial this week, the highly acclaimed Canon 24-105 f.4 IS. Once you
    click this baby onto the camera, you know it's the real deal. Much
    heavier than my 28-135 IS, a true "L" lens by any measure. Initially,
    I wasn't too thrilled with the way the lens lengthens when it zooms
    out, but I guess I'll get used to that. I'll give the lens a proper
    workout tomorrow when I go to the LPGA golf tournament in Atlanta. I'm
    sure that Natalie and Annika and all the girls will want to pose for
    the 20D and this baby. Until then, here's one I took with it today:
    Annika1980, Apr 19, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  2. Annika1980

    Mark² Guest

    That is now my most-frequently-used lens.

    -Superb in every respect, save for its lack of 2.8.
    Mark², Apr 19, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  3. I've been told that it also vignettes significantly on full frame
    sensors. No free lunch over the EF 24-70 mm f/2.8, I guess (the 'IS'
    is nice though).

    Bart van der Wolf, Apr 20, 2006
  4. Annika1980

    Mark² Guest

    I have both lenses, and find that I carry the 24-70 very little now...
    Anyone interested in a near-mint 24-70 2.8?
    (Less than a year old!)
    Mark², Apr 20, 2006
  5. Annika1980

    TheDave© Guest

    I hate to admit it, but I'm still struggling with mine. Not so much
    the weight, but the fact that the focus and zoom rings are reversed
    from all my previous lenses. It's not as intuitive feeling as I think
    it should be. I know that I'll get used to it, but I find myself being
    reluctant to let go of my 28-135 IS because that one just feels better.
    TheDave©, Apr 20, 2006
  6. Annika1980

    Mark² Guest

    I've still got that 24-70... :)
    Make me an "offer I can't refuse" (minus the horse head please...).
    Mark², Apr 20, 2006
  7. Annika1980

    TheDave© Guest

    Could we somehow fuse the 24-105 and the 24-70 together and come up
    with a smaller 24-105 f2.8 with the rings in their proper location?
    TheDave©, Apr 20, 2006
  8. Refresh my mind, on a 'full-frame' sensor?

    Bart van der Wolf, Apr 20, 2006
  9. Annika1980

    Mark² Guest

    Are you asking what sensor I'm using them on?
    If so...not usually full frame.
    Mark², Apr 20, 2006
  10. Annika1980

    Mark² Guest

    Now wouldn't that be nice?
    Mark², Apr 20, 2006
  11. SNIP
    Yes that's what I was asking, as it seems to be vignetting a lot (more
    than the 24-70mm f/2.8) on FF sensors.

    Bart van der Wolf, Apr 20, 2006
  12. Annika1980

    Mark² Guest

    Do you have a link to samples, by chance?
    I haven't done a full frame test for vignetting...have you?
    Mark², Apr 20, 2006
  13. Annika1980

    uw wayne Guest

    There is only one way I know of to determine the supremacy of a lens
    (for me anyway). I continue to shoot with it for 20 years and get what
    I want from it, First rate quality only, be it a film body or a digital
    body. I want what I want in that image! The body is but a minor tool,
    the glass is the act! Nikon optics simply have never, never let me
    down. With Sony, Panasonic and other electronic giants firms entering
    the game who knows? The game is glass not bodies. Who
    uw wayne, Apr 20, 2006
  14. Funny, it's the only lens capable of doing something substantially unusual.
    How is that any better/different than a shot taken with a
    run-of-the-mill lens?

    It's (supposed to be) about the photographs, not the equipment!

    Greg Campbell, Apr 20, 2006
  15. Annika1980

    Mark² Guest

    That's where the game changes significantly as people move to digital.
    The body (with it's "film") becomes very much a key component that shifts
    some of that balance (which I generally agree with) back a bit in a way that
    makes the body much more important.

    As long as you're talkng about film...and the SAME film in different
    bodies...I agree with you.
    Mark², Apr 20, 2006
  16. Annika1980

    Mark² Guest

    The above sentence is what happens when you're A.D.D....and finishing
    sentences a few minutes after you started them.
    Mark², Apr 20, 2006
  17. Annika1980

    TheDave© Guest

    Would this full-frame vignetting also be there on a film camera?

    That was my only annoyance with the 28-105 that I just sold. It
    vignetted terribly if I wasn't careful, but the smaller sensor of the
    10D made that irrelevant.
    TheDave©, Apr 20, 2006
  18. Annika1980

    Mark² Guest

    If its vignetting badly, then it should show up on film too.
    Mark², Apr 20, 2006
  19. Annika1980

    Kinon O'Cann Guest

    I have one, and it vignettes when shot at the wide end, wide open. It's gone
    by f8, and by 28mm. Also, I haven't seen any vignetting that wasn't fixable
    in PS in about 10 seconds. They all vignette. It's just a matter of degrees.
    Kinon O'Cann, Apr 20, 2006
  20. Annika1980

    Kinon O'Cann Guest

    All the L lenses have the zoom ring closer to the body. For me, it's easier
    to use than reaching farther away.
    Kinon O'Cann, Apr 20, 2006
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.