Availability of WA lenses

Discussion in 'Digital SLR' started by Robert Coe, Nov 21, 2009.

  1. I did, two posts ago. It's at the top of the text you quoted. And I did so
    because you said an image might be blurry for all kinds of reasons, which
    makes it difficult to test a lens in real life.
    Want me to continue refreshing your memory?
    I know.
    I can. Have you visited the eye doctor lately?
     
    Robert Spanjaard, Nov 22, 2009
    #41
    1. Advertisements

  2. Absolutely right. But I was talking about show up without the quotes.
    And according to the eye doctor, there's nothing wrong with my judgement
    of my eyesight. So there's no need to worry about my driving.
     
    Robert Spanjaard, Nov 22, 2009
    #42
    1. Advertisements

  3. Robert Coe

    OldBoy Guest

    That's right.
    Third party lenses for Canon do fit, but they all fail to send the focus
    distance to the camera.
    That's annoying when correcting distortion.
     
    OldBoy, Nov 22, 2009
    #43
  4. You've been manipulated into an endless discussion with two well known
    pretend-photographer trolls. They don't even own cameras. You're their free
    entertainment. They'll never be satisfied with any explanation from the
    real world that you might give to them. They'll invent new excuses and
    red-herring manipulate the topics only until you finally figure out what
    they are up to.
     
    Outing Trolls is FUN!, Nov 22, 2009
    #44
  5. Let's see .... static building, a lens not quite wide enough. Yes, that
    requires an expensive new lens with lots of geometric distortion in it.
    Whereas someone more skilled in photography would shoot a quick 2x1 or 2x2
    set of shots for a pano, even done hand-held for a situation like that. But
    no, you need an excuse to buy a new toy with its inherent wide-angle
    distortions.

    I get it.

    Judging by all the advice you've received, they're all inexperienced
    snapshooters too. The only solution to them is hardware to make up for
    their lack of skill and talent.
     
    Occam's Razor, Nov 22, 2009
    #45
  6. What kind of info are you talking about? If you mean the actual focus
    distance, then my camera might not support it, because it's not in the
    EXIF of any of my images. But I do have lenses that report "Focus Distance
    Upper" and "Focus Distance Lower" in the EXIF, from Sigma (10-20mm and
    30mm), Tamron (24-135mm), and Canon (24-105mm). So I suppose they send the
    actual focus distance to the camera as well.

    My Sigma 50-500mm, 105mm macro, 15-30mm and Canon 50mm 1.4 don't report
    anything about focus distance (both upper and lower are always at 0mm).

    So again, at least as far as I can see, generalising to brand level
    doesn't make sense. In fact, one of the third parties, Tamron, seems to be
    a positive exception, because the 24-135mm is the only older-design lens
    that _does_ report the focus distance. Lenses that have been around for a
    while from Sigma AND Canon do not report it.
    What kind of distortion? Isn't focal length more important (barrel and
    pincushion, for example)?
     
    Robert Spanjaard, Nov 22, 2009
    #46
  7. Where did I ask for advice? And even if I did, what's wrong about asking
    what people base their advice on? Do you blindly trust everything that's
    posted here?
     
    Robert Spanjaard, Nov 22, 2009
    #47
  8. Seems like you don't even know who the OP was.
     
    Robert Spanjaard, Nov 22, 2009
    #48
  9. Robert Coe

    Bruce Guest


    Yet you blindly trust equipment reviews. You're such a fool. ;-)
     
    Bruce, Nov 22, 2009
    #49
  10. You'd better stick to the "As I said above" posts, because remembering
    what other people say seems to be a bit of a problem.
     
    Robert Spanjaard, Nov 22, 2009
    #50
  11. Robert Coe

    Bruce Guest


    I remember you said "I test them in the shop". Given that is all you
    do, you are most definitely a fool.

    Frankly, you might as well forget all this DSLR palaver and buy
    yourself a cheap p+s digicam. $100 should be more than enough.

    If, on the other hand, you want to present yourself as a serious
    photographer - for some value of "serious" - you need to get serious
    about testing your lenses. And not just "in the shop", because that's
    just foolish.

    Lens testing isn't difficult. It doesn't take a lot of time, nor a
    lot of effort. But if you are a serious photographer, lens testing
    rewards that small amount of time and effort many times over.

    If lens testing isn't for you, then you can never credibly claim to be
    a serious photographer, just another consumer who blindly buys and
    uses something he can't be bothered to make the effort to understand.
     
    Bruce, Nov 22, 2009
    #51
  12. That's right. And would I do that if I blindly trusted reviews, you fool?
     
    Robert Spanjaard, Nov 22, 2009
    #52
  13. Robert Coe

    Robert Coe Guest

    : []
    : > Yeah, if I had a 5D, I'd click in my 28-105mm Canon lens and have at it.
    : > But I don't, so that's not an option.
    :
    : Was combining multiple images not an option?

    The truth is I've never done a pano. I suppose it's something I should learn,
    but so far, other priorities have crowded it off my radar screen. I realize
    that many people claim that making good panos is dead easy with today's
    toecnology, but I'm not sure the panos I've seen support that claim very well.
    So while acknowlwdging that I may be missing a good bet, I guess I still think
    that obtaining a WA lens makes more sense for me.

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Nov 22, 2009
    #53
  14. Robert Coe

    Robert Coe Guest

    Robert Coe wrote:
    : > On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 11:13:37 -0500, Alan Browne
    : > : Robert Coe wrote:
    : > : > Well, it finally happened. I did a mediocre job on an assignment to photograph
    : > : > a building the other day because I don't have a wide enough lens to do it
    : > : > right. I've been hoping to get the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8, but both B&H and
    : > : > Adorama have had it back-ordered for months. Is the Tokina factory ever going
    : > : > to get caught up, or should I settle for the Sigma 10-20mm f/3.5? The reviews
    : > : > I've read seem to favor the Tokina by a noticeable margin; and while I've had
    : > : > good results with my Sigma lenses, I realize that my experience hasn't been
    : > : > universally shared.
    : > : >
    : > : > Since I hadn't completely made up my mind, I didn't actually put myself on
    : > : > B&H's waiting list until recently. Does anyone here have a sense of how long
    : > : > that waiting list currently is?
    : > : >
    : > : > Or am I being silly not to just buy the Sigma? When it was first announced, I
    : > : > could hardly wait to get my order in. Then when the reviews started coming
    : > : > out, they seemed lukewarm, so I started thinking about the Tokina instead.
    : > : >
    : > : > All advice gratefully received.
    : > :
    : > : Use a full frame camera and WA "35mm" lenses instead?
    : >
    : > Yeah, if I had a 5D, I'd click in my 28-105mm Canon lens and have at it. But I
    : > don't, so that's not an option.
    :
    : I know. I was just trying to tempt the plastic out of your wallet...

    Everybody seems to be trying to do that these days. :^)

    FWIW, in my dreams I'm leaning towards the 7D rather than the 5D. But I've had
    my 50D for only 13 months, si I don't think any new camera is in my immediate
    future.

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Nov 22, 2009
    #54
  15. Robert Coe

    Robert Coe Guest

    : : > On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 14:07:37 -0500, nospam wrote:
    : >
    : >>> > Review samples of Sigma lenses always seem to achieve stellar
    : >>> > results -
    : >>>
    : >>> No, they don't. According to the same site, the 24-70mm f/2.8, for
    : >>> example, is the worst in its class. All other brands are sharper.
    : >>
    : >> i think his point is that sigma intentionally picks the best of the
    : >> bunch to send to a reviewer, rather than luck of the draw.
    : >
    : > I'm not going to discuss speculations. Can you prove that Sigma
    : > does, and Canon and Nikon do not?
    :
    : Now that's rude. You asked for people's advice, and now you want data to
    : back it up. Go buy whatever you want then.

    Just to be clear about it, it was I who originally asked for advice, not the
    similarly named Robert Spanjaard.

    As am aid to future identification of my articles, I'll point out that, unlike
    more than a few participants in the photography newsgroups, I always post
    under my real name.

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Nov 22, 2009
    #55
  16. Robert Coe

    Bruce Guest


    Then you're worse than a fool. You're an idiot.
     
    Bruce, Nov 22, 2009
    #56
  17. Robert Coe

    NameHere Guest

    You mean the 7D DSLR that takes consistently poorer images than inexpensive
    P&S cameras?

    http://darwinwiggett.wordpress.com/2009/11/11/the-canon-7d/
     
    NameHere, Nov 22, 2009
    #57
  18. I remember *not* seeing how a (P&S camera's) lens had a substantial
    unsharp area to one side, until a street name sign happened to be
    unsharp there. Looking back, I found the same problem in older
    shots ... the problem was there all the time, however it only
    showed up (without the quotes) with such a chart-like shot.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Nov 22, 2009
    #58
  19. I fail to see where you made the effort to test and understand the
    computer, software, internet, protocols, electrical connections
    etc. et al you are utilizing to have your posting composed
    and transmitted all over the world. Does that mean you are
    just another consumer who blindly buys and uses the internet,
    computers, programs etc. you cannot be botherer to make the
    effort to understand? And that you and your transmitted opinions
    (e.g. on lens testing) cannot be taken serious because of that?

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Nov 22, 2009
    #59
  20. Proof?
    For *all* third party lenses, please!
    There are several of Canon's own lenses that don't send focus
    distance information to the camera (they lack the circuity to
    even read it!), hampering certain aspects of ETTL-II.

    Anyway, Canon has not recorded focus distance in EXIF or elsewhere
    in the image data for a long time now --- and it's a rough estimate
    at best, anyway --- so I wonder how you were going to use that
    nonexistent information for distortion correction.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Nov 22, 2009
    #60
    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.