HORRIBLE vignetting with FF DSLRs

Discussion in 'Digital SLR' started by RichA, Feb 6, 2007.

  1. RichA

    Skip Guest

    If I kill filed him, I couldn't bait him. But it has gotten tiresome, which
    is why I called his bluff. He folded, so I'll walk away from the table.
    Besides, I've got about 400 images of a girl (I WAY over shot, but she was
    cute!) to edit down by Sunday, so I don't have the time to play around,
    here.
     
    Skip, Feb 15, 2007
    1. Advertisements

  2. You only walked away from the table in disgust and shame because you
    couldn't bait me. That's why I gave you a simple and straightforward "NO"
    to your childish pissing contest. I mean, Skip, you really shouldn't get
    disgusted since my only goal was to simply help you improve your WA
    performance. What's the point of using FF when you have to surgically
    remove 35% of an image by cropping? That being the case, you might as well
    just slap the old 16-35/2.8 on a 20D so you can hide those pesky corners.

    Oh, you can killfile me if you want. It won't change the facts since it
    didn't in Mark's case. Look at Mark, he "claims" he has me in there, but he
    knows he hasn't the balls to admit he's wrong and live up to his end of his
    little pissing contest by honoring his word he voluntarily agreed to.
    Shameful. I have more respect for you Skip. That's why I was trying to help
    you with your WA dilemma.







    Rita
     
    Rita Ä Berkowitz, Feb 15, 2007
    1. Advertisements

  3. RichA

    Skip Guest

    That was not a "childish pissing contest." That was a call for you to back
    up what you say, since you provide no evidence that what you say is the
    truth. The only way you could actually help anyone, including me, is to
    show an actual comparison of the two lenses. So far, all the evidence
    you've ever provided was a link to a site on which, besides the extremely
    over sharpened Nikon and Leica images, the Nikoncentric site owner conceded
    that the 16-35 Canon was sharper at the center, wide open, than the Nikkor
    equivalent. Since the reason I even own the lens is the need to shoot it
    wide and wide open, having a lens that is less sharp under those conditions
    would be not only silly, but a disservice to my clients. Not to mention the
    fact that the Nikkor won't function as designed on my 5D, i.e. it won't
    autofocus.
    I don't have to crop by 35%, I'm not cropping by any more than to change the
    ratio from 3:2 to 4:5, if that. We're talking just a few millimeters in any
    given direction.
    My disgust is only about your refusal to actually provide evidence that
    backs up your outlandish claims, not just about the 17-35 vs the 16-35, but
    other Canon lenses, too. You were not trying to help me, or anyone else.
    You were just engaging in empty crowing, and you know it.
    You are way too predictable. And you have not added anything useful to the
    conversation, at any point, despite what you say. Because you have not
    backed up what you've said.
     
    Skip, Feb 16, 2007

  4. Come on Skip, you're not fooling me, but I know you might be fooling
    yourself. As I said earlier, and you have admitted that you're just baiting
    me. I have no problems backing up what I say. I will do it on my terms,
    not yours or anyone else's. You're playing the same childish game Mark
    played. I knew Mark wouldn't live up to his end of the bargain, but I still
    gave him the benefit of the doubt. Like Mark, you are as predictable. Just
    in case you forgot what you said a couple posts back, "If I kill filed him,
    I couldn't bait him." Like the old saying, "Toby doesn't play these games."

    As for the images from the 5D with the 17-35/2.8, I'll tell you what Mark
    told me, "I'll post them when I get around to it." The difference is I will
    post my images.








    Rita
     
    Rita Ä Berkowitz, Feb 16, 2007
  5. RichA

    Skip Guest

    I don't care on whose terms you do it, just do it.
    And what "childish game" is it I'm supposed to be playing? Or, for that
    matter, Mark?
     
    Skip, Feb 16, 2007
  6. RichA

    Mark² Guest

    I think he's referring to my office picture...where I used IS at wide angle
    and slow shutter speed. Rita crapped a brick over that, and blathered on
    and on about how IS is useless for anything below 50mm. Sheesh, is he still
    obsessing over that? He seems to think that any time some arse such as
    himself asks for a test comparison within the context of his being a
    complete ass, that I'm supposed to jump. What a laugh. Frankly I don't see
    what the beef is. It's true that there is much less to be gained using IS
    at wide angle. So what? I shot at 24mm at 1/10th and 1/4th second using
    IS, which Rita feels is pointless. I think he said something like "lean
    against the door frame" or some such suggestion...as though my goal was to
    photograph my office. :) I wanted to shoot an image where I specifically
    did NOT use bracing...since (shock and horror) there ARE times where there
    is nothing to brace against but your own face or other body part...so I
    tried just that. What's funny to me is that he's apparently been an
    complete ass over that for MONTHS...even with no direct contact with me.
    He's either obsessive-compulsive, has no life aside from me...or he's in
    love with me (possible...seeing as he's a man using a woman's name, for
    crying out loud). I guess what it really comes down to is, as evidenced by
    what I do see of his posts) the fact that Rita is simply an ass in
    general...so I shouldn't be surprised. I did a little comparison with and
    without IS, and to a certain extent, and as I've said...it becomes less and
    less beneficial the wider you go...but not to the point of making ZERO
    difference up to 50mm as he likes to insist. If you're reading this,
    Rita...give it a rest...or...continue with your pathetic little obsession.
    Whatever, chum. We're in partial agreement here, but if you're going to
    piss and moan on and on because I don't completely agree...that's your own
    moronic problem, and I could give a rat's arse whether you obsess for the
    next year or ten. Personally, I don't see anything from Rita other than
    echoes of his constant trolling via other people's posted quotes. RIP,
    Rita...or whatever your real chump name is... Go back to shooting ducks in
    a pond, or whatever it is you do with your camera...
     
    Mark², Feb 16, 2007
  7. LOL! No obsession, I just foolishly expected and predicted you wouldn't
    live up to your end of the agreement of posting your pictures after I posted
    mine. We both know you were wrong, but the child in you doesn't let you
    admit this in public. Same applies to Skip, he knows the old 17-35/2.8
    Nikkor is so much better than the 16-35/2.8 on the 5D that he won't admit it
    in public. He'd rather play your baiting game as a diversionary tactic.
    BTW, how's that IS working on the wide end that you were bragging about?
    LOL!






    Rita
     
    Rita Ä Berkowitz, Feb 16, 2007
  8. No.




    Rita
     
    Rita Ä Berkowitz, Feb 16, 2007
  9. RichA

    Skip Guest

    (shrug)
     
    Skip, Feb 16, 2007
  10. You get what you pay for with a 28-300 lens.
     
    Thomas T. Veldhouse, Feb 22, 2007
    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.