One Canon owner sums up their wide angle plight

Discussion in 'Canon' started by RichA, Mar 9, 2009.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    RichA, Mar 9, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. RichA

    Paul Furman Guest

    Cool, I had not heard of that one:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B001TDL2OA
    Canon 17mm f/4L UD Aspherical Ultra Wide Tilt-Shift Lens
    Price: $2,499.99
    Usually ships within 1 to 2 months.

    --
    Paul Furman
    www.edgehill.net
    www.baynatives.com

    all google groups messages filtered due to spam
     
    Paul Furman, Mar 10, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Is that because it has a curved plane of focus which is closer at the
    edges? If so, that's rather handy for interiors. Is it impossible at
    any aperture to focus distant edges?
     
    Chris Malcolm, Mar 10, 2009
    #3
  4. RichA

    Edward Hunt Guest

    Are you using a Canon with JPEG? Canon are known to smear fine detail
    with their 'in camera' processing, have you tried RAW?

    Eddie Hunt
     
    Edward Hunt, Mar 10, 2009
    #4
  5. This little lens has been surprisingly good: the tiny 12mm f5.6
    Voightlander (made for Bessa rangefinder or Nikon reflex
    bodies). Its performance peaks around f8, but it is similar at
    all other stops - and its sharpness into the corners is remarkable
    (although overall it is not the equal of the 14-24mm f2.8 Nikkor).
    There is no reflex viewing with it, but the optical finder supplied
    with it is accurate for framing (but that does have rather extreme
    barrel distortion, although the lens has essentially no distortion).
    There is also a useful side-view leveling bubble. The main failing
    of this lens is illumination roll-off toward the corners, but that
    often doesn't show in images, and can be at least partially
    removed if it does. For a photo of it, and one made with it, go
    here: http://www.donferrario.com/ruether/fs-misc-photo.htm.
    --David Ruether
    www.donferrario.com/ruether
     
    David Ruether, Mar 10, 2009
    #5
  6. RichA

    Pboud Guest

    Truly sofisticated people call it "tartar", not "raw"..

    Please try and keep up

    :)

    P.
    (leaving that typo in is truly painful, btw)
     
    Pboud, Mar 10, 2009
    #6
  7. RichA

    Paul Furman Guest

    BTW, I saw this on nikonrumors.com and didn't mention because I figured
    it was a fake... and it is:
    http://nikonrumors.com/2009/02/18/so-was-it-fake.aspx
    Nikon AF-S Nikkor 10-18mm f/4 G ED N

    --
    Paul Furman
    www.edgehill.net
    www.baynatives.com

    all google groups messages filtered due to spam
     
    Paul Furman, Mar 10, 2009
    #7
  8. RichA

    Paul Furman Guest

    There's one case where the Nikon equivalent is less expensive.
    PC-E Nikkor 24mm f/3.5D ED $2,000 (and should come down a bit).

    --
    Paul Furman
    www.edgehill.net
    www.baynatives.com

    all google groups messages filtered due to spam
     
    Paul Furman, Mar 10, 2009
    #8
  9. RichA

    ASAAR Guest

    Only the one that was intentional, obviously. The other typo, as
    a quick check with google shows, is not all that rare.
     
    ASAAR, Mar 10, 2009
    #9
  10. RichA

    Pboud Guest

    sophisticated vs sofisticated was the intentional one; 'course, I'm
    having trouble seeing the other one as well..

    :)
    P.
     
    Pboud, Mar 10, 2009
    #10
  11. RichA

    Me Guest

    In a thread above is a link to comment from Andy Westlake from DPReview
    about lack of innovation in lenses.
    IMO there's ample opportunity for lens makers to churn out an economy
    tilt-shift lens for Dx format cameras, using a simple 35mm manual focus
    design (ie with an existing image circle > dx), which doesn't need to be
    fast, nor does it need to be made with the precision of a scientific
    instrument - looking as if it was precision ground from solid metal.
    $2000 is a very large sum of money for a lens for occasional use.
     
    Me, Mar 10, 2009
    #11
  12. RichA

    Pinaki Guest

    Well, raw meat is spelt "tartare"

    Pinaki.
     
    Pinaki, Mar 10, 2009
    #12
  13. RichA

    Pboud Guest

    DOH!!

    And I even looked it up too..

    :p

    P.
     
    Pboud, Mar 10, 2009
    #13
  14. RichA

    ASAAR Guest

    I thought that it was spelled "tartare", but looked it up just to
    check, and how odd, it wasn't listed in my 2,500 page Random House
    Dictionary. There was a entry for "tartar steak" though, which
    ended with "steak tartare" and "tartare steak" as alternatives.
    Google found more "tartare"s than "tartar"s, and some hits used both
    spellings. The Compact OED only knows about "tartare". We'll
    eventually have a definitive answer from the full OED about proper
    usage(s), and the good news is that work started on the third
    edition several years ago. The bad news is that the next edition's
    expected completion date is 2037. FWIW, my newsreader's spell
    checker accepts "tartar" but rejects "tartare" :)
     
    ASAAR, Mar 10, 2009
    #14
  15. RichA

    Bruce Guest


    That's a pretty lame attempt at "damning with faint praise".

    So instead, let's be honest for a change, and admit that the Nikon 14-24
    produces outstanding results at all focal lengths, all apertures and all
    focusing distances. Period.
     
    Bruce, Mar 10, 2009
    #15
  16. RichA

    Paul Arthur Guest

    No, despite the common misconception that sushi is raw fish, it refers
    to any dish made with vinegared rice. There's no requirement that
    it include raw (or indeed any) meat. The word you're looking for is
    'sashimi'.

    Even then, neither tartare nor sashimi is a generic word for raw meat.
    Tartare is a finely chopped preparation of raw meat or fish, while
    sashimi is a thinly sliced preparation of raw fish.
     
    Paul Arthur, Mar 10, 2009
    #16
  17. RichA

    Me Guest

    Carpaccio - well almost generic.
    Chicken or pork carpaccio should probably be avoided unless celebrating
    last supper.
     
    Me, Mar 11, 2009
    #17
  18. RichA

    Paul Furman Guest

    I've played around with that idea and made a couple home-made lenses
    that way, a 28mm f/3.5 pre-Ai and a 135mm f/2 Ai which I imagined I
    could reassemble but was not able... it was a fairly cheap old junker
    but still kind of dumb move, but I had fun. The 135 works well, the 28
    has a pretty limited range but it's cool that it works out as a normal
    lens on APS.

    28/3.5:
    http://edgehill.net/Misc/photography/11-20-07-bellows-28-3.5/pg2pc11
    135/2:
    http://edgehill.net/California/Bay-Area/San-Francisco/gritty/11-14-07-ship-tel

    --
    Paul Furman
    www.edgehill.net
    www.baynatives.com

    all google groups messages filtered due to spam
     
    Paul Furman, Mar 11, 2009
    #18
  19. RichA

    Ray Fischer Guest

    And if you want such a lens you can have one for around $200:
    www.lensbaby.com
     
    Ray Fischer, Mar 12, 2009
    #19
  20. RichA

    J. Clarke Guest

    Or for higher quality, and the ability to stay where you put it without
    holding it, the ARSAT for around 600.
     
    J. Clarke, Mar 12, 2009
    #20
    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.