Q. What is the sharpest Canon lens?

Discussion in 'Canon' started by Annika1980, Dec 20, 2004.

  1. Annika1980

    Annika1980 Guest

    From: "Skip M"
    I'll send ya my D60 as trade.... uh, I mean collateral.
     
    Annika1980, Dec 22, 2004
    #61
    1. Advertisements

  2. (Skip M) wrote:
    By the time UPS got through with that lens, it wouldn't be sharp
    anymore! <G>
    Besides, if you really liked the lens, it might be the last I ever see
    of it! (Joking, assuredly!)
    ==============================

    I have seen some packages this month that looked like they have been
    through a rough journey, especially the ones wrapped in christmas paper.
    If I was going to ship a lens this month, I think I would pack it in a
    very strong box (plastic cooler) very well sealed and I would wrap the
    lens in much bubblewrap, and don't bother wrapping the package in
    christmas paper, because the chances of it arriving with the paper still
    on or without multiple rips are slim. Any other month than December
    would be better for shipping fragile parcels.



    Cody,

    http://community-2.webtv.net/AnOvercomer02/PhotographyLinks
     
    AnOvercomer 02, Dec 22, 2004
    #62
    1. Advertisements

  3. uraniumcommittee, Dec 22, 2004
    #63
  4. It appears the 200mm 1.8 has been discontinued.
     
    uraniumcommittee, Dec 22, 2004
    #64
  5. Annika1980

    Skip M Guest

    LOL!
     
    Skip M, Dec 22, 2004
    #65
  6. Annika1980

    Bruce Graham Guest

    Out of fashion at canon too. It is no longer listed on the Canon USA or
    Canon Australia (my patch) websites, nor does bhphoto list it. I recall
    an announcement that it was no longer in production. The worlds fashion
    photographers must be fully equipped now. I have no possible use for one
    but I would still love to have one.
     
    Bruce Graham, Dec 22, 2004
    #66
  7. Annika1980

    Bruce Graham Guest

    Flourite my friend, flourite...I read that there is no substitute yet.
     
    Bruce Graham, Dec 22, 2004
    #67
  8. Annika1980

    usenet Guest

    Kibo informs me that (Annika1980) stated that:
    On the bright side, you /know/ a lens is good if they're unobtainable on
    the secondhand market.
    A bunch of pissed-off moths.

    BTW, if you don't own a 50mm prime, you should get the 50mm/F1.8II. It's
    as cheap as a evening of dinner & drinks at a pub, & it's damn sharp. So
    sharp, in fact, that if you photograph women, I strongly recommend that
    you soften up their skin a little in Photoshop before showing them the
    results on anything larger than the LCD.
     
    usenet, Dec 22, 2004
    #68
  9. Fluorite has severe drawbacks.
     
    uraniumcommittee, Dec 22, 2004
    #69
  10. Annika1980

    Alan Browne Guest

    Bandicoot wrote:

    Mikey is not known for rational statements. If he sees the Leica logo he
    assumes it's the best without any foundation.
     
    Alan Browne, Dec 22, 2004
    #70
  11. Annika1980

    Alan Browne Guest

    Non starter Mikey.
     
    Alan Browne, Dec 22, 2004
    #71
  12. Annika1980

    Sander Vesik Guest

    take too sturdy boxes, one somewhat smaller. wrap the item in bublewrap.
    sourond the item with styrofoam pellets in the smaller box (don't forget
    to add some extra so there is slight pressure), then surround the smaller
    box with storofoam pellets in the larger one.
     
    Sander Vesik, Dec 22, 2004
    #72
  13. "Mikey is not known for rational statements. If he sees the Leica logo
    he
    assumes it's the best without any foundation."

    Not correct. Leica makes it company policy to produce the best that can
    be made within the constraints of serial production. As a general rule,
    each lens in the line, when released, is state of the art. It usually
    remains so for quite a number of years.

    That doesn't mean that they remain so forever. But an improved version
    is usually released when feasible.

    The 50mm f/1,4 Summilux for the M camera, which was recently redesigned
    with an aspheric design, had been on the market since 1962! To be sure,
    the new version eclipses the 1962 version. But the 1962 version was
    quite good nonetheless. It was so good that it remained unchanged for
    40 years!

    It's all a matter of cost, too. To wit:

    "The glass selection for the new Summilux is very interesting. There is
    one glass element in the new lens, whose cost is higher than the cost
    of all seven glass elements in the previous model of the Summilux."

    (See:
    http://www.imx.nl/photosite/leica/mseries/SummiluxASPH/s14-50.html)

    The usable life of Leica lenses is much greater than the typical
    Japanese lens, even Nikon and Canon pro lenses. That's because of the
    materials and construction used. After a great deal of use, other
    lenses will start to deteriorate. Not Leica lenses.
    http://www.imx.nl/photosite/leica/mseries/SummiluxASPH/s14-50.html
     
    uraniumcommittee, Dec 22, 2004
    #73
  14. "
    Alan Browne Dec 22, 7:55 am show options
    Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
    From: Alan Browne <> - Find messages
    by this author
    Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2004 10:55:13 -0500
    Local: Wed, Dec 22 2004 7:55 am
    Subject: Re: Q. What is the sharpest Canon lens?
    Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
    original | Report Abuse

    Non starter Mikey."

    It does.
    See:

    http://www.nikon.com.sg/PRODUCT/LENSES/NikonLensTech_II.htm
     
    uraniumcommittee, Dec 22, 2004
    #74
  15. Annika1980

    Alan Browne Guest

    Alan Browne, Dec 22, 2004
    #75
  16. The fact that Nikon and Leica won't use it isn't good enough for you?
     
    uraniumcommittee, Dec 22, 2004
    #76
  17. Yeah, it's expensive.

    Any others?
     
    Brian C. Baird, Dec 22, 2004
    #77
  18. Funny, coming from Nikon who has Canon as a main competitor. Canon and
    their fluorite elements on their longer lenses have made Nikon more or
    less a no-show in the sports world.

    There's also the possibility Nikon has never figured out how to properly
    make fluorite elements...

    But that wouldn't enter your perfect world, would it?
     
    Brian C. Baird, Dec 22, 2004
    #78
  19. It's hard to work with and Leica, for one, doesn't feel its advantages
    are sufficient to make it worth adopting. Leica has access to glass
    that the other firms don't, which is part of the reason.
     
    uraniumcommittee, Dec 22, 2004
    #79
  20. "Brian C. Baird"

    In a perfect world usenet contributors would know what they're
    talking about. I'd guess it was Canon's lead on Image Stabilization
    that had the greater impact in the sports world. If you can look
    at photos and tell which lens had flourite I'd be very impressed.
     
    Fletis Humplebacker, Dec 22, 2004
    #80
    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.