Q. What is the sharpest Canon lens?

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

  1. Annika1980

    Annika1980 Guest

    From:
    Ah yes, 1967! Mission Impossible, Star Trek, Gilligan's Island, The Beverly
    Hillbillies, Gomer Pyle, & Leica.

    I wonder how many people still watch TV on televisions built in 1967? Nuff
    said....
     
    Annika1980, Dec 23, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  2. Annika1980

    Lisa Horton Guest

    Doesn't that speak more to the impressive fact that Leica lenses made in
    1967 are often still not only usable, but even very good, while few
    other consumer items from the same period are still useful, if even
    usable.

    OTOH, in 1967 I was using my first "real" camera, a Retina S1, made in
    Germany by I forget who. A couple of years ago I purchased a similar
    camera from the same time, an S2, and ran some film though it. The
    exposures were decent or better, and the image quality looked similar to
    pictures I took in 1967, making it still a usable camera. How many of
    today's P&S cameras will still be usable 36 years from today?

    Lisa
     
    Lisa Horton, Dec 23, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  3. (Sander Vesik) wrote:
    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.
    ==============================

    And hope the two cardboard boxes don't get crushed. The good thing is
    that UPS has good insurance and will reimburse for damages.



    Cody,

    http://community-2.webtv.net/AnOvercomer02/PhotographyLinks
     
    AnOvercomer 02, Dec 23, 2004
  4. Annika1980

    Skip M Guest

    In '67, I had just gotten my first "real" camera, an Exacta II.
    It was stolen about 10 years later, but I still have its replacement, an
    Exacta VX II.
     
    Skip M, Dec 23, 2004
  5. Annika1980

    McLeod Guest

    I still own a black Nikon F that takes very good pictures and the
    value has increased 10 times over from what I paid for it.
     
    McLeod, Dec 23, 2004
  6. Annika1980

    Roxy Durban Guest

    I'd sooner listen to the Pope's opinions on photographic equipment than
    Ken Rockwell's, thank you very much.
     
    Roxy Durban, Dec 23, 2004
  7. Annika1980

    Randy Howard Guest

    Adjust for inflation sometime. :)
     
    Randy Howard, Dec 23, 2004
  8. Oh my, how can you *POSSIBLY* take a photo without advanced electronic
    circuits?
    Can't be done!

    FYI: Many of my best lenses were designed in the 1950's...
     
    Chris Loffredo, Dec 23, 2004

  9. Yes, but in Leica's case the allowed tollerances are within a very few
    (don't know the exact figure) percentage points of the reference.
    In practice the difference from the "lab darling" will be negligible.

    Sigma, for example, has a vastly wider tollerance (assuming it has any
    limit at all!) and certainly doesn't check each lens.

    Most other manufacturers (i.e. Nikon, Canon) are somewhere in between:
    They (mostly try to) make sure sure no dogs get out, but the variation
    from the reference can be quite large.

    In short, Leica's reference chart will apply to most of their production.
    With other companies, on average, the reference lens will be better than
    most production lenses.

    Real life: I went through 4 Nikkor 35mm f/2.0 (AI) lenses (known for
    it's wide sample variation) before settling on the one I now have.
    I've compared my 35mm f/2.0 Summicron to at least 4 others without
    finding any difference in the results.

    Chris
     
    Chris Loffredo, Dec 23, 2004
  10. Annika1980

    Chris Brown Guest

    ....hysterical laughter snipped. Presumably it's the sound you make when you
    realise that your stupidly expensive telephoto lens that is a stop slower
    than similar Canon lenses, or not as long, and has no stabiliser, is not
    only projecting onto a postage stamp, it's having to project onto a 1600 ISO
    (yuck!) postage stamp to stand any chance of getting an image that's not
    blurred into insignificance by camera shake.

    ....and while you were setting the heavy tripod up, to use your slow,
    non-stabilised lens, with your grainy high ISO postage stamp (you too can
    emulate all the image quality of a CoolPix 950!), the Canon guys have taken
    their (handheld) shots, gone home, downloaded and printed the 16 megapixel
    output, and are having a beer.

    Still, it has to be said that small format film, or digital systems are a
    necessary evil when you want to do extreme telephoto work. Nobody makes the
    lenses for a decently sized bit of film.
     
    Chris Brown, Dec 23, 2004
  11. Annika1980

    Roxy Durban Guest

    Lisa, you're OLD!

    In the summer of love I was swimming around with billions of other
    chancers, hoping to find an egg. Cameras were the last thing on my mind!
     
    Roxy Durban, Dec 23, 2004
  12. I'll be running for Pope pretty soon. I ran for Pope twice in 1978, but
    nobody voted for me. Maybe because I'm an atheist.
     
    uraniumcommittee, Dec 23, 2004
  13. "Presumably it's the sound you make when you realise that your stupidly
    expensive telephoto lens that is a stop slower than similar Canon
    lenses..."

    HUH? 400 f/2,8, 560 f/4,0, 800mm f5,6? What are you talking about?

    And with the Leica modular system, you can get all theree focal lengths
    with one head!

    "...or not as long...."

    You need longer than 800mm?

    "...., and has no stabiliser..."

    These are tripod-mount lenses, dingdong!

    "..., is not only projecting onto a postage stamp...."

    Just like the Canon

    "..., it's having to project onto a 1600 ISO (yuck!) postage stamp to
    stand any chance of getting an image that's not blurred into
    insignificance by camera shake."

    HUH? Do you suffer from cerebral palsy?
    These are tripod-mount lenses, no matter who makes them.
     
    uraniumcommittee, Dec 23, 2004
  14. Annika1980

    Annika1980 Guest

    From: Chris Loffredo
    Sounds like you're due for an upgrade.
     
    Annika1980, Dec 23, 2004
  15. The Leica 50mm Summilux-M (f/1,4 for rangefinder Leicas) was just
    recently redesigned. The predecessor was from 1962. It took Leica 40
    years to improve upon it, and it took aspherical surfaces and new, VERY
    expensive glass to accomplish the feat.
     
    uraniumcommittee, Dec 23, 2004
  16. Annika1980

    Chris Brown Guest

    The 600mm f/4 USM IS L for a start. The only lens you linked to that was
    600mm or more was f/5.6
    Clearly someone does. That's why Canon have a 1200mm f/5.6
    Sheesh, and people accuse *me* of being stuck in the 1950s with my TLR and
    folder collection. You are seriously misinformed as to the capabilities of
    stablisers. One can get consistently sharp results from Canon's IS system
    *handholding* at 1/60 with focal lengths in excess of 500mm. I've taken
    handheld shots of waterskiers from the back of the boat that was pulling
    them with an IS lens handheld. The results give sharp 12*8 inch prints which
    show no evidence of camera-shake.

    Next time you see footage of celebrities arriving somewhere, which shows the
    presspack all standing there with their BWL (Big White Lenses), notice that
    they generally *aren't* using tripods, or even monopods in many cases.

    Sheesh, how the other half lives!
    Quite so, and I do own both Canon and Leica 35mm glass. The difference is, I
    don't spend all my time posting deluded rants about image quality when,
    ironically, these lenses are all being used to project onto what is pretty
    much the smallest viable film format for half-decent quality photography.
    For the 1200mm, certainly, but the 400s with IS are handholdable with ease,
    and the 600 is with a bit of dedication. The stabiliser is there because it
    *works*. An extreme telephoto without it these days isn't properly dressed.
     
    Chris Brown, Dec 23, 2004
  17. "The 600mm f/4 USM IS L for a start. The only lens you linked to that
    was
    600mm or more was f/5.6"

    560 is essentially 600mm. Don't quibble about 40mm. It makes you look
    stupid.
    "Clearly someone does. That's why Canon have a 1200mm f/5.6"

    Nikon doesn't, that I can see. It's hard to justify a lens that long,
    simply because of air disturbance due to heat, and because of haze and
    dust in the air.
    "Sheesh, and people accuse *me* of being stuck in the 1950s with my TLR
    and
    folder collection. You are seriously misinformed as to the capabilities
    of
    stablisers. One can get consistently sharp results from Canon's IS
    system
    *handholding* at 1/60 with focal lengths in excess of 500mm. I've taken
    handheld shots of waterskiers from the back of the boat that was
    pulling
    them with an IS lens handheld. The results give sharp 12*8 inch prints
    which
    show no evidence of camera-shake."

    Lenses that big and heavy need support. I have a Leitz 560mm f/6,8
    Telyt that is very light and easily hand-holdable, with wich I have
    taken PERFECTLY sharp photos at 1/30 sec. It has no stabilizer nor
    needs one. The functional speed of this lens is closer to f/6, so don't
    say it's too slow. It's actually a very nice lens for hand-holding
    becaus eit is very light. But the lenses you're talking about are
    tripod lenses.

    "Next time you see footage of celebrities arriving somewhere, which
    shows the
    presspack all standing there with their BWL (Big White Lenses), notice
    that
    they generally *aren't* using tripods, or even monopods in many cases."

    What the **** do I care what those morons are using?


    "Quite so, and I do own both Canon and Leica 35mm glass. The difference
    is, I
    don't spend all my time posting deluded rants about image quality when,
    ironically, these lenses are all being used to project onto what is
    pretty
    much the smallest viable film format for half-decent quality
    photography."

    Ever see what Kodachrome can do?
    "For the 1200mm, certainly, but the 400s with IS are handholdable with
    ease,
    and the 600 is with a bit of dedication. The stabiliser is there
    because it
    *works*. An extreme telephoto without it these days isn't properly
    dressed."

    Idiotic.
     
    uraniumcommittee, Dec 23, 2004
  18. Nikon does offer such a lens, albeit without AF: the 5.6-8/1200-1700 zoom.
    These lenses are not used mainly for very distant objects, but
    for sports photography, in particular baseball.

    Regards,
    Chris
     
    Christoph Breitkopf, Dec 23, 2004
  19. Annika1980

    Lisa Horton Guest

    I never claimed otherwise :) In fact, I've alluded to my advanced age a
    number of times.
    Shall I tell you about the time I saw the Grateful Dead perform on the
    back of a flatbed truck in the Golden Gate Park panhandle? Powered by
    an extension cord running across a 4 lane busy street? :)

    Lisa
     
    Lisa Horton, Dec 23, 2004
  20. Annika1980

    Bill Tuthill Guest

    Photodo score 3.9, whoop dee doo.
    Thanks for sending me to Ken Rockwell's website, I love pop-ups.

    Do all medium format lenses have lower MTF than 35mm lenses?
     
    Bill Tuthill, Dec 23, 2004
    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.