True to form, Canon releases another mediocre "film" lens

Discussion in 'Canon' started by RichA, Sep 2, 2008.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    RichA, Sep 2, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. RichA

    ransley Guest

    ransley, Sep 2, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. RichA

    RichA Guest

    They are being "kind." If they even mention the thing is "soft and
    dreamy" wide open you can BET resolution is likely under 1000 lines.
    But Dpreview's language in Canon reviews is renowned for being "soft
    served."
     
    RichA, Sep 2, 2008
    #3
  4. 2 questions:
    - Which film cameras can mount EF-S lenses?
    - What part of "introduced in June 1993" did confuse you?


    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Sep 2, 2008
    #4
  5. RichA

    RichA Guest

    You are absolutely right, they did release it in 1993. 1993. 15
    frigging years ago. And they STILL haven't updated it for digital.
    Rebadging it doesn't change it's 1930s design, does it?
     
    RichA, Sep 3, 2008
    #5
  6. RichA

    Ray Fischer Guest


    _____________________
    /| /| | |
    ||__|| | Do not feed the |
    / O O\__ | trolls. Thank you. |
    / \ | --Mgt. |
    / \ \|_____________________|
    / _ \ \ ||
    / |\____\ \ ||
    / | | | |\____/ ||
    / \|_|_|/ | _||
    / / \ |____| ||
    / | | | --|
    | | | |____ --|
    * _ | |_|_|_| | \-/
    *-- _--\ _ \ | ||
    / _ \\ | / `
    * / \_ /- | | |
    * ___ c_c_c_C/ \C_c_c_c____________
     
    Ray Fischer, Sep 3, 2008
    #6
  7. RichA

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Do you even know what "updated it for digital" means, troll?
    Do you believe that glass behaves differently when the sensor is
    electronic vs. chemical?

    And by the way, moron, Sigma's lens is twice the size of Canon's and
    $150 more expensive. Not important to you since you don't actually
    use either, but important to people who have to carry lenses.
     
    Ray Fischer, Sep 3, 2008
    #7
  8. RichA

    Me Guest

    This post is inconsistent with your other reply to the OP in this thread.
     
    Me, Sep 3, 2008
    #8
  9. RichA

    Guest Guest

    You are absolutely right, they did release it in 1993. 1993. 15
    frigging years ago. And they STILL haven't updated it for digital.
    Rebadging it doesn't change it's 1930s design, does it?

    There aren't any 1930's 50mm f:1.4 lens designs! The current Canon 50/1.4
    dates from around 1971, so what! The Nikon 45mm pancake is a Tessar dating
    from 1903.

    How about showing us your lens designs Mr. Anderson, the only aperture you
    know is the one your head is stuck up.
     
    Guest, Sep 3, 2008
    #9
  10. RichA

    ASAAR Guest

    Canon's f/1.8 version also does very well at f/4.0 and smaller
    apertures, and it's hard to find a better buy. Canon's f/1.4 is
    *much* more expensive and Sigma's f/1.4 even more so. The
    photographers that pay such a premium are usually those that shoot
    in low light and need the widest apertures. For them, Sigma's f/1.4
    delivers where Canon's f/1.4 doesn't. As a bonus, Sigma f/1.4
    owners can add for very little additional money Canon's f/1.8 lens
    (with its small size and weight) for situations where wide apertures
    aren't called for. You wouldn't get the best of both worlds if both
    the f/1.4 and f/1.8 lenses were made by Canon. As a bonus the f/1.4
    lens is one of Sigma's products that has no Foveon heritage to hide.
     
    ASAAR, Sep 3, 2008
    #10
  11. RichA

    RichA Guest

    It obviously does, you don't understand the differences, go read about
    it.
     
    RichA, Sep 3, 2008
    #11
  12. RichA

    RichA Guest

    Even Canon realizes they have to modernize their designs if they want
    to at least provide decent lenses for increasingly high resolution
    cameras. Too bad you don't.
     
    RichA, Sep 3, 2008
    #12
  13. RichA

    RichA Guest

    I'd give Sigma many points for updated that hoary old design, I only
    hope they can maintain some level of quality, unlike with other lenses
    they produce. Also, their 30mm f1.4 was a "new" design incorporating
    low-dispersion glass, which did a good job on the colour error issue
    such a lens would experience, but the residual spherical aberration
    when the lens is wide open is terrible, and the less is far less sharp
    with lower contrast at all apertures than either Nikon or Pentax's
    35mm f.20 lenses. In such a case, given the 1.4 aperture produced
    such poor images, it almost renders the speed gain useless.
     
    RichA, Sep 3, 2008
    #13
  14. RichA

    Pete D Guest

    Actually Ray you are wrong here and Rich is right, it happens mate but you
    need to have a look what happens with crop sensors.

    Cheers.

    Pete
     
    Pete D, Sep 3, 2008
    #14
  15. RichA

    Robert Coe Guest

    : >
    : > > When will they start designing for digital sensors? They've been
    : > > beaten in image quality (according to Dpreview) by a frigging Sigma!
    : >
    : > >http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/canon_50_1p4_c16/page6.asp
    : >
    : > Image quality is only an 8 at dpreview
    :
    : They are being "kind." If they even mention the thing is "soft and
    : dreamy" wide open you can BET resolution is likely under 1000 lines.
    : But Dpreview's language in Canon reviews is renowned for being "soft
    : served."

    I just had a really radical thought, Rich: If you don't like the lens, don't
    buy it.

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Sep 4, 2008
    #15
  16. RichA

    Ray Fischer Guest

    He's insecure. He needs to get everybody to buy into his agenda so
    he'll feel validated.
     
    Ray Fischer, Sep 4, 2008
    #16
  17. RichA

    Ray Fischer Guest

    You're an obvious idiot and troll.
     
    Ray Fischer, Sep 4, 2008
    #17
  18. RichA

    RichA Guest

    And therefore you have no right to voice an opinion of it, unless you
    buy it?? If you ever venture an opinion on something you don't own,
    do you want to be called to task too?
     
    RichA, Sep 4, 2008
    #18
  19. RichA

    RichA Guest

    The more you post (ironically, responding to every post you call a
    troll) the more it's clear you know very little.
     
    RichA, Sep 4, 2008
    #19
  20. You didn't answer the first question.
    So? The RichA-design is a couple million years old, and if
    you do ignore the rebadging, it's many million years old.
    Still no upgrade for intelligence, only "intelligent design"
    stickers on the box.


    Do tell me:
    1. Why haven't you been upgraded, when it's clear you
    underperform badly (I guess you even haven't had the
    "digital" upgrade yet!)?
    2. Why should Canon change a well working, proven design?
    3. What film cameras can mount EF-S lenses?

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Sep 4, 2008
    #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.