Home News Buyers Guide About Advertising
 
 
 
   
Page 15 of 15 FirstFirst ... 5131415
Results 141 to 148 of 148
  1. #141
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    New Hampshire, USA
    Posts
    333
    Quote Originally Posted by Peekayoh View Post
    In 40 years, I have yet to suffer impact damage to the front element of a lens.
    Having now tempted fate, I await with resignation.....
    I hope you were knocking on wood when you said that...
    -Paul-
    Canon 7D - Canon 17-55 IS USM - Canon 70-200mm f/4 IS - Canon 50mm f/1.8 - Sigma 30mm f/1.4 - Sigma 10-20 f4-5.6 - Canon 430EX II Speedlite


  2. #142
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Des Plaines, IL
    Posts
    9,554

    Thumbs down Those nasty little fingers ...

    I do not know how much experience you have had mounting the AF CZ 135mm f/1.8 lens. I have to tell you, for its size it is quite a piece of heavy glass. Adding the lens hood makes it only that much heavier. In fact, so much so, that the front ring of the optic is stressed and more than a few folks have actually damaged the lens (necessitating its subsequent repair) by using the lens hood regularly.

    That is not my experience, but I suppose it may lie in my future. Anyway, the chance of getting fingerprints on your front element while mounting this particular lens are ... very high. Those fingerprints can cause glare in your images and should be wiped clean. Having a prophylactic-filter (e.g., UV or CLEAR) can reduce that problem, as if it does get finger-printed, you can easily remove it and shoot print free, then quickly screw it back on when you are finished. Anyway, that has been my experience with this lens. I still would like to know that if I did decide to shoot THROUGH the UV-filter, my autofocus would be a clean one ... but as it currently stands, IT IS NOT.

    Hence, I am going to the expense of popping for a an ULTRA-CLEAR filter and trying it out. It should be here by the end of the week.
    Last edited by DonSchap; 01-05-2010 at 10:34 PM.
    Don Schap - BFA, Digital Photography
    A Photographer Is Forever
    Look, I did not create the optical laws of the Universe ... I simply learned to deal with them.
    Remember: It is usually the GLASS, not the camera (except for moving to Full Frame), that gives you the most improvement in your photography.

    flickr & Sdi

  3. #143
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Raleigh, NC, USA
    Posts
    788
    I would do the same thing Don does. If I was shooting professionally and could easily afford to replace a $1500 lens, but couldn't afford to blow a shot, I wouldn't. But with my more expensive lenses I use a UV filter and when I am doing something more important (like shooting a wedding) I take it off and keep the hood on.

    At first I questioned if even a higher quality UV filter would help the AF issues, it seems like you still might get some funky glare or doubling that would cause problems, but hopefully better quality glass and coatings will fix that issue. I'm interested to hear how it turns out.
    Jason Hamilton
    Selective Frame

    EOS 5D - Canon EF 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 USM, EF 35 f/2, EF 50mm f/1.8 Mk II, EF 70-210 f/3.5-4.5 USM, EF 85mm f/1.8 USM, EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro, Helios 44-2 58mm f/2 (with EOS adapter), 430EX, Canon S90
    Nikon FE - Nikkor 35mm f/2 AI'd, Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 AI, Nikkor 105mm f/2.5 AI, F to EF adapter, 2xVivitar 285, other lighting stuff
    Mamiya C220 - 80mm f/2.8

    Gear List flickr

  4. #144
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Raleigh, NC, USA
    Posts
    788
    This full frame business has been a bit tough on the wallet. With my limited resources I have had to turn to the tried and true practice of primes. I am currently without a wide-angle shorter than 35, and only own one zoom right now, which typically stays at home. It is a good (but old lens) but I rarely use that range. All of my lenses except the 85 are 1990ish designs, and the 100 and 70-210 haven't been made since then.

    I have started to see the stress that a FF sensor puts on your optics. The Tamron version of the K-M 17-35 that has been the source of some of the recent discussion in this thread was seeming interesting to me, but it seems like you guys have discovered it to be optically questionable.

    At one point I read where someone guessed that Tokina and Tamron worked together on their 17-35 2.8-4, but I'm pretty sure Tokina, Tamron, and Sigma are no more likely to work together than Burger King and McDonalds on a hamburger. I do however feel pretty confident to make the assumption that the Tamron and K-M versions are twins.
    Jason Hamilton
    Selective Frame

    EOS 5D - Canon EF 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 USM, EF 35 f/2, EF 50mm f/1.8 Mk II, EF 70-210 f/3.5-4.5 USM, EF 85mm f/1.8 USM, EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro, Helios 44-2 58mm f/2 (with EOS adapter), 430EX, Canon S90
    Nikon FE - Nikkor 35mm f/2 AI'd, Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 AI, Nikkor 105mm f/2.5 AI, F to EF adapter, 2xVivitar 285, other lighting stuff
    Mamiya C220 - 80mm f/2.8

    Gear List flickr

  5. #145
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Monmouthshire, UK
    Posts
    2,152
    Quote Originally Posted by laydros View Post
    Do you typically use a lens hood?
    50/50
    Quote Originally Posted by fdexclpl View Post
    I hope you were knocking on wood when you said that...
    Everything crossed.
    Quote Originally Posted by DonSchap View Post
    I do not know how much experience you have had mounting the AF CZ 135mm f/1.8 lens.......
    None.
    Quote Originally Posted by DonSchap View Post
    ..... Anyway, the chance of getting fingerprints on your front element while mounting this particular lens

    are ... very high. .......
    I always have the lens cap on until I'm composing the shot, and it goes back on straight after. I've never had a problem with fingerprints, not on a lens anyway.
    Quote Originally Posted by laydros View Post
    I would do the same thing Don does. If I was shooting professionally and could easily afford to replace a $1500 lens, but couldn't afford to blow a shot, I wouldn't. .........
    I doubt a pro would be happy at having to replace a lens. Probably he'd choose the cheaper option and send it in for a new front element.

    I may be on my own here but I can't see the point of buying quality glass and then shoving a window on the front, especially when a modicum of care and good practice negates most of the problems. No matter how good the filter it's still an extra piece of unwanted glass or resin between subject and lens.

    Quote Originally Posted by laydros View Post
    This full frame business has been a bit tough on the wallet. With my limited resources I have had to turn to the tried and true practice of primes. I am currently without a wide-angle shorter than 35, and only own one zoom right now, which typically stays at home. It is a good (but old lens) but I rarely use that range. All of my lenses except the 85 are 1990ish designs, and the 100 and 70-210 haven't been made since then. .........
    Nothing wrong with Primes, they concentrate the mind.
    Nothing wrong with old glass, I have a bunch of it. My only new glass is the 70-300mm G.

    Quote Originally Posted by laydros View Post
    I have started to see the stress that a FF sensor puts on your optics. The Tamron version of the K-M 17-35 that has been the source of some of the recent discussion in this thread was seeming interesting to me, but it seems like you guys have discovered it to be optically questionable. .........
    I don't want to mislead anyone about this lens, I use it and have used it a lot with good results. Only when compared to the Zeiss does it come up short and that's only in the corners, looking at the centre of an image you'd be hard pressed to pick a winner. Stop down to f8/f11 and the corners are not that far behind the Zeiss. The same goes for the MAF 17-35mm G; it's not as good as the Zeiss and not sufficiently better in the corners than the KMAF 17-35mm to make it worth the change (for me).

    Make no mistake I would thoroughly recommend the lens especially on APS-C where the corner performance is much better and, of course, it wins hands down on price.

    Here's a Black Forest Lanscape ..

    Camera: Sony DSLR-A700
    Lens: KMAF 17-35mm f2.8-4
    Exposure: 1/200th at f8
    Focal Length: 17mm (26mm equivelent)
    ISO Speed: 200
    24th August 2009
    Name:  BF Landscape.jpg
Views: 107
Size:  1.04 MB


    and here's some 100% crops ..
    Name:  BF Landscape Crops.jpg
Views: 107
Size:  2.41 MB

  6. #146
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Des Plaines, IL
    Posts
    9,554

    Red face Letting wide decide?

    In most of my efforts, the KM AF 17-35mm f/2.8-4 "D" has been a very "acceptable" shot. I think I would find myself hard-pressed to imagine the exceptional need for the SONY CZ 16-35mm f/2.8, if I did not already have enough glass to stuff a whale with.

    If you only have room for three lenses ... the choice would be pretty clear as to what would be best ... providing your wallet can truly afford it all. Again, as I always do ... I ask, "Can your photography afford to be without the Zeiss solution?"

    For now, the answer is ... "yes, quite." But then again, I reserve the right to change my mind, should the "need" arise and I do happen to have another $2000 that needs disposal of.
    Last edited by DonSchap; 01-05-2010 at 10:51 PM.
    Don Schap - BFA, Digital Photography
    A Photographer Is Forever
    Look, I did not create the optical laws of the Universe ... I simply learned to deal with them.
    Remember: It is usually the GLASS, not the camera (except for moving to Full Frame), that gives you the most improvement in your photography.

    flickr & Sdi

  7. #147
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Des Plaines, IL
    Posts
    9,554

    Thumbs up Satisfaction at last!

    Quote Originally Posted by DonSchap View Post
    Hence, I am going to the expense of popping for a an ULTRA-CLEAR filter and trying it out. It should be here by the end of the week.
    Okay, mounted the Tiffen Digital Hi-Trans Titanium Multi-Coated Filter and ...

    WOW! , that's a crackin' shot. As close as I have looked at it, it seems equally as clear as shooting the CZ 135mm f/1.8 "naked." A tremendous improvement over the Hoya (Calumet) UV filter I was trying to use.

    So, I have solved the "filter-covered" lens issue to my satisfaction ... and believe me, I do not take this lightly. Screw UV filters ... I am sticking with the ULTRA-CLEAR.

    Now, while I realize there are only a few members using this particular lens, but I tend to believe that if you satisfy the optical condition this one, you have found your answer for nearly everything else. Call it an "optical metric", if you will.

    The 77mm is the same filter-ring diameter for nearly all the important SONY/Zeiss lenses:
    • 16-35mm f/2.8
    • 24-70mm f/2.8
    • 70-200mm f/2.8 G SSM
    • 70-400mm f/4-5.6 G SSM
    • 135mm f/1.8


    and as such, buying a set (ULTRA-CLEAR & Circular Polarizing) of high-performance 77mm filters will go along way in future lens purchases. It also covers the 77mm K-M/TAMRON AF 17-35mm f/2.8-4 and 77mm SIGMA AF 10-20mm f/4-5.6.

    You can always employ the use of a step-down ring to fit other diameter rings, such as the 72mm CZ 85mm f/1.4 or the 67mm SONY/Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8

    Also, the B+W Kaesemann Polarizer is also a grand filter, looking very crisp when tested. (I would hope so ... whew, pricey)

    Anyway, I am happy to announce that a long and painful process has come to an end ... with a very positive result.
    Last edited by DonSchap; 05-13-2010 at 09:25 PM.
    Don Schap - BFA, Digital Photography
    A Photographer Is Forever
    Look, I did not create the optical laws of the Universe ... I simply learned to deal with them.
    Remember: It is usually the GLASS, not the camera (except for moving to Full Frame), that gives you the most improvement in your photography.

    flickr & Sdi

  8. #148
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Des Plaines, IL
    Posts
    9,554

    Smile A glass grab ...

    Quote Originally Posted by DonSchap View Post
    Anyway, I am happy to announce that a long and painful process has come to an end ... with a very positive result.
    Well, as with anything photographic, "the end is near" is a load of horse dung. I have embarked on making an optical upgrade to the bag, in the form of SIGMA.



    Yeah, I know ... but, I have to say that in the past five years, some SIGMA glass was rather testy, requiring its return and alignment. I found my 10-20mm in immediate need of "optical alignment", as soon as I cracked the box. Three weeks later, I had it back and it was looking good. Still, a shipping debacle I would have rather missed.

    Now, the HSM role raises it head ... to improve overall performance. In a bold move, I have decided to move ahead and grab both the super wide (on a FF) AF 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 DG EX HSM Aspherical (21.2 oz) and the Zeiss-challenger AF 24-70mm f/2.8 DG EX IF HSM (27.9 oz).

    Name:  12-24&24-70mm_EX_DG_HSM.jpg
Views: 41
Size:  210.0 KB

    Price-wise, I wind up with BOTH lenses for just $26 more than the CZ 24-70 f/2.8 (33 oz) sells for, alone. Of course, that is ignoring the purchase of the obligatory 82mm Kaeseman CP-filter (which is also usable on my SIGMA AF 20mm f/1.8 DG EX lens. It's a split-decision, on that one.).

    Name:  SAL2470Z.jpg
Views: 44
Size:  114.9 KB

    Review after review has the SIGMA 24-70 so close to the Zeiss 24-70, that they literally tumble all over each other, in various performance points. Well, I am willing to give the SIGMA a solid position in my lens bag and prove it to me. I hope it does perform to my satisfaction and if it doesn't ... the SONY can always come to the rescue, later.

    If all goes well, this could be complete by week's end. The "2010 Glass Improvement Plan" rolls on ... next stop ... Geez ... don't say it too loud.
    Last edited by DonSchap; 05-13-2010 at 09:19 PM.
    Don Schap - BFA, Digital Photography
    A Photographer Is Forever
    Look, I did not create the optical laws of the Universe ... I simply learned to deal with them.
    Remember: It is usually the GLASS, not the camera (except for moving to Full Frame), that gives you the most improvement in your photography.

    flickr & Sdi

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •