Home News Buyers Guide About Advertising
 
 
 
   
Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 67
  1. #31
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Des Plaines, IL
    Posts
    9,560
    The fact is, without a digital coating on the rear element, the chances are quite good that any highlight can proliferate in your image as it reflects back and forth between the sensor's reflectiver surface and the reflective uncoated element. Remember the word "ghosting" ... you might enjoy it, but I do not.

    Anyway ... it is one of the aspects I would like corrected before I plunk that kind of cash down on an optic. Call it ... reciprocity.

    BTW: Have you ever played your lens' serial numbers in the lottery? LOL
    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

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Chicago, IL USA
    Posts
    935
    Quote Originally Posted by r3g View Post
    U think so? How come? I just bought the 17-50 a few weeks ago and have a Sigma EX lens and I feel like the build quality is fine. Sure its plastic where the Sigma is metal but honestly its nice cuz the lens is much lighter. If the mounting wasnt metal then maybe I'd complain a bit. Just my opinion of course.

    As for the place for third party lenses, I agree that they will always hold an important roll. Can the Tamron go toe to toe with the Nikon? Prolly not.. But honestly in real world use could you tell the difference between the 2 without pixel hunting? Prolly not. So why spend 4 digital for a relatively small gain? Leave that to the pros who have the money to do so.
    Optically the Tamron is considered the best of the third party 17(18)-50/2.8 zooms, but I was never convinced of its build. For being a "professional" lens, it's still made of plastic, and I felt this was a bit unacceptable for the price. In addition, I've never been too impressed with Tamron's focusing. I know Sigma can be a bit hit or miss too, but the Tammy's are very loud and typically slow. My Sigma is not a dream lens either but for the price, I feel it was worth it over the Nikkor and I prefer its build over the Tamron.

    Now, I do own the Nikkor 12-24/4 which is also made of plastic. For $1000 and that gold ring on the front, many consider that unacceptable. Yeah, it is a bit of a disappointment, but its build is actually very good despite its outer shell. The AF-S is very fast, its nice and contrasty, optically it is very good (with the exception of 12mm f/4), and compared to the other offerings at the time (Sigma 10-20, Tamron 11-17, Tokina 12-24) I preferred it over the rest. Many argue the Tokina is the better choice, but its CA's and screw drive autofocus (with strange clutch mechanism) were a bit of a turn off to me.
    Nikon D300 | MB-D10 | Nikkor 12-24/4 | Nikkor 50/1.8 | Nikkor 70-200/2.8 VRI | Sigma 18-50/2.8 | SB-800 | SB-80DX (x4) | Radiopopper JrX Studio |

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Wild, Wonderful, Wyoming
    Posts
    1,043
    Quote Originally Posted by DonSchap View Post
    The fact is, without a digital coating on the rear element, the chances are quite good that any highlight can proliferate in your image as it reflects back and forth between the sensor's reflectiver surface and the reflective uncoated element. Remember the word "ghosting" ... you might enjoy it, but I do not.

    Anyway ... it is one of the aspects I would like corrected before I plunk that kind of cash down on an optic. Call it ... reciprocity.

    BTW: Have you ever played your lens' serial numbers in the lottery? LOL
    Lens coatings have been around for over 70 years, lens coatings have been widespread for over 60 years, most if not all lenses have been multicoated since the mid '70s. Most of the DI hype is just that: hype. It's a way to sell to you again what you already own, call it one for the price of two.

    Just like the new "digital" speaker systems that came out in the '80s, just a new way to sell you again what you already had. I'll put my non DI L lenses up against any of your DI lenses any day. I just spent some time on the Zeiss site and I couldn't find any mention of DI, DX, or D anything. Camera lens for SLR or DSLR was all I could find. I guess they don't need to maximize for digital...
    A good photograph is knowing where to stand.
    Ansel Adams

    Rule books are paper, they will not cushion a sudden meeting of stone and metal.
    Ernest K. Gann-Fate is the Hunter.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Monmouthshire, UK
    Posts
    2,152
    Quote Originally Posted by TenD View Post
    And man does God supply some kind of light! Taken with the inferior 6mp crop camera body with a 17-40 f/4 lens. You're right it's crap.

    For goodness sake Don, it's one stop! I can speed up (ISO) and still beat fast glass on your system. Have a look up and down your collection...it's not very fast for the most part is it?
    Really nice image TenD, and I agree that, more often than not, an f4 lens is more than adequate.

    Don, there you go again, talking up these super "digital coatings", doing the Marketing Mens work and reinforcing the bull****.
    I've said it before but it obviously needs repeating. A good lens coating is just as beneficial for film as it is for digital. If the lens performed well on a film camera it will perform well on a digital SLR.

    Quote Originally Posted by DonSchap View Post
    The fact is, without a digital coating on the rear element, the chances are quite good that any highlight can proliferate in your image as it reflects back and forth between the sensor's reflectiver surface and the reflective uncoated element. Remember the word "ghosting" ... you might enjoy it, but I do not.....
    This is just plain wrong. The phenomenon you refer to is the dreaded "centre spot" but the reflection comes from the flat surface of the aperture and not from the rear lens element; more often than not you can make out the distinctive shape of the iris blades. This condition can be worse with a digital camera because, although film is more reflective than the digital sensor, sensor reflections are specular in nature; the Fuji S1 was particularly prone to this effect.

    When Canon introduced the EF28-300mm IS USM it said ...
    Feature 4: Lens coating optimized for use with digital SLR cameras
    The EF28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM features lens coating optimized for use with digital SLR as well as film SLR cameras. As a result, it successfully realizes both appropriate color balance and minimization of ghost and flare attributable to surface reflections from the digital imaging element.

    link http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/t...05/report.html


    So although, on the one hand they claim the coating is optimised for digital, on the other they claim it is also optimised for film use. Typical marketing speak and a case of having your cake and eating it.

    It may be possible to advance a case that the latest coatings work better than the older coatings, but that will need proof to substantiate the claim. I personally doubt that any significant advantage exists and whilst there are many claims of a "digitally optimised" coating I see no proofs that it performs any better than the older coatings.

    Quote Originally Posted by DonSchap View Post
    Now, carefully remove the lens hood, sir, and place it on the hood of the car. Thank you. Now, please aim your camera to about twenty degrees to the left of the direct sunlight, careful not to garner in the sun when you do ... and select a subject to photograph.
    FIRE! FIRE! FIRE!
    Examine the cacophony of reflections ...
    Thank you.
    Don, you lost me here.
    Unless you are responding to TenD and saying that a film lens will exhibit ghosting and a digital lens won't? If so, that's a hell of a claim and using which lens, please?
    Why take the hood off? Isn't that a legitimate device designed to limit flare and ghosting?

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Des Plaines, IL
    Posts
    9,560

    Red face Agree to disagree ...

    Quote Originally Posted by Peekayoh View Post
    Really nice image TenD, and I agree that, more often than not, an f4 lens is more than adequate.

    Don, there you go again, talking up these super "digital coatings", doing the Marketing Mens work and reinforcing the bull****.
    I've said it before but it obviously needs repeating. A good lens coating is just as beneficial for film as it is for digital. If the lens performed well on a film camera it will perform well on a digital SLR.



    This is just plain wrong. The phenomenon you refer to is the dreaded "centre spot" but the reflection comes from the flat surface of the aperture and not from the rear lens element; more often than not you can make out the distinctive shape of the iris blades. This condition can be worse with a digital camera because, although film is more reflective than the digital sensor, sensor reflections are specular in nature; the Fuji S1 was particularly prone to this effect.

    When Canon introduced the EF28-300mm IS USM it said ...
    Feature 4: Lens coating optimized for use with digital SLR cameras
    The EF28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM features lens coating optimized for use with digital SLR as well as film SLR cameras. As a result, it successfully realizes both appropriate color balance and minimization of ghost and flare attributable to surface reflections from the digital imaging element.

    link http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/t...05/report.html


    So although, on the one hand they claim the coating is optimised for digital, on the other they claim it is also optimised for film use. Typical marketing speak and a case of having your cake and eating it.

    It may be possible to advance a case that the latest coatings work better than the older coatings, but that will need proof to substantiate the claim. I personally doubt that any significant advantage exists and whilst there are many claims of a "digitally optimised" coating I see no proofs that it performs any better than the older coatings.



    Don, you lost me here.
    Unless you are responding to TenD and saying that a film lens will exhibit ghosting and a digital lens won't? If so, that's a hell of a claim and using which lens, please?
    Why take the hood off? Isn't that a legitimate device designed to limit flare and ghosting?
    I did not want to get into a contest concerning this aspect of glass. I am not the guy behind the drape making these things. I am a consumer ... a purchaser/user of lenses and for my $1400, I want "digitally optimized" and that is the end of this discussion.

    Moving on ... I am sure I can find quite a bit of company concerning this aspect of the SONY 35mm f/1.4 G lens. You do not necessarily get what you pay for, in this case. Peek, you seem to be stuck in this "I love the old glass" mode. Wise up and get caught up with the current technology. There is not a "ghost" of a chance I will subscribe to your take on this.

    Indoors, in my experience, an f/4-lens is glass in search of a flash unit. Again, I didn't make the rules, but you had best get that shot in before the sun goes down.
    Last edited by DonSchap; 11-16-2009 at 04:00 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

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Wild, Wonderful, Wyoming
    Posts
    1,043
    C'mon, this is just utter BS. you're searching for a flash unit with just about any lens indoors unless you're near a bright window(sunlight).

    You won't get into a contest because you know you will lose, just as you did when you finally got up the Cojones to give me a challenge. The only backing you have for the DI argument is Tamron's marketing hype. One lens for the price of two. My $1400 will by another L lens or maybe a Zeiss neither being DI.

    You are right, the 35 f/1.4 isn't that great of a lens, but it's not because it doesn't have digital coatings, it's because it's of old design and suffers from vignetting, poor resolution, and CA. Not a great lens to begin with. Similar in performance to Canon's 50 f/1.0.
    A good photograph is knowing where to stand.
    Ansel Adams

    Rule books are paper, they will not cushion a sudden meeting of stone and metal.
    Ernest K. Gann-Fate is the Hunter.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Bay Area, California
    Posts
    1,546
    Quote Originally Posted by TenD View Post
    C'mon, this is just utter BS. you're searching for a flash unit with just about any lens indoors unless you're near a bright window(sunlight).

    Not necessarily. It all depends on the quantity of light. Indoors doesn't automatically mean its super dark. I've gotten along just fine at f/2.8 indoors in not so bright light with no windows.
    Nikon D90, D40 Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 | Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8 | Nikkor 35mm f/1.8
    Vertical Grip, SB-600, SB-24, Sunpak 433D, Metz 40AF-4N, Alienbees CyberSync Triggers

    R3G Media | Flickr

    "You're pulling some awesome action shots with a cam and lens that are supposed to be rubbish ! " - Rooz

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Wild, Wonderful, Wyoming
    Posts
    1,043
    Quote Originally Posted by r3g View Post
    Not necessarily. It all depends on the quantity of light. Indoors doesn't automatically mean its super dark. I've gotten along just fine at f/2.8 indoors in not so bright light with no windows.
    Yes but you have a Nikon and your high ISO is usable.
    A good photograph is knowing where to stand.
    Ansel Adams

    Rule books are paper, they will not cushion a sudden meeting of stone and metal.
    Ernest K. Gann-Fate is the Hunter.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Monmouthshire, UK
    Posts
    2,152
    Quote Originally Posted by DonSchap View Post
    I did not want to get into a contest concerning this aspect of glass. I am not the guy behind the drape making these things. I am a consumer ... a purchaser/user of lenses and for my $1400, I want "digitally optimized" and that is the end of this discussion.

    Moving on ... I am sure I can find quite a bit of company concerning this aspect of the SONY 35mm f/1.4 G lens. You do not necessarily get what you pay for, in this case. Peek, you seem to be stuck in this "I love the old glass" mode. Wise up and get caught up with the current technology. There is not a "ghost" of a chance I will subscribe to your take on this..........
    Don, it was you who brought up the subject of "digitally optimised coatings" again. I have no axe to grind here, but there is no evidence of which I am aware, that proves a "digital coating" is better than a "film coating" (whatever that may be).

    Am I stuck in the "I love the old glass" mode?

    I regulary use Minolta
    Primes ____ 20mm f2.8,,24mm f2.8,,50mm f1.7,,200mm f2.8 HS APO G
    Zooms ____ 17-35mm f2.8,,28-135mm f4/4.5,,80-200mm f2.8 HS APO G

    So, which digital replacements are you recommending that will give me a much improved performance? Incidentally you can't include Zeiss Optics because (can't afford them yet) the T* coating was designed for "film" lenses.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Bay Area, California
    Posts
    1,546
    Quote Originally Posted by TenD View Post
    Yes but you have a Nikon and your high ISO is usable.


    True. I just wasnt sure if your statement was specifically aimed at Don or a general statement.
    Nikon D90, D40 Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 | Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8 | Nikkor 35mm f/1.8
    Vertical Grip, SB-600, SB-24, Sunpak 433D, Metz 40AF-4N, Alienbees CyberSync Triggers

    R3G Media | Flickr

    "You're pulling some awesome action shots with a cam and lens that are supposed to be rubbish ! " - Rooz

Posting Permissions

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