reza@ihuxb.UUCP (Reza Taheri) (05/09/85)
I'd like to buy a lens or lenses for my Canon A-1 body. I am very happy with the A-1 and with the 50mm f1.8 lens I have. The lens does what it is supposed to do. It is my fastest lens with the most natural viewing angle. I want a zoom lens to cover the most natural "range" of focal lengths that an amateur like me needs, i.e. 28-85 or 28-105. So what is the problem? Well I have looked at many catalogs and magazines and have checked several camera stores. There does not seem to be a lens that 1) is made by a brand name lens maker, 2) is fast (f2.8 0r f3.5), 3) is light and small, 4) and covers a good range (at least 28-85). Note that I haven't even talked of price yet, I couldn't find such a lens in any price range. Actually it looked like the better the "quality" (Vivitar Series 1 vs. regular Vivitar), the bigger and heavier the lens gets. Maybe this is so because they use more glass in the better lens, I don't really know. Does anyone know of a good lens that is 28-90 or thereabouts, has a maximum aperture of 2.8 or even 3.5, weighs no more than about 20 oz., and costs below $150. I have already decided on the Tokina SMZ 80-200 f3.5 that weighs 22 oz., costs about $100-110, and got the highest rating in Consumer Reports rating of zoom lenses. *********** The question is, "ARE YOU right for Grape Nuts?" *********** H. Reza Taheri ...!ihnp4!ihuxb!reza (312)-979-7473
herbie@watdcsu.UUCP (Herb Chong [DCS]) (05/10/85)
In article <1015@ihuxb.UUCP> reza@ihuxb.UUCP (Reza Taheri) writes: > I want a zoom lens to cover the most natural "range" of focal lengths >that an amateur like me needs, i.e. 28-85 or 28-105. So what is the >problem? Well I have looked at many catalogs and magazines and have >checked several camera stores. There does not seem to be a lens >that 1) is made by a brand name lens maker, 2) is fast (f2.8 or f3.5), >3) is light and small, 4) and covers a good range (at least 28-85). you are looking in the wrong price range ($150 or so) if you want to find one of these. i don't have my Canon product line description here but expect to pay $250+ for theirs. the Vivitar Series 1 28-90 f3.5 is a good lens, according to many reports. it isn't any cheaper. your combination of criteria excludes almost all manufacturers of lenses that can be called "name brand". you have to pay more to expect any quality out of a zoom in that range. to get that speed (f2.8) and light weight are almost mutually exclusive unless price is no object. a lens in that range is going to weigh in the 400g (14oz) at least. Herb Chong... I'm user-friendly -- I don't byte, I nybble.... UUCP: {decvax|utzoo|ihnp4|allegra|clyde}!watmath!water!watdcsu!herbie CSNET: herbie%watdcsu@waterloo.csnet ARPA: herbie%watdcsu%waterloo.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa NETNORTH, BITNET, EARN: herbie@watdcs, herbie@watdcsu
jer@peora.UUCP (J. Eric Roskos) (05/13/85)
I would like to ask a related question.
I am presently seriously considering buying a Canon 50mm 1.2L lens. I have
recently switched to Canon (the T70) after many years with a Nikon F
(remember those? no through-the-lens anything!), and am not that familiar
with Canon lenses. However, I presently have the plain old Canon 50mm 1.8
lens that comes with the camera, and am generally disappointed with the
lack of sharpness of it.
My question is... is the "L" lens worth the $100 difference compared to the
plain 50mm 1.2 lens? By "worth", I mean this: suppose I make landscape-type
photographs, using extremely fine-grain film, and want very high resolution.
Is there a visible difference between the L and non-L lens? Or is the L
only better in unusual situations (low light with wide apertures, etc.)?
I do want the sharpest lens I can get, so if there is a visible difference
under normal circumstances, I would rather buy the "L".
--
Full-Name: J. Eric Roskos
UUCP: ..!{decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!vax135!petsd!peora!jer
US Mail: MS 795; Perkin-Elmer SDC;
2486 Sand Lake Road, Orlando, FL 32809-7642sasaki@harvard.ARPA (Marty Sasaki) (05/13/85)
One thing to beware of with inexpensive zoom lenses in the 28-90mm range
is distortion. Most of these lenses exhibit barrel distortion at one
extreme and pincushion distortion at the other extreme (I don't remember
which end has which kind of distortion). Another thing to check for is
vignetting, especially at the 28mm end.
If you use flash a lot, then these lenses will also give you a problem.
Most modern zoom lenses have larger apertures at the short end than they
do on the long end. Unless you have through the lens flash metering, you
are going to have to compensate for this change in aperture as you zoom.
I would also question Consumer Reports' reviews of photography
equipment. You would be better off going to the library and looking at
reviews in the photography magazines.
I've found three lenses very useful with most of my photograpy, the
24-48mm Vivitar Series 1, the 35-70mm Sigma, and the 70-150mm Vivitar.
The 24-48 is very nice, very expensive, but it goes to 24mm. I've found
that for me 28mm is not enough. The Sigma is old and heavy, but has a
constant aperture over the zoom range and very little distortion. The
70-150 is small and light which is a plus with my already overloaded
camera bag. I also carry a 2X converter (the one that is supposedly
matched to the 70-150) for those rare moments when I want more than
150mm.
--
----------------
Marty Sasaki net: sasaki@harvard.{arpa,uucp}
Havard University Science Center phone: 617-495-1270
One Oxford Street
Cambridge, MA 02138ark@alice.UUCP (Andrew Koenig) (05/14/85)
> My question is... is the "L" lens worth the $100 difference compared to the > plain 50mm 1.2 lens? By "worth", I mean this: suppose I make landscape-type > photographs, using extremely fine-grain film, and want very high resolution. > Is there a visible difference between the L and non-L lens? Or is the L > only better in unusual situations (low light with wide apertures, etc.)? In general, faster lenses are less sharp than slower ones. If your present lens is unsatisfactory when stopped down to, say, f/8, then you should invest some effort in understanding the problem before throwing money at it.
clewis@mnetor.UUCP (Chris Lewis) (05/16/85)
In article <117@harvard.ARPA> sasaki@harvard.ARPA (Marty Sasaki) writes: >One thing to beware of with inexpensive zoom lenses in the 28-90mm range >is distortion. Most of these lenses exhibit barrel distortion at one etc... This is really a response to two items (the other about Quantaray 35-205 I think). We bought a used Tamron 28-135 lense a little while ago. So far we really like it (On Canon T70/AE1 and Fujica ST705/ST801 using two of the Tamron adapters). At full wide I haven't really been able to detect much curvature at all at the boundaries of a print. The image seems to be no less sharp even when blown up to 8x10 than any of my other lenses (Sigma 28mm and Soligor 85-210) except perhaps for the original Canon 1.8 50mm. I haven't seen any vignetting. The macro capability seems to have good quality too. I haven't used it with my 2x converter yet, but I imagine that, due to the geometry of the Tamron, image quality will degrade somewhat more than the 2x on the Soligor. Mind you, if I was going over 135mm I would probably use the 2x on the Soligor instead anyways - then I'm up to f8 420mm instead of something like f8-11 270mm). There doesn't seem to be any conflict between the Tamron and the T70 shutter actuation requirements. Unfortunately, we didn't get an owner's manual so I cannot give you the precise specs. This is what I do know for sure: - f4.5-5.6 - 28-135mm - 1:4-1:10 macro (comes in handy taking pictures of the tropical fish and flowers) - the exchangable mounts are quite handy and relatively inexpensive (the Fujica ST mount was $21 CDN). The lense to adapter mount is very similar to the Canon bayonet but a bit trickier. The lense is somewhat pricy ($495 CDN new, $300 CDN used at Henry's - they also threw in the Canon mount, and used hard-case at that price) compared to something like a Kiron 28-135 ($399 CDN new). Used, it cost more than any of our other equipment. It is also somewhat bigger and heavier than comparable lenses. But this is not a problem for me with my Canons (particularly the T70), and my wife's Fujicas are very light to begin with so the result isn't too bad. I think it's lighter than the older Soligor though. The mechanism was a little sticky when we first got it, but this seems to have disappeared. Very solid lense. I had done several months of research thru the photo-zines before deciding on the Tamron - mainly because of some semi-raves on optical quality on other Tamron lenses (eg: 28-105). So far, we're quite pleased with it. One lense photography is more fun and less hassle if you are just taking pictures of the place you are in rather than going places to take pictures. We do somewhat more of the former. The only problem now is who gets to use it - my wife or me. -- Chris Lewis, UUCP: {allegra, linus, ihnp4}!utzoo!mnetor!clewis BELL: (416)-475-8980 ext. 321
wunder@wdl1.UUCP (05/21/85)
About five years ago I read a lens test in Modern/Popular Photo (does it really matter?) that tested all 50mm lense for a bunch of manufacturers. In every case, the 50/1.4 was the sharpest lens. My guess was this: 1.7/1.8/1.9: cheap, volume production 1.4: costs more, works better 1.2: extra speed hurts overall performance I don't want to guess whether the 1.2L is a "better lens" than the 1.4. It is really hard to make a 1.2 lens, and the aspherical element may just correct it back to FD50/1.4 standards. The 1.2L lens is almost certainly sharper wide open, but it may not be any better at f/5.6. Remember, the 1.2 lens is an entire 1/3 stop faster than the 1.4 lens. Who really cares? There's no useful depth of field there anyway. I remember stopping "down" to f/2 to get someone's nose and eyes both in focus. My Canon FD 50/1.4 ws a darling lens, sharp and fast -- but when it was stolen I bought a 35/2 and an 85/1.8, so I guess that I shouldn't talk much about 50's. It's not a useful focal length for me. I take about 100% of my pictures with the 35. It is a real sharp lens, too. w underwood PS: You could write Canon and ask for test results. They were pretty friendly to a couple of poor student photographers, even lending us a 600/4.5 (wow).
howard@sfmag.UUCP (H.M.Moskovitz) (05/22/85)
> Does anyone know of a good lens that is 28-90 or thereabouts, > has a maximum aperture of 2.8 or even 3.5, weighs no more than > about 20 oz., and costs below $150. I have already decided on > the Tokina SMZ 80-200 f3.5 that weighs 22 oz., costs about $100-110, > and got the highest rating in Consumer Reports rating of zoom > lenses. > There are quite a few lenses out there that would qualify for your needs: Kiron makes two; a 28-105mm f/3.2 macro zoom that is compact and that I've seen for around $125. Also, a 28-85mm f/2.8 for arounf $170. Kiron lenses are quite good, very sharp and compact/ligt. In fact I've heard that the optics in their 70-210 zoom are identical to the ones in the Vivitar Series 1 70-210 (which I own and use with MY A-1). Sigma makes a 35-70mm f/2.8 for under $100, Vivitar has a 28-85 f/3.5 macro for under $100, and soligor has a 28-80 f/3.5 also under $100. All of these lenses will give good performance and nice, sharp images. All zooms are going to be much heavier than fixed lenses since there are many more lenses grouping in them in addition to all the hardware for zooming and focusing them. A lens of this nature that is unusually light would tend to indicate cheaper materials and/or construction. Also, lenses of this nature, i.e., wide-angle to short telephoto tend to display barrel distortion (outer-edge fuzziness) especially at the ends of their focal length ranges. This effect can usually be remedied, somewhat, by stopping down the lens to a smaller f-stop and using a slower shutter speed. This effect is most prevelant in the new wide-angle to long telephoto lenses e.g., Kiron's 28-200mm zoom. To get the best rating on a lens read Pop Photo's or Modern Photo's annual buyer's guides and their monthly lens reports. Those reports are available from the publisher on request (look at one of the monthly articles as to where to write). Howard Moskovitz AT&T Info. Systems (& Phantasm Studios) attunix!howard
howard@sfmag.UUCP (H.M.Moskovitz) (05/22/85)
> I would like to ask a related question. > > I am presently seriously considering buying a Canon 50mm 1.2L lens. I have > recently switched to Canon (the T70) after many years with a Nikon F > (remember those? no through-the-lens anything!), and am not that familiar > with Canon lenses. However, I presently have the plain old Canon 50mm 1.8 > lens that comes with the camera, and am generally disappointed with the > lack of sharpness of it. > > My question is... is the "L" lens worth the $100 difference compared to the > plain 50mm 1.2 lens? By "worth", I mean this: suppose I make landscape-type > photographs, using extremely fine-grain film, and want very high resolution. > Is there a visible difference between the L and non-L lens? Or is the L > only better in unusual situations (low light with wide apertures, etc.)? > > I do want the sharpest lens I can get, so if there is a visible difference > under normal circumstances, I would rather buy the "L". Yes, the L series lenses have better quality optics and give a flatter edge-to-edge sharpness, BUT... the inherent problem of outer-edge distortion that occurs at f-stops bigger than 1.4 seems to negate that advantage. If you want to improve the quality of your landscapes I would reccomend you try the following first before buying a new lens: Use the best film possible: Kodachrome Professional 25 or 64. This film has practically no grain and is unsurpassed for sharpness and color saturation. If you shoot B&W use Ilford XP-1 or Kodak Technical Pan 25. Use a very sturdy tripod, stop down your lens as far as possible to maximize depth of field and edge-to-edge sharpness (the slower shutter speed is okay because your on a tripod). Use a cable release and a good lens hood to minimize lens flare. I'm willing to bet that you'll find a new sharpness to your images. I have an A-1 and an F-1 and use both the standard 1.8 50mm and the 1.4 50mm in my studio and get wonderfully sharp images with them. I used the 1.2L once on my F-1 and could not see an appreciable difference. Howard Moskovitz AT&T Info. Systems (& Phantasm Studios) attunix!howard
djw@lanl.ARPA (05/25/85)
Since you've already decided on the Tokina; why bother us? I own the Kiron on the recommendation of one of our "optics" technicians. He evaluated the lenses that ran in the 30-100mm range and the Kiron was the best. He immediately bought one and so did I and 3-4 of the other professional photogs here at Los Alamos. The Kiron costs 89.95 from some company in Washington-Oregon area ( see Popular Photography Mail- Order ads ). The Kiron shots go 16X20 without any problems in the corners, I think that is probably good enough for <$100.00. Dave Wade > > Does anyone know of a good lens that is 28-90 or thereabouts, > > has a maximum aperture of 2.8 or even 3.5, weighs no more than > > about 20 oz., and costs below $150. I have already decided on > > the Tokina SMZ 80-200 f3.5 that weighs 22 oz., costs about $100-110, > > and got the highest rating in Consumer Reports rating of zoom > > lenses. > > > > There are quite a few lenses out there that would qualify for your needs: > Kiron makes two; a 28-105mm f/3.2 macro zoom that is compact and that I've > seen for around $125. Also, a 28-85mm f/2.8 for arounf $170. Kiron lenses > are quite good, very sharp and compact/light. > > Howard Moskovitz
keesan@bbnccv.UUCP (Morris M. Keesan) (06/06/85)
In article <579@sfmag.UUCP> howard@sfmag.UUCP (HowardMoskovitz) writes: > . . . >recommend you try the following first before buying a new lens: > . . . > . . . Use a very sturdy tripod, > stop down your lens as far as possible to maximize depth of > field and edge-to-edge sharpness (the slower shutter speed is > okay because you're on a tripod). . . > . . . Wrong. (ALMOST right). Stopping down as far as possible will indeed maximize your depth of field, but it will not optimize sharpness. Most lenses display their best sharpness and resolution when stopped about half-way down; check any of Modern Photo's lens tests, to see this. When the lens is stopped all the way down, the smaller aperture causes a deterioration in sharpness due to refraction effects. For best sharpness, stop down only far enough to get the depth of field you want. -- Morris M. Keesan keesan@bbn-unix.ARPA {decvax,ihnp4,etc.}!bbncca!keesan
herbie@watdcsu.UUCP (Herb Chong [DCS]) (06/08/85)
In article <624@bbnccv.UUCP> keesan@bbnccv.UUCP (Morris M. Keesan) writes: >When the lens is stopped all >the way down, the smaller aperture causes a deterioration in sharpness due to >refraction effects. ^^^^^^^^^^ that's diffraction. Herb Chong... I'm user-friendly -- I don't byte, I nybble....