Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: Huib on October 23, 2007, 03:05:12 pm
-
This year I bought a 16-35mm F2.8 M2 to use it on a 1Ds2. I compared the files with the old M1. The old lens was much sharper then the new one. I got back to the shop and after testing 3 lenses the fourth was better than the old one.
I bought also the new 85F1.2 M2. This was immediately a little better then the 85mm F1.2M1
I also bought at the same time the 50mm F1.2. This was really shocking. This lens had a lot of CA. Even at f5.6 I went with the lens to Canon service. After the service the lens was much better but still the lens had at F5.6 more CA then all other (zoom) lenses I have, including the cheap Sigma 50mm macro.
I went back to the shop and after trying 4 lenses, the 5th was the best one. But at home I compared the lens again with other lenses I have and I am not happy, Still some CA at F5.6. At F1.4 the lens is in one corner not sharp at all.
I have no problems to spend even more money but is this bad luck that I attrack bad lenses? Is this problem going to be worse with the 1Ds3?
-
This year I bought a 16-35mm F2.8 M2 to use it on a 1Ds2. I compared the files with the old M1. The old lens was much sharper then the new one. ........................ Is this problem going to be worse with the 1Ds3?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=148172\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I've also experienced variable quality of Canon lenses. It is real and they know it. Lenses are "acceptable" (to Canon of course) within a defined range of quality and what is acceptable to them is acceptable period - it doesn't matter what the customer thinks. So it is important to buy from a shop where you can swap continuously until you are happy. The problem will only be worse with the 1DsIII to the extent that the higher resolution of the sensor will reveal the shortcomings of inferior lenses more readily.
-
I bought four 70-200 f/4 IS lenses in an unfruitful effort to get two good ones. In the end I just send the two "best" ones in to Canon for calibration. For the record, one has mis-aligned elements and the other had a loose lens mount. Both sucked when I sent them in. Both completely rock now. I had originally taken two in a row back to Samy's but quickly saw a complete waste of my time in testing. Just buy it and send it in is what I do now. Incidentally, I've also had one substandard 135L which was exchanged with no questions, and two 20mm 2.8's one of which was much worse than the other and neither of which was good enough for my use.
-
I bought four 70-200 f/4 IS lenses in an unfruitful effort to get two good ones. In the end I just send the two "best" ones in to Canon for calibration. For the record, one has mis-aligned elements and the other had a loose lens mount. Both sucked when I sent them in. Both completely rock now. I had originally taken two in a row back to Samy's but quickly saw a complete waste of my time in testing. Just buy it and send it in is what I do now. Incidentally, I've also had one substandard 135L which was exchanged with no questions, and two 20mm 2.8's one of which was much worse than the other and neither of which was good enough for my use.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=148252\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I don't know where you get your Canon service from, but you are lucky if they do that for you. I brought a 17~40 L to Canon Canada here in Toronto because I thought the alignment could be improved. They agreed with me that it could be improved but they insisted that because it is within their "tolerance range" and because they are less equipped than in Japan to make such adjustments they wouldn't touch it both on account of company policy and for fear of making it worse. I wasn't a happy camper. I bought the lens from B&H because the Canadian price from Canon within Canada was outrageously higher, so I took the risk of long-distance shopping - which is the cost and inconvenience of swapping merchandise forth and back accross an international boundary. That won't happen again. In future, I'll buy and test right at B&H where the price is right - unless of course Canon cleans up its Canadian pricing policy, in which case it would make sense to buy retail here in Toronto.
-
Why do you guys keep trying? The very idea of spending so much money on a lens and not having it work per the spec is un-acceptable to me, and I am not a pro. As a pro I would never have the luxury of trying 4 or 5 different lenses before finding one that is correct. The truth is that many of those pros just accept to work with gear not meeting the spec because:
- they don't really care for ultimum image quality,
- they just assume that - since Canon is said to be the best - what they get is just what the current technology can deliver,
- it is what everybody else is doing,
In a few months, competition working with Nikon and Sony FF gear will produce images using true high quality glass that works mostly per the spec. Those Canon shooters willing to keep their edge might want to put a bit more pressure on their gear supplier and have them deliver the goods if they want to stay on top.
I have never had any such problems with any of my Nikkor (pro or consumer), and I own a lot of those! It must be luck, just like the luck those lucky Antartica Nikon shooters had with their bodies a few months ago.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Bernard, I was a long time Nikon user before I went for digital capture, where up to very recently there was no viable full frame high MP alternative to Canon. Although this is completely impressionistic, I was more impressed with the quality of the Nikon lenses I was using in those days than I am with some of the Canon lenses I am using now - the 24~105 and the 50/f1/4 being exceptionally sharp ones. The 70~300 DO and the 17~40 L are acceptable but nothing to knock your socks off. As far as working to spec, this is where the problem is: Canon's "spec" is like an elastic band, so there is a stretch between what is fine for Canon and fine for their customers. For a given price range, I wonder why it should be any different for Nikon, but perhaps it is.
-
As far as working to spec, this is where the problem is: Canon's "spec" is like an elastic band, so there is a stretch between what is fine for Canon and fine for their customers. For a given price range, I wonder why it should be any different for Nikon, but perhaps it is.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=148274\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You know me, although I use Nikon (less and less actually - I have shot 40 frames with my D2x in 2007 so far vs several thousands with the Mamiya), I don't care much about brands.
I don't know if Nikon is really better, but I know that all the lenses I have bought from them have always been outstanding with no obvious issues.
Regards,
Bernard
-
"I don't know where you get your Canon service from, but you are lucky if they do that for you"
I'm sending or actuallly driving them down to Canon in Irvine, Ca.
"Why do you guys keep trying? The very idea of spending so much money on a lens and not having it work per the spec is un-acceptable to me, and I am not a pro. As a pro I would never have the luxury of trying 4 or 5 different lenses before finding one that is correct. The truth is that many of those pros just accept to work with gear not meeting the spec because:
- they don't really care for ultimum image quality,
- they just assume that - since Canon is said to be the best - what they get is just what the current technology can deliver,
- it is what everybody else is doing,"
Acceptable or not, it IS the reality. I don't find it acceptable either, but I don't see any equitable way around the situation. I must be one of those who does care about quality. That these lenses can easily be brought into spec but somehow slipped through probably says to me that Canon expects to have a few picky people send their lenses in but they count on a majority either not knowing the difference or not caring.
I think in the film days, we just sort of accepted what we got, and because the film itself masks a lot of optical defects, we never really knew the difference. I too, used to shoot Nikon, and have adapter to use some of those venerable old lenses on the latest digital bodies. What I've discovered is that most of those Nikon lenses are pretty good, some are even amazing by today's standards, but some suffer from the same sample variation as the new Canon we've been talking about. I have two 24mm 2.8 Nikkors and have also tested a third one, and all three are vastly different, but have one thing in common - very sharp in the center but never getting crispy in the far corners - at any aperture.
Lenses like the 18mm 3.5, 28mm 2.0, 105 2.5 and 180 2.8 ED are all right up there with the best new lenses. An 80-200 2.8, which was a great lens in its day, just is not up to the level of the new Canon zooms. Interesting to find all this out.
-
I've found that what some people might regard as 'bad copies' of Canon zoom lenses just need a bit of adjustment. If you send them in under the warranty, they'll check it out & adjust the "best focus point" or "ideal focus point" - i forget which they call it - for you. I've had this done to both 17-40L & 24-105L, & it made qall the difference in the world. A friend had to send in both the camera body & the lens for re-alignment, but now has good results.
Of course this shouldn't be necessary - quality control should have taken care of it in the first place - but now I regard sending zooms in for an adjustment as a matter-of-course.
Kirk
-
Hi!
Lateral chromatic aberration is not really affected by stopping down, AFAIK. It can be fixed in raw conversion. Chromatic aberration is a design related issue and cannot be fixed by adjustment.
Hi aperture lenses are seldom really best at maximum aperture. Leica lenses are intended to be used at maximum aperture but even they do improve when stopping down.
The fact that the 1Ds2 uses full frame sensor and that pixel peeping is so easy makes a very heavy demand on edge/corner performance of the lens. You can just click "view actual pixels" while in the film days you needed a microscope to that!
The Swedish monthly "Foto" does MTF-tests at the Hasselblad factory. They seem to know what they do. They have tested two samples of the 16-35/2.8 II and found no real difference between the new and the old version. They found that neither lens was really sharp in the corners (more than 15mm of optical axis) and that the lens needed to be stopped down a couple of stops to give good results. Corners were still not really sharp at aperture 8 between 16 and 24 mm.
It's a bad thing if Canon ships inferior lenses to customers and fixes them if the customers are complaining. It must be much easier for Canon to test their lenses than for their customers. Lots of customers paying for quality they don't get?
Best regards
Erik
This year I bought a 16-35mm F2.8 M2 to use it on a 1Ds2. I compared the files with the old M1. The old lens was much sharper then the new one. I got back to the shop and after testing 3 lenses the fourth was better than the old one.
I bought also the new 85F1.2 M2. This was immediately a little better then the 85mm F1.2M1
I also bought at the same time the 50mm F1.2. This was really shocking. This lens had a lot of CA. Even at f5.6 I went with the lens to Canon service. After the service the lens was much better but still the lens had at F5.6 more CA then all other (zoom) lenses I have, including the cheap Sigma 50mm macro.
I went back to the shop and after trying 4 lenses, the 5th was the best one. But at home I compared the lens again with other lenses I have and I am not happy, Still some CA at F5.6. At F1.4 the lens is in one corner not sharp at all.
I have no problems to spend even more money but is this bad luck that I attrack bad lenses? Is this problem going to be worse with the 1Ds3?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=148172\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Filmdays are a long time ago. I am talking about new lenses which are design for the new coming 1Ds3. I am expecting something good from these new designs.
You have to be very lucky to get a copy of the new lenses which are performing better then the lenses of the filmdays.
Why can Canon produce 'state of the art' cameras and very good tele lenses but not good lenses <50mm?
-
Why can Canon produce 'state of the art' cameras and very good tele lenses but not good lenses <50mm?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=148310\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Because it is apparently a lot easier to design super tele lenses? Put it otherwise, have you ever heard of any super tele from any vendor that is not outstanding? I haven't.
Lens design is not an obvious thing. If it were, we would have Leica quality bokeh in our compact digital cameras, and we obviously don't.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I've found that what some people might regard as 'bad copies' of Canon zoom lenses just need a bit of adjustment. If you send them in under the warranty, they'll check it out & adjust the "best focus point" or "ideal focus point" - i forget which they call it - for you. I've had this done to both 17-40L & 24-105L, & it made qall the difference in the world. A friend had to send in both the camera body & the lens for re-alignment, but now has good results.
Of course this shouldn't be necessary - quality control should have taken care of it in the first place - but now I regard sending zooms in for an adjustment as a matter-of-course.
Kirk
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=148290\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Kirk,
This is a stickier wicket than what you describe here. Canon does not necessariy do what you describe - at least not in Canada. They tell me they are simply not equipped to make fine adjustments of zoom lens allignment. They also tell me that within a certain tolerance range of the specs it is company policy not to touch the lens, and as I'll explain below, no matter how loud an individual customer may scream about this, it is talking to the wall. From what I have observed, there would appear to be a noticeable difference in image quality as you move from the outer fringe to the core of their spec range.
Quality control for any manufacturer is an issue of price versus cost and the cost must include for the reject rate. If only ten percent of their lenses are absolutely at the optimum off the assembly line do they reject the other 90%, or do they spend more time and money opening up each unit and fine-tuning it? Do you want to pay 1200 for an L lens or 2500? This is the general nature of the trade-off at play here. They make those decisions, and so they must. No-one can fault them for that.
The big weakness with Canon, however, is that this is a company with layers of wax in its ears - it takes a very long time - if ever - for customer concerns to seep into their minds. They live in an awesomely defensive and rigid corporate shell, which is reflected in the uncompromising manner in which they handle their customers - in particular if they are outside the Canon Professional Services Program, and there are equally rigid criteria for being accepted into that group. If Canon weren't on top of the heap in terms of DSLR technology (an advantage which Nikon is now eroding), I don't think this company would survive in that arena. They are being carried by technological prowess, not by being nice and accommodating with their customers.
-
I'm also disatisfied with Canon quality control. I'm in Thailand at the moment but I'm scared to buy the 70-200/f4 IS, which I want, in case I get a bad copy.
There's a camera shop in China Town, Bangkok, called 'Camera World'. Their prices on lenses are much less than the best internet prices in Australia, but the last lens I bought from them, the Canon 50/1.4 was actually slightly worse than my Australian bought 50/1.8, which means it was a complete waste of money.
I'm going to repeat for the 25th time on this forum. There's only one solution to this problem. All lenses should ship with detailed MTF charts describing their performance.
-
This year I bought a 16-35mm F2.8 M2 to use it on a 1Ds2. I compared the files with the old M1. The old lens was much sharper then the new one. I got back to the shop and after testing 3 lenses the fourth was better than the old one.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=148172\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
If you buy from a shop that lets you test lenses and leave with the best, you aren't testing
Canons QC, you are testing an accumulated collections of rejects from other customers
and it's more or less guarantied that over time all lenses in stock will be crap imho...
I have never had a problem with a Canon lens, but then my shop will not let the customers test
the lenses, and any faulty equipment is sent back to the manufacturer, and not sold to other
customers. I'm not saying this is the case with you shop, but...
-
You know me, although I use Nikon (less and less actually - I have shot 40 frames with my D2x in 2007 so far vs several thousands with the Mamiya), I don't care much about brands.
I don't know if Nikon is really better, but I know that all the lenses I have bought from them have always been outstanding with no obvious issues.
Regards,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=148285\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Bernard, we're in the same camp on that - I have no brand allegiance for anything. Either it performs properly or it doesn't regardless of who makes it.
Now, I'm interested in your Mamiya experience. Are you talking about the ZD, medium format 20 MP model? I saw it and handled it at the Mamiya booth at Photo Plus East in New York last week. Sweet piece of merchandise I must say. When one is at the cusp of buying a 20MP 1DsIII, this is a decision point one needs to consider. Here's how it stacks up in my mind so far:
Canon 1DsIII:
Price USD 8000 in the US, and due to Canon Corporate price differentiation policies, CAD 9200 in Canada (eventhough the Canadian dollar is now worth 3% more than the US dollar - OK some add-on is justified for the probably higher unit cost structure of a Canadian distribution and service outlet, but 15% seems a stretch).
Like many others in my situation, I have a suite of Canon lenses so need to spend more on that. Most of my work is with the 24~105. Great range for a high percent of my work and I have a superb copy of this lens.
From what I've seen the resolution and image quality are highly satisfactory, but it's prelim. Great noise performance, high speed, self-cleaning sensor, etc. etc.
Mamiya ZD:
Price 10000 USD with one lens. To replicate the same range as the 24~105 I would need two additional lenses costing a total of another USD 5500. Using all this means changing lenses as one progresses through the range. It's more and heavier gear to trudge around with.
9 micron (versus 7 for Canon) pixel size. What difference in image quality does this produce? Mamiya of course says it is huge. Perhaps - I don't know.
Bit depth: Canon 14, Mamiya 12. Does this make a practical difference? I don't know. Theories are no good here. One needs to see actual results from valid test images.
Noise: at the booth they admitted noise is an issue from 200 ISO. (I've heard another opinion that it is an issue beyond 100 ISO) The Canon hardly shows any noise up to ISO 800. Does the additional noise reduction requirement eliminate the pixel size advantage? I don't know.
Both have AA filters.
So, where does all that leave me? (1) I'd love to hear about your experience with it, because there is nothing more valuable than expert advice from an extenisve and intensive user. (2) So far it tells me I may as well stick with Canon for a number of reasons that are custom to my circumstances. But this is a real decision point - I think.
Cheers,
Mark
-
Now, I'm interested in your Mamiya experience. Are you talking about the ZD, medium format 20 MP model?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=148348\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yep, I have been using the ZD for about a year now. I am overall very happy about it. I posted this months ago already, but the image quality is plain outstanding up to ISO 100. Above, it remains usable up to 200, but I use it at ISO 50 95% of the time, the remaining 5% being ISO 100. I am a tripod guy anyway, so not a problem for me.
Other problems are:
- noise for exposures longer than 5 sec, acceptable until 10 sec, needs work beyong. silkypix is far ahead of raw developper and Lightroom in this area,
- non existant battery life in cold weather. Down to 10 images per battery at -10 - -15C.
Canon 1DsIII:
Price USD 8000 in the US, and due to Canon Corporate price differentiation policies, CAD 9200 in Canada (eventhough the Canadian dollar is now worth 3% more than the US dollar - OK some add-on is justified for the probably higher unit cost structure of a Canadian distribution and service outlet, but 15% seems a stretch).
Like many others in my situation, I have a suite of Canon lenses so need to spend more on that. Most of my work is with the 24~105. Great range for a high percent of my work and I have a superb copy of this lens.
From what I've seen the resolution and image quality are highly satisfactory, but it's prelim. Great noise performance, high speed, self-cleaning sensor, etc. etc.
Mamiya ZD:
Price 10000 USD with one lens. To replicate the same range as the 24~105 I would need two additional lenses costing a total of another USD 5500. Using all this means changing lenses as one progresses through the range. It's more and heavier gear to trudge around with.
9 micron (versus 7 for Canon) pixel size. What difference in image quality does this produce? Mamiya of course says it is huge. Perhaps - I don't know.
Bit depth: Canon 14, Mamiya 12. Does this make a practical difference? I don't know. Theories are no good here. One needs to see actual results from valid test images.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=148348\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The Mamiya is in fact 14 bits D/A converter also, the following steps are 12 bits. Either way, it is miles ahead of the D2x in terms of DR and highlight rollout smoothness.
Both have AA filters.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=148348\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
In fact, the AA filter is an option on the ZD, there is none by default. The sharpness by pixel is outstanding, clearly ahead of my d2x, that I consider to be one of the sharpest 35 mm DSLRs.
So, where does all that leave me? (1) I'd love to hear about your experience with it, because there is nothing more valuable than expert advice from an extenisve and intensive user. (2) So far it tells me I may as well stick with Canon for a number of reasons that are custom to my circumstances. But this is a real decision point - I think.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=148348\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The ZD is a very specific camera, and I feel that its image quality will remain significantly ahead of that of the 1ds3 in the narrow range of applications where it excels:
- ISO 50,
- exposures less than 5 sec,
- temperature above freezing point,
- tripod use with MLU,
- no ultra wide, little tele capability,
- slow shooting by person with good knowledge of exposure. The LCD is very slow and measuring accurately first saves a lot of time.
If any of these conditions is not met, then the 1ds3 will offer clear advantages.
Regards,
Bernard
-
repeat for the 25th time on this forum. There's only one solution to this problem. All lenses should ship with detailed MTF charts describing their performance.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=148342\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
This is not going to happen.
- few people will want to pay more for this,
- this would force lens manufacturers not to sell poor samples... which they obviously do today. This would also increase cost, and therefore price.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I'm also disatisfied with Canon quality control. I'm in Thailand at the moment but I'm scared to buy the 70-200/f4 IS, which I want, in case I get a bad copy.
There's a camera shop in China Town, Bangkok, called 'Camera World'. Their prices on lenses are much less than the best internet prices in Australia, but the last lens I bought from them, the Canon 50/1.4 was actually slightly worse than my Australian bought 50/1.8, which means it was a complete waste of money.
I'm going to repeat for the 25th time on this forum. There's only one solution to this problem. All lenses should ship with detailed MTF charts describing their performance.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=148342\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Ray, I'm familiar with the Bangkok shopping scene, and I would be wary. I've found that high-end brand-name equipment is generally not cheaper in Thailand than it is from B&H in New York City. So if the price looks too good to be true, maybe it is and one always must be concerned about where the merchandise is sourced from and exactly what it is.
Apart from MTF charts, not a bad idea, the other insurance policy is only to buy lenses from an outlet that makes it easy and convenient to swap copies until you get the one you like. Canon won't play that game - it is up to the retailer.
-
This is not going to happen.
- few people will want to pay more for this,
- this would force lens manufacturers not to sell poor samples... which they obviously do today. This would also increase cost, and therefore price.
Cheers,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=148361\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Bernard, you are most probably correct about this. Those are the implications. But what about the idea of a price premium on the best samples? Some people would bite if the difference were reasonable, don't you think? You know, people who are willing to pay let us say 50 dollars per metre for the highest quality silk are not the same people who will pay no more than 10 dollars per metre for average quality silk. Perhaps the market can be differentiated this way - legitimately.
-
Yep, I have been using the ZD for about a year now. I am overall very happy about it. I posted this months ago already, but the image quality is plain outstanding up to ISO 100. Above, it remains usable up to 200, but I use it at ISO 50 95% of the time, the remaining 5% being ISO 100. I am a tripod guy anyway, so not a problem for me.
.............................
If any of these conditions is not met, then the 1ds3 will offer clear advantages.
Regards,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=148360\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Bernard, many thanks for this succinct and helpful assessment.
-
I tried two 16-35mm II lenses against my I. The first I had was better at the corners at 16 -20mm but worse 24-35mm. The differences were still there but less apparent by f8. The second I had was all around worse. the only consistently better result with the II was CA. I kept the version I.
This year I bought a 16-35mm F2.8 M2 to use it on a 1Ds2. I compared the files with the old M1. The old lens was much sharper then the new one. I got back to the shop and after testing 3 lenses the fourth was better than the old one.
I bought also the new 85F1.2 M2. This was immediately a little better then the 85mm F1.2M1
I also bought at the same time the 50mm F1.2. This was really shocking. This lens had a lot of CA. Even at f5.6 I went with the lens to Canon service. After the service the lens was much better but still the lens had at F5.6 more CA then all other (zoom) lenses I have, including the cheap Sigma 50mm macro.
I went back to the shop and after trying 4 lenses, the 5th was the best one. But at home I compared the lens again with other lenses I have and I am not happy, Still some CA at F5.6. At F1.4 the lens is in one corner not sharp at all.
I have no problems to spend even more money but is this bad luck that I attrack bad lenses? Is this problem going to be worse with the 1Ds3?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=148172\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Bernard, you are most probably correct about this. Those are the implications. But what about the idea of a price premium on the best samples? Some people would bite if the difference were reasonable, don't you think? You know, people who are willing to pay let us say 50 dollars per metre for the highest quality silk are not the same people who will pay no more than 10 dollars per metre for average quality silk. Perhaps the market can be differentiated this way - legitimately.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=148369\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I agree with this completely. We know it's not quite true that you always get what you pay for. Sometimes there are bargains and sometimes we get ripped off.
The idea of testing all lenses of a particular model then pricing them according to the results of those tests means simply that you get what you pay for.
Without such testing you're really into a lottery game. Perhaps most people prefer that. I don't. How do I test the performance of a 70-200/4 IS in the store in Bangkok? I suppose I could check its performance at 70mm and 105mm against the performance of my 24-105 IS zoom at 70 and 105mm, photographing empty lens boxes on shelves. If it's noticeably sharper, do I give it the thumbs up? What about performance at 200mm? Do I then bring out my 100-400 IS zoom?
It's always going to be problematical without objective standards.
-
But what about the idea of a price premium on the best samples? Some people would bite if the difference were reasonable, don't you think? You know, people who are willing to pay let us say 50 dollars per metre for the highest quality silk are not the same people who will pay no more than 10 dollars per metre for average quality silk. Perhaps the market can be differentiated this way - legitimately.
I have no expertise to add to this discussion but looking at the prices of "L" lenses, I would have thought that the "premium" for quality already exists. That is, the quality variability that has been mentioned so far seems acceptable (I guess) in $400 lenses but once you get to $1000-$2000, surely that is already specialized territory where I would expect a different level of quality delivery.
An ex-colleague used to joke about the post office registered mail service that it was like paying extra to get them to do their job.
-
I have no expertise to add to this discussion but looking at the prices of "L" lenses, I would have thought that the "premium" for quality already exists. That is, the quality variability that has been mentioned so far seems acceptable (I guess) in $400 lenses but once you get to $1000-$2000, surely that is already specialized territory where I would expect a different level of quality delivery.
An ex-colleague used to joke about the post office registered mail service that it was like paying extra to get them to do their job.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=148399\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yes, if you are talking about the Canadian post office that is true - but it has improved in recent years. They are getting back to the service quality for a regular stamp that existed in the 1960s before all the upheavals took place.
Back to lenses, if you really want to see what expensive is, look-up comparable specs for Leica, Zeiss and Schneider lenses.
-
The sad thing about this is we don't even know how much variation is taking place. All we've got are personal anecdotes. We've got no idea how many people out there have a sub-standard copy of a particular Canon lens but don't know it.
I almost fell into that category. I bought a Canon 400/5.6 non-IS prime as a result of seeing Michael's comparison of this lens with the 100-400 IS zoom.
If I hadn't already owned the 100-400 IS with which I could compare it, I'd probably still have this 400mm prime lens. Perhaps I'd even be praising it on forums like this and demonstrating what I thought were impressively sharp images of birds on branches.
However, when I tested it against my 100-400 IS zoom at 400mm, the zoom was sharper, so I returned the prime lens and got a refund.
I'm almost certain that that lens would have been sold to another customer who was not able to compare it with a zoom. With nothing to compare it with, he/she might have been quite satisfied with it's performance.
-
After coming to Canon from Nikon after years away from the hobby, I got fed up with the variable QC of Canon glass - despite their supposed 'premium' stance and cost (within the DSLR 'box').
This 'buy & try' method of fnding good copies of supposedly pro-level glass combined with the ski-slope depreciation curve of DSLR values post-purchase (not a Canon-specific issue), led to a radical change in my gear cabinet.
I sold my 5D and all my Canon glass save a nifty-fifty. Replacing it was smaller selection of top used Leica R glass (no duff copies yet seen and rarely, rarely heard of), an R8 (already fully depreciated), a used Nikon 5000 ED scanner, some EOS-R adapters and the cheapest DSLR body I could find that would do the job, spot meter and take a Leica adapter - a 30D.
One can only hope that Nikon's suprising come-back with the D3 will give Canon the kick in the ass needed to overcome it's (natural) 'I'm King-of-the Hill, take it or leave' complacency (sic).
That beig said, there is only so far you can go with factory mass-produced optics designed for a high-iso, AF, USM-happy and in many cases, JPEG-only market.
Canon (or Nikon) will only aim as high as the average customer's expectations.
-
Canon (or Nikon) will only aim as high as the average customer's expectations.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=148414\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I don't think that's correct. They are aiming higher than the average customer can comprehend.
-
Of course, aiming is one thing and hitting the target is another . I have to say occasionally they do.
-
... what about the idea of a price premium on the best samples?
It's what you pay for when you buy a Leica lens. Leica does the testing for you, you don't have to waste your time cherry-picking through the dealer's stock of lenses rejected by someone else. I'd rather use my time making photographs instead of testing lenses.
-
It would be a great if Leica started to make lenses which fit on Canon mounth. And starting with the wide angles. Why they don't do it?
But a lens like the LEICA SUPER-ELMARIT-R 1:2,8/15 mm Asph will cost 7000 euro!!!!!!!!! That's a lot of money
The SUMMILUX-R 1 :1,4/50 mm is a lot cheaper. Only 2600 euro.
-
Good question, but it's not only the mount is it? There's all the electronics if they are to operate with the full features of the Canon lenses. Could there be copyright and commercial feasibility considerations holding them back from competing in this area?
-
Good question, but it's not only the mount is it? There's all the electronics if they are to operate with the full features of the Canon lenses. Could there be copyright and commercial feasibility considerations holding them back from competing in this area?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=148579\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
If Sigma and Tamron can do it!
-
If Sigma and Tamron can do it!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=148582\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
And tokina and quantaray and....
If we can get an adapter (which we can) then I see no reason for them not to make a canon mount lens (assuming there was enough demand). Of course then no one would buy leica bodies, people would opt for the best of both worlds.
-
Yes I know about all those brands doing it - but look at who they are - they aren't Zeiss or Leitz and they are kind of specialized in making medium and low priced accessories for other companies' systems. Zeiss and Leitz don't have a range of DSLRs competing with Canon so in principle there may not be much conflict of interest for them to provide lenses compatible with the Canon system. Perhaps it is a line of business they just aren't interested in developing because they think the investment cost would not be worth the return at the price point they would have to enter and compete with Canon. It costs a fortune to enter such new lines of business.
-
From their film slr line they presumably have the technology to quite easily adapt for use on other brands. It would be lovely to have some of that glass with fast autofocus.
Whilst the 3rd party lenses traditionally undercut the manufacturers, this boutique glass would come at a premium. I can definately see a market for it.
-
It costs a fortune to enter such new lines of business.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=148589\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
But the market will be much bigger then there excisting market! The needed for the 1Ds3 owners will be high!
But Canon CAN make good lenses. You only have to be very lucky to get a good copy!!!
-
I e-mailed Leica about that very thing: lenses for other camera makes some time ago. They replied, but in typical commercial language gave me to understanf that they had a grand line of cameras all of their own which I should investigate if I wanted to use Leica glass.
Funny how representatives of companies and politicians are genetically prevented from giving a straight relevant reply to any damn thing that is asked of them.
At this juncture, with all the doubts flying around about Canon optics and the ill-placed confidence in other makers´products, I would refer you to
http://www.naturfotograf.com (http://www.naturfotograf.com)
where you will read, in the lens reviews of the Nikon system, that multiple shots at getting a good´un are not reserved for Canon alone.
I believe, from my own experience, that Nikon did NOT eff about with quality during the years up to the birth of the F4; I bought many lenses in many focal lengths and was very happy with what I got. Then, from my ill-fated experience of the F4s through to the present day, my feeling is that the company is working to a different rhythm, following the beat of a very, very distant drum.
Rob C
-
IAt this juncture, with all the doubts flying around about Canon optics and the ill-placed confidence in other makers´products, I would refer you to
http://www.naturfotograf.com (http://www.naturfotograf.com)
where you will read, in the lens reviews of the Nikon system, that multiple shots at getting a good´un are not reserved for Canon alone.
Rob C
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=148606\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Not the least-bit surprised. The economics of manufacturing, quality-controlling and pricing lenses shouldn't be monumentally different between Canon and Nikon.
-
Good question, but it's not only the mount is it? There's all the electronics if they are to operate with the full features of the Canon lenses. Could there be copyright and commercial feasibility considerations holding them back from competing in this area?
I believe as long as there's no patent infringement you're OK if you can reverse-engineer the mechanism. Conurus has done the very thing and is providing fully-coupled conversions to the EOS mount for the Zeiss Contax N line of lenses. I have four converted lenses and love them. But that's just me. As usual YMMV.
-
It would be a great if Leica started to make lenses which fit on Canon mounth. And starting with the wide angles. Why they don't do it?
Leica has approached both Nikon and Canon with this idea and both C and N responded with a "not interested". There's certainly the possibility of reverse-engineering but for the premium you pay for a Leica lens are you willing to take the risk that C for example will make some hidden tweak to the software that would render the Leica lens inoperative?
There's also the mirror-clearance issue. Several of the Leica wide-angle lenses have serious issues with Canon full-frame mirrors.
Best of both worlds for me is the Leica lens on a 16-bit DSLR with a decent viewfinder. I can focus a lens, and I can keep a 560mm lens steady; I don't need software to do that for me. The color rendition I get from native 16-bit capture and processing is not easily replicated when you start with 12 or 14 bits.
-
I sent my 24-70L lens in for calibration after I looked at the same image taken with my 70-200IS L lens both wide open. The 24-70 was noticeably soft. They calibrated it free of charge, and they test the lens to make sure it needs to be calibrated--or you pay for their time. So mine did need calibration and it was less than a year old, I think around 8 months. It came back extremely sharp.
I got mine serviced in the USA with no problems, except it took them around three weeks to get my lens back. After that, I was tempted to send in all my lenses for calibration. However, my 16-35L and the 70-200 were very sharp wide open and stopped. SO I just used them and forgot about it.
-
Leica has approached both Nikon and Canon with this idea and both C and N responded with a "not interested". [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=148727\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That's interesting. Are you sure about this? What's your source?
However, if that is true I can readily appreciate why both Canon and Nikon would reject the offer. They're in the business of producing lenses and most photographers will spend more on lenses than camera bodies. The last thing that either Nikon or Canon would want is someone revealing in an undeniable practical sense, with real comparisons, just how deficient their lenses sometimes are.
A streamlined form of MTF testing and categorisation of each and every lens would be good for both Canon and the customer. It would help Canon to improve its quality control and it would give them some valuable insights into market demand in relation to price/quality. For example, how popular are grade C lenses of a particular model compared to grade A at double the price?
-
I sent my 24-70L lens in for calibration after I looked at the same image taken with my 70-200IS L lens both wide open. The 24-70 was noticeably soft. They calibrated it free of charge, and they test the lens to make sure it needs to be calibrated--or you pay for their time. So mine did need calibration and it was less than a year old, I think around 8 months. It came back extremely sharp.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=148728\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Well, that's just amazing and also rather disturbing, the idea that Canon lens performance can be so significantly affected by calibration.
I wonder what's going on here. There's an implication that all lenses undergo a calibration prior to shipping and that some lenses are either not calibrated properly in the first instance or are knocked out of calibration during handling and shipping.
Anyone got the inside story here?
-
That's interesting. Are you sure about this? What's your source?
The late photojournalist Sal DiMarco, who had close contact for many decades with Leitz and later Leica.
-
Ray
Hi. I thought I was the only member in Thailand!
Have you ever used Canon’s Service Center in Sathorn.
If so, what do you make of the standard of workmanship?
I need to repair my 17/85usm lens – for a second time.
The first was something to do with the aperture ring (?) – I was returned the broken part. 4 months (and not a lot of use) later the barrel jammed, now has completely given up.
Could this have been mis-aligned in the original repair?
Will / Should the lens be calibrated on its return as part of the service - it didn't seem so well the 1st time!
Willow
-
Sorry! Can't help you here. I'm not a permanent resident. Just visiting. Fortunately I've never needed to have any repairs done whilst in Thailand. In fact I've never needed any camera repairs at any time in my entire life, so far. Cameras (and lenses) in general seem to me to be surprisingly robust pieces of equipment.
I once dropped my Sigma 15-30 on moss-covered rocky ground in a rain forest, whilst attempting to change lenses, and watched it with dismay as it rolled and clattered down a slope for several metres. I assumed I'd have to write it off. But, no! It's still fine apart from a few scratches on the outer surface of the barrel. And a damned sight sharper on my 5D than the EF-S 10-22 on my 20D.
This is one reason I'm very curious about these significant improvements in resolution that some people seem to get after their Canon lens has been calibrated.
If it's just the autofocus system that's being calibrated, then I can understand it.
-
Ray,
The usual problem with the zoom lenses is allignment, not auto-focus. To improve the allignment apparently requires time and specialized people and equipment. From what I am reading here such resources exist in Canon USA, but froim what I'm told, not in Canon Canada [and perhaps not in Australia? - I have no idea.] The Canon people here told me they cannot improve on the alignment of my 17~40L eventhough it is not within the top 10% of total output; but because it is within their definition of an acceptable spec, they would not send it back to Japan, nor would they exchange it, because that is only for retailers to do.
I have been to Canon on Sathorn Rd in Bangkok. It looks like a substantial operation, but they didn't have to do anything for me that would test their technical abilities. (They were kind enough to quick-charge my battery at a time when it ran out of juice, I had no spare and forgot the charger in Toronto - wasn't that clever? never again!)
Mark
-
The usual problem with the zoom lenses is allignment, not auto-focus. To improve the allignment apparently requires time and specialized people and equipment. From what I am reading here such resources exist in Canon USA, but froim what I'm told, not in Canon Canada [and perhaps not in Australia? - I have no idea.] The Canon people here told me they cannot improve on the alignment of my 17~40L eventhough it is not within the top 10% of total output; but because it is within their definition of an acceptable spec, they would not send it back to Japan, nor would they exchange it, because that is only for retailers to do.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=148807\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Mark,
Interesting! I'll check on this when I get back to Australia. When I returned my Canon 400/5.6 prime to the store, which incidentally claims to be the largest photographic store in the southern hemisphere, it was sent to the Canon service department for a calibration. I don't know what sort of calibration. Perhaps it was just an autofocus tweak. When I tested the lens for a second time, I found a marginal improvement which brought the performance closer to that of my 100-400 IS zoom, but it still wasn't sharper than the zoom, so I got my refund.
I have a Canon 50/1.4 which is not as sharp as my el cheapo 50/1.8. I'll see if I can get that calibrated in Australia and what's involved.
-
We might be getting ahead of ourselves here, in the rush to praise Leica: even within their own world, I understand that the glory belongs with the RF set of lenses, not the SLR ones, which would mean that there probably wouldn´t be much in it for either C or N bodies to migrate...
Trouble seems to lie in having to have a back focus longer than ideal, which isn´t required in RF cameras due to the happy lack of mirrors! Sensor construction might make this problem even more acute.
Rob C
-
RobC
The higher prices (for Leica) and popularity due to the M8 belong to the M lenses. If you ever test a Leica (or Zeiss) lens against it's C or N counterpart you'd realize the praise was justified. I was once a sceptic .... then like my wife and the idea of eating sushi, I actually tried a piece.
Once the R10 is released at Photokina 2008, R lenses may share some of the limelight (and $$$$ sadly) once again.
-
That´s part of the trouble at the Leica farm: they need to make all their profit at one time!
Rob C
-
We might be getting ahead of ourselves here, in the rush to praise Leica: even within their own world, I understand that the glory belongs with the RF set of lenses, not the SLR ones, which would mean that there probably wouldn´t be much in it for either C or N bodies to migrate...
The M lenses have the edge over R among the wide-angle lenses but for 50mm and up it's a toss-up ... and many people are finding the R wides adapted to a Canon body produce significantly better results than Canon's lenses do. As for the 50mm and longer lenses there are no 'adequate' lenses: all of the current lenses are either best-in-class or essentialy equal to a well-calibrated cherry-picked N or C lens. No woof-woof, zooms included. A list of the really stellar R lenses would include everything from 50mm to 800mm, as well as the current wide zooms.
Trouble seems to lie in having to have a back focus longer than ideal, which isn´t required in RF cameras due to the happy lack of mirrors! Sensor construction might make this problem even more acute.
Actually the longer flange-to-sensor distance works in the R's favor. The M8 incorporates several work-arounds to compensate for the short back-focus and consequent angle of incidence.
-
But I understand that retro-focus designs, there to artificially give a greater space between rear element and film, is require ONLY because of the difficulty of the mirror box and the clearance required for it.
Yes, I also see that the less the angle angle of incidence to a sensor and its caves, the better for the results, but that´s just another form of problem, which I suppose can equate to the SLR problem just mentioned - either way, the RF (M) bodies (for film) allow for the best uncompromised design parameters, no fiddling about required; so, in that context, the M8 shares some of the problems of a reflex.
Ciao - Rob C
-
But I understand that retro-focus designs, there to artificially give a greater space between rear element and film, is require ONLY because of the difficulty of the mirror box and the clearance required for it.
Yes and no. The M cameras with light meters require retrofocus wide-angle lenses in order to meter properly. The primary disadvantage of retrofocus wide-angle lenses is weight and bulk. Advantages include being able to tweak the design to reduce light fall-off toward the edges, and on digital bodies the angle of incidence is more favorable.
There are several excellent retrofocus designs among the R lenses including:
15mm f/2.8 (made by Schneider for Leica)
19mm Elmarit-R
28mm Elmarit-R
-
I keep on holding bad luck with Canon lenses. Especially with the 50mm F1.2. This lens was chosen as the best from 5 new lenses. But I discover later that one corner wasn’t sharp. I went to the CPS service and thought that I could wait on it. After 1 hour they told me that they will need much more time to fix it. It was to difficult to repair it immediately. They will send it to me when it is fixed.
-
If Sigma and Tamron can do it!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=148582\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
They cannot do it, at least not without compatibility issues, Sigma lenses are well known for needing rechips when Canon release new cameras, I'm not sure about Tamron.
I suspect Leica will not release Canon mount lenses because they cannot licence the electronic coupling from Canon, and hence cannot ensure compatibility. This means that they would have to make manual aperture and manual focus lenses with a Canon mount. Which is not much different from using a Leica lens with an adaptor ring. So why bother.
And in any case, they might not want to encourage people to use their lenses on another makers cameras.
-
Nikon lenses do have sample variation. My 12-24 F4 AFS lens is useless between 12mm and 14mm as the corners are smeary at all apertures. Some are perfect though. Unfortunately I bought a used sample, and I suspect this was the reason the original owner sold it. I should have tested it thoroughly and returned it.
Rorslett reported problems with many samples of the 17-35mm F2.8 AF lens until he found a good one. Apparently Nikon claimed to have tightened up the production QC, but that might just be marketing bull.
Sample variation is a fact of life unless you pay big money. About 25 years ago, I heard that a semi-pro photographer (friend of the family) had a deal with a local camera shop. He would take home a bag full of new lenses, test them all, and keep the best one. He was trained as an optical technician, hence his ability to do the tests. So this is nothing new.
I think what has changed is that digital has made it much easier to pixel peep, and find faults. And of course zoom lenses are now dominant, and since they are more complex, both optically and mechanically, there is more likelihood of misalignment.