Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Even Harley Davidson eventually had to start building better bikes in the face of the competition.
I just wonder what you're doing to get the 85mm f/1.8 to produce so many CAs as it's not a lens which is prone to them at all! Neither is the 50mm f/1.4 so this has to be something which you're doing wrong.
Photozone tests:
85mm) Lateral chromatic aberrations (color shadows at harsh contrast transitions) are basically a non-issue - this is a very rare characteristic.
50mm) Similar to most other fix-focal lenses chromatic aberrations (color shadows at harsh contrast transitions) are very low and nothing to worry about.
My advice would be to work on your technique it's better to avoid problems than to try to remove them in post processing. The lens hoods for these lenses are not supplied with them, so it might be worth buying them, and try to avoid the worst high light levels and sharp edges.
Then again the more I think about this the less sense it makes! Taking portraits with a lens wide open and you're getting CA's? on the face?? The background should be blurred out so the only sharp contrast possible is in the in focus areas, i.e. on the face. I've never come across anyone getting CA's in this situation I might have suggested a faulty lens, but it's happening with both of them, are you sure that you're identifying this correctly? There are lots of other potential issues when you open a wide aperture lens up.
As far as the first point goes the 70-200 f/4 IS is a much newer and more expensive lens plus of course its a f/4 lens.
As far as the latter goes I'd mention the Tamron 17-50 2.8 VC and non VC versions, thats an example of "cheap IS" and it seems to be pretty much universally considered to have come at the cost of optical performance. The new Sigma 17-50 2.8 OS does deliver performance near to the Canon but with less range and much less difference in price.
Seems to me that while adding IS to a lens need not be expensive doing so without damaging optical performance on more advanced optics is not.
Both Canon and Nikon do IMHO seem to be missing out on a market creating more affordable FF zooms though, I can understand it to some extent hoping that the brand will pursuade users to pickup a more expense higher end product but something like the new 24-70 does seem to be pushing that to me.
Even with the bulb like front elements at these focal lenghts though the hood still protrudes further forward plus theres nothing to attach any adaptor to. That means that a system like either the Lee one that allows for moveble filters or one like Fotodiox that allows for screw ins are excessively large and expensive both in terms of the holders and the filter sizes needed. If you allow for the hood to be removed and a filter thread to be present then the size and cost of both the holder and the filters themselves can come down since they'll be closer to the front element.
The other option I mentioned would be some kind of drop in filter system ala the Pentax 25mm 645 lens or Canon's own super teles, wouldnt be quite as effective since only fixed grads could be used but would still give it a clear advanatge over the Nikon.
I can understand not taking this route on cheaper lenses where most users will probabley not want filters but if there competing with the Nikon 14-24mm then alot of the market will be serious landscape users and a pretty high percentage of them do want filters.
To me Nikon's range seems a little backwards, as great as the 14-24mm is do most users need f/2.8? doesnt really seem vital to me for whats going to most commonly be a landscape lens while it adds alot to the weight/price and perhaps hurts the flare resistance aswell?
A 14-24mm f/4 IS seems like it would be ideal for many people to me, espeically if Canon looked to introduce some kind of filter system into the design(drop ins or perhaps a screw off hood that leaves a filter ring rather than a fixed one?) rather than just leaving it to 3rd parties to come up with overly expensive alternatives.
I use the Sigma 12-24 mostly for landscapes and cityscapes and I've so far never needed a wider aperture than its f4.5-5.6.
The Sigma has a two-piece lens cap as you describe but it's pointless because leaving the section with the filter thread on the lens causes massive vignetting on FF. I guess it might work with a crop camera, though. The lens accepts rear gel filters but you obviously can't use polarisers. That's really its only downside.
The problem with the Sigma to me seems to be that because the part of the lens cap thats also a filter thread needs to cover the built in hood its simpley too far away from the front element so it vignettes. What I was suggesting is that the hood itself be removeble attaching via a filter thread. That way you could take it off when need be and attach filters directly to the lens far closer to the front element thus doing away with the need for an expensive fiddley system ala the Nikon 14-24 aswell as the massive filters it needs due to that smaller distance.
To me Nikon's range seems a little backwards, as great as the 14-24mm is do most users need f/2.8? doesnt really seem vital to me for whats going to most commonly be a landscape lens while it adds alot to the weight/price and perhaps hurts the flare resistance aswell?
A 14-24mm f/4 IS seems like it would be ideal for many people to me, espeically if Canon looked to introduce some kind of filter system into the design(drop ins or perhaps a screw off hood that leaves a filter ring rather than a fixed one?) rather than just leaving it to 3rd parties to come up with overly expensive alternatives.
I suspect Nikon is not even making money on the D800. They are a small company who went through turmoil and think they can get some market share with the D800. I hope they succeed. Because go healthy compitation is good for all. i.e. customers.
Hey. I'm new here but just want to tell that it's a big investment in Norway, too .... $ 1 = 5.6 NKR ....
Then there will be approximately $ 5,350
