Performance Issue: Canon Lenses or Camera Body Causing Softer Focus
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: David J Taylor on 15 Jul 2010 02:49 "Bruce" <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:t5cs36hc8r5240pstkpv4depss9gl38gfs(a)4ax.com... [] > So, to sum up, both companies have consumer and professional lens > ranges. If you think they overlap, look at the build quality. That > will tell you far more about which range they are in than "L" or "ED" > badges. Thanks for that, Bruce. That's a better summary than I had, and I appreciate your examples. Not being a Canon owner, I tend to hear more of Canon users praising a particular "L" lens. I certainly wouldn't consider Nikon "ED" as indicating especially good quality - it just indicates the glass type. Your point about build quality is an interesting one - I've never need to use my lenses "hard enough" or in extremely challenging environmental conditions that build quality has been a major issue for me. Cheers, David
From: Bruce on 15 Jul 2010 05:30 On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 19:11:36 -0400, "David Ruether" <d_ruether(a)thotmail.com> wrote: > >"Bruce" <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >news:t5cs36hc8r5240pstkpv4depss9gl38gfs(a)4ax.com... > >> For example, the Canon EF 24-105mm L IS and 70-200mm f/4 L IS are >> outstanding mid-priced lenses. Nikon has nothing to compete with >> either of them; the AF-S VR Nikkor 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6G IFED and AF >> Nikkor 24-85mm f/2.8-4D are particularly weak performers, to the point >> of being embarrassing because of high distortion and CA and poor edge >> performance unless stopped way down. The comparatively inexpensive >> Canon EF 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 performs better than either of them! > >If one is willing to "step back in time" a bit, the 24-120mm non-VR >was a decent performer from f5.6 Perhaps they should have sold it as an f/5.6 lens - it might have been more honest. Wide open, it was atrocious. >and the 24-85mm f3.5-4.5G was >very good to the corners even wide open (although linear distortion >was high), and it was reasonably compact and inexpensive. That lens is something of an enigma. The AF f/2.8-4 version was, and still is a lemon. Many Nikon users were delighted when the much improved AF-S f/3.5-4.5 version was announced. But what happened next defied belief - Nikon discontinued the new lens and continued to make the old one! Bizarre ... >I think Nikon should have kept that FF lens and dumped the other two... But people wanted the extra reach of the 24-120mm. ;-) >'Course, as you noted, when it comes to the fast Nikkor wide and >super-wide zooms, Nikon pretty much stands alone in image quality >(but moderately-priced they aren't!). BTW, the 28mm-105mm >f3.5-4.5 was a very decent inexpensive Nikkor, with unusually low >linear distortion for a zoom... Optically, it was a nice lens, although there is some CA when used on digital. But the build quality wasn't particularly good, and it didn't stand up well to professional use. Very much a consumer-grade lens, it was bettered optically by the Canon EF 28-105mm I mentioned earlier which was also better made.
From: Bruce on 15 Jul 2010 06:11 On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 07:49:56 +0100, "David J Taylor" <david-taylor(a)blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote: >"Bruce" <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >news:t5cs36hc8r5240pstkpv4depss9gl38gfs(a)4ax.com... >[] >> So, to sum up, both companies have consumer and professional lens >> ranges. If you think they overlap, look at the build quality. That >> will tell you far more about which range they are in than "L" or "ED" >> badges. > >Thanks for that, Bruce. That's a better summary than I had, and I >appreciate your examples. Not being a Canon owner, I tend to hear more of >Canon users praising a particular "L" lens. I certainly wouldn't consider >Nikon "ED" as indicating especially good quality - it just indicates the >glass type. Your point about build quality is an interesting one - I've >never need to use my lenses "hard enough" or in extremely challenging >environmental conditions that build quality has been a major issue for me. Build quality issues don't only affect people who give their lenses a lot of use. They also affect optical alignment and can introduce inconsistencies between individual lenses - sample variation. Some Nikon lenses have been particularly affected by sample variation. The first I was aware of was the AF Nikkor 70-200mm f/4-5.6 (also in a D version) which had a couple of rave reviews and became highly sought after. But people's faith was often misplaced , because significant sample variation meant only very few of those lenses performed as well as the ones in the reviews. Most were thoroughly mediocre lenses. The same was true of the AF-S DX 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G which was sold with the Nikon D70. I tested one for a magazine review and its performance blew me away. The published review was very positive. Yet sample variation meant that many of these lenses failed to live up to expectations. One I tested more recently was dire. The problem isn't entirely limited to consumer-grade Nikkors. The AF Nikkor 20-35mm f/2.8D, one of my all-time favourite lenses, had a hand polished aspherical surface that caused no end of problems. Get a good sample, and the lens surpassed the performance of any f/2.8 fixed focal length Nikkor within its 20-35mm range - it was really that good. But get a poor sample, and CA was very bad, even on film. Its successor in the Nikon range, the AF-S 17-35mm f/2.8D, was a spectacular lens if you got a good one, but in the early days, sample variation was extreme. This was due to a manufacturing problem with the compound glass/moulded plastic aspherical elements - a new technology. When it was finally cured, the production lenses were consistently very good. So buy a new one (it is still available), or thoroughly test an used early example. (Mine has a broken focusing motor and a small chunk out of the front element, but is still a fine performer - Indian ink to the rescue!). In the pro lens range, Nikon now seems to have learned from these problems. The AF-S Nikkor 28-70mm f/2.8D was pretty faultless and its 24-70mm f/2.8G successor is even better. The AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G is an amazing lens, and its production quality is also amazingly consistent. Anyway, to sum up, build quality means much more than just a robust design that is suitable for professional use. It means consistency in manufacture, and that applies equally to consumer-grade lenses. Alas. it is not something that Nikon has been spectacularly good at.
From: Ray Fischer on 15 Jul 2010 13:40 SneakyP <48umofa02(a)WHITELISTONLYsneakemail.com> wrote: >Looking for recomendations on stepping up from that horrid 18-55mm zoom kit >lens in a Canon to a decent zoom lens for a sharper picture. Problem is, >what is the better option? Get the Lens that has a quality of acceptable >sharpness in that particular camera body, or get the camera with better >sensor capabilities? Easy. Better lens. A better sensor will only do a better job of showing the flaws of a limited lens. -- Ray Fischer rfischer(a)sonic.net
From: Bob AZ on 15 Jul 2010 18:30
> > I use the Canon Rebel XS, so my range may be limited, but I still want to > have upwards mobility for the lenses. IOW - is that sharpness the best I > can expect from this camera body, or does it get ridiculously steeper in > price as a better zoom lens is found? SneakyP I had similar situation with my 20D. Seems that the Preferences setting was way off. If you have the option find the Preferences settings and raise the value to 9 or 10 I think it is. Bob AZ |