| Author |
Message |
Joseph Chamberlain, DDS
Guest
|
 Posted:
Wed Nov 09, 2005 5:40 am Post subject:
Canon digital bodies and Nikon lenses |
|
|
Dear group members:
I wanted to post some questions and first reviews on my new equipment to
obtain some feedback from you as well as have you share your own
experiences.
This past weekend I took my new Canon 1Ds Mark II out for the first real
serious shooting session and did some tests with two lenses I purchased
along with the camera. The lenses are the EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM zoom and the
EF 24mm f/1.4L USM.
I am surprised with the low quality of the images I got from both lenses. I
am coming from film cameras and used two very similar lenses with my Nikon
Pro film body. My expectations for both Canon lenses were that they would
meet Nikon's quality since they are both "L" lenses and the price is about
the same but they don't even come close. My Nikon lenses are the 17-35mm
f/2.8D ED-IF AF-S Zoom-Nikkor and the 28mm f/1.4D AF Nikkor. The performance
on these lenses is just outstanding. The zoom is an all-around great lens
that I like to take with me to places where I may want to capture a large
area and may not have the room to stand back and embrace my landscape. The
28mm is a great lens for low light situations where I don't like to use
tripod and/or flash. They are both very sharp and even with the zoom opened
to 17mm coverage, there is the natural distortion found at this type of
focal length but the image is extremely sharp.
I thought it might be just my impression and decided to check a few sites. I
couldn't really find one that had objective tests with a specific technical
protocol for testing lenses, but found several sites with reviews from other
users and photographers such as Fred Miranda's site. It seems all reviews
corroborate my initial impressions about flaws with Canon lenses. The
16-35mm is claimed to be a disappointment but many who reviewed it and the
24 f/1.4 also has its flaws including lack of sharpness.
What is the deal with Canon lenses ? I can't believe I've just purchased a $
10,000 + digital set up with what should be the best high end digital SLR
system in the market and this is the type of photos I'm getting from these
lenses. My opinion about the camera couldn't be any better. It is indeed
very well built and a work of art in terms of engineering. The lenses, on
the other hand, don't seem to even come from the same manufacturer or to
have been designed with serious photographers in mind.
One of Fred Miranda's review compares the sharp quality of Nikkor's 28mm
lens to a Leica Vario-Elmar 21-35mm zoom lens. This is how good Nikon lenses
are.
The other option of lens I had in mind for my camera was the new EF 24-105mm
f/4L IS USM lens because of its versatility and the ability to use it as the
preferred lens for those photo shooting situations where you can only take
one lens with you. After searching for this lens I found out that it has
been pulled from the market because of some serious design flaws that caused
flaring and other problems.
Canon could follow Sony's approach. Since they realize they don't have the
expertise required to design and build truly professional grade lenses, they
went to Carl Zeiss. Now that Kyocera decided to discontinue its Contax line
of cameras and is only keeping the Yashica line, Canon could very easily
approach Carl Zeiss to produce its lenses as Kyocera did in the past.
It is hard to accept that after a $ 10,000+ purchase the results I'm
obtaining are not matching those I was able to obtain from my Nikon $ 2,000
film setup. Maybe my expectations were too high. Maybe I was under the wrong
impression when I presumed that Canon's lenses were of similar quality to
those made by Nikon.
The bottom line is that one company gives you great lenses but still can't
seem to develop a decent body with full frame sensor that doesn't change the
characteristics of all the lenses you invested your money on. The other
produces great bodies with outstanding resolution, full frame sensor and
great overall performance but the lenses are of average rather than
professional grade image quality.
It seems that digital photography is not ready for prime time yet. Close -
but no cigar !
I am sorry for the long post - just needed to share my frustrations.
Best regards,
Joseph
---
Dr. Joseph Chamberlain
Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Malcolm Stewart
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Nov 09, 2005 5:40 am Post subject:
Re: Canon digital bodies and Nikon lenses |
|
|
"Joseph Chamberlain, DDS" <drjchamberlain@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:BF9680C1.2E889%drjchamberlain@earthlink.net...
| Quote: | Dear group members:
I wanted to post some questions and first reviews on my new equipment to
obtain some feedback from you as well as have you share your own
experiences.
This past weekend I took my new Canon 1Ds Mark II out for the first real
serious shooting session and did some tests with two lenses I purchased
along with the camera. The lenses are the EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM zoom and
the
EF 24mm f/1.4L USM.
I am surprised with the low quality of the images I got from both lenses.
I
am coming from film cameras and used two very similar lenses with my Nikon
Pro film body.
|
And what post processing did you do? Did you shoot RAW, jpeg or both?
--
M Stewart
Milton Keynes, UK
http://www.megalith.freeserve.co.uk/oddimage.htm |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
David J. Littleboy
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Nov 09, 2005 5:40 am Post subject:
Re: Canon digital bodies and Nikon lenses |
|
|
"Joseph Chamberlain, DDS" <drjchamberlain@earthlink.net> wrote:
| Quote: | Dear group members:
I wanted to post some questions and first reviews on my new equipment to
obtain some feedback from you as well as have you share your own
experiences.
This past weekend I took my new Canon 1Ds Mark II out for the first real
serious shooting session and did some tests with two lenses I purchased
along with the camera. The lenses are the EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM zoom and
the
EF 24mm f/1.4L USM.
I am surprised with the low quality of the images I got from both lenses.
I
am coming from film cameras and used two very similar lenses with my Nikon
Pro film body. My expectations for both Canon lenses were that they would
meet Nikon's quality since they are both "L" lenses and the price is about
the same but they don't even come close. My Nikon lenses are the 17-35mm
f/2.8D ED-IF AF-S Zoom-Nikkor and the 28mm f/1.4D AF Nikkor. The
performance
on these lenses is just outstanding. The zoom is an all-around great lens
that I like to take with me to places where I may want to capture a large
area and may not have the room to stand back and embrace my landscape. The
28mm is a great lens for low light situations where I don't like to use
tripod and/or flash. They are both very sharp and even with the zoom
opened
to 17mm coverage, there is the natural distortion found at this type of
focal length but the image is extremely sharp.
|
Are you comparing apples to apples? Shoot the same image, same f stop, on
both the 1Dsmk2 and a Nikon _film_ body, and print both at 13x19. Then tell
us which is sharper.
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Nov 09, 2005 5:40 am Post subject:
Re: Canon digital bodies and Nikon lenses |
|
|
Joseph Chamberlain, DDS just lathers on that FUD:
| Quote: | [... blah blah blah ...]
|
Your entire shaggy dog story this time is just a re-hash of recent
USENET posting by the well known FUDster fruitcakes that haunt this
forum. This strongly suggests that you are a sock-puppet of one of
these fruitcakes, or, failing that, intellectually indistinguishable
from such.
My advice to you: if your story is true, you are either (a) a
photographic incompetent, or (b) clearly displeased with your
equipment. In either case, you are advised to sell the equipment. You
don't need us to hold your hand, or to validate this decision for you.
(What kind of a doctor are you, anyways?)
And if your story is _not_ true (sadly, the likely scenario):
| Quote: | It seems that digital photography is not ready for prime time yet. Close -
but no cigar !
|
.... then please feel free to drop dead, FUDster. Again, in this case,
there is no need for you to seek permission for this activity. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Nov 09, 2005 5:40 am Post subject:
Re: Canon digital bodies and Nikon lenses |
|
|
David J. Littleboy wrote:
| Quote: | Are you comparing apples to apples?
|
Does he even own the apple? Plausibility is being stretched far past
the breaking point with this "Doctor" and his rantings. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scott in Florida
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Nov 09, 2005 5:40 am Post subject:
Re: Canon digital bodies and Nikon lenses |
|
|
On Wed, 09 Nov 2005 00:20:18 GMT, "Joseph Chamberlain, DDS"
<drjchamberlain@earthlink.net> wrote:
| Quote: | It seems that digital photography is not ready for prime time yet. Close -
but no cigar !
I am sorry for the long post - just needed to share my frustrations.
Best regards,
Joseph
|
I'd be willing to take your horrible system off your hands for ...
Let's see....
A hundred bucks...
Fair?
--
Scott in Florida |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joseph Chamberlain, DDS
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Nov 09, 2005 5:40 am Post subject:
Re: Canon digital bodies and Nikon lenses |
|
|
On 11/8/05 4:36 PM, in article dkrg9c$6gd$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk, "Malcolm
Stewart" <malcolm_stewart@megalith.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
| Quote: | And what post processing did you do? Did you shoot RAW, jpeg or both?
|
Malcom:
I have done almost no post processing. Images were taken as RAW (only; no
JPEG) and then opened in Camera Raw hosted by Bridge (Adobe's latest CS2).
Nothing was done in Camera Raw and all default values remained (the latest
version of Camera Raw comes with auto values as the default) as were. In
essence, there was no post processing done.
The problems I mentioned relate to image quality primarily around the
periphery (edge sharpness). The problems is more pronounced with 16-35mm as
should be expected.
Best regards,
Joseph
---
Dr. Joseph Chamberlain
Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joseph Chamberlain, DDS
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Nov 09, 2005 5:40 am Post subject:
Re: Canon digital bodies and Nikon lenses |
|
|
On 11/8/05 5:02 PM, in article dkrhs2$7fi$1@nnrp.gol.com, "David J.
Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote:
| Quote: | Are you comparing apples to apples? Shoot the same image, same f stop, on
both the 1Dsmk2 and a Nikon _film_ body, and print both at 13x19. Then tell
us which is sharper.
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
|
David:
Thank you for the suggestion.
I believe I am. I not referring to issues that could vary from one system to
the other (film x digital).
The shots I took were taken both handheld and with a tripod. I varied the
aperture from minimum to maximum as a test to see how that would impact
depth of field. The problem I am seeing is a lot of distortion around the
edges, particularly on the 16-35mm when the lens is at its maximum angle of
coverage (16mm). But it in fact starts to become pronounced as soon as I
reach 24mm and start moving wider.
I didn't have this type of problem with the Nikkor 17-35mm. There was the
natural distortion to be expected mostly at the 17mm end of the zoom range.
But it was within acceptable limits. I am finding the two lenses to be quite
different.
I am going to consider your suggestion and run some more tests including the
prints from both lens. But trust me when I say that the difference between
these two groups of lenses is quite dramatic. Hopefully this will be related
to these two lenses only and not to others I still intend to purchase for my
new system.
Thank you again for the feedback.
Best regards,
Joseph
---
Dr. Joseph Chamberlain
Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bart van der Wolf
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Nov 10, 2005 5:41 am Post subject:
Re: Canon digital bodies and Nikon lenses |
|
|
"Joseph Chamberlain, DDS" <drjchamberlain@earthlink.net> wrote in
message news:BF96C8A2.2EA3D%drjchamberlain@earthlink.net...
SNIP
| Quote: | I have done almost no post processing. Images were taken as
RAW (only; no JPEG) and then opened in Camera Raw hosted
by Bridge (Adobe's latest CS2). Nothing was done in Camera
Raw and all default values remained (the latest version of
Camera Raw comes with auto values as the default) as were.
In essence, there was no post processing done.
|
Which is part of your issue at hand, especially for Canon DSLRs.
Canon chose to err on the side of caution, the unprocessed images may
look blurry, which is good!
Some cameras produce poor images as a basis for post-processing (noise
reduction / sharpening), Canon Raws provide a good base material that
allows e.g. resizing without introducing(!) excessive artifacts due to
the processing.
| Quote: | The problems I mentioned relate to image quality primarily
around the periphery (edge sharpness). The problems is
more pronounced with 16-35mm as should be expected.
|
Edge sharpness needs to be restored from a Raw capture, preferably
after resizing to output dimensions. As an example of what can be
achieved:
<http://www.xs4all.nl/~bvdwolf/main/downloads/Batavia_Crop.jpg>
Bart |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joseph Chamberlain, DDS
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Nov 11, 2005 5:41 am Post subject:
Re: Canon digital bodies and Nikon lenses |
|
|
First I wish to thank all those who provided helpful and well-meant
responses to my original post.
This week I took my camera to the original reseller and tested it against a
few other similar lenses. The 24mm lens is what it is. It simply isn't a
match for the Nikkor 28mm equivalent I use for night photography without
flash. This lens wasn't honestly my biggest concern as I can learn to live
with this difference in performance.
The biggest of my concerns was the 16-25mm zoom producing images with edge
distortion that had NOTHING to do with post processing or sharpening. I am
referring to huge, unacceptable geometric distortion around the edges.
After using a few others 16-35mm the reseller had in his inventory it was
apparent not only to me, but to a few specialists that the lens was
definitely flawed. I was able to exchange it for a different one that
produced images that were noticeably better. Do I think the performance is
the same ? NO. I still think the Nikkor 17-35mm is a better lens but the
difference now is really negligible.
Since some have questioned the reason why I didn't take more time to test
the lens, my concerns related to (1) the time since the date of purchase as
I wanted to exchange the lens at the reseller instead of allowing more time
to pass and have to send it to Canon for repair and (2) the fact that the
problem with distortion I reported here wasn't (as I very clearly stated)
anything that could be enhanced by post processing or sharpening but rather
some serious geometrical distortion beyond anything fixable in Photoshop.
This week I tested another one of Canon's lenses while at the reseller. The
135mm f/2.0 lens I had mentioned which is something I intend to use for
portraits (facial photos primarily). This is among one of the best lenses I
have used and just about one of the sharpest too.
My opinion was not a biased one and did not intend to spark the debate Canon
x Nikon. I have been a Nikon user for a long time but switched to Canon when
I realized it made better digital SLRs. My opinion of the two companies is
based on my personal experiences and I feel that while Canon makes better
cameras (electronics), Nikon makes better lenses (optics). However, I am
very happy with my camera and now with the lenses as well. They serve my
their primary purpose and are also excellent as something I can use for
photography outside of my work environment.
As one last comment I wish to thank again those who responded with helpful
and courteous messages to my original post. It is unfortunate to see that
these actually represent a small group of people. If there is one thing I
learned about using newsgroups is the censorship is a necessary thing.
Humans in general still haven't learned how to live in a truly democratic
environment where they know their limits and exercise their freedom of
speech with responsibility towards other peoples' rights. Newsgroups such as
this could be such a great place for the exchange of information and
knowledge. Such technology would have been a dream 30 to 40 years ago and I
am willing to bet that those who lived in those times would have given
everything for the opportunity to have access to such a vehicle of
information exchange. And yet, what I see here most is a group of stupid and
unnecessarily aggressive individuals who attack others for no apparent
reason just to use this forum as a pastime or as some form of therapy.
Such a shame that something with such potential just happens to be used in
such a wasteful and irresponsible manner !
Best regards to all those who responded with helpful replies.
Joseph
---
Dr. Joseph Chamberlain
Oral and Maxillofacial
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 11/9/05 5:24 PM, in article 4372a200$0$11078$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl,
"Bart van der Wolf" <bvdwolf@no.spam> wrote:
| Quote: |
"Joseph Chamberlain, DDS" <drjchamberlain@earthlink.net> wrote in
message news:BF96C8A2.2EA3D%drjchamberlain@earthlink.net...
SNIP
I have done almost no post processing. Images were taken as
RAW (only; no JPEG) and then opened in Camera Raw hosted
by Bridge (Adobe's latest CS2). Nothing was done in Camera
Raw and all default values remained (the latest version of
Camera Raw comes with auto values as the default) as were.
In essence, there was no post processing done.
Which is part of your issue at hand, especially for Canon DSLRs.
Canon chose to err on the side of caution, the unprocessed images may
look blurry, which is good!
Some cameras produce poor images as a basis for post-processing (noise
reduction / sharpening), Canon Raws provide a good base material that
allows e.g. resizing without introducing(!) excessive artifacts due to
the processing.
The problems I mentioned relate to image quality primarily
around the periphery (edge sharpness). The problems is
more pronounced with 16-35mm as should be expected.
Edge sharpness needs to be restored from a Raw capture, preferably
after resizing to output dimensions. As an example of what can be
achieved:
http://www.xs4all.nl/~bvdwolf/main/downloads/Batavia_Crop.jpg
Bart |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John A. Stovall
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Nov 11, 2005 5:41 am Post subject:
Re: Canon digital bodies and Nikon lenses |
|
|
On 10 Nov 2005 14:06:11 -0800, pooua@aol.com wrote:
| Quote: | pooua@aol.com wrote:
Joseph Chamberlain, DDS wrote:
I have done almost no post processing. Images were taken as RAW (only; no
JPEG) and then opened in Camera Raw hosted by Bridge (Adobe's latest CS2).
Nothing was done in Camera Raw and all default values remained (the latest
version of Camera Raw comes with auto values as the default) as were. In
essence, there was no post processing done.
FWIW, I attended a "Wolf University" class that discussed RAW format.
Based on what they say, it is not a surprise that your images looked
crummy. RAW format is *really* raw! It is not meant to be viewed that
way. It is not finished product. A lot of people get the idea that RAW
is another word for "pure," but it is really just the bare picture data
before the camera's own circuitry performs any processing on it (such
as white balance, color balance or whatever else the camera does).
Unless you intend to spend an hour or more tweaking each photo in
software (such as Photoshop), you should not use RAW.
Recently, I saw a software product advertised that compensates for
known lens distortions in various lenses. The idea appears to be that
you feed the program your image, tell it which lens you used to take
the picture, and it corrects for distortions.
|
You can do the same thing in ACR with photoshop.
*********************************************************
"I have been a witness, and these pictures are
my testimony. The events I have recorded should
not be forgotten and must not be repeated."
-James Nachtwey-
http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Nov 11, 2005 5:41 am Post subject:
Re: Canon digital bodies and Nikon lenses |
|
|
On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 12:02:04 -0800, "Frank ess" <frank@fshe2fs.com>
wrote:
| Quote: | Rob wrote:
On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 09:21:13 -0800, "Frank ess" <frank@fshe2fs.com
wrote:
Rob wrote:
On Wed, 09 Nov 2005 00:20:18 GMT, "Joseph Chamberlain, DDS"
drjchamberlain@earthlink.net> wrote:
Dear group members:
I wanted to post some questions and first reviews on my new
equipment to obtain some feedback from you as well as have you
share
your own experiences.
This past weekend I took my new Canon 1Ds Mark II out for the
first
real serious shooting session and did some tests with two lenses
I
purchased along with the camera. The lenses are the EF 16-35mm
f/2.8L USM zoom and the EF 24mm f/1.4L USM.
I am surprised with the low quality of the images I got from both
lenses. I
I'm rather surprised based on what I've read from perhaps 100
other
posts/web site reviews. More than likely, it's you that need to
make
corrections. You need to read some web sites about how to use
those
lenses.
And based on some replies, I don't think you impress people
telling
how much you spent. In fact, I think some don't believe you. I
believe you but that's neither here nor there. But one thing
always
bothered me why people post a message which is obviously unrelated
to
their profession and then sign off with their credentials. Do the
credentials make your post more worthy?? I don't think so.
Good luck with your camera and lenses. I think the only problem
you
have is you don't know how to use your camera properly. Do some
research and you will become satisfied.
Once again Rob demonstrates his level-headed grasp of things.
My first thought was: even Quality Control workers on big-dollar
production lines have their off-minutes; if every lens returns
"blur", could it be a camera focus problem? What local procedure
will check for that?
I want to respond to this ridiculous reply of yours but forgot if
the
name is Frank Ess or Frank Ass. Sounds like the latter is more
appropriate.
Frank _ss, since you know it all, you probably can answer your last
reply yourself.
So I offer a compliment in support of Rob's statements, add a
suggestion of my own, and he blows his cork. Seems as if he's a tad
insecure. Too bad.
|
Not so sure it sounded like a compliment.
Maybe he did overreact.
Insecure, don't know.
Too bad, perhaps. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Brian Stirling
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Nov 13, 2005 5:40 am Post subject:
Re: Canon digital bodies and Nikon lenses |
|
|
On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 02:16:51 GMT, "Joseph Chamberlain, DDS"
<drjchamberlain@earthlink.net> wrote:
| Quote: | First I wish to thank all those who provided helpful and well-meant
responses to my original post.
This week I took my camera to the original reseller and tested it against a
few other similar lenses. The 24mm lens is what it is. It simply isn't a
match for the Nikkor 28mm equivalent I use for night photography without
flash. This lens wasn't honestly my biggest concern as I can learn to live
with this difference in performance.
The biggest of my concerns was the 16-25mm zoom producing images with edge
distortion that had NOTHING to do with post processing or sharpening. I am
referring to huge, unacceptable geometric distortion around the edges.
After using a few others 16-35mm the reseller had in his inventory it was
apparent not only to me, but to a few specialists that the lens was
definitely flawed. I was able to exchange it for a different one that
produced images that were noticeably better. Do I think the performance is
the same ? NO. I still think the Nikkor 17-35mm is a better lens but the
difference now is really negligible.
|
I to have had experience with both Nikon and Canon. My Nikon kit
included an F100 film camera and a D100 DSLR. I switched to Canon a
bit over a year ago because I wanted a FF DSLR for landscape work and
Nikon, when they announced the D2X, confirmed once again that they
intend to stick with the 1.5:1 crop factor. Also, as I wanted to get
into wildlife/bird photography I knew I'd need a really long lens.
OK, so what's my impression of the two companies products. First, on
the ergonomics side I still prefer the Nikon layout but I've gotten
used to the Canon (1Ds Mark II). The image quality favors the Canon
in part due to the much higher resolution but also due to better noise
levels. Now, as to lenses ...
At the telephoto end Canon definitely has the edge owing to there
early implementation of IS (image stabilization) and perhaps a bit
better optics. But, at the wide end Canon is not very good if you ask
me and even though Nikon can't hang with the German lens makers they
are without a doubt better than Canon. It is a shame that Canon can't
get there act together at the wide end. I should point out that I
have mostly "L" glass including the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L and the EF 500mm
f/4L IS as well as five more mostly "L" glass. I love the 500 but am
less than happy with the 24-70.
My observation is not biased for or against anyone and I would dearly
love for my 24-70 to be better but I got what I got!
You can look around and you'll see a mix of responses about Canon's
wide lens quality but very little variation of response regarding
there telephoto lens quality.
Brian |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in