Chip Louie wrote:
> I mean this comment only for trannies that are projected. It's hard to crop
> them for projection use. 8^)
Ah! I had not thought of that. I have always composed "full frame," even when
using negs--it never occurs to me to compose for cropping. I suppose that's a
product of having shot exclusively slides for the first fifteen years or so that
I was doing this photography thing (print films were complete rubbish when I
started out).
> This comment is also true if you like to actively compose in the finder like
> I do.
Just curious by what you mean by this. I take it to mean composing with the full
frame, whereas composing for later cropping would be "passive" composition?
> To address your comment about primes being generally superior optically to
> zooms I'd also say this is generally true
Right--"generally true"; I intentionally did not make a categorical statement.
At the same time, even Canon's best "L" zooms, while clearly superior as zooms,
are really only as good as their good fixed focal length lenses.
> comparing Canon's standard bearers, the "L" class zoom triplets (EF
> 16/17-35 2.8L, EF 28-70 2.8L and EF 70-200 2.8L/IS/4L), to Canon's own
> primes there is NO practical advantage to the primes except for lens speed
> and only a few same focal length primes are faster!
Also size, weight, handling, and PRICE. :-) In fact, I personally do find
practical advantages to the 85/1.8 or 100/2 compared to the 28-70L in some
circumstances (setting aside the difference in focal lengths--I don't have a
fixed focal length lens in the 28-70 range). Again this is personal preference,
but weight and size are objective aspects of lenses that can have an impact
("impact" is not a verb!!) on one's photo experience (so to speak). There are
times when weight is an important consideration, and situations where having a
zoom capability is an added complication and distraction rather than an aid.
> there is effectively no difference optically except that the shorter "L"
> primes are generally less sharp when used at their fastest apertures than
> the non-"L"s.
Generally speaking, this is because the shorter "L" lenses have very large max
apertures and therefore require the "L" treatment to overcome the optical
problems and compromises inherent in such designs. These lenses are really only
appropriate for those who need their extreme max apertures; otherwise they are
not a good value in terms of price/performance and may even be matched or
outperformed by their more modest non-L counterparts at "real world" apertures.
The same appears to hold true for a few "L" zooms, especially the 17-35L vs. the
20-35/3.5~4.5; the latter appears to be pretty much the match of the former at
those focal lengths and apertures they share, while being very much less
expensive.
Preemptive response: No doubt there will be some few who read this and see only
a slam against their favorite ultra-fast wide angle lens (or at least a slam
against a lens for which they paid a lot of money), and to them I say: read what
I have written. Clearly there are a few for whom a very fast wide-angle lens is
important, perhaps even essential--if that's the case, that's what you should be
using. But I think it is not a reckless generalization to suggest that by far
the most common use of wide-angle lenses is with a fairly small aperture, to
maximize apparent DOF; for those photographers, buying a super fast, super
expensive zoom is a waste of money. As I've pointed out more than once, the "L"
treatment is not always employed to enhance already-fine performance--sometimes
it is necessary to tease merely acceptable performance from an extreme or
optically compromised design. The thing that should impress us is not that these
lenses perform very well, but that they perform as well as they do ("like a
dog's walking on his hinder legs: it is not done well; but you are surprised to
find it done at all"--Samuel Johnson). Lenses with specialized uses should be
used by those with specialized needs, or the wealthy. :-)
fcc
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
