----- Original Message ----- From: "Gary Fisher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, March 11, 2002 7:48 PM Subject: EOS Consistency of zoom lens design....
> Of the range of canon 2 ring / 2 touch zoom lenses, there seems to be 3 "styles" of lens design as far as usage methods are concerned - these seem to tie in with what seems to be considered the "consumer" (entry level lenses), the "prosumer" (mid range lenses) and "professional" (L lenses). > > On the entry level zooms, there is a wide zoom ring, often over half the length of the lens, and a narrow (sometimes nonexistent) difficult to use focusing ring at the very front of the lens. Examples are the 22-55, 35-80, 28-80/90 and 80-200. > > On mid range zooms the zoom ring has moved toward the front of the lens (not the very front though) and a narrower focus ring (often with FTM) toward the rear of the lens. Examples are 20-35 USM, 28-105, 28-135, 100-300 USM. > > The L zooms have the zoom ring at the rear and a much wider, more tactile FTM focusing ring toward the front. Examples: 16/17-35L, 70-200L (all). > > The reason I raise this is that I've started using my newly purchased 16-35L and being used to the 20-35 USM and 28-135 USM lenses, I keep grabbing the wide focusing ring on the 16-35 thinking it's the zoom ring. I can see that even when (if) I get used to it, in the rush to grab some shots, I'll grab the wrong ring and hey presto that shot disappears! Ok, the zoom ring on the 70-200 is well placed, but it's roughly where the focus ring on the 16-35 sits. One thing about the narrow focusing ring on the mid range lenses is that you don't mistake it for the zoom ring - unlike the L lenses (yes the focus ring on the L's is better for feel and accuracy, but is easily confused with the zoom ring). > > Does anyone know if Canon has ever provided any feedback as to why the two rings are so inconsistent? > > And - it get's worse when you add in the push-pull one ring zooms. But at least all of the Canon lenses consistently zoom and focus in the same direction. Now throw the odd third party lens in the bag and it gets confusing as zoom and focusing directions are often reversed (most use Nikon's standard there I believe?). I would have thought that at least Canon could have been consistent. Unfortunately for me, I'm unlikely to have a set of exclusively L lenses, so I (and many other too) am stuck with the prosumer/pro inconsistencies. > > So tell me - is it just me or do others find the same problems??? Am I being too picky? > > While I'm on the ergonomics kick - I wonder whether any manufactures have toyed with the idea of selling camera bodies for left handers? They do it for things like guitars. Even at a price premium, they'd probably sell quite a few, as 10-12% of the population are left handed. I'll bet a lot less than 10% of Canon's sales are pro bodies and lenses. And no, before you ask, I'm not a south-paw :-) > > Regards > Gary > > P.S. Apologies for the long and somewhat rambling post..... > > > > I've had the same issues with lenses, switching from my 28-135 to the Sigma lenses I have and then the "one touch" 100-400 L. Not a big fan of "one touch," I'll tell you. And it's not so much left handed shooters, it's the left eyed, like me. The Exacta I learned on was oriented to the left rather than the right. I liked that, and often wish they would still do that. It's better now, without a winding crank. Skip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
