Hi Sriram, ----- Original Message ----- From: "R Sriram" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Craig Zendel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, March 22, 2002 1:49 AM Subject: Re: 16-35 EOS-Digest V1 #975
> Craig Zendel wrote: > | > Hi all, > | > Anyone using the new 16-35mm f2.8 L lens yet? > | > Any opinione would be gratefully recieved. > | > Kindest regards, > | > Dave & Caroline > | > | IMO better than it's predecessor in every respect. > | > | If anyone would like more detail I'll go into it or contact me off list. > | > | Craig Z > > Craig, > > I'm looking at buying this lens, but I've heard many reports about > barrel distortion with this lens, which is going to be a big problem > since I use film. Do you use this lens with a digital camera or a film > SLR? I mainly use 1Ns. But I have used this lens with the D30. >What's your experience? Generally or specifically with this lens? I have been a professional photographer for 15 years. I shoot advertising, corporate, industrial etc. With this lens I have shot interiors, exteriors, a product shot, fashion/lifestyle and my daughter! >Do you have any full frame scans of > pictures shot with this lens when it's focused close and far away, and > at different focal lengths? Sorry, I don't have a film scanner. >Done tests with brick walls? Sorry, no. > Thanks and regards, > Sriram from Singapore. I realise it's difficult to quantify the quality of a lens. My criteria may be very different to yours. Like most photographers I strive to achieve the highest technical standards, but as 95% of my work is viewed on the printed page, no bigger than A4, trying to eke out every last bit of resolution, etc. is not a major consideration. The litho print process is great leveller of equipment and technique. If your thing is to produce 30"x20" prints that are examined from 12 inches, then I'm not the right person to ask if a lens/film/print combination can do this. I care little about 'bokeh'. The day a client questions the quality of my out of focus areas, I'll rethink. Until then I'll concentrate on my in focus areas. I sometimes wonder, if money were not an issue, would some photographers have, for example, a Canon 100mm because it has the best colours, a Nikon 100mm because it has the best contrast, a Leica 100mm because it has the best 'bokeh', a Minolta 100mm because it has the best flare resistance, need I go on? I am committed to the Canon system, there equipment is amongst the finest available. Others are committed to other systems. I think the 16-35L is really excellent lens, it may not be as well corrected, have such good corner resolution etc, (yawn), as a prime, but it is a fine optic. If you really need to see pictures of a brick wall shot near/far at various focal lengths (I do understand why and this is not meant to be, in any way, patronising) then best do that yourself, using your methodology, judged by your standards. If possible with the actual lens that you may then buy. Regards Craig Z PS: I've been to your Website and it strikes me that the content of your work is far more important to you, than the means of arrival. Your pictures are excellent and that's how it should be. * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
