>
>
> 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).
>
Yes, I used to do the same thing and tell my lab to print full frame and for
what I consider normal use this is fine but my wife and friends we pass
images on to all complained that the images need to have mats cut go into
frames, scrapbooks and what not. So when I must shoot print films I now
actively (mostly mental chanting 4x6, 4x6), frame for standard sized printed
output.
> > 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?
>
When I say actively compose I intend it to mean awareness of the final
output format and compose to suit for print or projection. So I think to
answer the question I'd say yes.
> > 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.
>
Yes, we are in agreement here. I'd like to add the comment that even
Canon's non-"L" primes that overlap in the "L" zoom focal lengths are very
good and some are exceptional optical performers often even outperforming
their "L" sisters.
> > 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.
>
I'm also pretty much in agreement here, I own several of the classic
portrait focal length lenses, EF 50 1.4USm, EF 85 1.8USM and EF 135 2L
because I like to shoot a lot of people. While the EF 70-200 2.8L a is
great lens for this use, fast, works for tight heads, head & shoulders and
small 2-4 person groups but is bigger/heavier and slower to swing when
shooting in a crowded setting. Which is when I'm most likely to want to be
not seen, it's very obvious and changes the expressions you can get in these
settings, I like to use the EF 135 2L for this.
Here we diverge somewhat, I have never considered a good fast zoom a
complication or distraction. The bulk, weight and cost of carrying enough
primes to fully cover the same focal lengths as the zooms I'd select to
carry into a shooting situation and the time to change them or the weight of
a second and or third body are for most of my shooting a complication and a
distraction and a pain in the neck IMO.
For controlled shooting situations that I can get a look at before-hand like
a large social event in one or two similar rooms, a fixed conference or
press briefing or a photo studio shoot, yes a couple of primes may offer a
speed and weight advantage. But I generally don't mind the extra weight on
one camera for the flexibility, time and weight saved over shooting with
primes and at least one extra body.
> > 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.
>
Yes, I'm pretty much with you here. Initially I bought an EF 20-35
3.5-4.5USM because it performed better optically and with much lower linear
distortion than the EF 17-35 2.8L or EF 20-35 2.8L. But I wound up buying
an EF 17-35 2.8L for that extra 10 degrees, the lens speed at these short
focal lengths is not an issue for me.
> 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
fcc, you sound a lot like me, you've thought about it, I'm totally with you!
Anyone else still here speak up!
Regards,
Chip Louie
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
