Digital BW, The Print

Paul,

Have you had your sample checked out by Canon Repair?
The TS45 is a pretty  highly regarded lens on cameras
with much higher resolution than your Rebel.

Guy

--- Paul Roark <paul.roark@...> wrote:

> Peter,
> 
> > 
> > I think your criticism is simply of the particular
> Canon shift lens you
> > own,
> 
> The fact that the lens is both a shift and tilt
> exacerbates the problems.
> It suffers from the wider image circle as well as
> the greater rear element
> to film distance (more radical retro-focus design).
> 
> > and unfair in that you are talking of using it for
> something it was
> > not designed for.
> 
> I have owned 5 Canon tilt shift lenses, all of which
> were for film cameras.
> I love what then can do, but optically, the wide
> angle ones are just not up
> to the standards I expect of good 35 mm lenses.
> 
> > For years I shot almost everything I took on 35mm
> on
> > an Olympus shift lens, and it was an excellent
> performer, sharp into the
> > corners even at full shift. Just a pity it doesn't
> fit on my Nikon.
> 
> The shift-only lenses only have half the problems of
> the tilt-shift.
> 
> But, to get equal quality from a larger image
> circle, it takes a better,
> more expensive lens.  I'll bet you paid a premium
> for that lens.
> 
> 
> > There are a lot of reviews that do seem to show
> the 'sweet spot'
> > argument is a good one,
> 
> The "sweet spot" of especially a wide angle lens is
> going to be better than
> it's edge.  But, again, all else being equal, a
> designer could make a better
> lens all the way to the edge if the circle could be
> smaller.  It's a
> trade-off.  More money, of course, can allow them to
> make great retro-focus
> lenses with huge image circles.  But they would cost
> a bundle.  Cost is a
> huge factor.
> 
> I'd guess, for example, that the Canon 16 - 35 L is
> about as good as the new
> Tokina digital 12-24 -- but the Canon is 3 times the
> cost.
> 
> > However the main point of some of the reviews is
> that some lenses
> > designed for film are not capable of getting the
> best out of some
> > digital cameras (even full-frame digital.) This is
> true of some very
> > expensive glass that performs well on film. Lens
> designers do usually
> > now claim to be designing for digital, and this
> does seem to mean
> > something, not just marketing talk.
> 
> > Although the lack of a mirror made it possible to
> design great
> > wide-angles for rangefinders (and I'm a great fan
> of some of these, with
> > a 15mm, 21mm, 24mm and 28mm that are great as well
> as an 'interesting'
> > 35mm f1.4) unfortunately they don't seem to suit
> digital cameras.
> 
> 
> Exactly, in addition to the greater need for
> anti-reflection coating on the
> rear element, I assume you've seen the un-processed
> wide angle shots on the
> Epson Leica copy.  They are outrageous.  The light
> fall-off is terrible.
> The obtuse angle of the light that the
> non-retro-focus (outstanding) Leica
> or Cosina lenses result in produces a huge problem. 
> While raw processing
> can take care of it, in part, this is yet another
> factor that robs our very
> scarce dynamic range.  Until there is a major
> advance in digital sensors,
> symmetric wide angles are probably not serious
> contenders, which means those
> who buy these digital Leicas for their great wide
> angles may be
> disappointed.
> 
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com 
> 
> 
> 
> 



		
____________________________________________________
Sell on Yahoo! Auctions \ufffd no fees. Bid on great items.  
http://auctions.yahoo.com/