Digital BW, The Print

Hi Group,
sorry for the trivial question, but I seem to loose an info about the 
site where
I could find comprehensive lenses reviews.  After 25 years of belonging 
to the
Nikon camp I am about to jump ship and buy the 1Ds.  I need to chose the
lenses to go with it.  Oh, one in the beginning.  I am considering 
16-35/2.8 and
17-40/4.0  (the latter being cheaper and supposedly[?] sharper).

I would appreciate direction to the site with the reviews.
Thanks,
Jack

_________________________________________________
Jack M Kucy
JMK Gallery (www.jmk-gallery.com)
917-991-2096     jmk@...
Member of ASMP (www.asmp.org)
_________________________________________________
...a riveder le stelle

Jack:

You don't want the 17-40/L with the 1DS as you will get some 
vignetting on the outer edges of the sensor.  You will need to get 
the 16-35/L. 

Duncan

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Jack M Kucy 
<jmk@j...> wrote:
> Hi Group,
> sorry for the trivial question, but I seem to loose an info about 
the 
> site where
> I could find comprehensive lenses reviews.  After 25 years of 
belonging 
> to the
> Nikon camp I am about to jump ship and buy the 1Ds.  I need to 
chose the

> lenses to go with it.  Oh, one in the beginning.  I am considering 
> 16-35/2.8 and
> 17-40/4.0  (the latter being cheaper and supposedly[?] sharper).
> 
> I would appreciate direction to the site with the reviews.
> Thanks,
> Jack
> 
> _________________________________________________
> Jack M Kucy
> JMK Gallery (www.jmk-gallery.com)
> 917-991-2096     jmk@j...
> Member of ASMP (www.asmp.org)
> _________________________________________________
> ...a riveder le stelle

> I know Michael and can state without a doubt that he has no agenda
> and is not biased in any way by any of the equipment manufacturers or
> other outside factors.  Granted you are reading his opinions, but his
> opinions are experienced and educated and he will not hesitate to say
> something is a piece of crap if it is.

I wonder more about his eye and judgment: in his review of the 1270 he 
stated that it printed neutral B&W "straight out the box" (i.e., with 
the Epson drive and Epson profiles), and then repeated that claim for 
the 2200. Some of his other judgments on some digital SLRs being better 
or equal to medium format film cameras are also, to say the least, 
questionable.

BTW, on his forum, he seems sometimes to get irascible: several times 
when a poster questioned his statements or judgments he responded that 
he doesn't have time for this type of this thing and would rather go 
out and take pictures -- a strange and unpleasant type of statement for 
someone who tests so much equipment and spends so much time writing 
about it. As Austin states: when challenged Reichmann takes his marbles 
and goes home.

--Mitch/Paris

There are many ways to review a lens. The best way is to use a 
calibrated test fixture that will measure the performance of the lens 
vs. the theatrical performance.  No real lens will perform to 
theoretical and even the best zoom lenses are a compromise from a fixed 
focal length.

I personally take all "subjective" evaluations with a grain of salt 
since you will find that some people find some types of performance 
degradation "pleasing to the eye."

As far as I am concerned on a lens give me the specs so I can see how 
close the design is to theoretical and give me the test numbers that 
determines how well the lens achieves the spec and I am happy. If you 
start with a lens that gives the most faithful reproduction on the back 
side as what is on the front side, then that is the best lens. Things 
that are pleasing to one eye are not pleasing to the next eye.

Truman

Mitch Alland wrote:

> > I know Michael and can state without a doubt that he has no agenda
> > and is not biased in any way by any of the equipment manufacturers or
> > other outside factors.  Granted you are reading his opinions, but his
> > opinions are experienced and educated and he will not hesitate to say
> > something is a piece of crap if it is.
>
> I wonder more about his eye and judgment: in his review of the 1270 he
> stated that it printed neutral B&W "straight out the box" (i.e., with
> the Epson drive and Epson profiles), and then repeated that claim for
> the 2200. Some of his other judgments on some digital SLRs being better
> or equal to medium format film cameras are also, to say the least,
> questionable.
>
> BTW, on his forum, he seems sometimes to get irascible: several times
> when a poster questioned his statements or judgments he responded that
> he doesn't have time for this type of this thing and would rather go
> out and take pictures -- a strange and unpleasant type of statement for
> someone who tests so much equipment and spends so much time writing
> about it. As Austin states: when challenged Reichmann takes his marbles
> and goes home.
>
> --Mitch/Paris
>
>

Mitch/Austin:

Go info.  I have never seen this behavior but I have never 
specifically looked for it.  Thanks for the info.

Duncan

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Mitch Alland 
<malland@x> wrote:
> > I know Michael and can state without a doubt that he has no agenda
> > and is not biased in any way by any of the equipment 
manufacturers or
> > other outside factors.  Granted you are reading his opinions, but 
his
> > opinions are experienced and educated and he will not hesitate to 
say
> > something is a piece of crap if it is.
> 
> I wonder more about his eye and judgment: in his review of the 1270 
he 
> stated that it printed neutral B&W "straight out the box" (i.e., 
with 
> the Epson drive and Epson profiles), and then repeated that claim 
for 
> the 2200. Some of his other judgments on some digital SLRs being 
better 
> or equal to medium format film cameras are also, to say the least, 
> questionable.
> 
> BTW, on his forum, he seems sometimes to get irascible: several 
times 
> when a poster questioned his statements or judgments he responded 
that 
> he doesn't have time for this type of this thing and would rather 
go 
> out and take pictures -- a strange and unpleasant type of statement 
for 
> someone who tests so much equipment and spends so much time writing 
> about it. As Austin states: when challenged Reichmann takes his 
marbles 

> and goes home.
> 
> --Mitch/Paris

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Jack M Kucy 
<jmk@j...> wrote:
> Hi Group,
> sorry for the trivial question, but I seem to loose an info about 
the 
> site where
> I could find comprehensive lenses reviews.  After 25 years of 
belonging 
> to the
> Nikon camp I am about to jump ship and buy the 1Ds.  I need to 
chose the
> lenses to go with it.  Oh, one in the beginning.  I am considering 
> 16-35/2.8 and
> 17-40/4.0  (the latter being cheaper and supposedly[?] sharper).
> 
> I would appreciate direction to the site with the reviews.
> Thanks,
> Jack
 _________________________________________________

Jack,

Just joined the list and so may be giving you this info. far too late 
but I shoot with a 1Ds and 10D with various canon lenses.  Feel free 
to e-mail me off-list with questions.

Sean Reid
Northeastern Imaging
sreid@...

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Duncan Staples" 
<gdstaples@y...> wrote:
> Jack:
> 
> You don't want the 17-40/L with the 1DS as you will get some 
> vignetting on the outer edges of the sensor.  You will need to get 
> the 16-35/L. 
> 
> Duncan
> 

With all due respect I have to disagree.  I shoot with the 1Ds and 
the 17-40 and the vignetting is very minor and only when close to 
wide open at the shorter focal lengths.  I just looked again at my 
own lens tests to be sure.  The 17-40 is a wonderful lens, better 
than the 20-35L I've been using for a long time.