Guy Mancuso wrote:
The 50mm is better than that to be honest , not at home but i will shoot something that will show some great bokeh and actually it is better on the DMR because it is a longer lens. The longer the better with bokeh in general.
mmm... actually it is the opposite Guy, a 50mm on a FF camera will always show less dof-better bokeh, because with a "cropped" sensor you have to step back to frame the same subject, hence less dof.
Indeed the 50mm on the DMR isn't a longer lens, you only crop the outer zones from the 50mm.
It is the same old rule between 35mm, MF and LF, bigger format = less the dof, better bokeh(depending on the lens' characteristic), better '3d effect'.
this sounds very logical and is the opposite of what many crop fans talk about here at the board. i read many threads about this theme and i must say, that i think the same like you.
with FF i can go nearer to the object and still have the same frame filling, and the nearer you are to the object, the more the background blurs (which is what you mean with less DOF).
it is not only the aperture but also the distance that influences DOF, as you surely know.
respect to your efforts. at a first glance i dont see how all this expensive lenses and modifications deliver a way better image quality, but i respect, when others are so much into something and love what they do and are convinced about their methods and their gear.
me personally, i could not spend all this time and money to then only find marginal improvements compared to other good PRIME lenses, that are cheaper.
the 50 mm shot in fact did not convince me at all. 15 mm at f8 is okay.
a question to the modifying technique, please tell me, why you had this HARSH cutting procedure inside the body!!!!!
if i would try this at home, i would make it outside, order for example a second mirror, modify it and then replace it.
Just a thought about finishing the jagged edges of the mirror. Instead of polishing with a dremel tool, how about using a few brief passes with a micro torch such as on of these
[url=http://www.microtorches.com] to smooth the glass edges.
I already have the Distagon 21 (indeed I was one of the first mad souls to mount it on a Canon, over two years ago) but day after day I'm using the 24-105L IS more because I found that at 24mm slightly stopped down it is not far from the CZ 21, strange as it seems.
Maybe I have a very good copy, but it is in a completely different league than all the copies of the 16-35L and 17-40L I previously owned, also better than the 24-70L I had a while ago.
I'm using less the CZ because there's little difference between 24 and 21mm, at least not so much to justify putting the lens in my backpack, I'd better bring a wider prime.
I was asked to trade the CZ with a Leica 15/3.5 which I think could serve me better in my landscape/architecture photography. ...Show more →
Marco,
How well is the Chromatic Aberration controlled on the 24-105? Also are you one stop of wide or two?
Guy,
Did you happen to test the 21-35 wide open, and if so, how was the smearing?
DADDYWORX wrote:
me personally, i could not spend all this time and money to then only find marginal improvements compared to other good PRIME lenses, that are cheaper.
While the differences may be minor, they are present and real. It is comparable to buying cars, motorcycles or stereo gear. You can get a boom-box for $250, a decent sound system for $1250 and a very good system for say $2500. However if you are an audiophile and want the best sound available, that $2500 system only gets you about 80% of the way to excellent and you can hear the defects in it. If you want the best, you will have to put up with assembling separate components, usually from selected and different manufacturers, know how to hook them all together, then turn on three different devices and throw four different switches just to listen to a CD! You may even pay an extra $2500 for a turntable so you can listed to old records! And for all this added effort, you get to pay maybe 10 times as much -- $25,000 -- to gain that last extra bit of performance.
But this path is what separates "very good" from "excellent".
So obviously, undertaking this particular photographic journey is not ideal for everybody, but for those willing AND able to put up with the tradeoffs, it is the path to obtaining the best performance possible from their systems.
Jack Flesher wrote:
While the differences may be minor, they are present and real. It is comparable to buying cars, motorcycles or stereo gear. You can get a boom-box for $250, a decent sound system for $1250 and a very good system for say $2500. However if you are an audiophile and want the best sound available, that $2500 system only gets you about 80% of the way to excellent and you can hear the defects in it. If you want the best, you will have to put up with assembling separate components, usually from selected and different manufacturers, know how to hook them all together, then turn on three different devices and throw four different switches just to listen to a CD! You may even pay an extra $2500 for a turntable so you can listed to old records! And for all this added effort, you get to pay maybe 10 times as much -- $25,000 -- to gain that last extra bit of performance.
But this path is what separates "very good" from "excellent".
So obviously, undertaking this particular photographic journey is not ideal for everybody, but for those willing AND able to put up with the tradeoffs, it is the path to obtaining the best performance possible from their systems.
The analogy makes sense and I understand your point. But it is a little off.
Cameras are analogue to the recording equipments.
CDs are to Photos.
And the Audio gear is analogues to your display monitor or printer.
Their performance has different leverage on the final experience.
Pondria wrote:
The analogy makes sense and I understand your point. But it is a little off.
Cameras are analogue to the recording equipments.
CDs are to Photos.
And the Audio gear is analogues to your display monitor or printer.
Their performance has different leverage on the final experience.
But I think the part about what separates "very good" from "excellent" is right on.
Another way that the audiophile analogy applies is that in many cases it is at least as much about impressing people with the expense and "exoticness" of one's equipment as it is about the actual results. --c
charlesk wrote:
Another way that the audiophile analogy applies is that in many cases it is at least as much about impressing people with the expense and "exoticness" of one's equipment as it is about the actual results. --c
lol, did you ever see the Turtable that floats on water to further isolate it from motor noise/rumble?
One time my brother-in-law made me watch some show that featured Fabio showing some dufuses around his mansion. In his stereo room he had a system he claimed cost 2 or 3 MILLION dollars. Cause hey, who could stand the crappy sound quality of one of those cheap-o $500,000 stereo systems?
He showed one of his speaker cables, which cost $9,000. For a cable. --c
Perhaps I am reading this wrong, but why the sarcasm, discreet?
I use a 10D with only Canon lenses and I will NEVER go to the effort and cost to use Leica or Zeiss lenses, but I find this reading fascinating. (If I didn't, I would just skip the thread). The fact that information pertinant to some Canon DSLR owners is present makes it relevant for this forum.
How well is the Chromatic Aberration controlled on the 24-105? Also are you one stop of wide or two?
At f/4 the Distagon is sharper in the corners, but from f/5.6 it's hard to tell them apart even pixel peeping at 100% although my 24-105 is somewhat less sharp in the right edge.
The CA is better controlled in the Distagon, but the 24-105 isn't bad at all. Much better than my 45 TSE for example.
Vignetting is visible in the 24-105L @ 24mm even at f/8, while on the Distagon it is almost completely gone at f/8 and even at f/5.6 it is visible only against a uniform background.
Distortion is again better corrected in the Distagon, though in the 24-105L is easier to correct (the CZ needs a complex setting in PanoTools to correct its slight 'gull wing' distortion).
Note though that while vignetting, distortion (if not complex) and some CA could be corrected in PS, none can be done to softness, so I'd take sharpness over the rest anyday.
Overall the Distagon is a better lens, no surprise here, but if you stop down a bit (even at f/5.6) the differences are so small you have to compare identical images side by side at 100% on monitor or closely inspect the edges of two 24 x 36" prints to barely see them.
Obviously I tolerate the need of having to stop down to f/5.6 (the Zeiss is excellent even at f/2.8) only because I never shoot at fast apertures with wides and if I have to it's because I want to blur background behind a near subject and typically I don't need a perfect edge-to-edge sharpness.
In tele-range I do need all the quality wide open, so the opposite is true.
Last note: the 24-105 has IS, which allows to stop down heavily while handholding, not a minor feature for a wideangle...
Further investigation showed that on an unmodified 5D the mirror just catches on the sleeve that retains the rear lens cell. The sleeve also has a lip to protect the lens if you place it down on a surface. Since replacement sleeves may be available and it would be easy to have it machined down I decided to see if the rear lens would clear the mirror with the sleeve removed.
I removed the sleeve (unscrewed) and used single piece of soft surgical tape about 2/1000" thickness to protect the glass. The mirror hit the tape in the lens center with both adapters I have, Cameraquest and cheaper ebay one. Cameraquest is so marginal it may work with the tape removed, but that's the adapter which I think doesn't quite give infinity focus with the lens on the 1Ds2.
Unfortunately not a good conclusion - I'm still without very wide angle for the 5D unless I de-fish the 15mm fisheye
--c
