« Open Mike (OT): Car For Sale | Main | Old Ways »

Sunday, 03 June 2012

Comments

Would the 24mm prime offer a better image than the 24-70 F2.8L I have?

28mm is a great focal length for APS-C. I have a couple manual versions and they are about perfect, IMO, as a normal lens.

I'm tempted. Given that in good conditions, with the stars in correct alignment, I can handhold a 24mm at 1/15th, this lens theoretically provides 'handholdabilty' at 1 second! Of course I shoot very few subjects that stay still for a second - but I'd love to try one out.

I'd like to try the 24 too.

Now all they need is a (roughly) 33mm and a 60mm with modern glass and computation.

F2 would be fine.

Put me down in the 'want that 24mm' camp! Have an old Sigma 24/2.8 from the film era that I use and just love the thing. Just seems to work for me on APS-C.

But at about $900.- CDN give or take? Everyone has their own needs and uses, but for that chunk of change, I think I`d get the 100mmf2.0 AND 35mmf2.0.

you are not alone, Mike; if ever, I'd like to try these lenses (or any lens, for that matter) on a film camera... it gives you a raw (silver) lens record par excellence!
Actually, I don't really understand why someone should buy an 28 f/2.8 IS instead of the proven 28 f/1.8?
And for some 60% extra??

What's a "film camera?"

;-D

The original 24mm f/2.8 is my "go to" lens on APS-C for a day out with the kids/family at museums, parks, etc. If I want to be light and quick, I've grown very fond of this combination.

While I would love to have IS (and could very much use it), the price is way beyond my budget. Maybe the used market, in a couple years, will be more palatable.

Curious: Why would you want to try them on a film camera?

"Why would you want to try them on a film camera?"

Because you can.

Mike

dear Jay,
why would I (or Mike) try on a film camera?
Not only because you can, but also because silver crystals won't be interpolated...
I think you can get a much more honest comparison between two lenses if you shoot some test (e.g. target) shots on a BW hig-res film (which outresolves your lenses), on a tripod of course.
Then you inspect your negatives on a light table with your very best viewing loupe.

"dear Jay, why would I (or Mike) try on a film camera?..."

No, I just meant that how else can you get IS and Tri-X together, except on a Canon, because Canon puts IS into its lenses? And how else am *I* going to shoot other than with a normal-to-wide-angle prime lens?

So this is a first, I believe--an opportunity to shoot film with more or less the right focal length, AND get IS.

Mike

Mike

The Canon 24-105mm f/4.0 IS L lens has been around for YEARS and can be (and undoubtedly has been) used on Canon film cameras.

"The Canon 24-105mm f/4.0 IS L lens has been around for YEARS and can be (and undoubtedly has been) used on Canon film cameras."

Yes, but I don't care for zooms. Plus, that particular lens isn't to my taste optically. (I'm being kind.)

Mike

Want to borrow my Elan 7E, Mike?

Funny... I don't like my 24-105mm very much either. I thought it was just me. There's a sort of cognitive dissonance when you have a thousand dollar lens that you just don't like and don't use.

Regarding the two Canon primes: that's a LOT of money for two not-especially-fast lenses. The 28/2.8 used to be one of the cheap lenses in the line. I suppose the IS is worth something, but that glass had better be something really special.

I sold my 24-105 after taking it on a holiday trip and intending to use it exclusively in order to minimise mucking around with my family. When I got back I was really unhappy with it, but loved the pictures where I'd just put the 50/1.4 or 70-200 f4IS on instead.

Mike

Mike,

I recall you writing some years ago that you felt that digital tended to de-emphasize the differences between lenses in comparison to film. Given your comment on wanting to try these on a film camera and the subsequent thread comments, do you still think that is the case or have things moved on now to the point where differences are showing up again?

(A separate question might be, are there still differences between lenses?)

Mike

The comments to this entry are closed.