« ThinkTank Bargain | Main | Readers' Suggestions of Good Books for Learning »

Thursday, 10 December 2015


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

This is the reason I moved to fuji with the 23mm 1.4. DSLR's are looking dinosaur like these days.$700 versus $1800 a no brainer. Wake up the DSLR is just too big and heavy.

I like Roger's tests and his sense of humor. I'd be really interested in his tearing down the Fujinon 90mm f/2 WR, because Image Resource just gave it their Lens of the Year award, and have stated it is the sharpest lens they have ever tested. Build quality and image quality are also stated to be excellent.

The other lens I'd like to see Roger go through is the Fuji 50-140mm pro zoom, which also won a Lens of Distinction award at Imaging Resource (partial quote: "this lens blew us away in its abilities both in the lab and out in the field.", and which reportedly has the best image stabilization of any lens (with 5 stops of stabilization).

These testing results are consistent with my own observations, not only did Fuji launch the X-system with excellent lenses, but they are getting better and better with each new release.

I'm pretty sure I could tear that sucker apart, but it'd take the rest of my life to get it back together, and I'd probably have a few parts left over when I did get it together.

I don't understand why some lens makers are introducing these high-speed mega-weight/sized/priced monsters. With the incredible ISO speeds and the bright viewfinders on today's mirrorless cameras, then f:2.8 (or 4.0, or even 5.6) is all that is needed.
The old 35mm Summilux for my M Leicas was useful in its day, but no longer needed.

The lens seems good, but unfortunately Canon bodies do not tempt me in the slightest, the competition being much more interesting now.

That said, the Lens Rentals blog is a refreshing read, since it doesn't just repeat the same stuff that many other sites do. It's also the only site I know where "build quality" is actually examined.

Is there a site that rates the holes in different pinholes?

Canon at one time, had a "habit" of overbuilding. My favorite film camera was the Canon F-1. It was a tank as was the 85mm 1.8. Alas, those days are gone, but I have no complaints about my new 5DSR. Well, the files are HUGE, but incredible.
I, too enjoy Lens Rentals, but take a lens apart? I haven't done that sort of thing since I took my Dad's pocket watch apart when I was 5.
Mi dos pesos

Who is interested in over sized, over priced, over performing, over engineered, over weight equipments? In these times when plastics can out perform metal, we should look forward to lighter, smaller, cheaper and more practical tools for photography. With all those high end tools of the trade around we still do not see any better photographs. What use are all those high performing gadgets? They satisfy the egos of a few and swell the bank accounts of the manufacturers. Nothing more.

Yes, Roger's tear-downs and lens analyses really are entertaining and independently informative. Who could possibly know the physical characteristics of gear better than a rental shop? And now that he has that super-atomic lens analyzer there's no stopping him!

And yes, that new EF35L2 looks built to take some abuse. It's predecessor was also built like a tank...and semed a bit like a tank to carry. Earlier this year I finally sold mine after reaching a moment of self-honesty. I have a total of 434 images in my 10-year Lightroom database taken with the EF35L, and only one of those would be mourned if lost to catastrophe. My favorite 35mm EF lens is the diminutive, light, sharp, fast, squeaky, plastic, and much-less-costly EF 35mm F2 which I've had for many years. I don't need The Tank. The Toy is just fine...and more fun!

"I don't understand why some lens makers are introducing these high-speed mega-weight/sized/priced monsters."

I agree with these sentiments. Canon are not alone, Zeiss seem to be beating everyone with their behemoths (Milvus, Otus). In general Canon has been striving to keep things smaller - witness the newish 24-70s and the 24/28/35 Is lenses. All very reasonable size and weight. Then there is the small 400 mm DO. This new 35/1.4 therefore goes against this trend, which is a shame. I think what they would say, and Zeiss maintain this too, is that the large size is needed to obtain the maximum resolution needed for the high MP cameras around today (they are thinking of the Canon 5Ds and the Nikon D810). Zeiss have much less of an excuse as their ZE/ZF lenses do not even autofocus. As I have neither of these cameras, I can't really comment, but I am skeptical. The Sony Zeiss 35/1.4 for the E mount is hardly a lightweight either.

Personally watching F1 and Tour de France (Campagnolo I agree) photographers at work, I begin to think 4.0 is the new 2.8 and why not with higher and higher ISO rates.

Smaller is not that sexy, but it gets the job done and saves muscle......

Canon is on the right track as well as Nikon.....and Leitz, well as you know the only photo's worth viewing are made with an M and a 0.95 50mm (at least according to some :-)).

Greets, Ed.

The comments to this entry are closed.



Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 06/2007