Steve Balcombe

You're making a very common mistake here. (No, not the one about telling people not to debate these things while entering into the debate yourself ;-) ) The mistake is that in most cases a good...

I haven't checked your calculations but I'm sure you are right. It'll be interesting to see actual measurements when somebody is able to do that - the difference between 0.21x and 0.25x is...

Yep, I was responding to that specific statement. Just for the record - no, it doesn't.

I'm saying that in the context of the 1.6x crop sensor (remember I was responding to the OP so that is a given), magnification takes account of the combined effects of focal length and focusing...

No. You changed the sensor, that's completely different from changing only the lens.

Also you need to be especially careful with polarising filters, because water can get between the layers of the polariser. The only CPL I know of which has sealed edges to prevent this is the very...

1) EF-S lenses do NOT give a DoF benefit. At a given magnification and f-stop all lenses give the same DoF. 2) The EF-S 60/2.8 Macro does NOT focus 1" away from the subject, not even close. The...

As I said in my last post, the manual disagrees. It wouldn't be the first time that an individual, perhaps speaking off the cuff, has given out wrong information.

Just checked the 24-70/2.8L II manual - there is no mention of a filter being needed to complete the dust/drip resistance. Contrast this with the 17-40/4L where it is stated in big bold lettering...

I guess because that only applies to certain specific lenses (a few Ls and no non-Ls) and we have been discussing the more general case. But looking back I now realise that the OP did ask about the...

That simply wasn't a sensible way to carry a camera - obviously you already know that. But a filter is NOT a solution. They are considerably more fragile than lenses and serve no purpose at all if...

Trying to read between the lines of your brief post - do you mean that in practice f/1.4 is of limited value as a solution to low light, because of the thin depth of field? If so, you are basically...

And very effective they are too - great innovation.

It's a point to be aware of, certainly, but for the vast majority who will never have any reason to switch to full frame it is a recipe for bad lens choices. Your 1D and 1D2 were spiritually in the...

Generalisations like this don't work, at least not consistently. The correct thing to do is to pick the lens which fits your needs and your budget, from the entire range of EF and EF-S lenses all...

I don't think Canon would touch it. It was replaced by the MkII in 1990/91 and Canon generally won't work on lenses they no longer stock spares for. Even if it doesn't need any spare parts they...

@AbrasiveReducer - " And "poison" in German is "gift"."

I once had the pleasure of explaining to a customer that his product, called xxxxxx Mist in English, needed another name for the German...

@klopus - "Steve, Zeiss is proudly and historically German company. Why should they name their lenses so that it is convenient for Americans?"

Firstly I am not American. Secondly, I'm not talking...

@klopus - "Steve, Zeiss is proudly and historically German company. Why should they name their lenses so that it is convenient for Americans?"

I'm not talking about what is convenient for...

Touit? Is that pronounced twit, or twee?

I'm not just having a cheap laugh at Zeiss's expense here, this is a genuine issue - do they not employ English-speaking international marketing people??