Insight from experts, please

Georgi said:

Once I put my 1.2/85L, I never took it off. Seems to me the older
one was sharper or I HAD a superb copy.

Click to expand...

Never had either one...but I liked the Leitz 90 for that FL, but I never compared it to the Canon 85 (anything). It was a 2.8, so speed was not a factor, for sure.

Georgi said:

Also my 50mm macro was the sharpest lens I've ever seen, bar none.

Click to expand...

I had one, too, in the FD mount. I cannot make that broad a statement, but it was no slouch.

Georgi said:

My 20/2.8 resolved detail at 200 feet in the dark at a 20x30"
enlargement from a 35mm slide

Click to expand...

Again, I liked the Leitz 21 over my Canon 20, and I thought the Leitz 21 was a great lens, if not the best 35mm film lens I owned...and I had a bunch. (Long story...owned a camera store at the time.) I'm not sure the Leica 21 would win an actual res contest with the Canon 20, but the color and contrast of the Leitz 21 was superb and added to the appearance of sharpness. Fastest chrome I ever used in the M4s was 64, so I have no idea what it could resolve in the dark(???) They were true hand cameras...seldom were on a tripod...defeated their purpose IMO.

Though it was a bit slow, one of my favorite FD lenses was the 300/4 L, next was probably the TS 35...fun lens.

I probably had 20+ FDs from 17 to 500 (a garbage reflex, but it had its uses, as long as you liked donut bokeh), but for the Leica just 5 from 21 to 90...no 75 or 135.
--
Joe Sesto

PS I'm discussing FD lenses, you may have been commenting on both EF & FD..

I really have NO experience in EF lenses since I quite shooting around 20 years ago. I recently bought the 20D but never got over the fact that I had to work with the pics to get them where i wanted them so I sold it.

I tell you, the stuff I saw from the 50 macro was amazing.

For awhile shooting with Kodak Technical Pan was a big thing due to its sharpness and with the right developer, you could get good tonal range and contrast. Well, I had a 600 LP collection (music) and wanted a record of what I had, just in case. I stacked the LP's up on the floor in a few stacks so I could get say two stacks side by side and then I took a picture with the back/spine facing me (where the name of the record and other info is) and took a picture for maybe 5-6 feet with the macro.

When I enlarged the pictures, i had NO problem reading the text!

As for the other lenses, I think also that I may have gotten very good copies but I WAS lucky with my lenses. Also, my pictures were enlarged on Cibachrome which of course really brought out the sharpness.

I DID have a 24/1.4L that I never liked but that wasn't the performance, I never did use the focal length so I sold it.

I got the 85/1.2L not necessarily because I needed the speed but so that I could focus well and I never regretted it. Also that huge front lens gave me a balance you would not believe.

George

I cannot relate to being dissapointed about the camera not living up to the white paper when there is no correlation between explaining a camera and its performance.

Nikon users will always bash Canon cameras as being hard to hold, difficult to do anything with, and too aggressive in-camera noise reduction. But they bash because they feel the need even though many Canon cameras are better than their nikon counterparts. A few nikon users will admit when Canon has bettered nikon by a bit.

There was even a sony user who made fun of the 1D3 having only knowledge that Canon increased 2MP and 1.5fps. He had NO idea all the redesigned features inside the camera.

Hellashot said:

Nikon users will always bash Canon cameras as being hard to hold,
difficult to do anything with, and too aggressive in-camera noise
reduction.

Click to expand...

and you will always bash Nikon users

Hellashot said:

But they bash because they feel the need

Click to expand...

and what feel do you need )

it is funny how you can turn just about anything into anti-Nikon-user exercise. or is it exorcism? vade retro...

--
Julia

Yes. But there's a difference between good performance and good value.

The 30D was a negligable upgrade from the 20D and it faced (still faces) increasingly stiff competition in terms of overall feature set and value, although not necessarily in terms of high ISO performance (the forte of the 1DII and 20D and what made them such major advances at their release way back in 2004). When 30D didn't improve at all (being essentially the same), most though that an unacceptable effort by Canon and many even questioned whether a new name was justified at all.

--
Keep photography wild.

Progress Lover said:

Yes. But there's a difference between good performance and good value.

The 30D was a negligable upgrade from the 20D and it faced (still
faces) increasingly stiff competition in terms of overall feature
set and value, although not necessarily in terms of high ISO
performance (the forte of the 1DII and 20D and what made them such
major advances at their release way back in 2004). When 30D didn't
improve at all (being essentially the same), most though that an
unacceptable effort by Canon and many even questioned whether a new
name was justified at all.

Click to expand...

so? those that needed the features, paid the delta between selling their 20D and getting a new 30D..those that didn't continued to use their 20D.

what's the big deal? I can't tell my 20D prints at 13x19 against my friend's Nikon D200 - and believe me - we've looked. I didn't lose sleep because canon didn't toss in an extra 1Mp or 2Mp into a camera that didn't really need it anyways. I'll brag about alot of other things before I have to resort to the size of my sensor.........

back to the original question....

whitepapers.. read the language carefully. when they say "may improve" etc, etc . then they are hedging your bets, but anyone that comes out and states something as fact in a whitepaper, pretty well knows for sure it's a certaintity. Credibility and also legally they would have to make good on written claims of specifications and performance.

Georgi said:

I stacked the LP's
up on the floor in a few stacks so I could get say two stacks side
by side and then I took a picture with the back/spine facing me
(where the name of the record and other info is) and took a picture
for maybe 5-6 feet with the macro.

When I enlarged the pictures, i had NO problem reading the text!

Click to expand...

Deja vu...

One of the great things about the New F-1 was the swivel prism. Great for waist level shooting and copy work. Using the Canon copy stand and a could of small flashes set at 45 degrees to the vertical, you could whiz thru a stack of things to copy while sitting at the table with a cable release and the motor drive.

One day a very well known huge aerospace firm's honcho walked into the camera store with a large binder full of ballistic missile assembly photos...some must have been classified. (I could not believe the plumbing in those things.)

He asked if we could make copies...quickly. We said we could, but why not just order dupes from the company photo library? "We would, but some @$$%?!# pasted the photos onto the binder sheets and the reorder numbers are on the backs of the photos!!"

The New F-1, swivel prism, copy stand, 50/macro and a Minolta Flashmeter made it a snap...just shot them on a couple of rolls of ISO 100 color negs...ordered all printed 8 X 10 (same as originals) and they darn near paid for the camera in a couple of hours.

They were so sharp there was little difference from the originals. (We had to send them to a lab that did a lot of work for criminal investigators, coroners and DAs for security reasons.)

The USAF Photo Squadron would have done it for free, but it wasn't worth the embarrassment to the company.

I also had 2 bellows macro lenses, think one was a 20 the other maybe a 35mm, I forget. They could do amazing work...simple little things, too.

I guess I never paid attention to the 85/L, as any serious portrait work I did was usually with MF. For casual stuff I liked the Leica 90, as I said. I did have the Canon 85 Soft Focus lens... fun to play with...but exactly the opposite results of the 85L. Got it when I bought the T-90 as a backup for the New F-1. Used it outdoors in the dunes for a figure study once...gave a whole new meaning to "soft" and " flare"...I over did it.

Those were the days...
--
Joe Sesto

I would have sent this via email, but something always blocks my access to direct contact with other DPR users...has for some time.

Hi, Julia,

Since so many have strayed from the subject of the original post, please allow the one who started it all to take liberties also.

I like your Latin phrase, "may you drink your own poison." My guess is that in order for a reader to know the meaning of the Latin, one must either have studied the language, or, by being Catholic, have known the expression from the liturgy. Am I correct? Take care in expressing learning here. From all of the talented and intelligent people who make up the vast majority in this forum, there is a small number, maybe a half percent, whose blood boils when they see well-crafted language. Your remarks will be attacked out of contempt for their language, not for their substance.

I am a Canon owner but I find no reason, when I use my best thinking, to dislike anything at all about Nikon the company, or its products.

A vote for Nikon or Canon is as a grain of sand on the shore. A vote for civility and courtesy toward other forum participants is something this place needs sorely.

Best to All,

Lovingtheview

The whitepaper is a public communication tool, for those who think it is important, a respect to customer who cares it. It does not matter to who does not care it. To me, it is showing a company passionate at what they are doing and want to share with their customers.

And while every manufacturer can write their own whitepaper, I think at least Canon has shown their speed to market that make me believe their spec is made on ready to mass production cameras rather than an initial prototype for camera 6-12 months from release date.
--
Khun_K

Just sent you my e mail

George