On 11/8/05 5:43 PM, "Jeff Spirer" <jeff@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > How much post-processing are you doing? What are the settings in the > camera? You have to remember that with digital, you are the > photographer and the lab, and without the work done properly, you > won't get great results. None. The camera is set to RAW and I am opening the images in Camera Raw hosted by Bridge (Adobe CS2). The problems I am referring to have nothing to do with processing but rather with the degree of distortion and sharpness of the images specially around the periphery of the lenses (particularly the 16-35mm zoom). > There are a lot of whiners and complainers on the net. There are > plenty of people who have done ads, magazine covers, etc. with these > lenses. If you think you can learn digital overnight, you're wrong. I don't think I can learn digital overnight and am not attempting to do it. The issues I refer to on my original post relate to simple observations accomplished by anyone (specialist or not) with the naked eye. I am keeping an open mind and even thought that I might have bad lenses that needed to be replaced. This is the reason I checked the reviews on photo forums to see what other users had experienced with these lenses. > I've got a lot of stuff published and sold prints up to 13x19 from a > much lower cost setup. You need to spend some time to understand > what you have and how to use it. I understand your point and appreciate your input. My original cost setup was also lower and I can assure you that the images I was able to obtain with my Nikon and the 17-35mm zoom were way sharper around the edges than what I got from my current Canon setup. > I think if you told all the SI shooters this, they would laugh in > your face. Get real, if Canon was this bad, you wouldn't see their > stuff at every pro event. Canon or Nikon, real photographers are > doing high quality professional work. I really like the camera body and think it is a superbly engineered piece of equipment. I don't think the lenses match the camera. I have a lot of money invested on Nikkor lenses and decided to switch to Canon when I realized I wasn't being able to get a good setup for close-up medical photography using Nikon equipment. I have used Canon for medical photography and been happy with their equipment compared to what Nikon offers for the same type of application. This should show how open minded I am about new equipment and how unbiased my opinion is in regards to either company. My switch to Canon was motivated by the fact that while Canon offered two macro flashes (MR-14EX and MT-24EX) that sync with its digital SLR bodies in auto TTL mode, Nikon doesn't even offer one (it is about to introduce its first one now). Also whenever I needed to obtain magnification superior to 1:1 with Nikon equipment I was forced to use a bellows, a bellows extension, double cable release, an adapter ring, a lens mounted in reverse at the end of the bellows, compensate for light loss with the bellows and many other technical issues. It was a mess. All this done without the benefit of immediate feedback one usually gets from using a digital camera. Canon solved this problem and simplified this whole process by introducing one single lens that takes care of all these issues: the MP-E 65mm f/2.8 1x-5x macro lens. This lens achieves the same level of magnification achieved on the first stage of a clinical laboratory microscope (5x). This is truly amazing. However, the issue remains that the two lenses I purchased and expected to get results from that at least matched those from their Nikon counterparts were disappointing. The fact that so many photographers use Canon is not necessarily an indication that these lenses are as good as they should be. At one point one has to make a decision on what is more important. When I moved from Nikon to Canon I did so motivated by the flash, the 1x-5x macro lens and the ability to obtain better color reproduction by working with macro flashes that could sync in TTL with my digital SLR camera body. Despite this move I still recognize that if I am to consider the lenses only, both Nikkor micro lenses are superior to their Canon equivalent not only in quality but also in construction and craftsmanship. > Hmmm, you'd have to tell all my clients, the editors at SI, Newsweek, > Time, Fortune, and lots of other magazines this. And all the > advertising clients. And photographers like Lauren Greenfield, who > use Canon digital cameras, prints huge, and sells the prints for > thousands of dollars. This could generate by itself a huge post. I don't want to go there. There is more economics in the answer than technical and I am not really willing to take the time to debate it. Digital is certainly more practical, convenient and a huge time/money saver for publishers. People in general may be willing to accept certain compromises in quality for the benefit of being more efficient or producing faster results. Just as I moved to Canon for the improved setup for macro/close-up photography, others may be willing to work with Canon since it definitely offers better digital SLR bodies and accept the compromise in regards to lenses. > I think you'll be a lot less frustrated if you take a class or two > and do a lot of reading. Make no mistake. I am far from being a beginner. I may not be a professional in the sense that I make my living out of taking photographs but I take photography very seriously. I have been doing it now for decades, have read more books than many photographers I know that do it for a living and have lectured on the subject of close-up photography for medical purposes. I also understand that there are those who know more than I do and this is the reason I posted my questions and comments here. I wanted to get others' unbiased opinions, far removed from the Canon x Nikon inflamed debates similar to those that usually spark between Mac x Windows users. I am an unbiased user of both systems and have just invested my hard earned money on a system from which I expected results that should nothing short of outstanding. This is not what I got. All I need to do is look at the images and the distortion and lack of sharpness are there, staring me in the face. Has anyone in the group used these lenses and experienced the same problems ? Is there a serious web site where I can find objective reviews on both Canon and Nikon lenses from tests conducted in a rigorous manner and by individuals that have advanced knowledge in optics and lens design ? If I'm not mistaken someone posted a web address here another day about a new site just with review of lenses and associate with imaging-resource.com. Does anyone know anything about it ? > > Jeff Spirer > Photos: http://www.spirer.com > One People: http://www.onepeople.com/ > Surfaces and Marks: http://www.withoutgrass.com Thank you in advance for your help. Best regards, Joseph --- Dr. Joseph Chamberlain Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
