First I wish to thank all those who provided helpful and well-meant responses to my original post. This week I took my camera to the original reseller and tested it against a few other similar lenses. The 24mm lens is what it is. It simply isn't a match for the Nikkor 28mm equivalent I use for night photography without flash. This lens wasn't honestly my biggest concern as I can learn to live with this difference in performance. The biggest of my concerns was the 16-25mm zoom producing images with edge distortion that had NOTHING to do with post processing or sharpening. I am referring to huge, unacceptable geometric distortion around the edges. I was also concerned about the incident with 24-105mm and began to question myself if I was going to experience the same with other lenses I still wanted to purchase. After using a few others 16-35mm the reseller had in his inventory it was apparent not only to me, but to a few specialists at the reseller's store that the lens was definitely flawed. I was able to exchange it for a different one that produced images that were noticeably superior in quality. Do I think the performance is the same ? NO. I still think the Nikkor 17-35mm is a better lens but the difference now is really negligible. Since some have questioned the reason why I didn't take more time to test the lens, my concerns related to (1) the time since the date of purchase as I wanted to exchange the lens at the reseller instead of allowing more time to pass and have to send it to Canon for repair and (2) the fact that the problem with distortion I reported here wasn't (as I very clearly stated) anything that could be enhanced by post processing or sharpening but rather some serious geometrical distortion beyond anything fixable in Photoshop. Problem solved ! This week I tested another one of Canon's lenses while at the reseller. The 135mm f/2.0 lens I had mentioned which is something I intend to use for portraits (facial photos primarily). This is among one of the best lenses I have used and just about one of the sharpest too. My opinion was not a biased one and did not intend to spark the debate Canon x Nikon. I have been a Nikon user for a long time but switched to Canon when I realized it made better digital SLRs. My opinion of the two companies is based on my personal experiences and I feel that while Canon makes better cameras (electronics), Nikon makes better lenses (optics). However, I am very happy with my camera and now with the lenses as well. They serve their primary purpose and are also excellent as something I can use for photography outside of my work environment. As one last comment I wish to thank again those who responded with helpful and courteous messages. It is unfortunate to see that these actually represent a smaller group of people. If there is one thing I've learned about using mailing lists is that censorship is a necessary thing. Humans in general still haven't learned how to live in a truly democratic environment where they know their limits and exercise their freedom with responsibility towards other peoples' rights. Groups such as this one could be such a great place for the exchange of information and knowledge. Such technology would have been a dream 30 to 40 years ago and I am willing to bet that those who lived in those times would have given everything for the opportunity to have access to such a vehicle of information exchange. And yet, what I see here is a group that holds an enormous potential but is unfortunately contaminated by the stupidity and unnecessarily aggressive nature of certain individuals who attack others for no apparent reason just to use this forum as a pastime or as some form of therapy. Such a shame that something with such potential just happens to be used by some in such a wasteful and irresponsible manner ! Best regards to all those who responded with helpful replies. Joseph --- Dr. Joseph Chamberlain Oral and Maxillofacial On 11/8/05 11:13 PM, "karl shah-jenner" <shahjen@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > From: "Joseph Chamberlain, DDS" > Re: Canon digital bodies and Nikon lenses. > > > : 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'm not going to be much help here, but I can tell you of my experiences. > > I am a canon user, with an armload of F1N's and a bigger armload of FD & FL > Canon lenses. I also have a few non canon lenses, some of which under test > outperform the canon equivalents. > > I chose not to move to the Canon AF gear, nor their digital - my AF cameras > are pentax (for lens compatibility among other reasons) and the Digi is a > Sony (for colour). > > I have while lecturing and working as a technician at college however, had > quite a bit of experience handling other folks cameras and lenses.. > > Now there are some who will see no faults in their gear whatsoever and are > more than happy with lenses and performance that would make me cringe. > There are prideful people who feel that their choice reflects on them > somehow and they too will not or cannot see faults. Some have cast longing > eyes over equipment and once they've wrapped their paws around it found it > less than their expectations and then there are those who have been > downright happy - and for good reason :-) > > I recall one student, also a FD user who refused to move to the newer AF > canons because she didn't like the lenses - she shot professionally with a > guy who did use the newer lenses and she was never as pleased with the lens > sharpness as she was with her own dusty old things. > > I also recall another student who is a nit-picker who went to the newer > EF's, then after test shooting under flash conditions (for the sharpest > possible shots) he concluded his lens was 'off'. He spent days shooting > across focal ranges, apertures and focal lengths with 25 ASA and 50 ASA > slide films before deciding the lens was simply not capable of giving him a > sharp image - and I confess I had to agree with him - it was truly awful, > so he bagged it up and sent it to canon who replaced the lens mount > (charging his heavily saying he'd damaged it) and he reshot his tests > again. Once more he found the results substandard. Canon again examined > the lens, charged him for it and said there was nothing wrong. He borrowed > another lens from a shop and reshot with that one on his body and on > another borrowed body - all the shots were noticeably soft still. > > A number of other Canon shooting students compared images at high > enlargements and most found their shots were similar, and students > borrowing ancient beat up K1000's with really grubby Tamron manual lenses > were easily getting sharper shots than any of the canon zooms tried. > > I didn't have a collimator to test the various lenses with at the time so I > couldn't say what the heck was so wrong with them, but they WERE clearly > substandard. I hate to say this about my beloved Canon - by they were not > something I'd have spent money on! > > I'm not talking about a little bit of softness either, there was in most of > these shots absolutely nothing across the whole frame which could be called > sharp. Shots of jewellery produced no sharp edges anywhere, clasps blurred > into stones, cloth sample shots were just a fuzz of colour. not good. I > have lenses with fungus that produced better images that some of those > lenses! > > End of the day, maybe all these poor buggers had landed duds and canon > were just being pigs about admitting it.. > > I don't know, but I DO understand the frustration of it all. lens is clean > and new, costs lots, looks good but the images are bleah. I'd be > frustrated. > > k
