Re: Sharpest "Reasonably priced" Canon lens

Clay Torrison <ctorrison@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 16:37:56 +0000 (UTC), davem@xxxxxxxxx (Dave Martindale)
wrote:

That's simply not true. You can add auxiliary lenses to a P&S, but they
always add flare and usually distortion because they are *extra* glass.

Isn't it a bitch when you think that you know something and then you find out
you are wrong? You should have left out the word "always" and used the word
"sometimes" instead, you would have at least been correct.

Perhaps you should read what I wrote. I said "always adds flare".
Adding extra glass-air surfaces does always scatter some light; there
is no way for this particular problem to improve by adding glass. You
can't cancel existing flare with "anti-flare" from an add-on element.

I did *not* say that the add-on lens always makes the image worse on all
measurements of performance, which seems to be what you imagine I said.

I have a $90 fish-eye lens I found that actually improves on the performance on
one of my P&S cameras. When mated to my P&S camera it has ZERO chromatic
aberration, actually improving slightly on the camera's own excellent Zeiss
lens, something that not even a $2,200 Nikkor lens is capable of doing. I
compared them.

Great. That's for chromatic aberration, where an add-on element with
one sign of chromatic aberration can correct for the opposite sign of
chromatic aberration in the existing lens. But I didn't say anything
about chromatic aberration at all, so how is this relevant to
criticizing what I wrote?

I would have read the rest of your comments but its obvious that you've not had
enough experience with cameras and lenses yet to be an authority of any kind on
this topic.

Ah, I see. You can't be bothered to read what I wrote, but you feel
yourself qualified to criticize it anyway? I'm clearly wasting my time
in replying then, because you won't read the reply either (but maybe it
will prevent someone else from being confused).

For the record, I own film and digital cameras, both point and shoot and
SLRs. I've used them to take pictures through telescopes and
microscopes.

Dave
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: 150mm refractor diy
    ... >> I'll note that the faster the lens, the more difficult the job is to do ... > You'll also be spending a fair bit of money on some of the glass ... >> It is also a lot cheaper to build a reflective telescope as the glass ... significant chromatic aberration. ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • Re: If the Canon...Dave & Wilt
    ... My mind hadn't traveled down the 'already have fast, old glass road' ... >>>lenses in a lens inventory, but that was with cameras that had set ISO ...
    (rec.photo.digital.slr-systems)
  • Re: Question about brand status.
    ... Chromatic aberration is a problem at longer focal lengths, and lens ... what I am saying is, I don't believe purple fringing is chromatic ... similar or even identical lenses on film. ...
    (rec.photo.digital)
  • Re: Full-frame sensors cant do wide angle - NOT!
    ... "Chromatic Aberration from Canon 17-35mm lens" ... It's completely unrelated to sensors. ... But I've seen purple fringing in film photographs as well: ...
    (rec.photo.digital)
  • Re: The Zeiss Myth...
    ... I think nobody can argue about the test he did showing chromatic aberration? ... One should think the lens was bad aligned or so.... ...
    (rec.photo.equipment.35mm)