Which cam/lens for flowers? LM,Tan, ed, Handy?

[LunarMist]

I have over 30 years of serious photo experience and have purchased dozens of UV-type filters in a dozen sizes, including about 8 of the B+W MRC 010 variety. Practically clear means that the color of the image does change enough to be concerned about in normal use. If color is super-critical, one should shoot a macbeth (now x-rite) chart and create a raw conversion profile EVERY TIME one does a shoot. However, you may still be disappointed because the color accuracy of digital cameras is not perfect and there will be some residual delta Es. Spectral transmission curves for filters are available from the manufcaturers, but I don't think Canon provides them for the camera. Don't assume that the camera has 3-color spectral sensitivity curves that match the human eye.

On a practical note, just buy the damned filter and see for yourself.

 

[udaman]

I have over 30 years of serious photo experience and have purchased dozens of UV-type filters in a dozen sizes, including about 8 of the B+W MRC 010 variety. Practically clear means that the color of the image does change enough to be concerned about in normal use. If color is super-critical, one should shoot a macbeth (now x-rite) chart and create a raw conversion profile EVERY TIME one does a shoot. However, you may still be disappointed because the color accuracy of digital cameras is not perfect and there will be some residual delta Es. Spectral transmission curves for filters are available from the manufcaturers, but I don't think Canon provides them for the camera. Don't assume that the camera has 3-color spectral sensitivity curves that match the human eye.

On a practical note, just buy the damned filter and see for yourself.

Thank LM...ah, I think . And I do believe you meant "Practically clear means that the color of the image does *not* change enough to be concerned about in normal use."

I did some more research (IDSMR, lol). Not saying this site's accuracy is worth noting, even if they are just quoting the manufacturer as I doubt transmissive rates are 99.9%, but close enough to mean there is negligible light drop off. Whether or this filter will reduce some CA as the seller claims, is debatable.

Hoya Pro1D UV DMC (digital multi-coating )

However, seller has replied and stated the model # is a B+W Pro UV Haze 010. Also told me the TS-E is not suited for handheld shots, best use is with a tripod to do the T/S adjustments...duh. I told him I've already played with a rental in a camera shop. Doing the tilt only adjustment was ridiculously easy, not sure what he means . I was hoping that it would have been the thin model as these do cost over $100, the one he's trying to say retails for over $100 is available just about anywhere over the net for $60. I'll pass and buy my own.

Kenko L37 Super Pro

renowned for their ability to minimize reflection at the filter surfaces which reduces flare and ghosting. It applies high quality edge almite frame technology and super multi-coat technology with 99.9% light transmission, filtering out the UV wavelength shorter than 370mm.

One would think lenses have multi-coat on them, of sufficient capability to reduce flare/ghosting such that such filters would not provide any additional benefit in that regard???

Aside question, are thin frames more likely to be difficult for the lens cap to attach to, I seem to recall that problem years ago with just a normal polarized filter I used on the film cameras? Cause doing research is driving me nuts with all the conflicting info out there...for instance, I'm guessing B+W sells both typical/standard thickness filters *and* thin frame models, yes or no?

I guess I should go into a camera shop and look at the filters myself, but I'm wondering if the SKU# is printed on the filter? (I'm guessing no).

If the seller had a 'thin' frame model of the B+W, then the claim of it being just over $100 retail rings true. So how the hell do I know if it's that particular slim model and not the much less expensive B+W UV Haze filter I can buy for $47 from Freestyle which has been in business in Hollywood forever, Eff N Egg, model/sku # 6501072, which just happens to be a friggin 010 UV filter too...I'm..ah, bout to go postal ? $103 from pictureline.com sku= 65-026900 B+W 72E Slim Clear UV Haze (and no mention of 010 in the model #, see why I'm so damned confused, crap!!!)

Schneider optics is selling two different B+W UV Haze 72mm filters, and it seems like they are gouging on the pricing, no?



1st is same SKU as above 65-026900 , but with 010 mentioned as part of model #...arrgh!!!

Then different SKU 66-026941 , with 010M as part of model #, and much higher price...but why??? 72E SLIM UV HAZE MRC (010M)

This is Effin ridiculous that filter manufacturers don't have simple to understand naming nomenclature, it's got me PO'd. Say, why haven't we seen Tannin go off on a rant about this before...as you could easily spend over $1k on filters alone?

Ah double crap, IDSMR

http://www.2filter.com/prices/products/bwslim.html

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]B+W old 6mm regular mount compared to B+W 3mm Slims [/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]FYI, The New B+W F-Pro "standard" rings that our filters come in[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]are only 4 mm high with front threads and at regular prices[/SIZE][/FONT] more choices [FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]Important note, the thin mount filters have no front threads, it is not possible to attach any accessory hood or snap on lens cap to the filter. Only slip-on caps can be used. [/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]the plus of the thin mount filters is unlike Extra Wide type filters, built in hoods or hoods that bayonet to the outside barrel of the lens should be able to be used, so no need to have to buy two hoods for each lens. [/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]The MrC coatings are as good as they can be, at 99.5%[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]transmission of the light hitting the surface of the glass[/FONT]

So it looks like 2filter.com is selling the same German brass rings, screw-in filter (d/l the 7.1MB B+W pdf catalog right now) Schneider Optics sells for $121, at almost 1/2 the price. Why would anyone not want a screw-in, threadless means you can't attach the lens cap, in many cases?

http://www.schneideroptics.com/ecommerce/CatalogItemDetail.aspx?CID=671&IID=4481


I just want a plain piece of glass, that doesn't do anything to the light entering the lens (well reducing flare/ghosting would be alright, but nothing else), no contrast 'enhancement' (image degradation in my view), no increased color saturation, no 'vivid' Ken Rockwell mentally images....as close as I can get to what my eyes see, not a distortion of reality.

After skimming the B+W pdf catalog/handbook,

http://www.schneideroptics.com/info/handbook/pdf/B+WHandbook_Full.pdf

I've not gleaned any sku#'s from it and further have not come upon discussion about the 007M series which is what I may get, which presumably filter UV because they are listed in that category, but do not have the same wavelength filtering as the UV Haze 010 series...arrgh!
Screw in/front threaded..but how thick?, 72E CLEAR MRC (007M) sku# 66-1001704
http://www.schneideroptics.com/ecommerce/CatalogItemDetail.aspx?CID=671&IID=5674

So why would anyone used a polarizer & this filter in the link below to capture unnatural/surreal looking images---fake like Pam Anderson, fake like the ridiculously over-saturated colors on HDTV monitors I see messed up by store employees:

http://www.2filter.com/prices/products/bwenhancers.html

Not surprised, btw, that B+W uses Schott glass, and likely their multicoatings were developed in coordination (if not entirely by) with Schott.

 

[e_dawg]

Why insist on using a UV filter if you are so concerned about its effect on image quality? UV filters don't have any photographic utility these days with digital cameras; their only purpose is to serve as a lens protector. They can only degrade image quality, not improve it.

Every glass-air transition imparts an effect on the image passing through. Refraction, reflection, and dispersion are the main effects. Reflections from an uncoated glass surface can cause noticeable flare and ghosting. Multi-coatings do indeed help reduce reflections to insignificant levels. If you're going to use a filter, make sure it's multicoated on both sides. A lens is only as good as its weakest link. When you put a cheap filter on it, it easily becomes the weakest link.

As for its effects on light transmission, even uncoated UV filters do not have a noticeable effect on light transmission (maybe 1/6 of an f-stop). Multi-coated ones only reduce light transmission by 0.05 f-stop or something like that.

Regarding slim frame filters, I don't like them. They can be a PITA when removing / tightening, and regular lens caps either don't fit or fall off easily.

Kenko filters are similar to Hoya. Just another product line of THK Photo along with Tokina lenses and Slik tripods.

 

[Gilbo]

Why insist on using a UV filter if you are so concerned about its effect on image quality? UV filters don't have any photographic utility these days with digital cameras; their only purpose is to serve as a lens protector. They can only degrade image quality, not improve it.

Yep. I put a UV filter on a lens if I'm taking pictures at a social function or in some other dangerous situation. If I'm out taking landscapes and I want the best picture I can get, the UV filter stays off & I'm just careful extra careful with my lenses.

With a lens hood attached I find they're quite well-protected anyway.

 

[udaman]

Why insist on using a UV filter if you are so concerned about its effect on image quality? UV filters don't have any photographic utility these days with digital cameras; their only purpose is to serve as a lens protector. They can only degrade image quality, not improve it.

Every glass-air transition imparts an effect on the image passing through. Refraction, reflection, and dispersion are the main effects. Reflections from an uncoated glass surface can cause noticeable flare and ghosting. Multi-coatings do indeed help reduce reflections to insignificant levels. If you're going to use a filter, make sure it's multicoated on both sides. A lens is only as good as its weakest link. When you put a cheap filter on it, it easily becomes the weakest link.

As for its effects on light transmission, even uncoated UV filters do not have a noticeable effect on light transmission (maybe 1/6 of an f-stop). Multi-coated ones only reduce light transmission by 0.05 f-stop or something like that.

Regarding slim frame filters, I don't like them. They can be a PITA when removing / tightening, and regular lens caps either don't fit or fall off easily.

Kenko filters are similar to Hoya. Just another product line of THK Photo along with Tokina lenses and Slik tripods.

Yep. I put a UV filter on a lens if I'm taking pictures at a social function or in some other dangerous situation. If I'm out taking landscapes and I want the best picture I can get, the UV filter stays off & I'm just careful extra careful with my lenses.

With a lens hood attached I find they're quite well-protected anyway.

Well I tend to agree with both of you to a point. But if you d/l'd the B+W handbook, they mention (they also have a graphical representation of uncoated, double coated, and the MRC "multi-resistant coating", which doesn't really represent any 'useful' measures of actual performance, just statistical values for their own particular test situation) various aspects with a contention that UV light can cause some CA, though they don't say how. Maybe it's all marketing hype, because I would think a $$$ lens, already has multi-coatings designed into the lens elements, along with LM's contention that UV/IR filtering is built in to most dSLR's. So basically, you put a filter on for protection from the elements, dust/moisture, slim build up on the front lens surface, with hopes the filter doesn't degrade image quality *noticeably* as LM points out in his post...you wouldn't notice it.

However, we can see from the examples in the link I provided, that these filters absolutely do effect what kind of image you get, and some of them are not to my liking. However, the idea that they could possibly (again, is this all hype?) reduce CA, as the 24mm TS-E is known to have more of this at wide open aperature, which I'll be forced to use in some situations.

The other thing LM does not take into account, since he's wealthy and can just buy, and buy, and buy until he gets the filter than works best, is that if you look at the B+W handbook, they mention the slim line, they mention the 'improved' thinner threaded filter line, down from old filters of 8mm thickness, that you can use without causing any *additional* vignetting at the corners.

I sent another message to the seller today, not response in 2 days, to see if he found out what the specific sku/stock # is on the filter he has. See, he's been using it on a 30D, crop factor sensor which by nature is only using the center portions of the lens. What happens, depending on which actual filter this is, when I eventually put this lens on a FF Canon body, like the 5D? Already you get some vignetting from just the lens limitations with wide angle, and that filter may not work at all, add to the vignetting, which would mean it's a waste of money for me. LM can toss $40 around like it's nothing, I prefer to do as much research as possible and not engage in conspicuous consumption...only buy what I need. Err on the side of caution and buy the filter most likely to work with a 24mm wide lens, a specialty lens that shows more vignetting in full tilt mode, wide open than lenses most of you are familiar using. Even tannin can't tell me because he also doesn't have a FF Canon to mount his 24mm TS-E to...yet ....umm, while he's getting eaten by mosquitoes, (see the Christmas lights thread).

Which means I may just end up buying a slim line 3mm, threadless filter, and buying a B+W or other manufacturer's 72mm slip-on, friction, plastic cap. They sux, but without threads, the standard spring loaded caps don't work at all .

We can make an assumption, speculate from the Schneider optics site, that the 010M is the MRC lens (007M is the "Clear" UV, non-haze, MRC version), due to price, meaning the "M" designation represents the "multi" in multi-coated. I will contact Schneider to verify this, but it PO's me, it so annoying that they make it so Effin difficult to determine, that it is not easy to find out what all their stupid stock no. model numbers represent. I shouldn't have to make all this effort, just to let the damned seller know if I want his filter or not!

Thing is, if there is a multi-coat on the surface of the front element of your expensive lens, without very careful cleaning, you can rub that coating off. I know my prescription, expensive plastic coated lens, the coating simply starts to deteriorate from exposure to the air, gentle cleaning/wiping does not mean the coating just won't start to deteriorate after so many years. Then it's time to replace your glasses (along with a new prescription). I would hope those expensive lenses have coating that resist the caustic air, is more durable than my glasses, but you never know. This could be something a filter is worth it's cost for?

 

[ddrueding]

I wouldn't say LM throws money around. All the stuff he has seems to have been a wise purchase. He just spends more money on photography because that is his profession, just as I spend more money on computer stuff because that is my profession. Tannin, Handruin, and I have no such excuse...

 

[udaman]

I wouldn't say LM throws money around. All the stuff he has seems to have been a wise purchase. He just spends more money on photography because that is his profession, just as I spend more money on computer stuff because that is my profession. Tannin, Handruin, and I have no such excuse...

Not sure I meant to convey the idea the way you represent it . What I mean, is that LM can be fine with buying things that don't work, when it is a small amount of money being spent, which is why he said "just buy the damn filter" (implied was, 'and see how you like it'). I surely can't fit a 4x5 easily into as many tight spaces I can with a dSLR. And lol, with the soup Nazi sushi chef, in letting you put a tripod mounted 4x5 at the sushi bar to take pictures of their artistry...for a magazine or professional restaurant review, sure. For phlebian foodie like me, with dinners at either side of my shoulders, no Effin way.

Of course I don't listen . I did even more research, cause I'm anal, or I don't like to waste money on stuff I don't need. Now if I can just get a hold of the seller and find out if the filter is a slim line (easy enough to measure as it's only 3mm thick, and it has no threads on the front) B+W UV and it's MRC (if not, then I'll pass), then I'll buy it. But I'm getting the feeling this seller, probably paid full price for a standard, non-MRC, standard thickness front threaded F-Pro frame filter. Sorry, I don't want or need that.

I called up Canon support, asked for someone who knew something about their T/S line (and yes you can go to Canon's site and look at the standard thickness 72mm UV & $230 polarizer filter accessories listed for this lens, that Canon won't tell you about, that cause additional vignetting on your specialty lens...caveat emperor, for those who don't do their research). Guy I talked to told me he is sure you will get additional vignetting if you stack filters or use a polarizer, when using tilt at maximum. His recommendation was that Hoya or some other maker, has special thin filters. I told him B+W also has a thin line, as well as special 'wide' mount filters designed with the idea of being used for wide-angle lenses. This is what I refer to as doing my homework, and not spending unwisely. Only one little tiny problem with the 86mm diameter, wide polarizer filter for the 72mm threaded TS-E 24mm lens, those wide filters are kind of special order, I see only 67 & 77mm sizes listed at Schneider optics site...cost $500 for the 77mm size, or more than 1/2 the price of the TS-E I'm buying. Sorry, I don't have LM's budget, can't do that. Will compromise with a B+W slip-on lens cap & 72mm Slim B+W polarizer for only $175, hah...really cheap filter, huh?! The whole point of buying the 24mm is to get that wide angle (and I won't even get that until I buy a FF Canon body ). otherwise, you get better image quality from the 45mm TS-E and one stop faster to boot.

I need the wide angle + greater DOF (haven't found any DOF software that increases DOF, they seem to be aimed at reducing DOF, least not for the Mac OSX). If I shoot to crop out the vignetting at the corners, I'm effectively losing that wide angle, what's the point then??? Of course, vignetting is reduced if I stop down to F11, but then I can't handhold shots in dim lighting situations...where is that 5D MkII upgrade that matches the Nikon D300 ISO6400, let alone the 12.8 or 25.6K of the D3?).

On related issue, I read this article at Bob Atkins site on closeup lens filters, which I might get also (Canon makes a few, B+W has 5 different powers of magnification, along with a 10x macro for digital cameras).

http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/eosfaq/closeup2.htm

B+W filter specs, but nowhere to be found on Schneider optics site.

http://www.2filter.com/prices/B+W_filters/bwsizepola.html (notice designation of 72EW)

I'm going to send an email to kcruse@@@schneideroptics.com in New York. He's supposed to be the person with the most technical knowledge of the B+W line in the USA. Just because I want a 2nd opinion, rather than rely exclusively on one tech support person's opinion @Canon USA.

 

[Handruin]

I wouldn't say LM throws money around. All the stuff he has seems to have been a wise purchase. He just spends more money on photography because that is his profession, just as I spend more money on computer stuff because that is my profession. Tannin, Handruin, and I have no such excuse...

Yup, I have no excuse. Nor do I need one. I can't even find an excuse for upgrading my computer. Even for my profession, my home machine is fine. Maybe a little more RAM for more VM's, but that's about it.

 

[ddrueding]

Heh, I've been running this 6000+ for longer than any CPU since my Celeron 300A.

 

[e_dawg]

I don't think you'll get any meaningful vignetting with a typical non-slim B+W UV filter on a FF lens/body combination. They are just not thick enough. You will get vignetting with a thicker old school Hoya CPL or when you stack filters, but not with a single 4-5 mm thick UV filter. You are worrying about this WAY too much and will end up paying way more than you need and having to deal with the PITA that are slip on caps.

You really don't need a UV filter to protect the coating on the front lens element. It rarely rubs off from cleaning, nor does it disintegrate over time. They are extremely durable -- much more so than most filters' coatings. And even if it does come off, what is the effect on your image quality? Negligible, unless you insist on using a filter. A coating on the front surface of the front element is designed to reduce reflections from a filter. If you don't use a filter, the reflection from an uncoated front element has nowhere to reflect back to.

Furthermore, if your lens has a bulbous front element like many wideangle lenses (never seen the Canon 24 T/S), using a filter will significantly increase the propensity for flare. Using a UV filter on my Sigma 10-20 or my Olympus 11-22 in the sun can be ugly. I have stopped using a UV filter on my superwide lenses for that reason.

 

[udaman]

I don't think you'll get any meaningful vignetting with a typical non-slim B+W UV filter on a FF lens/body combination. They are just not thick enough. You will get vignetting with a thicker old school Hoya CPL or when you stack filters, but not with a single 4-5 mm thick UV filter. You are worrying about this WAY too much and will end up paying way more than you need and having to deal with the PITA that are slip on caps.

You really don't need a UV filter to protect the coating on the front lens element. It rarely rubs off from cleaning, nor does it disintegrate over time. They are extremely durable -- much more so than most filters' coatings. And even if it does come off, what is the effect on your image quality? Negligible, unless you insist on using a filter. A coating on the front surface of the front element is designed to reduce reflections from a filter. If you don't use a filter, the reflection from an uncoated front element has nowhere to reflect back to.

Furthermore, if your lens has a bulbous front element like many wideangle lenses (never seen the Canon 24 T/S), using a filter will significantly increase the propensity for flare. Using a UV filter on my Sigma 10-20 or my Olympus 11-22 in the sun can be ugly. I have stopped using a UV filter on my superwide lenses for that reason.

Too bulbous, like Pam Anderson? Here's a link with some pix of the front element, looks like a common 24mm WA, just the mechanics to do shifting & tilting (as linked above, a homemade bellows version could be fashioned that would do more significant adjustments, a la larger format bellows cameras):

I probably should have spent a little more and bought this one, but the ad doesn't say it's being sold as *new*, so I wonder about that 1yr USA warranty claim, and the one I did bid on had the Canon hardcase included, rather than the soft pouch-

http://cgi.ebay.com/Canon-TS-E-24-3...yZ106845QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem



Thanks for you input, so are you saying the Canon tech support guy don't know sh*t? One would think, if he was going to say something, he'd say the filters they show on their site, which are the standard filters for all 72mm threaded Canon lenses, work just fine with this special design lens, but he said the opposite. He says you do get some additional vignetting when using a standard filter thickness like they sell for the lens, again @full tilt. You can say with authority a standard thickness filter doesn't cause additional vignetting @full tilt, even though you don't own, have never owned that 24mm TS-E. I would feel more confident if tannin said he did a test shot with his TS-E @full tilt, wide open and saw no additional vignetting.

As far as your flare on the WA, have you tried a quality B+W polarizer? If I get one, I will do some filter on, filter off comparison shots and let you know if in *my* shooting situation, it helps or detracts from image quality.

Like I said, I'm contacting the B+W tech support guy today @schneider, for a 2nd opinion.

 

[LunarMist]

OMG, this is still going on! :lol: If you don't believe us users, just keep doing your "research."

 

[e_dawg]

Thanks for you input, so are you saying the Canon tech support guy don't know sh*t?

No, but as a general rule, calling tech support isn't very helpful unless you work for the same company and your dog happened to eat your tech support script binder. So you call up tech support a few times for those problems on the pages your dog ate, write down the steps, and voila -- you don't have to chastise poor Fido for chewing up your scripts.

Now, I can't say for sure whether the Canon 24 TS-E will vignette wide open with a 4-5 mm thick UV filter. I just don't think it's going to be significant enough to worry about. And so what if you get vignetting? I haven't ever thrown my hands in the air after looking at a picture I took that had vignetting and said "dammit! This picture would have been perfect. Now it's ruined. If only it didn't suffer from a bit of vignetting. Now I have to throw it out. It's useless. Damn non-slim UV filter! :cursin:" :mrgrn:

 

[udaman]

No, but as a general rule, calling tech support isn't very helpful unless you work for the same company and your dog happened to eat your tech support script binder. So you call up tech support a few times for those problems on the pages your dog ate, write down the steps, and voila -- you don't have to chastise poor Fido for chewing up your scripts.

Now, I can't say for sure whether the Canon 24 TS-E will vignette wide open with a 4-5 mm thick UV filter. I just don't think it's going to be significant enough to worry about. And so what if you get vignetting? I haven't ever thrown my hands in the air after looking at a picture I took that had vignetting and said "dammit! This picture would have been perfect. Now it's ruined. If only it didn't suffer from a bit of vignetting. Now I have to throw it out. It's useless. Damn non-slim UV filter! :cursin:" :mrgrn:

I see your point, but from what I've read, the vignetting is probably more than you are familiar with, and like I said, what is the point of using 24mm, if I'm not going to use the entire frame...might as well go for the much better performing 45mm TS-E, which is useless in at least two of the areas I intend to use the lens where I absolutely cannot get the shots I want unless I have at least 36mm, but 24mm would be *much* better (will wait to see what Canon does as an update to the 5D body, keeps fingers crossed).

You do see might point though, don't you? I did ask the tech support guy if he was sure about that vignetting at full tilt, since you wouldn't expect him to tell you *not* to use Canon's product UV or polarizer, and instead buy a thinner Hoya, yes? Like I said, I'm going to get a thinline 3mm B+W polarizer (expensive, but I have lots of money to throw around, lol; and I'm not worrried about difficulty of working the threads as I put a tiny amount of quality waterproof grease, like those from Nye, on there so it will almost always come off without much effort...I'm not anal, I'm 'efficient' ), and if it doesn't work in certain situations, I'll just take it off and go bare, w00t! Guy @Schnieder optics said the 3mm thinline mostly replaces their older much more expensive wide-mount filters for very wide angle lens, up to 17mm on a full frame sensor, and that the closeup lenses from B+W are only single element, so I'm better off with the Canon 500D dual achro CL, seeing as how, I'd prefer to not introduce even more CA into the equation. No I have not ever said that my shots with my POS Oly C50Z were 'ruined' by that oh so lovely purple/violet color @contrasty boundary lines...but damn it, is sure looks *very* FUGGLY compared to a shot which has no noticeable CA. To each his own then.

Seller said that the 24mm didn't show vignetting on his film body...but how reliable is that?, but that if you read DP review, they say (forums I suppose) you'll get CA & vignetting, which the seller speculates is because of the lower DR of the digital sensor on the 5D. I don't buy that, that the lower DR over film is going to show up vignetting more. Of course you won't "lose" a shot, but that doesn't mean I will like the results. If DxO supported this lens, I'd use that software to try to correct for CA & vignetting...lots of people do for lenses that have even less of this, than the 24mmTS-E. It was in forums on fred miranda's site where there were some complaints about excessive CA & vignetting at max tilt, IIRC, but I think the tests done on the sites that did review the lens mentioned the higher than expected levels...I could go back an get the links, but why bother. I'll just get the 3mm thin filters and be done with it.:rant:

http://www.dxo.com/intl/photo/dxo_optics_pro/exclusive_features/overview

BTW, Century from Schneider, makes a nice dual achro that comes in 72mm size so you don't need a filter thread size adapter, 2x & 4x, which only list for $400, compared to the Canon 500D which can be had for $110.

http://www.schneideroptics.com/Ecommerce/CatalogItemDetail.aspx?CID=1081&IID=898

Common single element diopters permit focusing at close camera-to-subject distances at the expense of image clarity, a pin cushioning effect occurs. Instead, Achromatic Diopters feature two highly corrected glass elements which minimize chromatic aberration and distortion, creating an image with edge-to-edge sharpness.

Don't know why all those silly Canon people buy the L-series lenses for $$$$, when the could save a ton of money and get a nice Chinese made Sigma, Tokina or Tamaron...won't 'lose' any shots, with those either, image quality isn't quite as high, but you'd have to be 'anal' to need the image quality of a L-series lens (well except the 24mm TS-E is a L-series lens that is said to not be up the image quality of the non-L series 45 & 90 TS)

 

[udaman]

http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/article_pages/tilt_and_shift_ts-e.html

For those who don't click on links:

At that large amount of shift you also need to remove any filter or lens hood, since they will exacerbate any mechanical vignetting. This example shows what leaving a filter and lens hood attached can do at 11mm shift.

Which is why I'm not going to take the time to find out if a standard thickness filter induces additional CA, I'll just go with a thin filter, greased up with some Nye lube, like this one:



Also for those who do not click on links:



Fuggly CA @11mm shift, I see it most in the lower corner, but to my eyes it is clear as day annoying in the center of the image on vertical line borders.



I'm aware of the compromises and limitations, I read up on this before I bought, only real-world usage will let me know for sure what I do or don't like about the lens and whether or not it makes sense for *my* uses. Until I get a FF sensor, I won't see the worse of the faults...but that center image CA will be there on any body, but perhaps I can do software corrections the mitigate these flaws to some degree as shown in the examples of this review. If not, then I'd probably do just as well and get an industry 1st> 24 - 86.5 mm Samsung PnS digicam that is less than 1in thick, fits in a pocket easily, and live with those limitations...for a lot less money (it does 30fps 720p HD video just like the funky Canon TX1---but H.264 codec, adds noisier ISO3200 and does local contrast control which aims to balance shadow and highlight detail, 1st to market with 2.5in OLED screen...not enough manual control ).



http://www.dpreview.com/news/0801/08010703samsung nv24hd.asp



http://www.imaging-resource.com/EVENTS/PMAS08/1199656859.html

 

[Tannin]

I've just spent about 15 minutes trying to figure out WTF this thread is supposed to be all about, and I give up. The ranting just goes on and on in a dozen different directions at the same time with the ultimate result that the reader's take-home message amounts to "some incredibly long, disjointed rant that didn't make sense, dunno what it was about. Move along, next thread please".

 

[Handruin]

I read this last night feeling the same way. I didn't understand what this was all about except for seeing how udaman is buying a T&S lens and the filters aren't good enough? I still don't even know what you're using the T&S for...

 

[ddrueding]

I got that according to the title, he wants a lens for flowers. And he mentioned in there somewhere about taking pictures of food at restaurants. And it looks like he already purchased a T&S lens, but doesn't have a body to go with it. And instead of getting a body, he's making additional decisions and judgments based on internet research.

My advise based on the limited understanding of the topic would be to get a body, possibly even an older one - how much is a 1Ds (original) going for these days?, that is FF so you can get the wider angle. Don't get any filters at all, they can't help and might hurt.

 

[ddrueding]

Looks like a used 1Ds body is going for about $1200 on eBay.

 

[Handruin]

I remember he doesn't like them because they're too big and heavy and noisy. The 5D was closer to is liking as long as it's as small as a P&S, which is never will be.

 

[LunarMist]

I read this last night feeling the same way. I didn't understand what this was all about except for seeing how udaman is buying a T&S lens and the filters aren't good enough? I still don't even know what you're using the T&S for...

Yes, that sums it up nicely.

 

[e_dawg]

Yikes! Forget about the vignetting. You can fix it in PP easily. That's some serious CA there, which is much harder to fix, given the asymmetric nature of it.

 

[udaman]

Ah crap, double crap... I still don't have that lame Canon 24mm TS-E, sure is taking along time to go through post.

Rumor only right now, but from semi-reliable source of other leaks on dpreview forums:

For only € 1829 (~$1300 USD or about the same as a new 24mm Canon TS-E) if only it were also a Micro Nikkor (macro), and would go to F2.8 it would be perfect.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1030&message=26540830

If Nikon comes out with a FX version of the D300, I'll really be screwed by going with Canon...seeing how the 5D update, whenever that happens will likely be far inferior to such a D300 FX.

The PC-E Nikkor 24mm lens offers a tilt/shift capability range that leads its class, tilting up to +/-8.5º and shifting +/-11.5mm. The lens can be rotated a full 90° degrees left or right with convenient clicks-stops at 30° intervals. For precise manual focussing, the lens features compatibility with the electronic rangefinders in all Nikon SLRs, and offers auto-aperture control with the Nikon D3 / D300 cameras.

Nikon 24mm PC-E Nikkor lens - Easy to use controls
The lens offers photographers comprehensive control over all features with easy to use controls that include an aperture ring, aperture stop-down button, focusing ring, shift knob and tilt knob. The use of Nikon’s Nano Crystal Coat, 3-element ED glass lens and aspherical elements combine to produce a lens that offers outstanding optical quality, with minimised ghosting, flare and chromatic aberration.
Nikon PC-E 24mm Nikkor lens - Price & Availability
The PC-E Nikkor 24mm f/3.5D ED has a maximum aperture of f/3.5 and a minimum aperture of f/32 and a closest focus distance of a mere 0.21 meters. The lens has extensive sealing against dust and moisture, and weighs 730 grams. The filter/attachment size is 77mm. Estimated pricing for the Nikon PC-E Nikkor 24mm f/3.5D ED is €1829 and it is expected to go on sale this spring. A bayonet hood and soft case are included.
Nikon PC-Nikkor lenses - Availability
Nikon simultaneously announced two further PC-Nikkors that are now in the final stages of development, adding Nikon PC-E Micro Nikkor 45mm f/2.8D ED and a PC-E Micro Nikkor 85mm f/2.8D ED to the range of tilt/shift lenses. These new lenses are planned for availability in the summer 2008.

Given it is a brand new design, would expect it to easily out perform the 1991 Canon TS-E design. I just may never use that 24mm TS-E Canon, end up reselling it for a loss, and getting the new Nikon @full price :eeks:

Though I would imagine given it should be as durable as the Canon, sheesh, it weight over 200g more, and uses 77mm filters, got to be larger overall...why not F2.8 then

 

[udaman]

€1829 = $2,705.68 USD...hmm, guess I won't be getting that lens after all , not even when it's used. Can this price be correct, or are my conversions just all bassackwards???

 

[ddrueding]

Nope. That is what you get when the dollar sucks.

 

[udaman]

Vignetting explained here (as well as other optical aberrations):

http://www.vanwalree.com/optics/vignetting.html


Nikon's been improving the capabilities of Capture NX (but seems lots of people think Adobe Lightroom is better)

http://www.imaging-resource.com/NEWS/1196129492.html



Kind of doubt Canon will update their aging TS-E lens series. Other than longer length (which may mean more vignetting, especially with 1.5% greater tilt) and more weight (13 elements), it would seem the Nikon is going to be the higher performing lens. Focuses to .21m, so maximum magnification ration is 1:2.7 vs 1:7.1 9 blade rounded aperture should get better bokeh, 3 aspheric lens should me less optical aberrations, less to do in post...I hate PP. Still can't find any PR's (other than the dpreview forums 'leaker' rumor of yesterday) that mention these new lenses have better sealing, as compared to Canon's TS-E series, which have no sealing, AFAIK.

http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php?cat=1&grp=5&productNr=2168

http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/146/cat/10

Hmm, if you convert via UK pounds it's only $2100 , or if you believe PR for the Americans, possibly $1929...which is still a huge hunk of change compared to the older Micro Nikkor 85mm F2.8 PC lens which you can find used for ~900.

http://www.dcresource.com/news/newsitem.php?id=3697

F3.5, 24 mm PC-E ED lens with tilt/shift functionality - ships this spring for $1929; I used it a few weeks ago and want one badly

...yeah, me too, just can't afford that and a D300 to mount it to as that would be $4k of equipment that would depreciated to less than $2k in just a few years.

 

[e_dawg]

Yeah, the USD is getting hammered again these days with the low rates. Don't think it will go back down to the levels we saw the 1st/2nd week of November 2007, but since the Fed will keep cutting rates for a while, it doesn't look like the dollar is going to rebound any time soon.

 

[e_dawg]

Ugh. That D60 was a little disappointing from Nikon after seeing the features on Canon's Rebel 450D/XSi. The D90 better be good!

 

[Tannin]

Specially for you, Udaman. Seen on a photographic equipment board, the following signature:


I have successfully built a Full Frame DSLR with 50mm F1.4 lens that is less than 1 inch thick!

On a completely separate note, does anyone know how to dislodge something from a industrial trash compactor?

 

[udaman]

KR on the new Nikon PC-E 24mm/3.5 that he ordered to go with his new D3. Apparently this is the *only* Nikon the lens works perfectly on, even the D300 has some minor limitations . But what I can't get over is his weird simplification notes about using this lens

See the singular example (not really a performance review, but simply a 'user guide to the basic functions' kind of personal review) from which he says:

[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]Your depth-of-field is irrelevant, because you can tilt your field to be any flat plane you desire. In this case, I [/FONT][FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]sw[/FONT][FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]ung[/FONT][FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]the lens to the right to make the plane of the front of the shelf my field of best focus.[/FONT]

First of all, is he tilting or shifting the lens? Talk in plain English KR, it's not swing/swung/swang...it's referred to as a Tilt function, damn it! But take a close look at the two images when you roll your mouse over them. If the plane of focus is as he says it is, the shelf just below the Smuckers strawberry preserves, then why in the untilted image do we have a sharp image of the light blue & white price tag saying $3.99 (this is more or less in the center of the image), but the tilted image is no longer sharp? In the lower left corner, is part of a display isle sign where we only see the "it?" portion, and this is now sharper in the tilted image...that part is at a greater distance inline with the darker blue capped peanut butter jars. And then we have closest to the lens, in the right lower right corner the name/price tag on the shelf for the Welch's Grape Jelly nice an sharp in focus.

Another thing that bothers me, is with a D3 KR still can't get proper white balance, or does he just not care? I can take my POS old PnS digicam into the supermarket and under similar fluorescent lighting get at least as good, if not better color rendering/accuracy. In KR's example the Smuckers strawberry preserves label is shifted in color to a kind of cyan/magenta yucky red, where it should be a standard medium bright light red, like an unripe strawberry; and the Welch's grape jelly label should be a solid medium light purple color, not the icky bluish tint he's got from the fluro lighting. Least he could do would be some quick PS color correction before posting up to his site....sheeesh! (well that's what I see on my uncalibrated monitor )>

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/24mm-pc.htm#
[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif] [/FONT]

 

[Gilbo]

A swing is the technical term for what he did, back from the Large Format days. Anyone with large format training, even today, would say swing. A tilt is only for rotation of the focal plane along the vertical access. If you do it horizontally, it's a swing .

They also use rise & fall for vertical movements (no rotation of the focal plane), as distinct from shifts, which are horizontal movements.

Nowadays we usually just call everything a tilt if it rotates the focal plane, regardless of the direction, or a shift if it moves the image circle relative to the sensor without rotating the focal plane, again regardless of the direction of the movement. Simpler, but less precise. So Ken Rockwell is just being old-school and technical when he uses the term "swing".

 

[ddrueding]

Dupe.

 

[ddrueding]

Interesting Uda and thanks for the explanation Gilo.

Trying to dissect the focal plane is fun! It seems to me that the focal plane is very narrow and following the row of holes in the top shelf most closely.

 

[e_dawg]

First of all, is he tilting or shifting the lens? Talk in plain English KR, it's not swing/swung/swang...it's referred to as a Tilt function, damn it!

I don't know... swing/swung made perfect sense to me.

In KR's example the Smuckers strawberry preserves label is shifted in color to a kind of cyan/magenta yucky red, where it should be a standard medium bright light red, like an unripe strawberry; and the Welch's grape jelly label should be a solid medium light purple color, not the icky bluish tint he's got from the fluro lighting. Least he could do would be some quick PS color correction before posting up to his site....sheeesh! (well that's what I see on my uncalibrated monitor )>

I think there's 3 factors at work here that are causing you angst:

1. The fact that you have an uncalibrated monitor is a factor.

2. WB looks reasonable to me (could be a bit better), although in typical KR style, he has the saturation pumped up too high such that the red and purple not only look too saturated but also a bit too light in hue.

3. The third factor is caused by Ken shooting in sRGB Mode IIIa or Ia. Nikon sRGB is a little unnatural and overly saturated and vibrant, especially with red push but also blue-green (depending on which sRGB mode) from the factory. If he were to shoot RAW in Adobe RGB and then convert into sRGB IEC61966-2.1, the colours would be more noticeably more accurate. I think most people who know their Nikons would know that, and I think Ken probably knows that too, but probably prefers it.

 

[LunarMist]

KR is one of the worst sources of information and commentary. His followers remind me of cult fools. And yes, the horrid photo demonstrates swing rather than tilt.