practical OR a waste?

[USM]

If people are complaining about the EF-S 18-200mm, I wonder what will be the performance of the EF-S 18-135mm?

Interestingly, looking at the glasses.

EF-S 18-200mm ---> 2 AL and 2 UD

EF-S 18-135mm ---> 1 UD

 

[Limsgp]

I talking about the max aperture of the lens, not the aperture setting.

And I'm not talking about very dark situations where it is impossible to focus using any lens. I'm referring to situation where the max aperture makes a difference, and such situations do exists.

Just do a simple test. Take a F1.8 lens, set aperture to F5.6, do a DOF preview, does the VF became darker (may need to try darker environment to see the difference)? If yes, that means if you mount a F5.6 lens of the same FL onto the same camera, the VF will be darker than if the F1.8 lens is mounted right?

So the brightness of the VF depends on the max aperture of the lens too.

FYI the brightness of the viewfinder when you are using MF depend mainly on the body, and not the aperture being used (unless you are using the "DoF button"). :bsmilie:

If you are talking about pitch-dark condition, unless you are using flash/long shutter speed/high iso I believe even a F1.2 L lens would be dark too.

 

[pplneedthelord]

i think the topic is going off the track already. if u are using f/5.6 lens, your camera will still be able to autofocus. it may not be as fast or hunt at low light, but it will still autofocus. only if u add a teleconverter to it and the max aperture goes below f/5.6 will the body stop autofocusing.

having said that, i do think it is very tough to try to achieve sharp focus with manual focusing if you are doing it with the stock focusing screen and APS-C body. i believe most bodies nowadays come with liveview and you can easily replace the screen with one meant for manual focusing if that is what you do often.

sorry if i sound snobbish or elitist but if someone is serious about landing great images with photography, he should know the lens is one of the crucial element of it. if you are willing to forgo good IQ for convenience, don't complain about anything.

i agree to this. thats exactly why till this day i haven't convinced myself to get such lenses with a wide focal range. it kills IQ at the tele end, and usually, distortion is bad too.

 

[pplneedthelord]

If people are complaining about the EF-S 18-200mm, I wonder what will be the performance of the EF-S 18-135mm?

Interestingly, looking at the glasses.

EF-S 18-200mm ---> 2 AL and 2 UD

EF-S 18-135mm ---> 1 UD

so people, by looking at this info from USM, are we able to conclude whether the 18-135 IS is a practical or a waste?

 

[goering]

工欲善其事，必先利其器 ， I never said that equipment is not important.

Correct me if I am wrong but IMHO the pros who know how to yield the right equipment is more important than a beginner who have the top-end bodies & lenses. :think:

Hi, the reason I asked about the aperture values is more of a practical concern. This is because for my usage, I normally would need to focus in available light indoors without flash

I noticed that if the aperture is at 5.6, the lens will hunt a lot when trying to focus in dimmer conditions so I will miss shots. My current workaround is to focus at the wider end where it is brighter and then zoom in to tele end and refocus - but this still means I miss shots.

So if the lens dims to f5.6 early, then it would be a problem for me. So in this case 18-200mm, since I normally have difficulty focusing at f5.6, the useful range for me is 18-80mm or so.

 

[flipfreak]

so people, by looking at this info from USM, are we able to conclude whether the 18-135 IS is a practical or a waste?

if got no money, then no choice also. or ignorance as well. i know someone who just bought the 40D then sold it off to get the 7D with 580 and 18-200 within 6 months. and i am pretty sure his pics will still suck. :bsmilie:

 

[calebk]

...
the 24-85 is not a sharp lens to begin with so i would not use that with a ff cam if i had one.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, here's a sample of the 24-85 wide open. I beg to differ with your opinion that it's not a sharp lens.

 

[TsQ]

actually a photo with it reduced to 800 pixel cannot tell much about sharpness .. a PnS of 12mp reduce to 800pixel probably looks the same in terms of sharpness..

 

[calebk]

actually a photo with it reduced to 800 pixel cannot tell much about sharpness .. a PnS of 12mp reduce to 800pixel probably looks the same in terms of sharpness..

If a lens is truly abysmal, it shows up in all sorts of photos. Most of the time, we shoot for web (unless we are doing jobs, with large prints involved). Being practical, most people would also view at this kind of resolution, because this is close to about 4R. The detail here is undeniably very good for a "consumer" lens.

I do not discount that pixel peepers love looking at 100% crops to tell if they are sharp but I am not a pixel peeper, merely a photographer.

 

[flipfreak]

Hi, the reason I asked about the aperture values is more of a practical concern. This is because for my usage, I normally would need to focus in available light indoors without flash

I noticed that if the aperture is at 5.6, the lens will hunt a lot when trying to focus in dimmer conditions so I will miss shots. My current workaround is to focus at the wider end where it is brighter and then zoom in to tele end and refocus - but this still means I miss shots.

So if the lens dims to f5.6 early, then it would be a problem for me. So in this case 18-200mm, since I normally have difficulty focusing at f5.6, the useful range for me is 18-80mm or so.

what camera body are u using right now? perhaps using the af assist on the external flash is a better solution?

 

[TsQ]

If a lens is truly abysmal, it shows up in all sorts of photos. Most of the time, we shoot for web (unless we are doing jobs, with large prints involved). Being practical, most people would also view at this kind of resolution, because this is close to about 4R. The detail here is undeniably very good for a "consumer" lens.

I do not discount that pixel peepers love looking at 100% crops to tell if they are sharp but I am not a pixel peeper, merely a photographer.

yes, if that is the case, one shld not really bother too much about sharpness..

i hv a fren who is a full time photographer, once told me.. that if one day he not doing this as a job, he will sell off his L lens and just use normal ones... as when u resize it to screen resolution or 4R print out, u cannot really tell the different.. even if u can, its not worth the $$ premium as u really need to look hard to see the 'extra' sharpness..

so this comes down to how sensitive u are or how appreciative u r towards photo sharpness..

 

[pplneedthelord]

if got no money, then no choice also. or ignorance as well. i know someone who just bought the 40D then sold it off to get the 7D with 580 and 18-200 within 6 months. and i am pretty sure his pics will still suck. :bsmilie:

haha then for that fella case, thats a waste! :bsmilie:

 

[Anson]

haha then for that fella case, thats a waste! :bsmilie:

But good for folks in the BnS section. :bsmilie:

 

[flipfreak]

haha then for that fella case, thats a waste! :bsmilie:

yeah. i suspect he will sell it or abandon it very soon again.

 

[calebk]

...as when u resize it to screen resolution or 4R print out, u cannot really tell the different.. even if u can, its not worth the $$ premium as u really need to look hard to see the 'extra' sharpness..

so this comes down to how sensitive u are or how appreciative u r towards photo sharpness..

I agree fully. Some people are here to take photos and appreciate them, others are here to tell you how sharp a lens is at 100% magnification. That's probably printing A1 size and staring at it from an inch away.

 

[Limsgp]

I feel that extra sharpness is always welcomed.. ;p

Consider a guy with a 400mm sharp lens.. took it out for birding and shot a bird far away. The bird could only fill 50% or less of the frame. So he crop it by 50% or more and view it at 4R or web size. It's sort of using a 400mm lens like a 600mm lens.

Now, in this case, is the sharpness detectable at 4R or web viewing size between a "sharp" lens & a "soft" lens? 50% is just a figure.. it may be more than that.

Will not a "normal" photographer (who views at web size) appreciate the fact that he could use the 400mm like a 600mm when the situation calls for it? (casual example)

Considering the casual photographer who doesn't print large.. would he welcome the sharpness that allows him to crop and still produce a reasonable sharp picture considering the price difference between a 600mm & a 400mm (for eg.)?

Why sharpness is important, even at 100%, is because photographers have the flexibility of cropping the picture and retain reasonable picture quality when the need arises. For a photographer who never never crop > 50%.. then it's maybe not important. But probably a number of nature photographers do..

yes, if that is the case, one shld not really bother too much about sharpness..

i hv a fren who is a full time photographer, once told me.. that if one day he not doing this as a job, he will sell off his L lens and just use normal ones... as when u resize it to screen resolution or 4R print out, u cannot really tell the different.. even if u can, its not worth the $$ premium as u really need to look hard to see the 'extra' sharpness..

so this comes down to how sensitive u are or how appreciative u r towards photo sharpness..

 

[flipfreak]

considering the fact that sharpness is not just about the lens but the sensor as well. just because the lens is sharp doesnt mean cropping away 50% and blowing up to 100% crop will give u equally sharp images compared to a pic shot with a 600mm. u effectively lose half of the resolution. unless like what u said, it is only websize viewing. otherwise the difference is pretty obvious at 100%.

 

[Limsgp]

What I'm trying to say is.. a sharper lens could just give that little bit of "advantage".. compared to a soft lens.. and during cropping the difference can be felt. ok.. bad example with the 400mm & 600mm..

 

[flipfreak]

What I'm trying to say is.. a sharper lens could just give that little bit of "advantage".. compared to a soft lens.. and during cropping the difference can be felt. ok.. bad example with the 400mm & 600mm..

yes. your example don't really work. 400 and 600 lenses usually pretty decent. using a sharp lens to crop more don't make sense also.

using resolution to crop is quite the cheapo way to do things.

 

[night86mare]

not too sure whether this has been raised before..

How do you people feel about canon releasing a 18-135 lens even with the 18-200 lens already in the market? do you think it is a wise choice Canon made?

iq probably better.