Merlin1300 Loc: New England, But Now & Forever SoTX

Would appreciate comments from any of you lens geeks if you'd have any reservations about this lens:
.
New lens is here. Seems to work fairly well. Had some initial concerns regarding a small dust spec on an internal element {see topic: Dust Spec in New Lens}
http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-54410-1.html
however I took several test photos, then used a flashlight in live view mode (7D) to create some nasty flare - and as expected - the tiny spec (I'm thinking less than 1/2mm) produced no visible effect on the images, or the screen.
.
Then I downloaded a resolution test target {you all need to get this !! It is a simulation of an ISO-12233 test target as a vector graphic - so you can import it to PS,PSE, PSP, GIMP, whatever you've got, at whatever resolution you want - then crop and print - which is what I did}
http://www.graphics.cornell.edu/~westin/misc/res-chart.html
and shot the following (download the shot for full res). There was a little Moire at frequency 10 - but overall looked pretty sharp - shot at f/5.6, ISO 100, Zoom 59mm, 1/2500 sec.
Please note - the curvature (Pincushion) was the result of the target being set on door handles with the bottom of the image closer to the camera than the top - so that MAY be mostly my fault - - although I DID straighten it up fairly well BEFORE the shot to avoid that :shock:
.
So - then I had a little fun. Shot another photo of the Fairy Hut under the tree - that magically appeared after my wife and daughter got back from Ireland :) - - contrast was a little bland - - so a 3-shot repeat + 2eV with a little HDR thrown in - produced the final image. I thought it would make a good test target for real-world conditions with wide contrast and tiny little pine needles - all shot at f/10, 18mm, ISO 160.
The test target is JPG out of the camera, no post processing {5 MB).
The tree photos had to be dumbed down a bit from their original 9 - 10 MB to the current 5 MB so they'd all fit in this post - I did that just by increasing JPG compression levels a bit. My comparison here didn't show appreciable difference at 100% view - just a slight decrease in color saturation, same sharpness.
.
So - - What'cha think :?: :?:
.

Test Target was Printed at 460 DPI (Download Hi Res)


Original Test Shot - a bit bland (Download Hi Res)


Spiced up a bit as a 3-shot bracket HDR

Festina Lente Loc: Florida & Missouri

I have no non-picayune reservations.
You did your homework very well, far better than most folks.
Go for it! You know what it can do and it's what you want. :thumbup:

Merlin1300 Loc: New England, But Now & Forever SoTX

Thx - - so far, so good

Sunset & Camera Available - Cropped

Merlin1300 Loc: New England, But Now & Forever SoTX

Oh - - by the way - - never have been able to figure out why Canon insults their customers intelligence by NOT including lens hoods with their {non-L} lenses.
After the premium they get for ANY of their lenses - they then try to rip you off by charging $35 for $0.05 worth of plastic.
Those by Photodiox at $5 probably do allow for mild profit - after shipping them all the way to the US, and do the same job.
Also had good results with Marumi UV {lens protection} filters - - low profile, multi-coated, value priced.

Festina Lente Loc: Florida & Missouri

Interesting. All of my new Canon lenses have come with factory-supplied hoods. (So far...)

I used to think that factory hoods were over-priced (still do in fact) but the "knock-offs" often do not fit as well (too tight, too loose, misaligned) and they can reflect some light in more extreme conditions because they do not have that 100% non-reflecting black flocking on the inside. Bottomline, factory hoods are decidedly better - but 10x better?

If it is a lens that I take the hood off and on often, I get the factory hood. If the hood pretty much stays on the lens at all times (both off and on camera) and I need to buy one, then I get one made in China for a fraction of the price.

Merlin1300 Loc: New England, But Now & Forever SoTX

I guess all your Canon lenses must be "L" grade then - - I'm kinda jealous - - however I do think that some of their EFS lenses represent good value (if that can be taken a bit tongue-in-cheek as Canon lenses although slightly better {whatever that means :shock:} are typically priced 30% higher than the Tamron or Sigma competition). Compared to their 'L' grade brethren, the EFS are lighter, smaller, with greater range. Of course - USELESS if you shoot FF {which might also explain why all your lenses are EF 'L'}.

Festina Lente Loc: Florida & Missouri

Yes, most are L, but several are not. My Canon EF 70-300 (purchaed new in January 2012) came with a factory hood as did my EF 17-85mm (purchased new in June 2012).
I guess I have just been lucky.
I will check this out next time I'm in the market; seems like it might be an easy negociation to get one included instead of a UV filter. Buying a hood afterwards can be annoyingly pricy.

Merlin1300 Loc: New England, But Now & Forever SoTX

Hmmm - - I have to wonder if maybe Canon has changed their policy :?:
Or maybe whomever you bought from :?:threw one in:?:
A recent review at The Digital Picture confirms:
Lens hoods are optional with most of canon's non-L lenses and this remains the case with the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Lens. You should consider adding a Canon ET-65B Lens Hood to your shopping cart along with the 70-300 IS if your determine that this is the right lens for you.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-300mm-f-4-5.6-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx
Whatever - - I hope when it comes time for me to get my 70-300, a hood is included.

victoria1

I bought the 15-85 early in 2010. It is now a well travelled lens. Not as sharp as the 50mm f/1.8, not usually as sharp as the 70-200 f/4 IS, and yes, I do have reservations but I think it's as good as I'm going to get with a Canon zoom lens in this "standard" focal range on a crop sensor camera like my 50D. There are times it is soft enough that I want to sell it - even advertised it once - but there are other times I love the IQ. I have considered that perhaps it's me. I have found th optimal shooting situation, at least as far as sharpness is concerned, is close to subject, with flash, like a wedding. Yes, I know that a wider aperture would be better for people shots, but this lens ain't got one, so next point. It likes bright light - what lens doesn't - but this one surely does. I don't like getting below 1/200, despite the great image stabilisation. Some reviews are more positive than I am; it is a good but not great lens. But ... it is a great travel lens, despite the number of shots that disappoint for their, albeit it, slight softness. I won't sell it for this reason, but if the 17-55 was proved sharper, I might sacrifice the extra focal range and grab one. Recently bought the G1X compact and that IS a sharp number.

Merlin1300 Loc: New England, But Now & Forever SoTX

Well - - nice to hear - - I got the 15-85 to replace my old Tammy 28-75 - as the Tammy wasn't wide enough for my 7D. I do also have a Canon 18-200 for general walkaround, but thought the 15-85 would be a little sharper, and although the 15-85 doesn't match the Tammy's constant f/2.8 - it comes close with the 3 - 4 stop IS. So - - I dunno what I'll do with the Tammy now - - I'm also going to save up for a year for the Canon 70-300 "L" version. Then maybe a prime in the range of 28 - 35mm at f/1.4 to 2.0, then wait to win the lottery and get the Canon 500mm prime beastie.

olcoach Loc: Oregon

Hi, I used to always buy the Canon hoods until, like you, I decided I didn't like being ripped off so if it doesn't come with a hood I buy a cheapie and then coat the inside with a flat black paint. I also have a question about the test target which I am afeared may be a bit dumb but what am I looking for when I take a shot of it? Is it simply to check how sharp the lens is, or is there something else I should be looking for? Thanks, Mike

Merlin1300 Loc: New England, But Now & Forever SoTX

Sharpness for one, and resolving power for another. Look at the image you capture - between the tiny lines as they taper and shrink together. Ideally, the sharp distinction between black and white should remain as the lines get closer and closer together. As you approach the resolution limit of the lens, the black to white transition fades to gray. Better lenses will resolve smaller spacings.
-
Do remember - that as you add lens features, all become less perfect than - say - an optimized prime lens. Jack of all trades, master of none definitely applies. For me, having to carry only a single lens (or two) on vacation is more important than perfectly sharp images with no distortion. IF I know what I'm going to be shooting - THEN - I do have high quality lenses that I will select for just that purpose.