Lenses for D70 (amateur)

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Actually the G and ED lenses use the same optical formula. So, you
>would be quite wrong with the above statement. The only difference is
>glass quality in the optics (ED is better than no ED)


Therefore the optics are totally different. I rest my case.

;-)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Tue, 24 May 2005 12:32:44 +0100, Tony Polson <tp@nospam.net> wrote:

>"Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Actually the G and ED lenses use the same optical formula. So, you
>>would be quite wrong with the above statement. The only difference is
>>glass quality in the optics (ED is better than no ED)
>
>
>Therefore the optics are totally different. I rest my case.
>
>;-)

I pick up your resting case...

The optics are not TOTALLY different; the number and position of the lens
elements is exactly the same for both lenses. The difference is that the
material used in two of the elements is ED glass.

So; SLIGHTLY different. I re-rest your case. ;-)

Regards,
Graham Holden (g-holden AT dircon DOT co DOT uk)
--
There are 10 types of people in the world;
those that understand binary and those that don't.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Tony Polson <tp@nospam.net> wrote:
>
> Therefore the optics are totally different. I rest my case.
>
> ;-)

Not totally different and they have the same optical formula which is
the defining factor for sharpness. ED only affects color abberation.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1
Spammers please contact me at renegade@veldy.net.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Tony Polson <tp@nospam.net> wrote:
>>
>> Therefore the optics are totally different. I rest my case.
>>
>> ;-)
>
>Not totally different and they have the same optical formula which is
>the defining factor for sharpness.

If two elements have ED glass, which have different coefficients of
refraction, or curvature, or both, the optical formula cannot be said
to be the same. It may not be totally different, but it is certainly
significantly different, which explains why the lenses produce such
different results.

The two lenses may have the same number of elements in the same number
of groups, but it is a gross mis-statement of the facts to claim that
they have the same optical formula. They don't.

>ED only affects color abberation.

Since when did chromatic aberration not affect sharpness?

If chromatic aberration doesn't affect sharpness, why would any lens
manufacturer ever use expensive ED glass?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Tony Polson <tp@nospam.net> wrote:

> "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Actually the G and ED lenses use the same optical formula. So, you
>>would be quite wrong with the above statement. The only difference is
>>glass quality in the optics (ED is better than no ED)
>
>
> Therefore the optics are totally different. I rest my case.
>
> ;-)

Only a single element in the ED version uses the ED glass and it's buried
in the middle of the lens. This was so they could use a smaller piece of
it to keep their costs down and still market it as 'ED'. CA is not a
problem with the 'G' version and the ED 'cure' is virtually undetectable.
Both lenses have poor contrast (which isn't terribly important for
digital users unless they are snapshooters with Photoshopophobia) and a
tendency to softness at full zoom. I've won competitions with 12x18
prints shot through the 'G' lens. I paid $99 for it at B&H.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Tony Polson <tp@nospam.net> wrote:
>
> If chromatic aberration doesn't affect sharpness, why would any lens
> manufacturer ever use expensive ED glass?
>

Your text is clearly an attempt to keep from indicating that you are
wrong. People make mistakes, but only some admit to them. You know as
well as I what is meant by an identical optical formula and what that
means for the quality of image created by the lens.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1
Spammers please contact me at renegade@veldy.net.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Your text is clearly an attempt to keep from indicating that you are
>wrong.


That's because I am right.

;-)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Definition of 'exactly the same' aside, I moved up from the G to the ED
specifically because the fringing was bugging the heck out of me. It might
not be a problem in non-bright conditions, but this is San Diego and I ran
into it a lot (photographing a bird against white stone, for instance). And
I don't get it with the ED. I guess the only way to know for sure for
yourself is to give it a try.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:42929c86$0$40901$8046368a@newsreader.iphouse.net:
> Sizer <sizer@nospam.com> wrote:
>> So I'd say 70-300mm ED. You'll get an awful lot of lens for $300
>> (minus rebates), and you definitely want a telephoto lens to go with
>
> I can second the 70-300mm ED. I took this picture (a snapshot really)
>
> http/www.veldy.net/~veldy/pictures/goosefam.html
> Comments welcome. I took this and analyzed it afterword. I am very
> much in need of improvement with my technique.

I think you pretty much covered it. The depth of field is a little low,
but considering the rush you were in (and that it was handheld), it might
not have been easily fixable. Or you could have opened up even further
and focused just on the mother goose's head, throwing the background way
out of focus and the goslings a bit more out of focus - that might have
been an interesting shot too. I like it, though - the only /real/
complaint is that your camera should have been slightly to the right so
as not to clip the last guy's tail off. But considering the time
problem...

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Bubbabob <rnorton@_remove_this_thuntek.net> wrote:
>
>Only a single element in the ED version uses the ED glass and it's buried
>in the middle of the lens. This was so they could use a smaller piece of
>it to keep their costs down and still market it as 'ED'. CA is not a
>problem with the 'G' version and the ED 'cure' is virtually undetectable.
>Both lenses have poor contrast (which isn't terribly important for
>digital users unless they are snapshooters with Photoshopophobia) and a
>tendency to softness at full zoom. I've won competitions with 12x18
>prints shot through the 'G' lens. I paid $99 for it at B&H.


Now I see where you're coming from. The G lens is junk.

Congratulations on winning prizes with it. You must be an outstanding
photographer.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Sizer <sizer@nospam.com> wrote:

>Definition of 'exactly the same' aside, I moved up from the G to the ED
>specifically because the fringing was bugging the heck out of me. It might
>not be a problem in non-bright conditions, but this is San Diego and I ran
>into it a lot (photographing a bird against white stone, for instance). And
>I don't get it with the ED. I guess the only way to know for sure for
>yourself is to give it a try.


The G lens is junk. But some people appear able to convince
themselves otherwise, and that expensive ED glass is of absolutely no
benefit whatsoever. It isn't ... to them.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Tony Polson <tp@nospam.net> wrote:
>
> The G lens is junk. But some people appear able to convince
> themselves otherwise, and that expensive ED glass is of absolutely no
> benefit whatsoever. It isn't ... to them.
>

Why? Because it is a G lens or because it is $99, or both? It seems to
me that since it can take good pictures, at least in many general
circumstances that it might indeed be an excellent value. To a pro,
yes, perhaps it is junk. Having said that, I do not use the G lens, as
I prefer at least some ED in the mix and a better build quality.

Still, your way of conveying an opinion as fact is rather disturbing.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1
Spammers please contact me at renegade@veldy.net.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>Why? Because it is a G lens or because it is $99, or both?


Neither. Optically, it is junk.

But if you're happy with it, that's just fine. Enjoy!