CanoNikkor Lens Snobbery

[Mike Buckley]

Dyou have managed to use that distortion as an enhancement to your images

At the risk of beating a dead horse, I wouldn't consider that distortion. When we view a scene, our mind concentrates, as an example, on everything except the telephone wires. Is that distortion?

[Colin Southern]

you have managed to use that distortion as an enhancement to your images. That is something that never occurred to me. Point taken and thanks for the lesson!

It's not distortion - it's simply an object appearing larger because it's closer to the camera; the WA / UWA lens that makes that kind of composition possible.

[Colin Southern]

Incidentally, apparently Tokina was started by some Ex Nikon lens designers.

Perhaps, but "did they jump" or "were they pushed"!

[Donald]

Perhaps, but "did they jump" or "were they pushed"!

Or if you're a government minister of the ruling Tory party here in the UK when you fiddle your expenses claims and try to cover it up by threatening people and obstructing inquiry, you say you jumped, but everyone knows you were pushed!!

you have managed to use that distortion as an enhancement to your images. That is something that never occurred to me. Point taken and thanks for the lesson!

I think, William, we were interpreting the word 'distortion' differently.

I think you have maybe been thinking about WA and UWA lenses as merely being instruments to get more into the frame than would be possible with a standard lens, thus leading to the view that you just take more frames with the standard lens and stitch them. The use of WA and UWA needs to be thought about in a very different way that that. Used in that way, they would produce very boring images.

The strength of these lenses lies in the creative compositional opportunities they open up for the photographer.

I would never attempt to make the sort of image, with a wide angle lens, that I think you were envisaging by stitching a number of 'standard lens' shots together.

[Colin Southern]

I would never attempt to make the sort of image, with a wide angle lens, that I think you were envisaging by stitching a number of 'standard lens' shots together.

Apart from the occasional excellent panoramas of Glenfarg!

[Manfred M]

Perhaps, but "did they jump" or "were they pushed"!

Apparently they jumped; they were unimpressed by Nikon's lack of interest in developing and selling zoom lenses and this is why they left and started up Tokina.

[Colin Southern]

I would never attempt to make the sort of image, with a wide angle lens, that I think you were envisaging by stitching a number of 'standard lens' shots together.

I might add too that trying to stitch long exposures like this just doesn't work either.

[Colin Southern]

Apparently they jumped; they were unimpressed by Nikon's lack of interest in developing and selling zoom lenses and this is why they left and started up Tokina.

Was that their story or Nikons?

Edit - looks like it's not even true:

http://camerapedia.wikia.com/wiki/Tokina

Edit #2: This is actually a good "case in point" for me; In my opinion, any company producing lenses must have exceptionally high standards and exquisite attention to detail - and yet it appears that they can't even produce an about page for their own website without obvious spelling / grammar issues:

http://www.tokinalens.com/company/

I'm afraid that things like that do nothing to change my long-help belief that they've changed for the better.

[Manfred M]

Was that their story or Nikons?

Edit - looks like it's not even true:

http://camerapedia.wikia.com/wiki/Tokina

Edit #2: This is actually a good "case in point" for me; In my opinion, any company producing lenses must have exceptionally high standards and exquisite attention to detail - and yet it appears that they can't even produce an about page for their own website without obvious spelling / grammar issues:

http://www.tokinalens.com/company/

I'm afraid that things like that do nothing to change my long-help belief that they've changed for the better.

I had not heard the Kiron (Kino) was founded by Nikon engineers, but frankly, minor point and thanks for the information.

That being said; companies like Zeiss, Schneider-Kreuznach and Rodenstock are all 3rd party manufacturers known for their high quality products (mechanically and optically). Zeiss and Schneider definitely have niche lenses for full-frame cameras, while Rodenstock have a digital line aimed at the medium format market.

I also feel that the manufacturing costs does end up being reflected in the price we pay, and a lower cost lens generally means that the manufacturer had either cut costs to hit a particular selling price. My own opinion is that both Nikon and Canon continue to improve in their optical quality over each successive generation of lenses, but their mechanical build quality has been going down.

[Manfred M]

Perhaps it is inverted snobbery becuase I have a Panasonic body and a Leica lens

To be totally honest, it is a Panasonic built, Leica branded lens. The same comment applies to the Zeiss branded lenses that Sony puts out.

My understanding is that Leica speced test instruments and a technican are involved in the manufacturing process. The lenses have to meet certain optical requirements before Panasonic can use the Leica branding.

[John 2]

Was that their story or Nikons?

Edit - looks like it's not even true:

http://camerapedia.wikia.com/wiki/Tokina

Edit #2: This is actually a good "case in point" for me; In my opinion, any company producing lenses must have exceptionally high standards and exquisite attention to detail - and yet it appears that they can't even produce an about page for their own website without obvious spelling / grammar issues:

http://www.tokinalens.com/company/

I'm afraid that things like that do nothing to change my long-help belief that they've changed for the better.

Ooh Colin, that's a bit cynical. Even if it was logical, you don't suppose that it's their lens designers that write their copy. There is only one test. The two Tokina lenses I own are well made, produce excellent results and at a max aperture of f2.8, had the side benefit of not costing an arm and a leg. I say side benefit because buying a cheap lens that doesn't perform well is to just waste the money that you do invest if you are serious about producing decent images. They have continued to work successfully as I moved from a D90 to a D7000 and currently a D7100 and I seem to remember that there are one or two workers on here that have had similar things to say about the 11-16mm in particular. That's not to say that every Tokina lens is a great lens - you need to be selective but that is true of Nikon and others as well.

[jcuknz]

English is spoken and written in many different ways so I do not question grammar and spelling which doesn't conform to my education. I find modern english quite puzzling at times. I know people have commented on my delivery too.

[Colin Southern]

Ooh Colin, that's a bit cynical. Even if it was logical, you don't suppose that it's their lens designers that write their copy.

Cynical? No - not at all; I'm serious. Things like this are a reflection of who they are - from the top down. Surely they'd know that their traditional reputation was one for producing cheap rubbish - so if they were serious about turning their reputation around then I would fully expect the word to come down from the top that "we shall be meticulous in all that we say and do" because people's perceptions are their reality. So when they try to have us believe that they have uncompromising quality in the construction and design of their lenses - and then have glaring lack of quality in something as simple as an "about" page (and who knows - other areas as well?) then to me (and others too?) this sends a clear message that they're NOT serious about quality and attention to detail; instead it simply says "meaningless rhetoric" and "we'll just say what we think you expect to hear because we want your money".

In other words, they're just words.

[Colin Southern]

English is spoken and written in many different ways so I do not question grammar and spelling which doesn't conform to my education. I find modern english quite puzzling at times. I know people have commented on my delivery too.

From their company page:

It one of the largest OEM speciality binocular manufactures supplies one of the world's leading brands.

That's not "written and spoken in many different ways" - that's just plain wrong. It says to me that if they can't even be bothered getting a good translation (that even a 15 year old could do better) then what other areas can't they be bothered with?

[ajohnw]

To be totally honest, it is a Panasonic built, Leica branded lens. The same comment applies to the Zeiss branded lenses that Sony puts out.

My understanding is that Leica speced test instruments and a technican are involved in the manufacturing process. The lenses have to meet certain optical requirements before Panasonic can use the Leica branding.

It's actually more of as design aspect than manufacture. As a for instance I have used a number of Sony compacts that have Zeiss Tessar lenses. It's just means that Zeiss designed the lenses and it's a Tessar design. Bit odd really as a Tessar is a prime and these were zooms. The Elmar is similar.

Leica is a spin off from yet another microscope manufacturer called Leitz. Zeiss is a microscope manufacture too. Leitz some how or the other probably from an early take over is also mixed up with Wild - another microscope manufacturer. There is some info under company history here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leica_C...ompany_changes

There is more info about what has happened since here - oddly enough as it's an advert

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yii7G3p5Sic

Panasonic and Leica have been tied up for some time. Sony and Zeiss too. There are also a few major optical manufacturers who's names don't usually crop up but make things for anybody. Their products crop up with all sorts of names on them.

Taking any company it's rather difficult to tell where anything is actually made these days or assembled for that matter. Quality largely depends on price so having a big name optic that is cheaper as all ways tends to reflect on what it actually is. Big names obviously attract higher prices anyway. I think Panasonic use the Leica brand to mark there primes but on the other hand they have to as the names such as SummiLux etc are Leica trade names just as Tessar is a Zeiss one. The Lumix is a Panasonic brand designed by Leica - or maybe was - at a cost as all such things are. Olympus have gone a slightly different route. By all accounts their own brand primes are razor sharp and now they will be adding so called Professional lenses to get back where they were on ordinary 4/3. I assume the pro primes will be even more razor sharp but mainly splash proof. In real terms the current consumer lenses probably aren't as sharp as they could be.

The reason I went for Olympus on m 4/3 was the fact that they are near totally in house just like Nikon. Also experiences with several Panasonic products which in real terms were over hyped. The only m 4/3 lenses I have replaced are both Lumix. Nikon and Olympus's problems have been sensors. It seems Canon make their own - a big advantage. They don't seem to be dependent on anyone. Olympus have had serious problems in that area - look what happened to Kodak and that tie up as described here.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2001/2/13/kodakolympus

Sensors seem to be up in the air again. Foveon rumours and changes to bayer masks that greatly increase their light through put. Who knows what's next. Lenses - nothing changes really other than increasingly software is used to correct problems in camera. Bad news in my view but Olympus so far seem to be relatively conservative in this area but that probably has a bearing on prices. Even the source and grade of glass used in a lens and how it's made can have a bearing on optical quality.

John
-

[NorthernFocus]

...The strength of these lenses lies in the creative compositional opportunities they open up for the photographer...

The use of WA/UWA as mentioned definitely requires practice to train one's "vision". The widest angle I have in my inventory has been 24mm equivalent on the short end of a 16-85mm DX. But when I go back through and look at EXIF data of my work, I rarely shoot shorter than 35mm equivalent. And when I do it is only because I am forced to by conditions that won't let me back away to create more space. I haven't yet developed skill to be able to envision the possibilities shooting wide. I think the only way I'll get there is by adding a wide prime lens to my kit and leaving the zoom at home once in a while...

[chauncey]

Donald, every word in your last post was spot on...and yes, I was misunderstanding "distortion". We've all seen those "headshot/big nose" comparisons between lenses...that's were I was coming from.
Using it to accentuate the focus of the image...just never occurred to me.

Colin, you are scrapping the scab of one of my pet peeves...that of incompetence and how it is dealt with,
Toyota and GM come to mind. GM just put a couple engineers on paid leave for their role in the fiasco.
"Paid" leave...does nobody get fired any more...is workplace competence now unimportant?

[ajohnw]

The use of WA/UWA as mentioned definitely requires practice to train one's "vision". The widest angle I have in my inventory has been 24mm equivalent on the short end of a 16-85mm DX. But when I go back through and look at EXIF data of my work, I rarely shoot shorter than 35mm equivalent. And when I do it is only because I am forced to by conditions that won't let me back away to create more space. I haven't yet developed skill to be able to envision the possibilities shooting wide. I think the only way I'll get there is by adding a wide prime lens to my kit and leaving the zoom at home once in a while...

Colin outlines the principle some time ago. As per the shot posted place some thing interesting in the fore ground and as in this case an interesting back ground helps too but isn't mandatory. All sorts may do.

Panorama wont do the same thing due to the perspective effects of wide lenses. I assume it would be possible to do a panorama with a telephoto and get an entirely different perspective effect. It would also be possible to do one with 100mm and hopefully get something like a natural perspective.

John
-

[jcuknz]

From their company page:



That's not "written and spoken in many different ways" - that's just plain wrong. It says to me that if they can't even be bothered getting a good translation (that even a 15 year old could do better) then what other areas can't they be bothered with?

Funny .. I just spotted one of the respected english contributors to this forum using there when it is obvious he meant their ... do we question his knowledge and competance?
Similar to my hate of the close-up LENS being called a CU FILTER amongst other things .....

[Colin Southern]

Funny .. I just spotted one of the respected english contributors to this forum using there when it is obvious he meant their ... do we question his knowledge and competance?

That's not an "apples with apples" comparison. In forums - such as this - it's nice to have a standard that (at a minimum) isn't too difficult for others to read and understand but that's about it. There's no need for every post from every person to be written to a perfect standard (although a little care and attention is certainly appreciated) On the other hand, having multiple glaring errors from a multi-million dollar company on one of their showcase web pages is - frankly - "not a good look" when the implication you're trying to project is one of perfection and attention to detail.

If management are happy to accept such a low standard for their electronic portal to the world, then I would assume that the same lack of quality control probably permeates through to the products that they manufacture - which, ironically - would be 100% consistent with their past reputation for producing rubbish.