Getting to know Canon
We are not a complete stranger to Canon. My wife has an AE-1 which I have used from time to time. The 50mm standard lens seems to be pretty good (most 50mm primes are). It also has a Sigma 28mm wide angle lens. The Sigma lens is not so good, and whatņs worse is it fouls the inside of the camera when it is mounted, leaving a silver arc in the matt black of the body behind the lens mount. I quite liked the Canon, despite my preference for the more compact Olympus cameras. But now the shutter makes a horrible scronking wheezing sound like a childņs push along friction toy. The camera has entered old age. But at least the lenses will come in handy with the new Canon bodies right? Wrong!
In the mid-eighties Canon changed the lens mount, to the dismay of many Canon owners. Other manufacturers, most notably Nikon, tried to maintain backwards compatibility with their manual focus lenses. At the time, SLR cameras used mechanical linkages between the body and the lens both to sense the aperture selected and stop down at the moment of exposure, and this included Canonņs "AF" mount. Most manufacturers used the same approach for autofocus, with a motor in the camera body engaging mechanically with the focussing ring in the lens. But Canon decided to change to a fully electronic coupling for its new "EF" mount when it introduced its autofocus "EOS" line. If you look at a Canon lens you will see a set of contacts in an arc and no mechanical catches or levers. The lens has its own focussing motor and also an electromagnetically controlled aperture. The approach makes it easier for Canon to add improvements to their lenses and and bodies and to add electronics into the lens itself, such as for image stabilisation. In fact some off-brand lens manufacturers have been caught out as the design has been refined.
So the old manual lenses are famously not compatible with the "new" autofocus system.
The 28-80 story.
When the cameras eventually arrived (the courier having driven me almost insane with anticipation over a week while they faffed about - I had gone from intense and eager anticipation to furious indignation - I prefer to be in control) I was in a mood to find them unsatisfactory. I shot a roll of film and had it developed using a one-hour high-street service. Even from the 4x6 prints you could see the difference between the 50mm prime and the 28-80 zoom - at f8!. When you opened up the zoom (which wasnņt saying much - f4) it got a lot worse. I was dissatisfied with the performance of the 28-80 zoom. Surely technology has moved on in twenty years and todayņs zooms outperform those primitive fixed focal length lenses of yesteryear. This lens is rubbish - get it out of my sight! Luckily I have the 50mm/1.8 prime for comparison, and also one remaining Zuiko 50mm prime for comparison. The 28mm Zuiko is gone, but I have some old test shots. Letņs compare:
The Canon 50mm prime looks better than the Zuiko 50mm. But not much. The stolen 28mm Zuiko looks as though it was better than the 50mm Zuiko, but edged by the Canon. The 28-80 Canon Zoom, when compared with the various primes - the technical term is it sucks.
I also took some actual pictures of the same landscape subject and the differences really stood out - it was like the difference between pro and am.
The lens is everything. Thatņs what determines the technical quality. Almost any body can get the exposure right if you do enough work. A modern body winds the film on, loads and rewinds, focusses, does intelligent metering. None of these things ultimately result in a better picture, although it might make it easier (in some cases the advantage seems really tiny).
But if you read around you start to pick up stuff like:
- You prime lens snobs are talking rubbish - Zoom lens design has come a long way in 20 years and nowadays there is no practical difference.
- You old manual camera snobs - you are all Luddites. The new technology is better, I can concentrate on my art.
- You lens testing obsessives. It makes no difference, learn better technique.
- You won't see any difference between professional and consumer lenses.
- Don't waste your time worrying about lens quality, because your amateurish technique will cover up any tiny differences.
- Selection and composition are all, so technical quality is almost irrelevant anyway.
- For all practical purposes there is no difference between the optics of consumer and pro lenses.
Hmm. And the last comment is a precis of what Canon say about their own lens range. More specifically, their are certain lenses which are optically made to the same standard as their pro (L) lenses. This seems to include most of the primes.
I visited a number of camera stores and explained that the 28-80 zoom (3.1) was unsatisfactory and I was looking for a replacement which would give me results comparable with my old Zuiko primes.
Wallace Heaton: The more expensive zooms wonņt be much better unless you go to L lenses at a grand a throw. Suggested prime lenses and would trade the 28-80 for £70 against the £200 28mm/f2.8 Canon. I very nearly took up their offer, but decided to investigate further.
Dixons: These are the only lenses we sell - 28-135mm IS(3.5), and the 28-70L(3.9). They let me try them and take some test shots - would I be able to tell the difference. And that was close to their optimum aperture, hand-held (with flash). Yes, I certainly could. The results corresponded almost exactly with what would have been predicted by the photodo tests in terms of relative optical performance. This makes me think those guys might know a thing or two about lenses.
Jacobs: Canon low end lenses not very good. He had a 28-105(3.3) and it was rubbish. Now replaced by 28-135 which is probably not much better but has IS (Image Stabilisation). Probably use plastic lenses (?). He recommended the Sigma EX lenses in the £400 - £500 range to see a noticeable improvement. He suggested the Sigma 28-70/f2.8EX lens at about £350 (3.0). Also consider the Sigma 28-300 super zoom (2.7) - "Thatņs definitely glass, not plastic" he said producing a lens considerably larger than the camera. Or possibly depleted uranium, I thought as I weighed it in my hand. With some difficulty I mounted it on the camera, or rather it was the other way round. It would just fit in the shoulder holster if I took the spare films out. With a firm twist of the barrel two telescopic sections extented quadrupling its length. You couldnņt really hold the camera comfortably and had to support the lens, and one worried for the plastic lens mount on the EOS300, particularly if the camera body were on a tripod. I imagined zooming from 28 to 300 one would ideally want to change to a faster film. Sounds like two bodies and two zooms would be less weight and cost.
Photo-optix: Modern amateur lenses will not match Zuiko lenses - would need to go to Zeiss or something. Forget Canon, Sigma etc. His pro-photographer friend uses Zuiko because they are the only thing that comes close to large format lenses - youņd be better of buying 2nd hand Zuiko. (incredible!). This rather played to my prejudices, maybe he picked this up from something I said. But frankly I find this hard to believe, much as I like the notion. I donņt think Canonņs prime lenses are any less good than Zuiko, and I doubt if they ever were. And even Olympus produced a few poor quality zooms over the years.
Jessops: Oh, that 28-80 zoom is quite well regarded. These type of lenses are built for cost. Of course Canon make some very expensive pro lenses. But you really need primes if you are going for optical quality - I use only primes. But try these good Sigma zoom lenses.
As cheap consumer zooms go, the 28-80 I started with isnņt bad at all. Itņs worth keeping as a lightweight wide zoom you can afford to lose. Iņm really glad I didnņt trade it. A lot of camera users are trying to get 4x6 prints and even cheap zooms are going to look sharp. They want a camera that will get a result without needing them to do anything except point and shoot. But they donņt want a p&s camera because it is not butch enough. Hence the proliferation of cameras with sophisticated electronics and rubbish optics.
If you run a camera shop, and someone wants a better lens, then sure, let them try out some test shots, preferably hand-held at around f8, of a changing scene in changing light. The more random the results the better because, confused, you will convince yourself that one of the lenses, probably one of the more expensive ones, is better, and trade up.
Why buy an SLR and then use a lens that turns it into a heavy bulky point and shoot? A compact without the compactness.
There must be a market for SLR cameras with awful optics, but why? Male jewelery? A manņs camera?
Why pay for image stabilisation on a wide angle lens?
Why fit a zoom lens that is so bulky that it dwarfs the camera body and is twice the weight and size of the prime lenses that do the same job?
Zooms are more useful for longer focal lengths, where "perambulatory zoom" is less likely to be possible.
Even modest lenses can be used to get acceptable results if used carefully by controlling the aperture range and using a lens hood.
Yes, absolutely get your technique right. But why use put all that effort in and use rotten gear which isnņt even exactly cheap. You might as well P&S. Why should a lower standard be acceptable now than 20 years ago? It doesnņt make sense.
Camera shake is a sharpness killer. The formula 1/f is nothing like fast enough, you need 1/4f to be safe. Otherwise you need to use a tripod. If you are working at f8 you are going to be needing a tripod a lot of the time.
Most of the R&D effort seems to have been expended in making the cameras cheaper to manufacture and in adding pointless features.
I use Kodak Royal Gold - supposedly finer grain for film speed (crude tests seem to support this) with good latitude. I scan and print digitally, so the fact that it is negative film doesnņt really affect me.
My rules for good technical quality images (none of these things involve much cost) - break any of these rules and youņve lost it:
- tripod (careful with subject movement if using slow shutter)
- lens hood
- 100 ASA film (or finer grain)
- good quality prime lens, otherwise stick to f8 unless you need DOF effect (makes subject look sharp in comparison to surroundings).
- try to avoid filters (donņt bother with daylight filter to protect lens)
- appropriate shutter speed (1/f and double it) or use tripod
- focus carefully (if using AF need to check it locked on to the right thing - may need to select point which can be more trouble than MF).
- correct exposure (if you move outside the main area of the response curve you will get effect similar to coarse grain when correcting).
- Camera magazines donņt say things like "avoid third party lenses", "these zoom lenses are optically inferior to the prime lenses from the ninteteen-seventies and -eighties which you just got rid of", "autofocus isnņt actually that useful most of the time", "if you took rotten pictures with your current gear, the latest gadgets ainņt going to make you any better". They say "this * off-brand lens is our Lens of the Year", "we havenņt done a lab test yet but holding the negs up to the light they look sharp", or "this latest camera has all the gadgets so trade in your trusty old camera for this new one". They donņt want to go out of their way to upset their advertisers, and probably nobody would thank them if they did.
- Use the compact zoom which came with the camera as a "point-and-shoot" mode. The zoom doubles as a body cap for your "real" lenses. When you are ready to take a serious photograph of a static subject, get the tripod, mount the appropriate prime, aperture priority, f8, lens hood on, 100 ASA, and donņt hesitate to switch to manual focus. Subject moving - shutter priority or program, autofocus, lens hood on, 400 ASA.
I would consider spending a grand on a lens if I thought the results justified it, even if it meant the lens was worth five times as much as the camera. But it isnņt worth it, because I can get the same quality or better with inexpensive prime lenses. At the wide end I can "zoom with my feet". If Iņm using a tripod itņs not such an issue. If I need to take something NOW then I hope I have the cheap zoom on the camera to get something. Itņs just the inconvenience of changing lenses. But to get the same quality and max aperture in a zoom you end up with this huge heavy thing which dwarfs the camera. Thatņs not very convenient either.
I bought a second-hand 28mm/f2.8 Canon prime for £110. It has a metal lens mount. I think Iņm all set now, mystery solved. I can go back to doing some photography.
The OM40s got nicked, along with the excellent 28mm lens and the not-so-good but useful 135mm, and a 50mm standard lens. The insurance company rather generously replaced them with about a grandņs worth of brand new Canon kit. I would have been happy with about £400 to buy exact replacements on the second hand market.
What did we find? What has 15 years of technological development brought?
- Build is very plasticky.
- Very light.
- 28-80mm zoom is poor (low contrast, poor resolution and vignetting at shortest focal length) - easily outperformed by the old Zuiko prime 50mm or 28mm.
- 80-200mm zoom competes well with the 200mm Zuiko prime.
- Except for action or grab shots, auto-focus really not necessary.
- Selecting focus points a fiddle- easier to switch to MF.
- AF makes the lenses bulky because they wrap all the AF gear around it - 50mm fixed is huge compared to the Zuiko MF equiv.
- Canonņs cheap 50mm lens is best of bunch optically, but looks as though it would fall apart if you touched it with an OM camera. If you played "conkers" with EOS and OM2 I think I know which would win.
- OM2 is built like a tank - EOS300 like a caravan.
- EOS300 lens mount is plastic!
- Most of the lenses have plastic mounts! (more expensive ones seem to be metal).
- Metering seems to be good.
- Having motor drive is nice, but you donņt always want it. Manual wind is quiter.
- Motor wind, AF, motorised aperture -- seems like a lot of motorised stuff to go wrong.
- I damaged the macro lens just putting the cap on!
- The battery compartment cover has a horrible flexible plastic hinge.
- A lot of the technology seems to have been deployed to make manufacturing cheaper, rather than the camera better.
- In low light, you canņt read the LCD display (makes it more difficult to use than the OM!).
- Found myself switching to MF quite a few times.
- Shutter looks flimsy - distorts if you touch it with blower-brush
- Built-in flash is great - previously I just wouldnņt have bothered if it meant getting the flash out.
I think I prefer the OM2 - I must be becoming a camera snob!