DLSR vs SLR

[Groucho]

I see this comment made here pretty frequently and it usually ends up being corrected only to show back up again. What I assume that Groucho means is that the front end of the lens rotates when you change focus. Because a polarizer (circular or not) has a different effect as it rotates, you must adjust the orientation of the polarizer after significant changes in focus. Depending on the type of shooting that you do, that can be a minor annoyance or a significant problem.

Claiming that it won't work properly is about as accurate as saying that a manual focus lens won't work on an autofocus body. It might not be as easy to use, but it will work just fine.

I'm sorry, I have to take strongly disagree with this. It's nothing like a manual focus lens on an AF body. A manual focus lens on an AF body will work exactly as well as it will on an MF body, and as well as it's possible for that lens to work.

The only situation where a circular polarizer will be remotely useful on a lens where the front rotates during focusing if is the camera is on a tripod (or the photographer is standing extremely still) and the camera is focused on a non-moving object.

Any chance in focus at all will throw off your polarizer settings. This makes it, for all intents and purposes, completely useless for everyday shooting (like at WDW if you want to give the sky some extra blue, cut down on reflections on water/glass, etc)... and even if you stop and still still, focus, and lock the focus, you still need to re-adjust the polarizer every time.

Whereas, on a lens that doesn't rotate the front element (ie, the vast majority of lenses except the C/N 18-55mm kit lenses), you set the polarizer to the effect you want and it stays exactly there until you remove it or change it yourself. That's what I call using it "properly". That's why I said that it can't be used "properly" on a lens with a rotating front element. Would you bother putting a circular polarizer on such a lens? I sure wouldn't, who wants that headache.

Since lens mounts were brought up recently, it can also be noticed that the C/N kit lenses feature plastic mounts, which will likely be a bit more fragile than a metal mount. I think it's pretty disappointing that both companies sacrificed basic features like a metal mount and a non-rotating front element in order to save a couple bucks, but they did. Does either one have any other lenses with rotating front elements? Or plastic mounts?

 

[MarkBarbieri]

The only situation where a circular polarizer will be remotely useful on a lens where the front rotates during focusing if is the camera is on a tripod (or the photographer is standing extremely still) and the camera is focused on a non-moving object.

Any chance in focus at all will throw off your polarizer settings. This makes it, for all intents and purposes, completely useless for everyday shooting (like at WDW if you want to give the sky some extra blue, cut down on reflections on water/glass, etc)... and even if you stop and still still, focus, and lock the focus, you still need to re-adjust the polarizer every time.

It's pretty obvious that your speaking about something with which you have no experience at all. Ever actually use a Canon, Nikon, or Sony kit lens? Any idea just how much they rotate through their focus range? Have much experience with a polarizer?

Assuming that you have at least uses a polarizer, I'm sure that you know that using one is not a precision exercise. The effect of the polarizer gradually increases or decreases as you rotate it through 180 degrees of useful range (the back 180 is really just the same as the front 180). Being off peak by a couple of degrees is rarely noticeable.

If you'd actually used a C/N/S kit lens, which from your comments I assume that you haven't, you'd have noticed that they rotate barely 1/8 turn from the nearest possible focus to the farthest possible focus. If you are outside at WDW and taking shots of various scenes with focus points ranging from 30 fee to 1,000 feet away, your lens will probably rotate all of about 5-10 degrees. The effect on your polarizer will not be all that much in most cases. When it is, it isn't particularly challenging to move your hand from the zoom ring to the polarizer and give it a bit of a twist.

Now I'm not trying to say that there isn't a drawback at all. In fact, I did say that it ranges from "a minor annoyance or a significant problem." That's a far cry from "it won't work properly", "won't be useful", or "The only situation where a circular polarizer will be remotely useful on a lens where the front rotates". As a general rule, I think people should be a bit more circumspect about making extreme statements about equipment with which they have only a passing familiarity. I know someone that uses a polarizer with the Canon kit lens on their Rebel and they do so reasonably successful. While you might not consider that to be "valid", the fact remains that it works OK for them.

As for my MF analogy, I think it is pretty apt. With an AF lens, you zoom and shoot. With a MF lens, you have to make a manual adjustment for every shot where focus changes. With a polarizer on a rotating front element AF lens, you may need to adjust your polarizer when you change your focus. Seems pretty similar to me. In both cases, the process is slower and more labor intensive than the alternative, but both work OK.

As for the polycarbonate mount on the kit lens, why does it concern you? Have you heard of any failing because they weren't metal? It's part of what makes the Rebel with kit lens about 20% lighter than the K100D. For some people, weight is quite important.

 

[Anewman]

Does either one have any other lenses with rotating front elements? Or plastic mounts?

YES CANON DOES have other lenses with plastic mounts...

One of which is considered by many to be the BEST BANG FOR THE BUCK lens around, the plastic mount has no affect on image quality and the plastic mount is more than strong enough to support these lighter lenses.

 

[Groucho]

Here we go again...

Yes, I have used the Canon and Nikon kit lenses, admittedly very little, but I have. I daresay that I've used them as much as you've used the Nikon or Sony kit lenses. Or heck, about as much as you've used the Canon 18-55mm on your current DSLR!

I have used my polarizer a fair amount and would disagree on your assessment of it as not being a precision tool. I find that the "sweet spot" is really quite small.

If someone in concerned about weight, you can have a K110D and the 40mm F2.8 lens combined for about the same weight as an XTi with no lens (not counting batteries), with what is generally considered to be better build quality to boot. Similarly, the D40 weighs less than the XTi and again, has a better build quality. Don't forget about the lightweight Olympuses, either.

The MF lens is complete apples and oranges. You can't blame a MF lens for not being autofocus. Chances are that you paid less for it being manual focus, or it's old enough to be before AF was common. You are getting exactly what the lens is designed to give you. A CP on a lens with a rotating front element is not going to work as the CP is designed. And it's not just me saying it.
The front element rotates so using a polarizer isn't fun.
The rotating front lens element makes CP filter use difficult on this lens.
A final critique of the EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 zoom is that the front element rotates as the lens is focused. This means that if a polarizing filter is attached and adjusted, but then the subject distance changes, as the lens refocuses the polarization angle will be changed as well. Since then manually rotating the filter to correct this also runs the risk of defocusing the lens, the entire design is fraught with potential problems for anyone using a polarizer. And, since a polarizer is the most useful filter for photographers, it's clear that this is not one of the lens' strong points.
Also, if like me you like to mount cokin filters for landscape (grad ND and/or polarizer), the lense is a nightmare: to focuse, you need to turn the frontal element, hence to turn all of your filters! You can very well imagine what the effect on polarization or your "hard" grad line is.
This matters a lot if you’re using a polarizing filter or a graduated neutral density (ND) filter, since the properties of the polarizer vary depending on its angle of rotation and the graduation line runs across the filter in a straight line. It can be very annoying to set a filter to achieve the effect you want, touch up the focus, and find that the polarizing or graduated ND effect has changed because the end of the lens has rotated.

Of course, Nikon is the same way, so they're not exempt.
The front element rotates so using a polarizer is quite cumbersome.

As for the plastic mount - it's just a rather blatant example of cost-cutting. Did Canon NEED to put a plastic mount on here? Do they sell any other lens with a plastic mount? Do they sell any other lens with a rotating front element? (edit: it sounds like the 50mm F1.8 is the same way, but since it's primarily a low-light lens, it's not such an issue there.) They don't even include a lens hood! (For obvious reasons - it'd be pretty useless to have the usual petal-shaped wide-zoom hood on a rotating lens front.) I fail to understand how you can defend these decisions as anything but completely unnecessary cost cutting in order to squeeze every penny of profit out of the consumer.

 

[gokenin]

I want to thank everyone for the advice that they have been giving me and i think I have learned alot about DSLRs in the short time that I have been on the board,but I think that this is not the time for me to move into one. I would be getting one because itsthe current thing to do, I have a p/s camera and I still think I have stuff to learn from it and I also think that since 90% of my photo taking is done during the day it doesnt make sense to me yet to buy another camera when the one i have does what I need it too right now. This may change when if i feel I have reached all I can do with my current camera.

 

[MarkBarbieri]

I find it fascinating that you appear oblivious to the difference between your absolutist rhetoric like "it won't work properly", "won't be useful", "The only situation where a circular polarizer will be remotely useful on a lens where the front rotates", and now "A CP on a lens with a rotating front element is not going to work as the CP is designed." These are all statements that would mistakenly give the reader that didn't know how exagerated they were that one cannot use a circular polarizer on a Canon kit lens; a fact which even the quotes you give show that not to be true. "Not fun", "difficult", and the others all make it clear that the rotating front element is a disadvantage but they don't ever say that it won't work.

It wouldn't be objectionable if you simply said that a CP is harder to use on a C/N/S kit lens. The problem is that your posts like this take what is a legitimate concern and twist it into a absolute issue. What is an annoyance to some becomes a "won't work properly" or "won't be useful" in your world. It reminds me of the sort of hyperbole that I always found off putting on forums with gear obsessed fanboys like DPReview.

Someone with a kit lens reading the reviews you quoted would be aware that using a polarizer will be more work on their lens. That same person reading your post might forgo the purchase of a useful filter because they made the mistake of taking your hyperbole literally and thought that it really would not work.


As for Canon's use of polycarbonate in lens mounts, I honestly couldn't say to what extent it was to keep costs down and to what extent it was to make a lighter lens. I wasn't in those design sessions. From what I can tell, they work just as well as metal mounts in the places they are used, cost less to make, and are lighter. I wouldn't lug around a polycarbonate mounted 70-200 f/2.8 by the camera body, but who would?

Not surprisingly, the fact that even the K10D uses a "plastic" body compared with the 30D and D200, never seems to bother you. The simple truth is that the manufacturers are all building parts designed to fit the needs of their customers. Their engineers work out where cost and weight can be cut without affecting performance. It's by making their customers happy that companies make as much money as they can. Canon just happens to be particularly good at making their customers happy; that's why they have so very, very many of them.

 

[photo_chick]

Since lens mounts were brought up recently, it can also be noticed that the C/N kit lenses feature plastic mounts, which will likely be a bit more fragile than a metal mount. I think it's pretty disappointing that both companies sacrificed basic features like a metal mount and a non-rotating front element in order to save a couple bucks, but they did. Does either one have any other lenses with rotating front elements? Or plastic mounts?

I was disappointed to see all the plastic mounts on the lenses. When my Dad left me his new 75-300 f/4-5.6 III USM I was suprised to compare it to my lens by the exact same name that was ten years old. My older lens feels much more solid, has a metal mount, and is a bit heavier.

BTW.. I kept my trusty older one and sold the newer one.

 

[boBQuincy]

...snip... I think it's pretty disappointing that both companies sacrificed basic features like a metal mount and a non-rotating front element in order to save a couple bucks, but they did. Does either one have any other lenses with rotating front elements? Or plastic mounts?

My Canon 28-90 and 55-200 (older version for APS film SLR) both have rotating ends. The 28-90 only rotates about 1/8 turn but the 55-200 rotates a full 1/4 turn, enough to really throw off the polarizer.
Is this a big issue? It may be to some people, not to others.

My take on it, and my opinion only, is that these are lenses that many people will probably put a UV filter on permanently, and won't use a polarizer anyway. This isn't good or bad, just the way I figure many entry level lenses are being used.

This forum is a mostly enlightened group and we debate UV filters, polarizers, etc. Many of us are continually looking to upgrade both our equipment and our techniques, and are not likely to stay with entry level lenses for long.

So why do I have these entry level lenses? I bought them years ago because the orice was good, real good. I never expected great results from them although they are much better than I expected, especially for the price. I sometimes use polarizers with them, and it is a pita, so I don't use these lenses often (mostly business trips and bad weather).

 

[jann1033]

since i went out and tested my cp and kit lens and like i posted it worked fine and i had to turn it maybe a fraction of an inch to get it exactly where it was before( if i had my camera i'd do it again and post them) i don't really see much more to say...however( always a however) just thinking cps have been around a while, i'm guessing at least since way back in the day when lenses always rotated the front element...so sorry this has gotten kind of nutty don't you think? and don't you think it's much more involved to focus a manual lens than adjust a cp but lots use manual focus lenses often and seem to enjoy it.

as far as plastic mounts, i guess i don't see the big deal. what is more likely to happen, you mess up your mount or you drop your lens, I'm guessing the drop your lens scenario, and the mount won't matter at all in that case. it's not like you have to force the lens to go on the camera, it's what, a 1/4 turn to lock it? the 2 lenses i have with plastic mounts were both less than $100, not like they are "disposable" but come one, do you expect $1000 quality on a hundred $ lens ? that bugs me about as much as those reviewers who insist on opening a review by saying an inexpensive lens isn't "L quality", well duh

 

[Master Mason]

If someone in concerned about weight, you can have a K110D and the 40mm F2.8 lens combined for about the same weight as an XTi with no lens (not counting batteries), with what is generally considered to be better build quality to boot. Similarly, the D40 weighs less than the XTi and again, has a better build quality. Don't forget about the lightweight Olympuses, either.

sorry I can't let this go, "Generally concidered" I don't think so, there is nothing wrong with the build quality of the canon XT line, lets not throw this crap out there, we understand you like pentax, good for you, but don't throw your opinon on something as "generally concidered" it won't fly.

As for the plastic mount - it's just a rather blatant example of cost-cutting. Did Canon NEED to put a plastic mount on here? Do they sell any other lens with a plastic mount? Do they sell any other lens with a rotating front element? (edit: it sounds like the 50mm F1.8 is the same way, but since it's primarily a low-light lens, it's not such an issue there.) They don't even include a lens hood! (For obvious reasons - it'd be pretty useless to have the usual petal-shaped wide-zoom hood on a rotating lens front.) I fail to understand how you can defend these decisions as anything but completely unnecessary cost cutting in order to squeeze every penny of profit out of the consumer.

The kit lens that comes from canon is a $100 or less lens, period, it isn't advertised as anything other than that, buy anyone. It is compleately capable of taking good to great shots.

Lets keep the brand bashing to a dull to non existant roor here, this is a freindly place, I hope it can stay that way.

 

[Master Mason]

I want to thank everyone for the advice that they have been giving me and i think I have learned alot about DSLRs in the short time that I have been on the board,but I think that this is not the time for me to move into one. I would be getting one because itsthe current thing to do, I have a p/s camera and I still think I have stuff to learn from it and I also think that since 90% of my photo taking is done during the day it doesnt make sense to me yet to buy another camera when the one i have does what I need it too right now. This may change when if i feel I have reached all I can do with my current camera.

Gokenin,

Great decision, that is when it is time to upgrade your camera, when your current one can't do what you want it to do.

 

[jann1033]

sorry I can't let this go, "Generally concidered" I don't think so, there is nothing wrong with the build quality of the canon XT line, lets not throw this crap out there, we understand you like pentax, good for you, but don't throw your opinon on something as "generally concidered" it won't fly.

The kit lens that comes from canon is a $100 or less lens, period, it isn't advertised as anything other than that, buy anyone. It is compleately capable of taking good to great shots.

Lets keep the brand bashing to a dull to non existant roor here, this is a freindly place, I hope it can stay that way.

yeah i totally agree, it's gotten really tiresome. ( the brand bashing not the board )
it's one thing to state valid opinions but it's gone way past that a lot of times and just gotten into "name calling" which is unfair and unproductive

 

[donaldduck1967]

yeah i totally agree, it's gotten really tiresome. ( the brand bashing not the board )
it's one thing to state valid opinions but it's gone way past that a lot of times and just gotten into "name calling" which is unfair and unproductive

I have avoided alot of conversations around here because of the bashing of brands by people who have never used the camera they are bashing. I'm glad someone else brought this up because I was going to stop posting here (not that I post often) because like you said it's becoming tiresome.

 

[Anewman]

As for the plastic mount - it's just a rather blatant example of cost-cutting. Did Canon NEED to put a plastic mount on here? Do they sell any other lens with a plastic mount? Do they sell any other lens with a rotating front element? (edit: it sounds like the 50mm F1.8 is the same way, but since it's primarily a low-light lens, it's not such an issue there.) They don't even include a lens hood! (For obvious reasons - it'd be pretty useless to have the usual petal-shaped wide-zoom hood on a rotating lens front.) I fail to understand how you can defend these decisions as anything but completely unnecessary cost cutting in order to squeeze every penny of profit out of the consumer.

Does Toyota use the same build quality on the $11,000 Yaris as it does on the $55,000 Land Cruiser?

When I purchased my 20D the kit lens added $43 to the body alone price.

I dont see what is so hard to understand here, YES THE LENSES ARE CHEAP.
If Canon cut corners and was still selling these lenses for $500 or more, I could see it as a case of "squeezing every penny out of us."
But to me it seems like the savings are being passed down to the consumers, I do not see it as a dis-service to put out some affordable lenses that produce decent image quality.

 

[ukcatfan]

Does Toyota use the same build quality on the $11,000 Yaris as it does on the $55,000 Land Cruiser?

When I purchased my 20D the kit lens added $43 to the body alone price.

I dont see what is so hard to understand here, YES THE LENSES ARE CHEAP.
OK are we done.

I am not posting to defend Groucho, but more to clarify what I think he means. If Pentax, Olympus, and Sony can put decent build quality in their basic kit lens, then why doesn't Canon or Nikon? I know why... It is because they can and should(from my accountant's perspective). When you are the market leader, you are able to offer something, like a first lens, that is a little sub-par. It encourages upgrades and is good business. When you are the hungry dogs on the outside, you have to offer a little more to get attention. Canon is not going to be the market leader forever, so when they are shaken from the top, they will change their marketing strategy. Look at Toyota, like was mentioned earlier. When they hit the market years ago, did anyone think they would be where they are today? Did anyone think that GM and Ford would fall from grace? Look at IBM? The times will change or the Canons and Nikons of the world will also fall from grace.

Are the C&N basic kit lenses of a lower build quality than P, O, & S? Yes. Is that a problem? No. Was it intentional? Yes. Can C&N make incredible lenses? Yes. Is this issue a dead horse? Without a doubt!

Kevin

 

[cpbjgc]

Is this issue a dead horse? Without a doubt!

Kevin

Man, this is getting a lot of use lately...

And I'm still trying to figure out where the Original Poster even asked about circular polarizers

 

[Anewman]

I am not posting to defend Groucho, but more to clarify what I think he means. If Pentax, Olympus, and Sony can put decent build quality in their basic kit lens, then why doesn't Canon or Nikon?

When the Nikon D70 came out it was boxed with IMO one of the BEST KIT LENS OF ALL TIME, but it added about $300 to the body only price and it was clobbered in sales by the Digital Rebel and its plastic toy kit lens. Now Nikon has a cheap plastic lens too.

I pretty much agree with all that you said, but after countless little jabs(intentional or not) this gets old. It is almost like only Pentax owners have any kind of sense while those of us that purchased Canon were suckered into worthless purchases like mindless sheep.

 

[donaldduck1967]

It is almost like only Pentax owners have any kind of sense while those of us that purchased Canon were suckered into worthless purchases like mindless sheep.

Just think how us Olympus users feel.

 

[MarkBarbieri]

Man, this is getting a lot of use lately...

And I'm still trying to figure out where the Original Poster even asked about circular polarizers

Perhaps I should just put that in my sig.

I'm not going to get drawn into a "who's kit lens is best match." They're different. They each have advantages and disadvantages. They have different price points. There are lots of reviews online about them. You can play with most of them at your local electronics or camera store. Whether one is durable enough, easy enough to use, fast focusing enough, sharp enough, cheap enough, or whatever enough for you is a personal decision.

 

[MarkBarbieri]

Just think how us Olympus users feel.

I saw a review of the E-410 last night. It looks like Olympus is going to carve out an interesting niche of compact DSLRs. Given the comments that come up frequently about people wanting DSLR quality but not wanting the bulk and weight of a DSLR, that might prove to be a very good niche.