misleading stuff in photography mags

[hoochy1]

ok as title what have you read ? here is one

in a recent mag with the letters p p in the title under simple indoor set ups

(how to set up and shoot creative still life photos )

this is the bit

we've used a standard zoom lens a ( a canon ef 24-105mm f/4L is usm )


now at £815 i would hardly call that a standard lens lol it may or may not fall under a standard focal range but i would not class it as a standard lens

so what have you people seen ?

 

[MartynK]

The 24 - 105mm is sometimes recommended as a walk around lens on these forums - albeit a fairly expensive one - so I suppose you could describe it as a "standard zoom lens", as opposed to a specialised lens? Anyway, I can see what you mean, and it's far beyond my limited means! Let's see what else comes up.

 

[simonkit]

I'd interpret "standard" zoom lens as more of a reference to the focal range than the quality of the lens

Simon

 

[ghoti]

Photography magazines often talk you through the in-camera part of a shot - the exposure settings, composition, lighting, etc - then they present a "finished" image that's obviously been touched up in post, without telling you what they did to touch it up.
Now, nothing wrong with touching up, but if your tutorial leaves out the PP you should present the default JPG conversion as the "final image".

 

[MWHCVT]

Well to be fair that is the kit lens if you buy a 5D3 or 6D with lens so it could be considered standard in some quarters

 

[hoochy1]

yes but i would not call a 5d3 with the 24-105 at around the 3k mark or a 6d at around 2k your average run off the mill camera i would love to find out how many people own 5d3s or 6ds and just how many own a 24-105mm f/4 L is i would class them as hi end gear cheers for your thoughts guys

 

[Peter B]

I rarely buy camera mags nowadays although I've just taken out a subscription to Black & White Photography as my Tesco tokens were due to expire that day. Might be controversial, but it always used to bug me that the mags would show screenshots for photo software and they were always on Macs, whereas I genuinely believe that the vast majority of readers would be on PCs. Surely they could afford £300 for a laptop or desktop to show actual screenshots for the rest of us?

 

[jakeblu]

You can buy the 24-105mmL for a lot less than £800

Steve

 

[hoochy1]

i was going by wex prices steve never seen that one peter will need to have a look out for it now

 

[KIPAX]

and just how many own a 24-105mm f/4 L is i would class them as hi end gear

As with everything..it's all relative... I wouldnt touch a 24-105 with a barge pole as its too low end for me.....

It's a funny old world..

 

[dinners]

I'd class a 24-105mm f/4L as a 'standard lens'

I don't think the term 'standard' is a refelction of price or quality, more the fact that it's not a specialised lens like a macro, tilt and shift, ultra wide, fish eye or long lens etc.

 

[Jin]

You have misinterpreted the term.

I'd interpret "standard" zoom lens as more of a reference to the focal range than the quality of the lens

Simon

^ This is what is meant from the phrase "standard zoom"

You get wide angle zoom lenses (Canon Ef-s 10-22)
Standard zoom lenses (Canon EF 24 - 70)
and
telephoto zoom lenses (Canon EF 70 - 300)

So when they say Standard Zoom Lens it isn't suppose to be interpreted as "this exact model is the normal for a zoom lens" but that the actually zoom range of whatever lens you choose should fit in the standard range.

Which is true, if you are in the wide range you will suffer distortion and in the telephoto range you will need to be in the next room to fit your subject in.

 

[MartynK]

Well to be fair that is the kit lens if you buy a 5D3 or 6D with lens so it could be considered standard in some quarters

Absolutely, but it's really about perceptions. Many people associate "kit lens" with the inexpensive, slow, short zooms that a lot of the manufacturers offer as part of a starter package with their crop cameras. The 24 - 105mm is pricey - and out of reach - for some people, and easily affordable for others.

 

[Byker28i]

24-105 is around £500 second hand. Thats not expensive for a good, versatile lens in the 'standard zoom' range. Wasn't it included as the kit lens for the 5D mk2 and Mk3?

 

[tijuana taxi]

Not sure what other lens you could term as standard for a Canon FF, maybe the 24-70, but that's more expensive anyway

 

[hoochy1]

Absolutely, but it's really about perceptions. Many people associate "kit lens" with the inexpensive, slow, short zooms that a lot of the manufacturers offer as part of a starter package with their crop cameras. The 24 - 105mm is pricey - and out of reach - for some people, and easily affordable for others.

yip that was what i was getting at on most forums the canon L lens is the ones to aim for but not every one can afford

 

[Musicman]

24-105 is around £500 second hand. Thats not expensive for a good, versatile lens in the 'standard zoom' range. Wasn't it included as the kit lens for the 5D mk2 and Mk3?

Kit lens != standard zoom.

As mentioned in a couple of posts above, it is about focal length range, not quality.

A standard, or normal lens is one that reproduces the approximate field of view of the human eye - centred around 50mm.

 

[MartynK]

Not sure what other lens you could term as standard for a Canon FF, maybe the 24-70, but that's more expensive anyway

I'm not sure either, because the old "standard lens" in the 35mm days was a fast 50mm or thereabouts. This seems to have been superseded by relatively slow short zooms. My F2 still works very well with an f1.4 50mm as a walkabout, and I'd probably go for a similar "standard" lens if I could afford a FF DSLR, but I doubt if that's ever going to happen!