April 21, 2014, 04:36:57 AM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - CarlTN

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 145
1
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Zeiss Otus Initial Impressions
« on: April 20, 2014, 03:46:01 AM »
Mackguyver seems quite the level headed guy, I doubt the rudeness bothered him in the least.  Not sure why it bothered you so much.  Also I assume I am on your ignore list...lol...didn't realize that.
Carl, I´m sure Macguyver is perfectly fine. He has posted lots of good posts and should be treated accordingly. It is the volume of rubbish posts from Dilbert that filled my cup.
I will not participate in a thread extender, so I will end my comments here.

For the record, you are not on my ignore list ;)

Very glad to hear that, and once again, I very much like your image of the tree sunset above with the mighty Otus !!!  Happy Easter to you sir!   :)

2

Here's some shots of rare Swedish Red Ear'd Biggies Piggies taken with the centre point of a 6D with a 50mm f1.4 @1.4. Nails the focus plane near as damn it 8 times out of ten. Cropped and recomposed, so not 'focus and recompose'.

Biggies Piggies just won't keep still for a moment !

We have an almost 2-year-old toddler who can move about as quickly and randomly as these piggies, and the AF with my 6D and 50 f/1.4 and 85 1.8 does just fine under f/2.0 using the center point.  Overall, my hit rate for moving kid shots is in the 75-80% range, and I'm happy with that.  I know a 5D3 or 1Dx would do much better, but for my overall use (kids/landscapes/portraits/macro and a little high school golf and cross country) the 6D is a great camera.


Exactly.  Four years, many people (myself included) were clamoring for a camera that unified the image quality of the 5DII with the autofocus of the 7D.  Canon delivered, even better than expected, with the 5DIII – and charged a premium for it.  But they also delivered the 6D, basically a very modest update to the 5DII (already an excellent camera, AF notwithstanding) with a functionally equivalent AF system, but at a lower price.  That's a win-win.

Well summarized, I agree.  If you want a camera with superior AF, buy a 1Dx or 5D3.  The 6D has IQ in the same ballpark as the higher end cameras, but a limited AF system.  That's why its $1K+ cheaper than the 5D3.  Personally, I'm glad Canon gives us price and capability options.

Agree on all points, never said otherwise.  Yet just because I dare to say the 6D autofocuses "decently", and because I attempted and ACHIEVED focus recompose at a distance of 4 INCHES IN THE DARK...the manchildren are throwing a tantrum again.   

Happy Easter to you all, even to those who spew name calling, hatred and personal attacks.  To the moderators, Happy Easter to you as well.  If you don't celebrate it, I'm not too surprised... ;D

3
Additionally, he adds in that the 1Dx and 5D3 would have never AF'd in a particular situation that the 6D did.  He also makes the accusation that we've never shot with the 6D so how can we comment?

1.  The 1Dx and 5D3 would have easily AF'd in that case, so that point right there is simply objectively WRONG.
2.  He hasn't shot with the 1Dx or 5D3, yet makes the above comment.  Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. 

Is he for real?  There's NO WAY any sane person could both make the arguments he's making and simultaneously believe in those arguments.

The AF system of the 1Dx is best = $6799
The AF system of the 5D3 is second best = $3399
The AF system of the 6D is the "least good" out of all 3 = $2000 ish

Hmm, surprising!

It's just silliness. The 6D is a nice, affordable 135 format DSLR. It has some nice features, but AF is hardly its selling point. -3LV autofocus, as has been pointed out, has some significant practicality issues.

Who the hell ever said the 6D's autofocus was a "selling point"?  Not me.  I'm calling b/s though, and that's now your color.

4
Additionally, he adds in that the 1Dx and 5D3 would have never AF'd in a particular situation that the 6D did.  He also makes the accusation that we've never shot with the 6D so how can we comment?

1.  The 1Dx and 5D3 would have easily AF'd in that case, so that point right there is simply objectively WRONG.
2.  He hasn't shot with the 1Dx or 5D3, yet makes the above comment.  Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. 

Is he for real?  There's NO WAY any sane person could both make the arguments he's making and simultaneously believe in those arguments.

The AF system of the 1Dx is best = $6799
The AF system of the 5D3 is second best = $3399
The AF system of the 6D is the "least good" out of all 3 = $2000 ish

Hmm, surprising!

Actually that's a lie, I have shot with both the 5D3 and 1DX.  Not with this particular lens though.  I'm not calling anybody black, but you're starting to look like you're just puking to me, so that's now your color.

Why the childish name calling, and the just plain making shi+ up as you go along?  How old are you again?

5
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Zeiss Otus Initial Impressions
« on: April 20, 2014, 03:16:35 AM »
Not to re-open a closed case, but here's another thought - what happens if you throw a polarizer on the lens?  In theory it should "straighten" the beams of light and eliminate the effects of diffraction, right?

Not necessarily.

If you want to understand light, take a course in physics. Freshman level maybe?

Or get a physics text book ... no, do a course - a good book should be a requirement for the course. Reading CR is not a substitute for doing a course on this if you really want to understand it.
He asked a simple question. If you can´t answer his question or add to it, stay off.

For you I can recommend a book on simple politeness. Freshman level might be to advanced thought ...

He did not ask for a rude reply from an incompetent jerk. Spread your garbage someplace else!

Or, alternatively, start posting images and show us that behind this rude alias, there is one who knows where the view finder on a camera is. I for one have not seen a single image for you, so I believe you haven´t shot a single decent image in your life. So until I see someone comment on your images, you will remain on my list of ignored posters.

To be fair, there are plenty of rude participants on here.  I didn't realize dilbert had never posted an image.  Maybe he will.  I guess I wasn't as bothered by his rudeness, because I've seen so much of it on here, I'm becoming numb to it.

Mackguyver seems quite the level headed guy, I doubt the rudeness bothered him in the least.  Not sure why it bothered you so much.  Also I assume I am on your ignore list...lol...didn't realize that.

6
Lenses / Re: Canon IS Primes for landscapes?
« on: April 20, 2014, 02:49:16 AM »
Apparently the 24mm has no coma wide open which is ideal for astrophotography.


First I've seen of that.  I thought some of the tests I saw, showed significant coma wide open.  Also it suffers from quality control issues, many are decentered.  Also it's got fairly severe barrel distortion of 3%, not good for stitching or architecture.  Also, wide open, the vignetting is at 3 stops.  This is easily the most severe vignetting of any 24mm lens in current production.  Also, it's fully manual, with manual aperture, does not record aperture or focus info in exif data.  That means for shooting landscape at closed down aperture, it will either give a very dark view through the viewfinder when manually focusing, or else you would have to focus with the aperture open wider, and hope for the best once you close it down.  Also, this test shows moderate field curvature.

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/769-samyang24f14eosff?start=2

And I quote:

"However, the contrast is a bit soft at these settings (f/1.4 to f/2) so the image quality is not perceived as very sharp (sharp = high resolution + high contrast). There's a significant boost in quality at f/2.8."

That does not bode well for astrophotography.  Not saying it's not possible, but it does not look like the best choice at all to me.  As for flare, according to Photozone, there is significant flare and ghosting in the 24mm Samyang.

"Admittedly, the 24mm f/1.4 suffers from slightly lower contrast at large apertures but the resolution is already pretty high here and that's including the difficult outer image regions. The results get more snappy at f/2.8 and beyond the lens is very sharp indeed. Typical for such lenses, the Samyang produces a heavy amount of vignetting at large aperture settings so it's advisable to correct the issue during post-processing or by stopping down to at least f/4. The barrel distortion is a bit stronger than average albeit not extreme. While we didn't really test the quality of the bokeh formally this time, the field results look pretty good - normally ultra-wide lenses are somewhat on the rough side here. There is some visible bokeh fringing at large apertures but this is, again, nothing out of the ordinary. The weakest aspect of the lens is possibly its rather limited protection against back light, especially sided light. We have seen some higher than average glare and ghostings so you should always mount the supplied lens hood in difficult scenes although this will not always help, of course."

Given the presence of field curvature, that usually goes hand in hand with periphery coma (and/or astigmatism) at infinity focus.  This is why I bought the Sigma 24mm instead.  Overall, I feel it's a better lens, autofocuses, yet costs less when new than the Samyang!  It has far lower barrel distortion, too, as well as far less vignetting at its widest f/1.8.  Also it doesn't seem to be subject to such low production standards as the Korean lens.  My copy is very well centered, at least.  Made in Japan should still mean something.  It doesn't always, I admit.  And also, yes, it does have some coma in the outer 50% of the image.  Has almost zero coma in the inner 50%, though, even at f/1.8.  It's mostly gone in the periphery by f/4.5, as well.

http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/756-sigmaex2418fx

Wide open, especially in this test, the border and corner do look soft.  But they don't appear this soft in real world use to me, especially for daytime shots on my 6D.  Keep in mind this test is on a Nikon D3x, 24 megapixels, more than any Canon body (so far...thus the CA appears larger than it would on a Canon.).  Their MTF50 test at F/8 is found to be 3558 center, 2774 border, and 2709 extreme (corner).  That is not too shabby on a D3x.  The above test of the Samyang, was on a 21 MP 5D2.  F/9 is the real sweet spot in my experience with the lens, which is a typical setting for much of landscape shooting.  They admittedly conclude it's not a good choice for landscape.  I do admit it's a better choice for wide angle portraiture (and macro), obviously, especially since that appears to be what it was designed for.  But it definitely can work for landscape on a 6D.  On a D800?  Definitely not.

Like I said, it was an easy choice for me, between this lens and the Samyang 24mm.  But if the choice (and the funds exist for it) is between a Sigma 35mm Art, obviously there is hardly any comparison (other than the low barrel distortion).  At around 24mm, the only real choices for Canon, for the least optical compromise, are the Canon T/S, or the Zeiss Distagon (as I mentioned above).  And the Zeiss would really be better served on a D800.  However, the D800 might actually out resolve the Zeiss...which is why hopefully they will make an "Otus" wide angle lens at some point.  When they do, that's what every landscaper will go after if they can.

I'll admit the Canon 24mm f/2.8 IS appears to be a good choice too, however it costs a smidge more when new (and almost double what I'm offering my used Sigma for).  And sometimes you want a faster aperture than f/2.8...or the ability to shoot macro wide angles.  Image stabilization is a very nice feature, but if you take time with your landscapes and use a tripod, the IS is useless there.

7
the focus plane is the same in every picture at F 1,4

Bold statement implying that the only way to focus a prime f/1.4 lens is to move it (which is demonstrably false). Again, what is the explanation for how AF f/>2.8 images were achieved using canon bodies? Did the camera stop down to focus?

Here's some shots of rare Swedish Red Ear'd Biggies Piggies taken with the centre point of a 6D with a 50mm f1.4 @1.4. Nails the focus plane near as damn it 8 times out of ten. Cropped and recomposed, so not 'focus and recompose'.

Biggies Piggies just won't keep still for a moment !

Great job!

8
What does that say about the validity of your statements regarding the 5DIII and 1D X?

I don't go into the 1DX thread and spew hatred for the 1DX.  Yet you and your butt kissers feel the need to come into a 6D thread to bash it.  What does that say about you?

I wasn't passing off the image as "usable", as in professional quality.  It was merely an experiment.  Only a fool would imply otherwise.  No need to get defensive just because the experiment worked.  At the very least I would have used exposure compensation and shot in RAW, if it were meant to be printed or something (and yes that would have pushed to ISO 50k or higher).  When I have said in the past, that the 6D's center AF point aids tremendously in low light autofocusing, I'm using positive exposure compensation (usually a full stop, sometimes more), in order to get the RGB curve to go farther toward the right side.  And in those situations, the ISO I would consider "usable" for good professional quality, is not above 10,000.  "Usable" for acceptable pro quality, could be 20,000, but not 25,600.  If that means the available light I'm shooting in, is brighter than -3 EV, so be it.  But that alone, does not mean this center point, is not still very usable, when compared to an autofocus point that is only rated for -2 EV.  It just means that for a "normal exposure" at -3 EV (as in, a very black image), the necessary ISO combined with the lack of any significant recorded signal in the entire upper half of the RGB curve...there is not significant dynamic range from the sensor, or the file's 14 bit format itself, to produce anything other than a dark noisy image.  Again though, digital photographers learn early on, that you look at the RGB curve, and expose for that.  I deliberately did not do that in this case, because I wanted it to look similarly dark to what my eye saw.  It still looks brighter than what my eye saw, though.

The back half of the bubble level, is within the focus plane.  The index mark you keep harping on, is ABOVE the plane of the plate that the bubble is mounted in.  And the camera, is angled diagonally to the plane the plate exists in, both left-right and front-back axis.  Stop ignoring that.  That alone explains why the index mark is near the plane of focus.  What about the right side of the plate?  It's in the focus plane.  Draw a diagonal line perpendicular to the sensor, and it runs right through the rear half of the bubble level.  You can say it's not because the focus plane is "infinitely small", and thus exists between the subatomic particles that make up the atoms of the plastic of the bubble.  But that just smacks of desperation.  The plane of focus is effectively more than 1 pixel in width on this sensor (due to the limited resolution of the lens itself, but also the high ISO).  And since there is motion blur, it's more like 4 pixels in width.  That's a lot bigger than "infinitely small".  I know one thing that's infinitely small though, and you keep compensating for it, lol.

Since you say your 1DX could autofocus in -2EV light (as you claim this was)...how about trying it on a similar black object with a tiny light colored object for contrast, and posting the results?  Make sure to shoot only as a jpeg (with no in-camera NR), that the exposure is not faster than 1/13 second, there's no image stabilization, and that you are hand-holding it while bending over a bit, and that your subject distance is ONLY 4 inches in front of the front lens element.  Also, make sure to select ONLY THE OUTERMOST side autofocus point (don't use any groupings).  Your results had better be better than mine, because you won't be needing to focus recompose.  Make sure the available light in the room, is equal to 3 lit candles (with no reflectors), placed 8 feet away from the camera.

9
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: How to Annoy a Photography Snob
« on: April 19, 2014, 06:00:05 AM »
Snobbishness implies thinking of oneself as superior to others, and I feel the proponents of 'getting it in the camera' are as guilty as the other camp in this case.

Definitely agree, it can apply to both types of photogs.

10
Reviews / Re: 35/2 IS Review by Dustin Abbott
« on: April 19, 2014, 05:49:55 AM »
For the record, I disagree with the "Sigma is clinical" assessment. I've seen a lot of images that look wonderful from that lens. I lean towards the Canon mostly because they both look great and the price difference is significant.


From some of the images that I have seen posted on the web the out of focus or 'bokeh' of the Sigma has, on first impression, looked really good. However I think that the transition from in and out of focus is quite abrupt, at least when compared with the 35L. That lens has a proper ground glass aspherical element, and I do find that on lenses when this is used there is a more 'glassy' or 'liquid' quality to the out of focus area. I'm guessing that the Sigma is pretty highly corrected for chromatic aberration to get the sharpness, and I'm sure it doesn't use a ground glass aspherical element, and the out of focus is a little more 'plasticy'. ( I'm being really scientific here).

I wonder if this is what Dustin is relating to ?

The EF 35 IS will use a moulded element, but as with the other Canon mid range primes the bokeh transition is good. Pretty clever stuff for such a sharp lens.


Have a look at these images, and tell me this lens has a smooth transition zone.  Notice how rough the highlights look, both in front of the focus plane, and behind it. 

http://www.photozone.de/active/magic/get.jsp?id=2787280480_kxf8wgz

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/847-canon35f2isff?start=2

Frankly the 40mm f/2.8 pancake, had as smooth of a bokeh as this, if not slightly superior, it seems to me.  The Sigma 35mm Art, appears to also have a smoother transition zone in the bokeh, than the Canon 35 f/2 IS.  Just have a look at Photozone's samples from the Sigma.  They do fault it as having "slightly busy" bokeh background, but very smooth in the foreground.  But its background highlights, do not seem to have such a pronounced "bright ring" around them, as does the 35 f/2 IS.  It would help if the exact same scene were photographed to compare, of course.

I see the IS feature as the only very good aspect of the Canon 35 f/2 IS lens, going by these samples.  Certainly a nice feature to have.  Also I will admit that for bokeh smoothness at 35mm, the Canon f/1.4L is still clearly king.  Also, if I had to guess which had the smoother background bokeh, between say the Sigma 35mm Art, and the Canon 24-70 f/2.8 ii (at 35mm), the Sigma might edge it out a bit.  Would be interesting to see a direct comparison of that.  If there are no highlights in the background, then all of these lenses can probably portray a relatively smooth blur, as most lenses can.


I use photozone a great deal for comparing the resolution of lenses, but to be quite honest I never look at their samples. However I've just looked now at your prompt and it's confirmed my belief; the Sigma samples are pretty useless for a bokeh assessment.

Have a look at the ones in the CR thread:

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=11210.45

As I said in my earlier post, my initial reaction was this looks really good, but then over time I thought they are just a little - 'clinical' - is that the word Dustin used ? From what I read Dustin has come to that conclusion over time, which makes it more pertinent,  and I'm with him on that one.

Also I mentioned earlier that the likes of the 35L, 50L and 24-70 II use a much more expensive lens manufacturing process. Mid range lenses such as the 35 IS etc. use moulded glass elements, and really cheap lenses use plastic ones.

However I agree with you on the 40 pancake - and remember you are talking to someone who ditched his 35L for the pancake  ::)   ( But don't tell anyone else that !). I don't have a use for a really fast 35, I'd much rather use a 50 or 85.

Overall I'm very tempted by the 35 IS, not for it's aperture but because it has IS and is really good across the frame when stopped down.


Fair points, and I will remember that (and I won't tell anyone, this is just between you and me!  :P  Btw I sold my pancake and I don't miss it much, but the guy that bought it was a bit of a jerk!).

However, just to be clear, those two links to sample pics I posted, were for the Canon 35mm f/2 IS, not the Sigma.  Frankly I think the Sigma will be the next lens I buy.  I definitely would love using it.  But at this point I'm not buying anything.  I'm only selling things.

I can certainly see how you would have to have stabilization, if you are wanting to shoot landscape or other slow or still life, hand-held...with a narrow aperture.  Like I said, that seems like the selling point of this new Canon lens. 

11
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Zeiss Otus Initial Impressions
« on: April 19, 2014, 05:40:58 AM »
5DIII, 1/1000s, f1.4, ISO100

Quite nice!

12
Lenses / Re: Canon IS Primes for landscapes?
« on: April 19, 2014, 05:32:35 AM »
My current gear is still doing fine, but the time has come to think about an upgrade. I’m planning to:

a) Move to Full Frame (ditching the “0” on my 60D and going for a 6D);
b) Switch to primes (which I tend to use as “2-way” prime anyway).

The choice for a 6D is mainly a financial one, but for most of my photography (mainly landscapes) it will do just as well as a 5DmkIII. A possible drawback of the 6D is the wildlife shots, but I think I would actually prefer a 70D (or maybe 7DmkII) over a 5DmkIII because of the higher fps and crop factor.

I’ll keep my L zooms (70-200 f/4 and 100-400) for now, but the EF-S lenses need to go. For my new prime lenses it’s hard not to get excited about the new Sigma ART lenses, but:

I’m shooting landscapes most of the time. As such, I tend to use apertures from f/4 and upward.
When comparing the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 ART to a more moderate priced Canon 35mm f/2 IS, the latter actually isn’t doing that bad:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=824&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=4&LensComp=829&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=5

There is no Sigma 24mm f/1.4 ART yet (thus an unfair comparison), but the Canon 24mm f/2.8 IS seems to be dropping the ball a bit:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=788&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=3&LensComp=829&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=5
The Sigma 24mm f/1.4 ART is rumored to be heavier and more expensive as the 35mm Art.

Although the mentioned Canon IS Prime lenses are not as good wide open, they have some clear advantages:
  • They are much smaller and lighter (the combined weight of the 24mm and 35mm Canons is actually less than a single Sigma 35mm ART, a big bonus when hiking);
  • They are (much) cheaper (the possible savings could bring a 5DmkIII in reach, but likely be spend on more glass);
  • They offer IS (which I don’t care about, but could be good for filming).

Am I missing something, or is this actually a viable option? Any good experiences using these Canon lenses for landscapes?


You can buy my Sigma 24mm f/1.8 for less than half what the 35mm Art costs, new.  It has about as low barrel distortion as the Art.  Just has a bit more coma and CA.  It's manageable.  (The Art is not immune to these either).  Closed to f/9 or so, the Sigma 24mm is pretty sharp across the frame (doesn't have the contrast of the Art).  Also it's a quasi macro lens, very useful for wildflowers, or insects...placing them in a wider context than a macro telephoto does.  The Art would clearly be superior optically, but it's not as wide, and isn't a macro. 

If you have to have the best landscape lenses, then buy the 35mm Art, and the Zeiss 21mm f/2.8 Distagon.  The Canon 17 and 24mm T/S lenses are also very good to excellent, with the tilt shift feature being vital for serious architecture work, but can also work well for landscape.  If you are very extremely serious about only doing landscape (and no architecture), you should just consider forgetting all of this (and forget Canon), and buy only a D800 and the 21mm Distagon.  It's sharper than the newer 15mm Zeiss f/2.8, costs a third less...isn't as wide, but width isn't everything.  Not sure when or what will best the 21mm Zeiss.  It has noticable mustache distortion, but the resolution is worth having to correct it when needed (most landscape shots won't need correcting all of it).  The 21mm is what I would get if I simply had to have the best (and only did wide angle landscapes), but thankfully I don't.  The 18mm Zeiss appears to have great color, but is just not remotely as sharp, has a slow aperture, and quite severe vignetting that doesn't go away until f/7.1 or so.  Costs about 65% the price of the 21mm, though. 

Frankly I'd like a 21mm "Art" from Sigma, rather than a 24mm.  I doubt it would be quite as good as the existing Distagon, though, but might cost less.

I've had the 24-105L since fall, and rented one before that.  It's great for a general purpose lens.  At 24mm, it has severe barrel distortion at 5% or so, and fairly high chromatic aberration towards borders and corners.  That's all correctable, but you lose a bit of resolution and angle of view, when correcting the barrel distortion.  Of course you don't always have to correct it.

13
Lenses / Re: Sigma vs Zeiss vs Canon
« on: April 19, 2014, 05:13:09 AM »
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=941&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=2&LensComp=917&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=941&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=115&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

What with this Canon??


As I see it in this comparison, the Otus puts the new Sigma to shame until f/5.6, where the borders are about even (Sigma may even have a slight edge on the Otus in the corner here at f/5.6)...however even at f/5.6 the Otus is still barely ahead in the more critical center.  Clearly the Otus is superior optically, regarding resolution, contrast, color, etc.  Not surprising.  I guess all the Otus owners can sleep better now, lol.

14
Reviews / Re: 35/2 IS Review by Dustin Abbott
« on: April 19, 2014, 04:55:46 AM »
For the record, I disagree with the "Sigma is clinical" assessment. I've seen a lot of images that look wonderful from that lens. I lean towards the Canon mostly because they both look great and the price difference is significant.


From some of the images that I have seen posted on the web the out of focus or 'bokeh' of the Sigma has, on first impression, looked really good. However I think that the transition from in and out of focus is quite abrupt, at least when compared with the 35L. That lens has a proper ground glass aspherical element, and I do find that on lenses when this is used there is a more 'glassy' or 'liquid' quality to the out of focus area. I'm guessing that the Sigma is pretty highly corrected for chromatic aberration to get the sharpness, and I'm sure it doesn't use a ground glass aspherical element, and the out of focus is a little more 'plasticy'. ( I'm being really scientific here).

I wonder if this is what Dustin is relating to ?

The EF 35 IS will use a moulded element, but as with the other Canon mid range primes the bokeh transition is good. Pretty clever stuff for such a sharp lens.


Have a look at these images, and tell me this lens has a smooth transition zone.  Notice how rough the highlights look, both in front of the focus plane, and behind it. 

http://www.photozone.de/active/magic/get.jsp?id=2787280480_kxf8wgz

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/847-canon35f2isff?start=2

Frankly the 40mm f/2.8 pancake, had as smooth of a bokeh as this, if not slightly superior, it seems to me.  The Sigma 35mm Art, appears to also have a smoother transition zone in the bokeh, than the Canon 35 f/2 IS.  Just have a look at Photozone's samples from the Sigma.  They do fault it as having "slightly busy" bokeh background, but very smooth in the foreground.  But its background highlights, do not seem to have such a pronounced "bright ring" around them, as does the 35 f/2 IS.  It would help if the exact same scene were photographed to compare, of course.

I see the IS feature as the only very good aspect of the Canon 35 f/2 IS lens, going by these samples.  Certainly a nice feature to have.  Also I will admit that for bokeh smoothness at 35mm, the Canon f/1.4L is still clearly king.  Also, if I had to guess which had the smoother background bokeh, between say the Sigma 35mm Art, and the Canon 24-70 f/2.8 ii (at 35mm), the Sigma might edge it out a bit.  Would be interesting to see a direct comparison of that.  If there are no highlights in the background, then all of these lenses can probably portray a relatively smooth blur, as most lenses can.

15
Neither am I.  That, and the lower cost, is what helped convince me I could use a 6D.  I am happy with it.  As I don't do wedding photography with flashguns or strobes, I don't need a 5D3.  If I did professional sports, I would buy the 1DX without question.  All of these cameras have their place in the line.  Those that have not used a 6D for very long, who drone out their perpetual, boring, uninformative monotone about how it should not be produced or sold, are just plain wrong.
The 5DIII is much better than the 5DII, but the 1D X seems much better than the 5DIII in low light.  I don't know why anyone would say that about the 6D, it's an excellent camera and unless you shoot sports, wildlife, or other  action, center point AF is really all you need, and by all accounts it's very good on the 6D.  We got by for years with the 5DII's lousy AF, so anyone whining about the 6D needs to get a life.

+1 million!!!  I completely agree!  They need to get a life, and stop posting so much!

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 145