January 24, 2015, 11:18:48 PM

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 - Ruined

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 45
1
Lenses / Re: POLL: Which of these UWA options would you buy?
« on: Today at 07:01:49 PM »
I don't think 99% of people will use 11mm effectively. 

The ability to use a lens 'effectively' is not a prerequisite for desiring (or purchasing) that lens.  Also, 'effectively' is a judgement call...and in my judgement many people also utterly fail to use a fisheye lens effectively.  IMO, a (rectilinear) UWA shot often needs a close subject for a focal point...but for many, the objective is simply to 'get it all in' and if 16mm isn't wide enough, wider is better.  Most people with that objective would likely not choose to 'get it all' but have it all warped with a fisheye lens.

Given that many people with FF cameras have a 24-xx L-series zoom, perhaps the combination of the 8-15 fisheye with an 11-24/4 would offer the best creative potential. 

In my case, I had the 16-35/2.8 II and swapped it for the TS-E 17mm as my ultrawide lens (well, actually I also have the Rokinon 14/2.8 used mainly for astro).  I'd love an even wider TS lens.

I think the problem is the projected cost of the 11-24 alone is so high getting another overlapping lens is probably out of the range of most.

2
Lenses / Re: POLL: Which of these UWA options would you buy?
« on: Today at 05:42:47 PM »
It just seems there are more creative opportunities and more options in capturing a shot with the 8-15 + 16-35 versus just the 11-24 alone.  Yes, the latter might be more exciting as it is new and amazingly wide for rectilinear, but I do not think for 99.9% of people it would make more sense than the 8-15+16-35. 

A fisheye lens is...well, a fisheye lens.  It's a 'look'.  It can have it's creative uses, but I think you're way off base to suggest that only 0.1% of people wanting to go wider than 16mm would be better served by a fisheye lens than a rectilinear lens.  Yes, it's possible to defish, but the IQ hit there is much greater than correcting barrel distortion. 

Honestly, I think for most people the main advantage to a 8-15 fisheye + 16-35/4 combo over the rumored 11-24/4 is that the two-lens combo is cheaper.  Secondarily, the 16-35's longer end means it can be a walkaround lens for some, but your claim that the combo covers 8-35mm is rather specious, as fisheye isn't the same as rectilinear.

I suspect for most wanting wider than 16mm, an 11-24mm zoom would be better than an ultrawide fisheye.

I don't think 99% of people will use 11mm effectively.  24mm is what most would commonly use for landscapes and if wider is needed 16mm makes sense.  But I have seen tons of misuse of 16mm due to the distortion.

11mm may be wider than 16mm but it has even more distortion, cannot recreate the fisheye effect of a fisheye lens obviously, and honestly how many times will 11mm rect be useful to 99% of people? I understand fisheye is a specialty lens, but I feel 11mm rectilinear is even *more* of a specialty lens than fisheye that simultaneously offers less creative possibilities.

3
Lenses / Re: POLL: Which of these UWA options would you buy?
« on: Today at 04:55:47 PM »
OK,
Now that we have some voting here were my thoughts behind making this post.

I see a lot of people in the 11-24 rumor thread regretting their purchase of the 16-35mm f/4L IS because the 11-24 will be the new "shiny" UWA lens.  Now, I do realize that there is a purpose for everything.  Some people may need 11mm rectilinear for a shot, period, depending on their use.

But for the general/landscape photographer who has ~2.5k to spend on UWA lenses I find it difficult to see how the 11-24mm would be superior to an 8-15mm Fisheye + 16-35mm f/4 IS.  First of all the latter combo has a much larger focal range - an 8mm-35mm combined versus only 11-24mm.  Yes, below 16mm would be fisheye instead of rectilinear and fisheye looks very distorted... But rectilinear below 16mm also looks very distorted, just in a different way.

As I see it, at least with the fisheye+rectilinear you have the option of a completely different perspective you would not have with the rectilinear 11-24 lens alone.  And 16mm rectilinear is pretty darn wide on full frame.  It just seems there are more creative opportunities and more options in capturing a shot with the 8-15 + 16-35 versus just the 11-24 alone.  Yes, the latter might be more exciting as it is new and amazingly wide for rectilinear, but I do not think for 99.9% of people it would make more sense than the 8-15+16-35.  Of course if you need 11mm rectilinear, that's what you need.

4
Lenses / Re: POLL: Which of these UWA options would you buy?
« on: Today at 12:46:32 PM »
TS-E 11mm f/5.6L

 ;D

We are leaving the primes out of this one!! ;)

Another option obviously would be 16-35mm f/4 IS plus your lens of choice around $1500 but I was curious about opinions on these two specific options.

5
Lenses / POLL: Which of these UWA options would you buy?
« on: Today at 12:38:02 PM »
Just for fun,
ASSUMING the rumored 11-24mm f/4L arrives, performs well, has a bulbous element, and costs around $2499-$2999: which would option would you pick below if you could only have one since they would cost around the same?

OPTION 1: 16-35mm f/4L IS + 8-15mm f/4L Fisheye
PROs: Offers both rectilinear and fisheye UWA depending on focal length, 16-35mm accepts filters
CONs: No rectilinear option wider than 16mm

-or-
OPTION 2: 11-24mm f/4L
PRO: This one goes to 11. :)  Unusually wide for a FF rectilinear lens.
CONs: Expensive for a single lens, no filters, no fisheye option available, lacks 25-35mm coverage.

Just curious about what the opinions and use case scenarios for people would be  8)

6
Lenses / Re: Purple fringing of 85 1.2ii
« on: January 23, 2015, 09:42:32 PM »
My GUESS is that the 85mm 1.2 L is the lens least likely to get an update within five years.
Not so sure. The 85L has two weak spots that Canon should act on; its one of the non-IS "L" primes that encounters most failures (electrical problems) and the sloooow focus (even if its better than the 85LI). Its esspecially sad becasue it limits the use of the lens for action shots at night.

There is also the reflection issue. Those who use the 85L at night will surely have seen occaisional "sparks" of green light from time to time. I expect this can be fixed with some of the new coating techniques Canon continues to develop.

I would expect a 85L III to see improvements on all three issues.

When Canon starts to release new bodies with better AF and software for focussing such as eye recognition the usefulness of the 85L will improve as we can begin to shoot more confidently @F/1.2.

I agree, I would not be surprised if the 85L III is f/1.4, either.  Basically, make some changes like they did from the 50mm f/1.0 > 50mm f/1.2

7
Lenses / Re: Fast lenses at a crossroads?
« on: January 21, 2015, 06:06:39 AM »
There is a much more simple explanation.  It is extremely difficult to make an ultrawide zoom (i.e. starting at 16mm and below) that also has a wide aperture (i.e. f/2.8) without sacrificing image quality.

For instance, the 16-35mm f/2.8L II was Canon's 2nd attempt at making a lens in this focal range at f/2.8, and even with an increased front element size the lens cannot attain the sharpness of the recent f/4 lens and did not have tremendous improvement over its predecessor.

As an 11-24 will be used almost exclusively for landscape, f/2.8 is less important. Canon likely had the choice of a fast lens that was as sharp or had other artifacts, or a slower lens that was sharper with less artifacts - so likely they chose the latter.

With sharpness charts being the almost exclusive way some benchmark a lens (which is sad IMO), I am not surprised.

8
Trying to decide which lens is better to use as a low profile lens for street photography on a Canon 6D. With the Canon 40mm STM you have the pancake size and metal mount and with the 50mm 1.8 II you have the extra stop of light gathering ability but less robust build quality though it is called the "Nifty Fifty".

Recommendations?

I would pass on the 50mm f/1.8 II and instead get either the 40mm f/2.8 STM or if you can afford it the 35mm f/2.0 IS USM.  The 50mm has an antiquated focus motor and ugly angular bokeh.  Both the 35mm IS and 40 STM offer pleasant bokeh, but the 35mm IS is noticeably superior overall while still being somewhat low profile.

9
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RYXwCGWb7Yg&spfreload=10

This BH photo/video is about the Sony a6000.
It is scary.
Sony is going to eat up the Canonists who have not been brainwashed as such as yet.
When I was talking about the UI (user interface) this is what I meant.
Sony is almost there but not quite yet. Close enough, though. I will shoot with the EF lenses with an adapter.
AF, AE with adapters...or...maybe I just get rid of the heavy glass.

An eye-opening video.

What part of it was so amazing? Most of these innovations seem to apply to entry level consumers and those not knowledgable about cameras.  He seemed to make a big deal about face tracking and a $7k camera not having that, but if you use a face tracking feature for your autofocus you probably are not skilled enough to be using a $7k camera in the first place.

10
Lenses / Re: I *HATE* UPS.
« on: November 29, 2014, 08:01:51 AM »
Not working today, although lots of homework to do. But, Adorama had delivery of my Sigma 50 1.4 Art as being today through UPS. So, I went to the office, opened all the doors, turned on the lights, so clearly we could received inside delivery. So, it's 4 PM, still no delivery, so I check UPS tracking again. "Delivered 12:30 PM outside". Sure enough, the bastard had dropped it 3+ feet into our outdoor box (onto the hard concrete/steel floor) for when we're not at the office. Lazy bastard. Merry Christmas to you, too. If started to drop one of my cherished lens over three feet onto concrete (in boxing or not), it'd risk injury to dive onto the ground under it. I understand it was in a decent lens case. But the sudden deceleration can be good for it. Goll-dang it!


I had a UPS worker trip and drop a new 24L box about 3 feet to the ground.  It was 100% fine though, they are generally packed to withstand falls.

11
Lenses / Re: EF 35mm f/1.4L II to Finally Come as Well? [CR2]
« on: November 14, 2014, 05:25:51 PM »
Hope this actually comes out and fixes the 35L's bokeh weaknesses.

12
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Most ridiculous camera ever?
« on: November 14, 2014, 05:24:34 PM »
The original version was enough of a mystery. (The mystery being who in their right mind would buy one?).
Now we have this limited version:
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/8641626030/price-released-for-brikk-s-24k-gold-nikon-df

Oooh, but how cool is a gold plated lens? Sorry, the lens itself is not gold plated, just the hood and lens cap!  :o

But hey they are donating a portion of the 41K sale price to "humanitarian causes." Great, all for it, but they do not say what percent, I imagine it is well below a thousand dollars. So you can do that or you can buy a regular DF for three grand and mail the extra 37 grand yourself straight to your favorite charity. (Or buy a camera that actually makes sense and send the extra whatever is left to charity).

If you are going to have a single gold plated lens, wouldn't a 24-70 make more sense?

13
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Gold-trimmed Nikon DF - good, bad, ugly?
« on: November 14, 2014, 05:21:32 PM »
My vote goes to "pointless."   I understand the interest in buying/collecting retro cameras.  I don't understand the interest in buying modern cameras disguised as retro...  I don't think most who collect retro cameras do so primarily because of the way they look.  And even if they did, a genuine retro would likely appeal more than this.

14
I received my A7r rental from LensRentals today.

You should rent a 6D and do the same test vs the 5D3.

15
Site Information / Re: Canon Rumors Site & iOS 8 Issues
« on: September 24, 2014, 11:31:48 AM »
Unfortunately iOS uses a web browser that is not fully HTML5 standards compliant, not unlike the dreaded Internet Explorer 6 of the 90s.  So sites have to code around it because of its marketshare which is not really fair to the web developers.
 
What Apple should do, is get with the program and stop releasing proprietary stuff.  But, it appears proprietary stuff is Apple's specialty, heh.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 45