July 31, 2014, 02:54:17 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 - e17paul

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 7
EOS Bodies / Re: Photokina 2014
« on: July 30, 2014, 03:55:40 AM »
Canon has been updating the budget lenses with IS STM versions, so I think there will be 3 new normal focal length lenses:
1. An inexpensive EF 50mm f/1.8 IS STM lens (to replace the plastic fantastic)
2. A mid-tier EF 50mm f/1.4 IS USM (to replace the EF 50mm f/1.4)
3. A pro-level EF 55mm f/1.4 USM (To replace the 50mm f/1.2)

I suspect that Canon have already filled that budget niche with the 40 STM. It shares the absence of a focus scale with the old 50/1.8, at moderate extra cost.

Lenses / Re: New Canon L Primes, but Not Until 2015 [CR2)
« on: July 30, 2014, 02:40:40 AM »
I'd love it if they updated the 28–135 to be a 24–135, to be the full-frame equivalent for the 15–85.
Thing is, they'd have to sunset the 24-105 lens at that point...which is something they seem hesitant to do. I certainly can't see them even imagining starting a new, cheap kit lens product line when they have a successful one already, and backlogs on lenses that need updates.

Likewise for anything like the 28-200/28-300. Just too hard to get it down to a reasonable price that people will buy it, knowing it inherently has IQ and performance trade-offs

A replacement for the 28-135 will become important as full frame reaches the Rebel price range. This won't happen soon, but probably in 5 years, certainly before 10. I'm predicting an STM version, but not for a few years yet.

Lenses / Re: Lenses in the 20mm range
« on: July 28, 2014, 02:19:29 AM »
I forgot to ask, are you using a full frame 6D/5D/1DX, or a crop sensor camera from the rest of Canon's range?


Lenses / Re: Lenses in the 20mm range
« on: July 28, 2014, 01:51:26 AM »
+1 on the TS-E 17.  It was made for interior shots.  The 16-35 f/4 IS may have more uses, but nothing does interior shots better than the TSEs.

That all depends on whether planning to use a tripod whenever light levels are low. IS would be a winner if needing to take shots hand held where a tripod would be a problem, or program does not allow.

I'm happy with my 24/2.8 IS for interiors, and like the focal length for it's fairly realistic view of the space, whilst still including a good part of the interior. Where a wider field of view is more important, then I have been looking at the Canon 20/2.8, whose curvature of field may help for interior shots, and the Zeiss 18/3.5 as mentioned by others. Both of these have a depth of field scale, ideal for capturing interiors.

Alternatively, the Sigma 12-24 has a depth of field scale, but lacks IS. If relying on autofocus, or making your own judgements then I concur with those who have suggested the 16-35 IS. The slow shutter speeds possible with IS will allow stopping down to keep the whole room in focus, whist keeping ISO down to a reasonable level.

Shutter speeds of half to one second can sometimes achieve the blur of people or other moving objects sometimes seen in architectural shots. However, where there is opportunity to use a tripod, longer exposures can do this more reliably.

Let me know how you get on, I'm looking at these options for myself. I'm hoping that Canon continue their roll out their IS primes at Photokina in September. Meanwhile the new 16-35 IS seems the obvious answer for full frame, assuming that a tripod cannot always be used.

Lenses / Re: Help me to decide: 35 vs 50mm
« on: July 27, 2014, 11:46:52 AM »
If I was to only carry the one lens - the one on the camera - it would be a 35mm for full frame.

My current travelling light set up is different to that - I have a 50 on the camera, and a wide (24) in a bag or pocket somewhere. 50 is great for forcing a tight field of view, but there are times when wider is needed.

Canon General / Re: Can anyone suggest the adapter for my lens?
« on: July 23, 2014, 07:45:26 AM »
I am happy with my Fotodiox pro adapter for OM lenses. If outside of the US, Fotodiox have Amazon stores and will mail direct if ordered from there.

It does depend what lens you want to adapt, as previous response.

Lenses / Re: What would a 16mm or 18mm F2 FF lens look like?
« on: July 23, 2014, 03:52:07 AM »
I LOVE my 20mm 2.8 lens, but man is it showing its age. I still haven't seen the perfect wide prime from Canon, but I'm hoping for a 20mm refresh. If not, I'd buy a 16mm or 18mm in a heartbeat.

I love to see a release of a Canon 20mm f/2 IS

A 20/2 would be heavy and probably need a bulbous front element like the 14/2.8. It would still struggle with selective focus, so I don't see the point now that modern full frame sensors are so capable.

The Zeiss 18/3.5 is a good guide to what can be achieved. If Canon were to announce an 18/4 IS with 82mm filters, I would pre-order immediately. That would be a perfect companion to the 24/2.8 IS, and plug the gap between 14 and 24 primes.

I have considered the TS-E 17, but would like filter options.

Photography Technique / Re: Black & White
« on: July 22, 2014, 02:42:01 PM »
I can only speak for film, but an orange filter increases contrast, giving blacker blacks. Yellow is more subtle, red stronger. With digital, it may be worth playing around in post, or with camera settings.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Any old K-mount lenses worth getting?
« on: July 21, 2014, 12:43:13 PM »
I have a Pentax 55/2 on my S1A. It is arguably better than my OM 50/1.4, and certainly better than either of the Canon 50s I have bought. I think that the only EF mount that may possibly compare would be a Zeiss.

Although my copy is M42 screw mount, it's also available with the 1975 onwards K-mount

EOS Bodies / Re: DSLR ? - thinking out loud ....
« on: July 13, 2014, 03:23:01 AM »
Excellent comments.  It really comes down to technology in the end.  Just because a thing does not exist now does not mean it won't exist soon enough.  What is an EVF?  Its a name for a feature on a camera.  A feature which can be comprised of any technology with any specifications.  The problems people here have with current EVFs only have relevance to existing technology but not to what they'll be shipping in a few years.

Wise words. It seems that Canon are holding back until the technology is to their satisfaction. That's an approach also taken by Apple.

The current Eos M is just a toe in the water. The increasing range of lenses show that they are serious about the format, the current M is a valuable part of their development, and there is now an EVF for the G1 X, which could conceivably be built into a future model to eventually replace the Rebel series cameras. The SL1 is impressive, but will be outclassed by EF-M cameras as the march of electronic EVF (and sensor) progress surges forward in accordance with Moore's law.

I'm looking forward to it, but sticking with my full frame and pentaprism 6D for now. I would like to also own a smaller alternative for everyday - an Eos M with built in grip and EVF could win Canon my money.

Lenses / Re: Yes! Finally, the 70-200 f/2.8 II
« on: July 13, 2014, 01:47:23 AM »
Of course, if you don't already have a quick release tripod head, then choosing one and the additional plate for the lens will be another decision....

Both 24 and 28 IS lenses review very well, but the 28 comes out slightly ahead for IQ. Both are very very good compared to the 24. Both are ahead of the 16-35/2.8 and 17-40/4 zooms, but I have yet to see comparison with the new 16-35/4L IS. That could be another option.

I chose the 24 IS because of its extra width and greater depth of field, and I'm delighted with it. The colour rendition is ahead of my other non L primes, comparable to my only L lens and my legacy OM Zuiko lenses. Distortion is low, if that's important for buildings and other straight lines in your street photos.

At 24 I often use Av at f/11, then use the depth of field scale to set and forget the manual focus so that everything is in reasonable focus. IS really helps here where the tripod is not allowed or not with me. If I'm nice and relaxed, and can slow the shutter by the claimed four shots, but at other times only two or three stops.

For a different look, I can switch to f/2.8 and auto focus.

I'm similarly torn between 24 and 28 for a wide lens. 28 is 'comfortably wide' for an urban scene at full frame, but would give a nice and tight standard view on a 1.6x camera. 24 is the widest I like to go to for a realistic look at full frame, and moderately wide on a 1.6x crop. I'm also yearning for the 35/2 IS suggested in a previous post. 

Lenses / Re: 24-70 f4 IS macro performance
« on: July 08, 2014, 08:16:48 AM »
Meanwhile, here are some photos taken with my cheap and cheerful 50/2.5 compact macro

Lenses / Re: Confused, 24-70 f/2.8 or f/4?
« on: July 07, 2014, 12:59:09 AM »
The solution is to rent (or borrow if you can) the 24-70/4L IS for a few days when you can put it to good use. That's a much cheaper option than buying the 'wrong' lens - I'm sure that both are awesome.

I was torn between the 70-200/4L IS and slightly slower 70-300L. Renting first made my decision easy.

Try the 24-70/4L IS both with and without IS switched on. If the slower shutter speeds allowed by the IS for static shots in poor light give you a benefit, then the lighter cheaper lens is probably better for you. IS is a bigger benefit than one one stop of of speed if the subject isn't fast moving.

If however you find yourself wanting to open the aperture wider to stop motion blur in poor light, or to achieve selective focus at the long end, then the extra weight and cost of the 2.8 could be worthwhile.

If in good light, or using a tripod stopped down then I would expect both to be excellent, so it comes down to the original question of IQ, to which I would add weight as others have mentioned.

But try before you buy, there are some vendors/renters who will refund the rental if you then buy. I would veer towards the lighter weight and IS, but you need to confirm whether your type of photography would benefit losing the IS for the 1 extra stop speed advantage of the 2.8.

Lenses / Re: Photozone Review of the 16-35mm f/4L IS
« on: July 05, 2014, 02:20:16 AM »
They could take this exact lens formula at 24mm, remove the zoom capability, and you'd have one of the best 24mm prime lenses on the market. That just sounds wrong to me.

Maybe sort of? The 16-35f4IS is achieving nearly zero distortion, nothing else comes close except the 24mm TS-E.

It just looks like one of those things that can be done but no-one bothers.

I'm sure it could be done.  Would you pay $1199 for a 24mm f/4 IS prime lens with nearly no distortion?  Maybe you would, but you'd be in a fiscally irrelevant minoroty as far as Canon is concerned.

+1, but I would love one. Meanwhile the TS-E 24 sits patiently on my wish list.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 7