Messages

1

Lenses / Re: New Wide Angles Lenses in 2013 [CR2]

« on: Today at 05:44:17 AM »

I'm with you there! The problem with the Nikkor 14-24mm lens is that there is a very vocal group who keep telling every one that it's the best wide lens ever....and yet filters are a pain. The curved front element is very prone to damage and even water drops seem to get magnified on it. Sure it's image corners are sharp wide open, but it's not a lot greater than mose wides when stopped down (ie landscapes). It flares badly due to the bulbous front element and the angular distortion is quite high at 14mm. I don't really see much photographic value of those extra 2mm over the far more versatile 16-35IIL.

The 16-35IIL is a little dated as a design. Newer coatings would be good and less CA. Sharpness, well it's OK but I'm sure Canon can coax a little more line resolution out of a re-design. The thing I love about the 16-35IIL is that it is so versatile. It does so much so well. If I need a wide lens I can rely on...its a 16-35IIL.

I had a 17-40L for a few years. It was very nice and almost the equal to the 16-35IIL optically, except the f4 and focal range. I really liked this lens but I needed the extra stop. I used to have an ef-s 10-22mm, which again was very simular. Not as bright but again very simular to the 16-35IIL. I'm sure the extra focal range will be welcome by many although not the revised entry price I'm guessing! I don't really see the need for an image stabiliser on a wide lens. Although a lot of people will be using this lens on a 1.6x crop...so I guess it makes a bridge lens for 1.6x to full frame migrators. on a 1.6x crop it's an effective 25-80mm, quite a nice range.

Given that all of Canon's recent lens releases have been steller (I think everything AFTER the 50mm f1.2L have been amazing optically), I'm sure these two new lenses will be remarkable.

I am sorry to disappoint you, but as a Canon user I must admit that yes the Nikon 14-24 is THE best ultra wide zoom, EVER!

It is not perfect, and yes it is prone to flares. But in most situations I can live with the flare, or the flare is not present.

I would take the flares, and the lack of shitty filters, on any given day, as long as the lens is optically superior you will find ways to work with all the other "flaws" !

If Canon is smart, they will allow for gelatin filters at the backend, like the 17-40. But hey, filters are so nostalgic, do multiple exposures and blend in post!!

Yes the 16-35 II is versatile, but it it does not do justice to my 7 grand 1DX or my 3 grand 5D3 !

Even the heavy moustache distortion, and the vignetting on the Samyang 14 is correctable in post!
The mushy corners and the insane CA and coma distortion in the EF 16-35 II (and the EF 14  2.8 L II), is impossible to correct in post!

But I would take both a 14-24 2.8 L and  a new versatile improved 16-35 2.8 III !

Just BRING EM on this time! And don't let us wait in vain (and pain)!!

2

Lenses / Re: New Wide Angles Lenses in 2013 [CR2]

« on: Today at 03:31:20 AM »

Thoughts:

16-50 F/4 IS is an intriguing concept.  A good percentage of us prefer a wider walkaround than 24-70.  I certainly use the 24-50 side of my 24-70 more than the 50-70.  I hope this one gets the smaller/lighter L treatment that we just saw with the currently demonized (but still an interesting design) 24-70 F/4 IS.

The 14-24 has massive shoes to fill.  I am not starting a dynamic range / low ISO / Nikon D800 conversation, but landscape work has been one of the perceived chinks in the armor of Canon's armamentarium.   Something that punches its weight against Nikon's seemingly legendary 14-24, possibly coupled with a high MP sensor, would be two huge steps towards correcting that perception.

For those not visible to the performance of Nikon's homerun hitter, it pulls in resolution figures right up there with the Canon 70-200 F/2.8 IS II.  Landscape filter companies make products specifically to work around this lens' huge front element.  Canon guys use adapters to mount this on their bodies.  It's that amazing, apparently. 

I still don't understand why we don't have a breathtakingly sharp autofocusing prime for landscape work.  I am drowning in a sea of ultrawide zooms (soft in corners), arty huge aperture L lenses (ditto), tilt-shift (no AF), and Zeiss glass (no AF).  I appreciate landscapes ==> tripods ==> liveview ==> no need for AF, but some folks just want to snap a picture of a coastline or a mountain range without all that fanfare.  I'd pay $1-2K for a breathtakingly sharp autofocusing 24mm L that didn't shoot itself in the foot (i.e. corners) to offer side a wide aperture.  Negative points if you tell me to just buy the 24-70 II.   

- A

Totally agree!

Canon need to produce an optically competitive UWA to battle the Nikon 14-24!
I sold the 16-35 2.8 L II due to corner softness, CA, coma.. It is basically useless for low lit landscape work.
I have the 24 II 1.4, which should also be replaced soon! Corners are ridiculously bad!! The coma is the worst I have ever seen in a lens! You don't buy a 24 1.4 lens to stop it down, you buy to be able to use it wide open! Due to the bad corner performance of this lens it is also almost useless wide open.

The 24.70 II is very good! But we need a UWA lens which can compete with the Nikon 14-24!

BTW! The EF 14 L 2.8 II is also BAD in the corners, suffering from coma and CA, and needs to be replaced. As well as the 35mm 1.4, the 50mm 1.2./1.4/1.8. But it is ridiculous that those of us that actually spent 7 grand on a 1DX, and 3 grand on a 5D3, do not have a really sharp and good Canon UWA lens to use on those bodies! It is actually disrespectful to Canon FF customers!! So more important with new UWA 2.8 and 24 1.4, than 35 and 50mm.

I am using the Nikon 14-24 with adapter, and the Samyang 14. Waiting for the Canon 14-24, I will happily pay 2K for it, but I suspect it will cost 3K.

I hope the EF 14-24 2.8 L is at least equally good as the Nikon 14-24, if not, it may hurt Canon really really bad!! I think Canon is aware of this, and this may be the reason why it takes so long before this lens is announced! This lens NEEDS to be PERFECT !!

If Canon is incapable of matching the Nikon 14-24, it may be wise to just skip this lens. The negativity that will arise among Canon FF customers, if the Canon EF 14-24 is not equally good (hopefully better) as the Nikon 14-24, will be out of proportions!

3

Lenses / Re: Review - Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II

« on: June 11, 2013, 09:51:56 AM »

The 16-35 2.8 L is way past replacment date! (as well as the 14mm 2.8 II and the 24mm 1.4 II)

Reading this review makes me loose faith in the person writing it!

When you buy a 2.8 lens, you buy it to be usefull wide open in low-lit scenes.
Wide open, the 16-35 2.8 II is suffering from severe CA and Coma, in particular in the corners, not to mention the vignetting and corner softness.

It is disrespectful of Canon to launch the 1D-X, the 5D-3 without a new optically competitive wide angle lens to go with it. Canon seem to have forgotten their wide angle department, focusing only on tele-lenses and cinema-lenses.

I have had the 16-35 II, sold it and replaced it with the Nikon 14-24 (with adapter) and the Samyang 14. The Canon 16-35 is nowhere close optically to these lenses. The only advantage the 16-35 holds is the autofocus. But still, when taking the price into consideration makes you wanna laugh!

Canon, look at the Nikon 14-24, and get your fingers out of your **** !!

4

Reviews / Re: Review - EF 24 f/1.4L II

« on: March 30, 2013, 01:53:38 AM »

Justin "You are wrong about how good this lens is" - The 24 1.4 II is in desperate need for an upgrade!! This is not a lens you buy to stop down, this is a lens you buy to be able to use wide open in low lit conditions.

The vignetting I guess is something you to a certain degree must accept. But the level of Chromatic Aberration (purple fringe) this lens produces wide open is absolutely unacceptable.

The worst negative of this lens however is not the CA, but the coma distortion.

I work a lot in night/low light photography, and stars in the edges of this lens get distorted to the level that they look like "bananas". If you shoot wide open in contrasting light sources, eg. night photos of a city, the coma distortion in the edges is so bad that it is ridiculous!

A slight positive is that the 24mm 1.4 from Nikon is not any better. But that still does not mean that this lens from Canon is optically a good lens.

The Samyang 24mm 1.4 which I also own 2 samples of, may not be as sharp in the center as the Canon/Nikon 24, but it is virtually free of CA and coma distortion in the edges, and the Samyang even has more glass/lens elements!! Hence I more often tend to use my Samyang 24 than my Canon 24.

The Canon 24mm 1.4 II, as well as all other of Canons L wide angle primes (14mm 2.8 II/35mm 1.4/50mm 1.4/1.8/1.2) are in desperate need of upgrades! I wish Canon would start to prioritize the wide angle department, and not only focus on tele-lenses.

5

EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: Canon EF 14 f/2.8 with Fluorite

« on: February 26, 2013, 03:19:30 AM »

So why fool around with a me too lens?

As Sigma already makes a 12-24 zoom (I owned a ver1) it seems to me that Canon could do Nikon one better and make  a 12-24 f4.
My Sigma was sharp in the center at f8 and smaller and sharp-ish at the extreme edges only at f13. I have heard reports that the ver2 is much better.

If Canon did this they would trump Nikon in the UWA zoom range and if we have any justice it would be as sharp as the new 24-70II.

Sigma 12-24 is S**T in the corners! No point in getting the extra 2mm focal length when it is so difficult to construct a 12mm lens, and when corner performance is as bad as it is on the Sigma, completely useless!. Also before Canon tryes to make a 12mm lens they need to prove they can compete with the rest on 14mm!!  And forget about f/4, we need f/2.8 just like the Nikon and the Samyang. Canon need to release a 14-24 2.8 lens, no point in making a new 14mm alone, when Nikons 14-24 is sharper and optically superior @14mm to Canons prime 14mm lens. Also you can not use filters on Canons 14mm, so it basically has no advantage what-so-ever over the Nikon 14-24! I have both the Samyang 14mm and the Nikon 14-24, which I am using on my 1DX/5d3/5D2, and I have been using the Canon 14mm 2.8 v2 a lot, so I know Canon need to get a grip!

6

EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: Canon EF 14 f/2.8 with Flourite

« on: February 25, 2013, 07:09:30 AM »

Please GOD let this be true!!! And please give it to us now!!!!

7

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: 1D X - Clean HDMI out

« on: February 08, 2013, 08:37:23 AM »

Not that I use clean hdmi, but I completely agree with your logics and I was very surprised that the 5d3 had this added in firmware and nothing about it for the 1d x.

Yeah thats what I mean, it is not logic if it stays that way.

Clean HDMI for the 1DX NOW !!!

8

EOS Bodies - For Video / 1D X - Clean HDMI out

« on: February 08, 2013, 05:34:15 AM »

Now that we know that the 5D Mark III will be getting clean uncompressed HDMI by April 2013, I think it's time Canon also confirms this feature also will be made available for us who chose to spend even more money on buying the 1D X.

I work with both stills and video, and I bought the 1DX for it's extra low light performance and DR over the 5D3.

Given what we now know, that the much cheaper 5D3 will get clean HDMI out, it will be absolutely unacceptable if the 1DX does not get the same upgrade!! We know it is possible since the 1DC already have this option on 1080p footage.

So I really hope Canon would please give us who spend all our money on them, what we want!!

It would be remarkable if the 1DC and the 5D3 should have clean HDMI out, and the 1DX would not!!
This would mean Canon would try to force me to sell my house to get the ISO and DR performance on video of the 1DX through the 1DC. Which of course will not happen!

A faster and cheaper solution may be to just buy the Nikon D4!

Your thoughts?

Ola

9

Lenses / Re: Need advice: Rumored 14-24 f/2.8L vs existing 16-35 f/2.8 L Advantages?

« on: December 30, 2012, 03:07:26 PM »

The question is, is the 14-24 gonna be good enough to make the 14mm prime obsolete? Or will Canon purposely make it lesser to prevent this?

Well, the Nikon 14-24, @14mm, with a Canon EF adapter, has already made the Canon EF 14mm 2.8 L II obsolete.

Canon has got only one thing to do, really, and that is not what you are suggesting. But I am not even sure Canon is capable of making a new EF 14mm 2.8 III prime which is better than the Nikon 14-24 @14mm.

Canon sure is taking their time though, so let's hope they prove me deadly wrong!

Well, I'll just keep posting pictures taken with my flagship Canon cameras 1DX and 5D3, paired with a 14-24mm lens from their main competitor!

My corner soft, CA, vignetting EF 16-35 2.8 II lens was sold years ago. Only comfort is, this lens is not worse than the newer Nikon 16-35 f/4 optically. 

10

Lenses / Re: What's your dream lens

« on: December 05, 2012, 01:34:43 PM »

EF 14-24 2.8 L USM
EF 24 1.4 III L USM (without the horrible corner performance and coma and CA like v2)

11

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS-1D X Firmware 1.1.1 Now Available

« on: October 18, 2012, 06:00:20 AM »

It's hard to even see it is blinking red when shooting in daylight - Even if set to bright... How annoying

Given the fact that Canon allready said this update would not please all, I think it is apparent a solid red follow-focus point in AI-Servo, is something we will never get on the 1DX, or the 5D3.

12

EOS Bodies / Re: DxOMark Sensor Performance: Nikon vs. Canon

« on: September 20, 2012, 03:48:03 AM »

Canon has some catching up to do with respect to sensor performance as measured by http://www.DxOMark.com. Canon doesn't even come close to the top performing Nikons.  (High score is better.):

Pts Model
=======
96 Nikon D800E
95 Nikon D800
94 Nikon D600
81 Canon 5D III
79 Canon 5D II

(The Canon 1Dx is not yet rated.)
What are the chances that one of the reasons for the new sensor in the 6D is to catapult Canon's sensor performance into the mid 90's? I can't see Canon doing that considering the $3,500 EOS 5D III just came out and has a score of just 81. But Nikon's new $2,100 D600 kicks butt with a score of 94!

Sensor performance isn't everything... but, if I were to choose Nikon or Canon today, I wouldn't be choosing Canon.

I have said this many times. You CAN NOT compare dynamic range on ISO100, and assume everybody works in ISO100, and that this is the correct ISO to measure by, like DxO does. I RARELY go below ISO 1600 for my kind of work.

BTW! Anyone find it strange DxO has the finished analysis/review of the D600 days after it is released? And they still haven't finished they analysis/review of the 1D-X !?

Well I don't find it strange at all, DxO is tight with Nikon, everybody should know that by now. I will not be surprised if they rate the 1D-X below the Nikon D3100, and neither should you! Do not expose your low intelligence by actually believing DxO is the standard for measuring camera low light and dynamic range performance.

The 5D3 has a MUCH better dynamic range, not to mention the low light ISO performance, than the D800 above ISO600.

Who cares what the Nikonioans down at DxO says, not me!

Have a nice day everyone!

13

Lenses / Re: How do you update Canon lens firmware?

« on: September 01, 2012, 07:29:41 AM »

I have the EF 300 2.8 L II IS, and I want to upgrade the firmware from v.1.0.0 to v.1.1.1, which can be done through either the 5D3 or the 1DX.

Anybody know If the firmware is downloadable from somewhere? I cannot find it anywhere.
I can find though the firmware for the EF 40mm 2.8 lens. So Canon think it is ok for us to upgrade the 40mm ourself, but want to ruin us in shipping cost when sending the 300 II + 5D3 to service repair centre?

Kinda stupid that I should have to ship both my 5D3 and the lens, which is very costly and time consuming, to be able to upgrader the lens, when I can do the exact same procedure from home!! I mean why did Canon include this option in menus (to upgrade fw on lens through camera) when they do not release firmware files to the public??

14

EOS Bodies - For Stills / 1DX exposure metering in manual mode

« on: September 01, 2012, 06:46:30 AM »

Anyone else using the 1DX has discovered that displaying of exposure metering is gone in the top display when camera in manual mode?

You still have exposure metering displayed in viewfinder and LCD screen, but it is obviously more difficult to use, and uses more power (LCD screen on). Come on Canon what is the reasoning behind this?

Really annoying when working with landscape photography for me!!!!

Has it always been like this on the 1D series?? (1DX is my first 1D series)

15

Lenses / Re: Canon 14-24 2.8 - With our powers combined....

« on: September 01, 2012, 06:43:17 AM »

Actually, very few who have tried a 14-24 are really that thrilled.  It is notorious for flare.
Sure, in the studio with controlled lighting, its very good, but, in the real world with a sun and reflections off cars, roofs, buildings, Flare Flare Flare, it seems to just grab it out of nowhere.

I find it hard to believe you know what you are talking about.
I among many, is using the Nikon 14-24 2.8 og my Canon FF bodies 5D2/5D3/1DX with an adapter.
And even if the lens becomes completely manual, and even cumbersome to operate, I still prefere it.

No lens is perfect, neither the Nikon 14-24 2.8, but even if it is a little prone to flares yes, it is still the overall best ultra wide angle lens on the market. Optically the Samyang 14/Rokinon 14 is slightly sharper in the corners, but it suffers from severe vignetting and moustache distortion in the center. I have them both.

The Nikon 14-24 on the Canon is my preferred choice in 90% of my usage scenarios, and I will continue to use it until Canon releases something equally good.

PS! The Nikon 14-24 should not be compared directly to eg. the Canon 16-35, since they are two completely different designs. The Nikon 14-24 is havy, big and bulky compared to the Canon 16-35, but still it is in another class optically. The Nikon 16-35 is comparable optically to the Canon 16-35.  But I would love to have a Canon 14-24 2.8 which performs optically comparable to the Nikkor, even if it becomes LARGE and HEAVY !!