October 01, 2014, 02:48:49 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 - Canon 14-24

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5
1
I am thinking of getting this to use with the 16-35 f/4. Would you guys know if this vignettes on the 17-40 or similar?

2
It's been rumored before on multiple occasions, so I also expect the 7D II to have a lot of video feature enhancements. The video on the 7D is pretty lackluster. I don't quite know if the new video features will be 7DC level, but they should be of a higher level of quality and capability than any other models except the 5D III, and still maybe better than that.

Yep I suspect it's going to marketed with video features, however still photography wise...I don't see these marginal upgrades such as +1-2 fps (from 8fps) being upgrade worthy though?

It's a prosumer ergonomic design+materials (solid top component over entire plastic) + the AF system that are the sell over the xxD and rebel lines.

3
If I recall, the main selling point of the 7D when it was released was it's superior redesigned AF system and FPS over the XXD. Here was a solution to those in the prosumer segment that couldn't afford a 1D series to afford a better AF system and were complaining about the old 9 point AF system. It was definitely a more action/sports/wildlife kinda camera. Right now, I would say Canon's AF offerings are on-par - so really is a 7d mark II even needed?

My question is what "big" photography related improvements could they do to an already fine piece of equipment (non-video related features - please)? Throw in the 1dx/5d3 AF system in a crop body and push the fps up by 1-3fps (from some new processor or dual processor), maybe 0.5-1stop of ISO performance, maybe throw in an articulated screen and some minor ergonomics and good to go? All of these seem lackluster/marginal and lack the wow of the innovative new AF system and FPS this camera initially bought to canon users at its release.

Seriously, I think 7d users could get a bigger benefit from better glass such as the 70-400 or a 100-400 II lens. A mark II of this camera is nothing exciting to get over especially if it's using a crop sensor like another "exciting" rebel release...maybe make this camera come in a white version?

4
Lenses / Re: Canon Working on Faster f/2.8 Ultra Wide Zoom [CR2]
« on: May 16, 2014, 07:44:57 PM »
I realise f2.8 means faster shutter speeds, was just wondering where you need it in real-world situations with such a wide angle. Astrophotography makes sense but ... sports? What sport gets shot at 16mm, chess? ;-) Just curious, does one normally go wider than 24mm for events/weddings of photojournalism? Maybe travel photography? (artisan in small dark workshop)

Sports, yeah I agree with ya not much sports shooting at 16mm.

But for events and weddings...yeah, 16mm is quite handy, especially at a reception for the fun dancing shots.  And yes, on occasion 16mm is useful for big landscape style portraits - though that kind of work isn't everyones cup of tea.  Either way, think of it like this, epic background, one location, same pose - 1 series of shots at 16mm, another at 24, another at 50, then shift to the 70-200 and you have at least 4 shots from the same spot with the same poses but each one is unique...

If you consider skateboarding or snowboard/ski as a sport then yes ultra wide and even fish eye up close to the action are even used.

5
Lenses / Re: Canon Working on Faster f/2.8 Ultra Wide Zoom [CR2]
« on: May 16, 2014, 01:09:48 PM »
The ultra wide fund has been accumulating since the release in 2007 with the Nikon 14-24...already pre-ordered the 16-35 f/4 IS and I'll pre-order the 14-24 or 12-24 as well!

Who says you need to pick between them?! There are different purposes of both and I'll sure as hell use both!

14-24 - astro/night/architecture (yes even still alongside the 17mm ts-e)/interiors(big difference between 14mm and 16mm!)/indoor events(2.8 faster for motion w/ or without flash)
16-35 - waterfalls (full ND filters)/landscape (longer zoom range for versatility on limited trails or dusty/sandy conditions with the extra protection need of a front filter)/walk around casual hand holding outdoor events

6
BAM #1 in BH pre-order line for the 16-35!

I'll take this and the 14-24, who says you gotta have one or the other?!




7
I would be happy to see Canon have the same range of WA offerings. But the real question is whether this new 16-35 f/4 will be around $1,300, or priced simply ridiculous.

I don't think they will push the envelope past $1699.99 as the Canon 16-35 2.8. However the Nikon offering being at $1250-ish, I think Canon can/will push the envelope of the initial offering price to higher than $1300 maybe $1399 or maybe even $1499.

8
I think there is a healthy market for all of the EF wide angle zoom lenses (17-40, 16-35 2.8 (non-is) and the 16-35 f4 with is). Nikon currently has 4 wide angle zooms available on the market and haven't phased out their older 17-35 2.8 non-is and have added a cheaper version like the 17-40 equivalent onto the market. One for cheapie budgets that don't want to cough up more than 1k on a zoom and the other segement above 1k and another over 2k.

Just like the rebel cheapie market, 70d, 7d, and 6d.

9
Is the 16-35 f/4L intended as a replacement for the current 17-40 f/4L  ???

No.

10
Lenses / Re: More Wide Angle Lens Speculation [CR1]
« on: May 07, 2014, 04:09:12 AM »
I think it is a pretty clear price strategy on the zooms.  See chart below.  I'm not picking a fight on the 24-105 vs. 24-70 F/4 -- Canon simply thinks that 24-70 F/4 lens is worth more money.

But as you can see, there are 'budget' L zooms on the left, high end ones on the right, and in a few lengths, there is a middle quality/performance option.  The price points are pretty clear to me.

As for the not-really-disparaging remarks on the 17-40, I use it as a great example of an 'if you have plenty of light and your subject isn't moving' great lens.  Stopping it down for landscape work is fine.  But there are times you need F/2.8 or you need sharp results at an aperture wider than F/5.6, and the 16-35 II is the better call.  In general, though, both lenses are good but not great.  Many on this forum might argue that the 16-35 II should be in the 'better' column and not the 'best' column of ultrawide.
- A

I find that chart doesn't represent the ultra wide angle zoom segments that are currently out there. Can't really compare the standard zoom segments that are available with the ultra zooms as with super telephoto primes as well.

This chart attached below I think better represents the void Canon hasn't fulfilled in the FF ultra wide angle zoom segments:

Given the current offerings, I would fantasize Canon would release an EF 15-35mm f/4 USM IS (flat front element) and EF 12 or 13-14mm f/2.8 USM lens (as Canon offerings tend to be 1mm wider in each of the current segments).

That presumes that Canon is going to have the 4 lenses for one zoom range like the 70-200s:  two F/4 and two F/2.8 lenses, with and without IS.

They don't even do that in the standard range right now (cough no 24-70 F/2.8 IS cough)...

And Canon seems to be getting out of that business.  Aren't they discontinuing one of the 70-200s?

- A

It's not just 70-200 lenses in that segment, telephoto zoom also encompasses cheap and L 70-300s, the 100-400, and an all in one lens compromise 28-300 L - just like the various options in the ultra wide angle segment. There is no same amount spread across each different segment - in specific to the ultra wide angle ZOOM, there is definitely a void that hasn't been filled for ultra wide Canon users since freaking 2007 when the 14-24 was released.

11
Lenses / Re: More Wide Angle Lens Speculation [CR1]
« on: May 06, 2014, 07:55:09 PM »
I think it is a pretty clear price strategy on the zooms.  See chart below.  I'm not picking a fight on the 24-105 vs. 24-70 F/4 -- Canon simply thinks that 24-70 F/4 lens is worth more money.

But as you can see, there are 'budget' L zooms on the left, high end ones on the right, and in a few lengths, there is a middle quality/performance option.  The price points are pretty clear to me.

As for the not-really-disparaging remarks on the 17-40, I use it as a great example of an 'if you have plenty of light and your subject isn't moving' great lens.  Stopping it down for landscape work is fine.  But there are times you need F/2.8 or you need sharp results at an aperture wider than F/5.6, and the 16-35 II is the better call.  In general, though, both lenses are good but not great.  Many on this forum might argue that the 16-35 II should be in the 'better' column and not the 'best' column of ultrawide.
- A

I find that chart doesn't represent the ultra wide angle zoom segments that are currently out there. Can't really compare the standard zoom segments that are available with the ultra zooms as with super telephoto primes as well.

This chart attached below I think better represents the void Canon hasn't fulfilled in the FF ultra wide angle zoom segments:

Given the current offerings, I would fantasize Canon would release an EF 15-35mm f/4 USM IS (flat front element) and EF 12 or 13-14mm f/2.8 USM lens (as Canon offerings tend to be 1mm wider in each of the current segments).

12
Lenses / Re: More Wide Angle Lens Speculation [CR1]
« on: May 06, 2014, 03:43:30 PM »
Performs as good as Nik 14-24 or better + IS + screw on filter = I'm in

Performs as good as Nik 14-24 or better + screw on hood (not like the cheap plastic slide on hood on the nik14-24)= I'm in

Doubt there would be flat front glass for anything wider than 15mm, don't care so much for IS, just give me a good sharp ultra wide in the corners + a not cheaply constructed hood (that falls off on the Nikon) to protect the front protruding glass in my bag/transit (construct it like the 17mm ts-e please).

13
Lenses / Re: New EF-S Ultrawide Coming? [CR1]
« on: May 05, 2014, 06:52:28 PM »
Should be titled NEW EF-S Kit Lens Coming! [CR3]

14
EOS Bodies / Re: When Does the Year of the Lens Start?
« on: May 02, 2014, 06:22:57 PM »
The industry is plateauing. The market is getting saturated. The competition is not pushing Canon as hard as many here tend to think.

The lifecycle of lenses and camera bodies are about to get a lot longer in my opinion. Sorry, CR, but I think this is the new normal.

Correct. Plus, in the case of camera bodies the technology has matured. There isn't a DSLR on the market today (crop or full frame) that doesn't produce images of excellent quality.

Cameras and lenses used to be a long-term investment (The F1 was introduced with the promise that it would not be replaced for a decade).

The "new" normal is really the old normal.

Incorrect. If that was the case of saturation why is Canon still pushing out a bunch of powershots, rebels, and kit lens improvements with STM? While Nikon, Sony, and Sigma for example have been releasing new pro-consumer lenses and products?

15
I will forgive Canon for its lack of "worthy" dslr/lens and "innovation" releases these past 2-3 years (and their lack of a 14-24), if they surprise with an entry into the medium format segment within a similar price range of Pentax's 645z with a better 80mm and ultra wide angle lens than Pentax's equivalent.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5