March 03, 2015, 02:40:19 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.

Topics - Radiating

Pages: [1] 2
Lenses / Most Anticipated Rurmored Sigma Lenses?
« on: February 09, 2014, 10:45:53 PM »
Am I the only one incredibly psyched about the rumors that have been floating around about a few rumored (unannounced) Sigma lenses?

There have been rumors of several incredible ideas:

16-20mm f/2.0
24-70mm f/2.0
24mm f/1.4
135mm f/2.0 OS

Dear god, please make these lenses a reality.

Lenses / Where's my 50mm f/1.8 IS?
« on: March 03, 2013, 12:44:23 AM »
Or f/1.4, either way.

Why hasn't Canon released this lens yet? Seems like a no-brainer.

Lenses / Will Canon step up to Zeiss with a 55mm 1.4L?
« on: February 19, 2013, 03:51:19 AM »
It seems Zeiss's new 55mm f/1.4 lens which promises to be as sharp as current Canon 50mm lenses are at f/5.6 wide open is making a lot of news (50mm lenses tend to fall far behind other primes for image quality, delivering what 24mm and 85mm primes deliver wide open at f/4.0). In my own quest for a great 50mm prime I've looked at every 50mm prime thats ef compatible or ef adaptable made since 1970 and all deliever this mediocre image quality (though being 55mm is likely key in allowing the iq).

So Zeiss has cracked the high quality normal prime mystery that has eluded all other manufactures for decades.

The question is, now that the cat's out of the bag, will Canon fire back with a 55mm 1.4L?

If you're interested here's a video describing the new lens. It's worth watching.!

Lenses / Anyone Want an Improved 16-35mm over the much requested 14-24mm?
« on: February 12, 2013, 02:51:05 PM »
I'm personally not too crazy about a 14-24mm f/2.8 lens. I would much much rather Canon release a further updated 16-35mm f/2.8 III, specifically based on this insane lens patent:

16-35mm f/2.8 IS Pro Lens.

f/2.8 3 ED elements 5 aspherical ones, and sharpness that rivals the 14-24mm wide open, AND image stabilization!

Internal focusing, low vignette.

I really would much rather have greater flexibility and greater focal range than an ultra wide angle that only does ultra wide, and worse than this proposed lens at that.

Anyone else feel the same way?

Lenses / Resistance to Larger Filter Size, Kills Great Lenses?
« on: February 02, 2013, 02:44:56 PM »
It's well known, based on patents, photographs of prototypes and confirmation by Canon reps themselves that Canon did not release their frontrunning 24-70mm f/2.8 IS prototype because they thought people would resist the 95mm filter size. I really don't understand this at all.

Is filter size really that big a deal to you guys? It seems like many people would trade their left kidney for this lens, but god forbid you have to buy new UV filters and polarizers. The Nikon 14-24mm, Canon 14mm f/2.8 II & the Canon 8-15mm fisheye, and sigma 50-500mm, along with many of the supertelephoto lenses either don't use filters or use huge ones and people love those lenses.

Is Canon right in thinking such a lens was had a front element that was too big, are photographers really that thickle? People complained hugely about the 82mm filter size of the 24-70mm f/2.8 II alone so I wouldn't be surprised.

Seriously, nobody needs that many low quality PS cameras that make no changes to image quality at all. Their pro cameras get 2 body releases per year, and their amateur DSLR gets a yearly refresh.

Can anyone explain this? Is it just a to trick consumers into thinking a  largleystagnant technology is improving with more bloated features that do nothing?

Feel free to discuss.

All full frame pro lenses:

16-35mm f/2.8 IS - Based on the specs this should be even sharper than the existing 16-35mm f/2.8, but much more expensive.

135mm 1.8 IS - This lens would not be especially hard to manufacture and is in bad need of an update.

55-300mm f/2.8-f/4.0 IS  - This particular way of making this lens has f/2.8 until 140mm!!, doubles as a 77-420mm f/4.0-f/5.6 with a 1.4 TC  - 5 ED elements!!! If it were good it would be very exciting.

50mm 1.2 which isn't soft like the current Canon version:

Yes I know these are all from Nikon Rumors, but I hope Canon is watching them and responds.

These would be profoundly amazing

Lenses / I want a 135mm 1.8 IS L
« on: January 16, 2013, 03:51:47 PM »

Canon needs to make this lens, now.

EOS Bodies / Canon Cannot Keep Screwing It's Customers Over
« on: December 20, 2012, 11:58:16 PM »
I'm writing this post mainly to criticize Canon for it's recent outrageous pricing policies, and to simply say that they cannot keep doing what they are doing.

I was one of the first people to support Canon's new higher pricing due to the yen/dollar conversion, which in a way justified it, but now Canon seems to be actively trying to destabilize the market for their gear and alienate all of their customers.

The specific issue I am talking about are the huge price cuts and markups on their older and newer bodies.

Let's talk the last 3 months because this is the most relevant time frame.

3 months ago, buying a new 5D Mark III for $3400 was a bargain, and buying a new 5D Mark II for $2050 was a bargain, and buying a T4i for $750 was a bargain. So I got my 5DIII & 5D II (but waited on the t4i)

How much are these cameras worth 3 months later? $2500, $1300, & $480, and I picked up a new T4i for $480 today.

That's  $1920. Gone in 3 months. In depreciation. On $6000 of cameras.

Let's compare Nikon on the other hand. 3 months ago, the D800 new for $2800 was a bargain, now it's a bargain for $2450. With the Nikon D700, 3 months ago it went for $1650, now it's $1550, the D7000 went for $860, 3 months ago and now it's $780.

That's only $520 in depreciation. Which is nearly 4 times less than $1920.


This means I could theoretically own nearly 12 Nikon bodies for what it costs to own 3 Canon ones with their new insane mark ups and mark downs.

Why is Canon seemingly actively screwing over it's buyers with insane price cuts, and equally insane introductory mark ups? The only reason I can come up with is that they want to lose customers and lose credibility.

Considering this insanity, I just don't feel comfortable buying any Canon gear any more. Based on this trend, the 24-70mm Mark II should hit $1600 by March, and then it's perfectly believable that when the 24-70mm f/4.0 IS Macro comes out, the 24-105mm which now sells for $750 will be sold for $520 within weeks or months from now. The 35mm f/2.0 IS which I was also interested in which goes for $849.99 now should go for $499 in March as well.

Canon may think themselves smart for playing pricing games, but they are trading brand loyalty and credibility for profit, which is not a sustainable strategy in the long run.

Lenses / What will determine if I buy the 35mm f/2 & the 24-70mm IS f4
« on: November 20, 2012, 03:30:07 PM »
Image quality. If they deliver stunning quality then they are a guaranteed purchase, if not then it's a no go.

So far I've been disappointed with the 24 & 28mm IS, while they have better quality than the lenses they replace by far, the way people say they have L image quality is misleading. They have the most entry level L quality and their L counterparts primes are much better.

The 24-70mm IS F4 looks to be a real winner though, it should have the highest IQ for any normal image stabilized zoom and the macro is a nice bonus.

Image quality is the single most important factor above all else for me. Does anyone else feel the same?

Canon is charging twice as much as both the last version and much more than Nikon charges for the 24-70mm II, and by all the data Canon has provided it is a lens that deserves the price tag because it is in a class of it's own in quality, at least in theory.

Unfortunately there have been many early tests that have been extremely dissapointing for the lens MTF wise.

- If you average all the tests that Bryan of did, the lens at equal aperture does not even perform better than the 24-105mm IS, which is less than 1/3rd the price.

- If you look at the test results, the lens they tested (which is obviously not an ideal copy) performs worse than Nikon's 24-70mm f/2.8, which is much cheaper. In fact it performs within as close as makes no difference (3%) as the Tamron 24-70mm VC on photozone, which is a lens that is half as expensive and has image stabilization.

With that said, after trying 5 copies of the 24-70mm f/2.8L Mark II Bryan from did find a lens that meets it's claims and smashes resolution figures and expecations. A lens worth the price tag. He is very very happy with it now.

What are everyone else's thoughts on the fact that you need to buy 5 copies to get one that meets the hype  Canon gave it and the quality a lens of this price would have one expect?

I noticed that both Canon and nikon do this and it's exclusive to their standard lenses. All the lens hoods are round and not petal shaped. Other manufacturers use petal hoods on their standard lenses so I'm guessing this is just a style choice.

I was wondering if there was any reason behind this choice or if it was just something they've done forever

Lenses / Most requested lenses for replacement?
« on: May 27, 2012, 06:42:25 AM »
I just thought I'd see what everyone wanted to see replaced most in Canon's lineup. Feel free to post your top requests for lenses that need replacement. I'll start:

Rank - Lens Name - What Needs Fixing

#1 - 50mm 1.2L - sharpness, CA (even at the the cost of aperture speed in my oppinion)
#2 - 50mm 1.4 - sharpness, Modern USM (Badly needs updating, Nikon's is far ahead)
#3 - 35mm 1.4 L - sharpness, CA (very badly needs updating, 14 year old design, Nikon's is much much better)
#4 - 135mm f/2.0 L - aperture, image stabilization (16 year old design, there are plenty of 135mm f/1.8 lenses around, would love to see f/1.8 + IS, like a mini 200mm f/2.0 IS)
#5 - 16-35mm f/2.8 II L - sharpness, CA - (it's a good lens but Nikon's 14-24mm gives it a run for it's money)

Feel free to list your own top 5

So I decided to do some brainstorming and figure out what my ideal set of gear would be which Canon could deliver in less than a year. I thought I'd post it and get some feedback.


Canon 3D

29.0 Megapixels


1/3rd stop better ISO than 5D3

Almost all butons able to be reassigned through custom functions (not just set button and a few others)

Built in Wi-Fi with remote live view and automatic file sync

Built in Canon wirless flash transmitter

Canon has the technology to go 1/3rd stop better with ISO and deliver up to 200 megapixels, as proven with the G1X pixels, the other stuff is a no brainer, come on Canon.



Note: Canon does not use APO designations, their big L lenses are APO though. Canon really neglects APO and needs to stop.

Canon 24mm TS-E II f/3.5 L (existing)

Nothing needs changing with this lens. Maybe a faster aperture.


Canon 24mm f/1.2 L USM

The old lens with the faster aperture it could make good use of.


Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 IS L USM

Tamron has shown Canon how to make this lens, now all they have to do is make a high quality version of the Tamron.


Canon 50mm f/1.4 L APO USM

Rodenstock Makes a 50mm APO lens that is 2 stops slower, it would be fairly simple to make the design larger.


Canon 85mm f/1.4 L APO USM

Leica has a fantastic 90mm APO lens, which has a very similar design to the 85mm 1.2L. It should be fairly easy to design such a lens.


Canon 135mm f/1.8 L APO USM IS

This would be an upgrade on the existing 135mm, Zeiss already has a great 135mm f/1.8 design so it's readily possible.


Canon 75-225mm f/2.0 L USM IS

Sigma proved you can make such a lens with the 50-150mm OS, all you'd have to do is scale their design up. Many EF-S lenses inspire or are based off of full frame lenses.


Hopefully Canon is listening.

EOS Bodies / Can anyone post production 5D Mk III raw files?
« on: March 21, 2012, 04:35:24 PM »
I've been playing around with a few pre-production raw files in ACR. As a professional photo retoucher this is my area of expertise. I realize that the latest version of ACR is in beta and pre-production bodies aren't a good representation, but at 100, 200, and 50 ISO I'm noticing some profoundly terrible results which are noticably worse than the 5D Mk. II.

It just looks like there is way too much noise at low iso, the images look like they were taken with a 5 year old point and shoot camera at base iso, not the latest pro body. Specifically, at iso 100 I'm finding images look like the 5D Mk II at iso 800. I've seen this in two pre-production bodies so far and am becoming very concerned about the 5D Mk. III image quality.

So if you guys could post your 5D Mark III low iso raws, I'd appreciate it, thanks!

Pages: [1] 2