October 25, 2014, 06:34:42 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 - neuroanatomist

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 973
Time has passed this lens by - it is two years to late.

The 150-600 zoom is the new kid on the block...

Indeed, and like much of America's youth, the 'new kids' are big and overweight.  The retracted 100-400L is the size of a 70-200/2.8, a very convenient size for a 400mm lens.  Considering the optical improvements going from original to MkII of the 70-200/2.8 IS, a new 100-400 should be excellent.  Mount a 1.4x TC behind it, you'll have a 140-560mm f/8 lens that will AF on recent higher-end bodies, deliver great IQ, and be a heck of a lot more portable than those "I'm not fat, I'm big-boned" new kids.  ;)

Is it DO?
Hopefully not!  8)

The new DO system supposedly has vast improvement over the old 70-300 attempt - and if it works, it means less weight and length for the same image quality. With a lens the size of a 100-400L, what's not to like about it?

What's not to like is "supposedly".  Also, there's not too much weight reduction, although the length decrease is nice.

Lenses / Re: Which white lenses are weather sealed?
« on: October 24, 2014, 03:16:15 PM »
I can see why this could snip can be misunderstood  - however I specifically indicated the lenses that require a front filter with: +needs front filter. As noted in the text. So only the four - as was indeed confirmed by Canon Japan HQ.

Sorry, I didn't realize that everything betweent the dividers (===) was a copy past from that old DPR post.  Clear now. 

Obviously, the 24-70mm f/2.8L II, 24-70 f/4L IS, are 16-35mm f/4L IS are non-white weather sealed lenses that have been launched since your DPR post, of which the last one requires a filter for sealing.

Oooo ooooh a CR2 rumor for the 100-400L MkII.  Where have I seen one of those before?  Oh, yes...it was way back in October, 2010

In the meantime, I've missed so many shots like this:


Lenses / Re: Which white lenses are weather sealed?
« on: October 24, 2014, 11:08:43 AM »
"The water and dust proof mechanism is explained in the below URL:

And remember: The seal at the lens mounts will only work with a select few professional Canon bodies. Canon 5Dii and below need not apply.

Thanks for the link!  The Google translation suggests that the bodies with some degree of sealing (which includes crop models down to the 50D, and all of the current/recent FF bodies including the 5DII and 6D) are  dust- drip-proof compatible, although the better sealing of the 1-series bodies is mentioned in a subsequent footnote.

But there's a obvious and likely important difference in the design of the mounts on the 1-series vs. most other 'sealed' bodies.  On most Canon bodies (e.g. the 5DIII shown below), the area immediately surrounding the lens mount is the same slightly textured surface as the rest of the body.  That textured surface may not be ideal for sealing against the rubber lens mount gasket.  The 1-series bodies have a smooth plastic ring surrounding the metal lens mount, and that may form a better seal with the lens gasket.  Interestingly, the new 7D Mark II has that same smooth plastic surface surrounding the lens mount as seen on the 1D X below.

Lenses / Re: Which white lenses are weather sealed?
« on: October 24, 2014, 10:50:37 AM »
I had a discussion in another thread where I claimed that Canon's non-white weather sealed L series lenses needed a front filter to be rain and dust sealed. These lenses are:

EF 14mm f/2.8L II USM
EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM +needs front filter
EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM +needs front filter
EF 17-40mm f/4L USM +needs front filter
EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM
EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM
EF 100mm f/2.8L IS USM Macro
EF 50mm 1.2L USM +needs front filter
EF 85mm 1.2L II USM
EF 24mm 1.4L II USM

Someone disagreed (someone always does)...
(I also noted this on the list above for a quick full reference)

Your parenthetical statement suggests that in your discussion on that other thread you were suggesting that the listed lenses need a front filter to complete the sealing.  If so, I'd certainly disagree with your list, if for no other reason than you were suggesting that the EF 14mm f/2.8L II needs a front filter...that lens cannot even take a front filter because of the bulbous front element. 

But it's pretty clear which lenses require a front filter to complete the sealing, even if some Canon reps aren't knowledgable about the issue.  Just check the instruction manual, if a filter is required the first page states that explicitly: "Since the front element of this lens moves when zooming <or focusing, depending on lens>, you need to attach a Canon PROTECT filter sold separately for adequate dust- and water-resistant performance. Without a filter, the lens is not dust or water resistant.  Trust Canon to not miss an opportunity to try and sell an accessory, even if their screw-in filters are mediocre quality glass OEM'd by someone else (used to be Tiffen, might still be).

So for these lenses you need a front filter for the lens to be fully rain and dust sealed (I also noted this on the list above for a quick full reference):
    EF16-35mm F2.8L USM
    EF16-35mm F2.8L II USM
    EF17-40mm F4L USM
    EF 50mm F1.2L USM

For the sake of completeness, the new EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM is weather sealed and requires a front filter to complete the sealing.

I really hope so, but I'd be lying if I did not admit that to me the front of the 50L and 85L II are such lookalikes that I almost wrote to Canon, Japan a third time...

Look harder.   ;)  What distinguishes the lenses which require a front filter for weather sealing is an inner barrel which moves but the movement is entirely behind the front of the outer barrel to which the filter is attached.  The ultrawide zooms (all three 16-35 lenses and the 17-40) all have an inner barrel which moves with zooming, the 50/1.2L has an inner barrel which moves with focusing, and in all cases, that inner barrel movement never extens out as far as the filter threads on the outer barrel.  The 85L II has an inner barrel which moves with focusing, but the filter attaches to the front of the inner barrel itself...and in any case, the 85L II is not a weather sealed lens (note the lack of a mount gasket). 

Anyone still doubting that 7D Mark ii has a "really new" sensor, and is not the same as 70D? ::) ???  ;D

I think there room for doubt.  It depends on how you define 'sensor' I suppose.  The 7DII and 70D may have identical CMOS pixel architecture, but a different microlens arrangement and different CFA, both contributing to increased light transmission, might account for some of the improved performance, and Digic6 might account for the rest.

According to these samples, I must say that it seems to me the best APS-C image currently. :o :)

OMG!! Canon actually did that. ::)  Must be some very angry haters out there now.

No, it's not the best.  Apparently the noise that's there is 'blotchy' and 'nasty'...

The haters can rest comfortably knowing that everyone else still makes better sensors than Canon because of that particular characteristic.  As expected, biases are easier to believe than evidence.

so i think you are overstating things here a fair bit
No change there, then...

It's like a song with a familiar refrain, you listen the first few times, then try to tune it out.

That the 7D Mk II gets within a stop of the FF cameras is damn' impressive.

The size difference means a ~1.3-stop predicted difference assuming equivalent sensor technology. 

Lenses / Re: Which white lenses are weather sealed?
« on: October 24, 2014, 08:04:22 AM »
There was a product about a year ago (Kickstarter IIRC, don't know if it's actually available) called Dust Donut, basically a rubber gasket sized for the EF lens mount.  IMO, they promoted it with egregious deception, promising that it would 'add weather sealing to any non-sealed lens' (they demoed it on a 17-55, IIRC).  However, a product like that actually makes sense for the partially-sealed white lenses listed above. 

Lenses / Re: Which white lenses are weather sealed?
« on: October 24, 2014, 07:42:14 AM »
I promised a link earlier, and here it is:

According to Daniel G's site, the listed info has not seen any update since Sept 2012, so take it for what it is.

He needs to * the 50/1.2L, as that lens also requires a front filter to complete the sealing (like the UWA zooms).

Lenses / Re: why there are no new L primes
« on: October 24, 2014, 07:36:54 AM »
The 50L and 85L II are from 2006, so they're pretty 'young' as far as lens designs go.  The 35L is due for an update, IMO. 

Sharpness is not the 50/1.2L's forte.  Canon intentionally traded some sharpness for superior bokeh in the design of the lens. 

As for 'no new L primes', there were four launched just 2-3 years ago.  Rather big and expensive ones with white paint, but they still qualify as pretty new L primes.

Lenses / Re: Which white lenses are weather sealed?
« on: October 24, 2014, 06:41:03 AM »
The 300/4L IS and 400/5.6L are partially sealed. 

According to Chuck Westfall:

Pre-1999 white EF lenses such as the 200/1.8L, 300/2.8L, 300/4L, 300/4L IS, 400/2.8L, 400/5.6L, 500/4.5L, 600/4L, 35-350/3.5-5.6L, 70-200/2.8L, and 100-400/4.5-5.6L all lack mount gaskets but have moderate dust and moisture resistance for their switches, focusing rings and zoom rings where applicable.

The ones in bold above are 'current' lenses.  All other current white lenses have a mount gasket and are sealed, with the exception of the 70-200/4L (non-IS) – that lens is from 1999, therefore not a 'pre-1999 lens, has no gasket, and I'm not sure if it's partially sealed or not.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: How to differentiate crop vs. FF
« on: October 23, 2014, 06:20:35 PM »
I don't agree with this "amount of light" argument. Consider a full frame sensor and an APS-C size sensor with pixels the same size as a full frame taking photos with the same lens at the same f-stop and the same distance from the subject. The signal to noise ratio for each pixel in the APS-C sensor will be the same as the S:N ratio as the corresponding pixels in an APS-C sized area of the ff.

True, but the 2.56x greater area of the FF sensor will gather more total light.  Comparing noise at the pixel level isn't the same as comparing noise at the image level.

You lost me on the image level noise, Neuro. It seems that an APS-C sized crop of the FF image and the APS-C image in this case would be identical. The number of photons hitting each pixel is the same and assuming the downstream operations are identical, what's the difference?

As PBD noted, you left out the 'crop the FF to APS-C FoV' bit out...

The highlighted part is where I tried to cover the 'crop the FF to APS-C FoV' bit

In that case, my mistake!  Thanks for clarifying...

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: ISO 160 vs. 100
« on: October 23, 2014, 04:52:02 PM »
While I have a bit of difficulty of understanding all of the kind answers here (technological ineptitude), I am to understand (Neuro) that on my 1Dx Iso 100 is the optimal setting?! And I guess that the charts used here are based on empirical evidence, hence it would be impossible to say beforehand what the correct value for the 7DII would be, except than low?

On the 1D X there's really not much difference at any ISO from 100 - 400.  No way to know for sure about the 7DII, but I'd guess it'll be more like the 5DIII/7D.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 973