November 27, 2014, 01:07:34 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 - grahamclarkphoto

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 7
1
Be interesting to see how they compare to Marumi filters?

Here's a few comparison charts that cover TIFFEN, HOYA and B+W to give you a frame of reference! :)






2
Reviews / Re: Canon 16-35 F4 Review vs. 17-40 Shootout
« on: September 29, 2014, 05:57:21 PM »
From the reviews i have seen i noticed that some people have really bad EF 17-40mm copies.

I think it was a guy named RLphoto from here who had a 17-40mm copy that showed corners so bad i first thought he uses a vignete blur. :)
No honest i have never seen such bad corners with any of my Canon glass.

I own a 16-35mm f2.8 and my brother has a 17-40mm f4.
The 17-40mm from my bother is much sharper in the corner than what i have seen from RLphoto.

So i thank you for this review. It seems your 17-40mm is closer to my brothers in terms of image quality.

The 16-35mm f4 seem to be a nice upgarde but not such a big step in terms of image quality.
Sure nice for pixel peeper but i guess you will hardly see a difference in prints.

Yes, I've heard this as well. My copy is pretty old, from 2007, and it's resolved tack sharp ever since, even with moisture entering into the lens enclosure.

I wish there was a way to determine which eras or batches are good and bad...

Graham

3
Lenses / Re: Shootout: EF 16-35 f/4L IS vs EF 17-40 f/4L
« on: September 29, 2014, 05:51:33 PM »

Graham - thanks for taking the time to do such a thorough review of the lens.  I have learned that doing reviews always opens you up to criticisms, but I notice from your KBID number that you have also learned the upside of doing them, too.  ;)  Keep up the good work.

Hey Dustin, thanks!

Looking at your review now, looks great.

What's a KBID number? :)

Graham

4
Lenses / Re: Shootout: EF 16-35 f/4L IS vs EF 17-40 f/4L
« on: September 29, 2014, 05:31:38 PM »
Thank you, I found the review very informative and useful. I have the 17-40mm and I appreciate your findings that it is still a solid performer. This means I can hold off of the 16-35mm f/4 and save for another lens or camera. I did not find your tshirt or intro distracting. You put a lot of time and effort in your video and that is appreciated.

Thanks for being constructive unlike some posters.

Thanks! I'm glad that you could find it useful. :)

Graham

5
Lenses / Re: Shootout: EF 16-35 f/4L IS vs EF 17-40 f/4L
« on: September 29, 2014, 05:30:30 PM »
He mentions needing thin UV filter preferably with double threading so lens caps stay on. But he doesn't recommend any.

Anyone know which brands/models work without adding to the vignette?

B+W MRC Nano works really well for me.

Graham..I liked the review, a great job.  I actually sold my 16-35mm f/2.8 II and bought the new offering. After owning in the past 17-40mm f4L, 10-22mm and 16-35 f2.8L II, I can also say this is the sharpest wide open from center to borders and also allow to share all my 77mm filters that I couldn't do it with my f2.8L II.
This is fast an accurate and I could get sharp pictures at 1/5 s without forcing too much.

Thanks! Glad you could find it useful.

Great to hear your thoughts on the 16-35 2.8!

Graham

6
Lenses / Re: Shootout: EF 16-35 f/4L IS vs EF 17-40 f/4L
« on: September 28, 2014, 02:34:01 PM »
I enjoyed the review.
Just wondering if you had the time to breath.. ::)  ....it goes so fast.  :)

My sentiments exactly. I would have enjoyed watching the video more if it was a few seconds longer and even slight pauses were in there to breathe. I get the impression that it was just put together in fragments and that wasn't taken into consideration. Nobody can physically talk like that non stop, so it can be uncomfortable to listen to at times.

Otherwise an excellent review.

95% of people have short attention spans and very little time in general, tried to make the video as short as possible. That was the thinking anyways.

Graham

7
Lenses / Re: Shootout: EF 16-35 f/4L IS vs EF 17-40 f/4L
« on: September 28, 2014, 02:32:46 PM »
Thanks for the review. You validate my purchase from my latest G.A.S. attack. LOL! (actually...I was able to purchase this lens & filter for what I sold my 16-35mm f/2.8 II & 82mm B+W filter for. So the new lens did not cost me anything. Canon did a nice job at keeping the price reasonable on the new lens).
I chose the  B+W 77mm XS-Pro CLEAR MRC-Nano 010M Filter...and I am not noticing any increased vignetting.

Thanks! Glad you could find it useful.

How do you find the sharpness between the 16-35 F4 and the 16-35 2.8?

Graham

8
Lenses / Re: Shootout: EF 16-35 f/4L IS vs EF 17-40 f/4L
« on: September 28, 2014, 02:30:19 PM »
Stopped watching after a few seconds. A photographer that uses a white background while wearing a white and blue t-shirt, and is himself very pale white. Weird. All far too bright, I would need sunglasses to watch that.

And not even a few seconds of intro to ease you into the video.

I will stick to TDP for my reviews as Bryan knows what he is doing.

Wasn't focusing on the t-shirt this time around, rather the lens

My comment had nothing to do with your choice of t-shirt. Seriously?! That's what you took from my comment. lol.

Choosing a bright white background like that is not wise. Plus you need a 2 or 3 second intro of something.

Very poor video, and I personally would not take any camera advice from someone that produces someone like that about a camera product.

Oh no... I'm heartbroken  ;D

Graham

9
Reviews / Re: Canon 16-35 F4 Review vs. 17-40 Shootout
« on: September 28, 2014, 05:21:46 AM »
It doesn't seems much bigger than the 17-40mm. A bit longer yes, but diameter, and overall impression is the same, just a bit longer. The lens hood seems more convenient than the 17-40mm petal hood. The reason i asked about the IS is that i'm not entirely sure about its effectiveness, so if anyone has any remarks about this it would be great to have some kind of reference point to compare with, but overall it's a significant improvement over the 17-40mm by far.

It's significantly heftier than the 17-40.

2-3 stops of real-world stabilization is what i'm seeing, so useful when not shooting with a tripod.

Graham

10
Reviews / Re: Canon 16-35 F4 Review vs. 17-40 Shootout
« on: September 28, 2014, 05:20:30 AM »
* Physically larger than 17-40
* Inclusion of IS makes it noticeably heavier than the 17-40

Thanks for the balanced impressions! I'd replace my 17-40L if I had the money lying around, but one question since you've been shooting with both alongside:

Does the 35-40mm range make a difference in real life? With my current 17-40L (on ff) I feel I can use it as a short standard lens ... barely, because 40mm is very short, but the distortion vs. the "normal" 50mm isn't that noticeable. I imagine the long end being just 35mm only makes the 16-35L usable as a dedicated (u)wa lens, or am I mistaken?

+1 for both points in favor of the old model, while of course outdated makes an amazingly light and small package when combined with a 6d. So if people on a budget get hold of a cheap 17-40L, imho it's still a good lens esp. stopped down to f8.

The 1mm on the low end has a significant difference on how wide it goes, but the 5mm, from my tests, doesn't make that much of a difference.

Graham

11
Reviews / Re: Canon 16-35 F4 Review vs. 17-40 Shootout
« on: September 28, 2014, 05:19:09 AM »
Quote
As a Nikon 14-24 and Canon 17-40 shooter I like that this lens has IS, but if there was a non-IS version I'd get that one. It has less CA than both the 14-24 and the 17-40, based on my copies. It's also sharper than both at the corners, but performs similar on center sharpness. Interestingly enough the 17-40 actually resolved sharper on center sharpness on some of my tests, but performed softer on corners on about 75% of the images. CA performance on the 16-35 F4 outpaces both of these lenses by a wide margin.

Why would you prefer the non-IS one?
I agree with your assessment about the CA and sharpness. Tt has significantly less CA than the 17-40mm and is very noticeably sharper in the corners. I haven't noticed it being less sharp in the center than the 17-40mm though. Also you mentioned you used this in the A7R, i suppose with the Metabones adapter. Would you mind to share your feedback on this? Does it work ok? IS works ok? AF?

I would prefer the non-IS one because I'm 95% with IS disabled, using it on a tripod beyond 3 seconds. So if no-IS mean't the weight would be closer to the 17-40 I think that would be best for 95% of the time.

A7R with the Metabones adapter - it works well, AF and lens data information functions as it would on a Canon, and AF speed is the same as a Canon on Live View - slow for fast moving subjects. I use AF and IS typically in conjunction with each other, so MF about 95% of the time on this lens.

Graham

12
Lenses / Re: Shootout: EF 16-35 f/4L IS vs EF 17-40 f/4L
« on: September 28, 2014, 05:01:57 AM »
He mentions needing thin UV filter preferably with double threading so lens caps stay on. But he doesn't recommend any.

Anyone know which brands/models work without adding to the vignette?

There's a few expensive options out there, but not too many out there right now. So I decided to design and manufacture my own, and they should be ready to ship by November 1st or so.



If you're looking for a good option to buy immediately I'd recommend this one:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/756191-REG/B_W_1066125_77mm_Ultraviolet_UV_MC.html/BI/19568/KBID/11943/kw/BWUVXSP77/DFF/d10-v2-t1-xBWUVXSP77

13
Lenses / Re: Shootout: EF 16-35 f/4L IS vs EF 17-40 f/4L
« on: September 28, 2014, 04:46:22 AM »
Stopped watching after a few seconds. A photographer that uses a white background while wearing a white and blue t-shirt, and is himself very pale white. Weird. All far too bright, I would need sunglasses to watch that.

And not even a few seconds of intro to ease you into the video.

I will stick to TDP for my reviews as Bryan knows what he is doing.

Wasn't focusing on the t-shirt this time around, rather the lens


14
Reviews / Re: Canon 16-35 F4 Review vs. 17-40 Shootout
« on: September 24, 2014, 07:44:05 PM »
How is the 16-35 f4 at f11 compared to the 17-40? That seems to be the sharpest aperture on the 17-40 and where I typically set the lens for my landscapes. I'm just wondering if there is much to gain by upgrading. Thanks.

At what focal length?

Graham

15
Reviews / Canon 16-35 F4 Review vs. 17-40 Shootout
« on: September 24, 2014, 06:35:23 PM »
Hey guys,

As an amateur landscape photographer I was excited to get my hands on one of the first copies of the 16-35 F4. I've been collecting image results ever since, and I recently wrote a Canon 16-35 F4 Review and uploaded 35.7GB of images captured with the 16-35 F4, mainly landscape and travel photographs, with quite a few optical performance tests side-by-side's with the 17-40.

1. Start by downloading this RAW file and applying Auto Tone in Lightroom (Command + U), zoom in 100%: https://app.box.com/shared/static/grhe17w7q5varoulpsln.arw  (35MB)
2. Click here to read the full review: http://www.grahamclarkphoto.com/canon-16-35mm-f4-review-hands-on-shootout-17-40/

As a Nikon 14-24 and Canon 17-40 shooter I like that this lens has IS, but if there was a non-IS version I'd get that one. It has less CA than both the 14-24 and the 17-40, based on my copies. It's also sharper than both at the corners, but performs similar on center sharpness. Interestingly enough the 17-40 actually resolved sharper on center sharpness on some of my tests, but performed softer on corners on about 75% of the images. CA performance on the 16-35 F4 outpaces both of these lenses by a wide margin.

A majority of the photographs I shot on the Sony A7R and my 5D3/6D. On the A7R the files are coming out incredibly clean and sharp. If Canon is ramping their lineup for high-resolution mirrorless sensors this lens proves they are ready for that future lineup today.

The Good
  • Critically sharp throughout the frame
  • Outstanding CA performance - best on any wide-angle zoom I've used
  • Great weather-sealing, same as other L-lenses I own
  • Great AF - again, same as my other USM lenses
  • 2 to 3-stops of real-world IS is useful, and I can see the usefulness for travel and landscape without a tripod - higher F-numbers and lower ISOs with IS than otherwise possible
  • Larger and smoother focusing ring than 17-40 - higher threshold for IN FOCUS and OUT OF FOCUS making it faster
  • I'm a complete amateur at video too, but in my video tests the IS performed very well, less jittery. Great for handing off to post-processing IS as found in FCPX and other apps
  • Uses 77mm thread size

The Bad
  • Physically larger than 17-40
  • Inclusion of IS makes it noticeably heavier than the 17-40
  • 1 to 2-stops of light falloff inherent without any UV filter at all. Filters with a frame thickness of 4mm or higher add 1-stop of light falloff, filters with 6mm+ add 2.
  • Lens hood extends beyond end of lens when on backwards, so can't use it on conjunction with GND holder like the 17-40. Small thing, but I liked doing this to protect the focusing ring from elements






Here's an image I wanted to share based on it's CA and sharpness performance:

Click here for the TIFF: https://app.box.com/shared/static/cl9z1d2h4flsyju22s9k.tif (206.9MB .TIFF)
Click here for the RAW: https://app.box.com/shared/static/44iyijt80o6nm72qkozt.arw (35.1MB .ARW)
Click here for the hi-res JPEG: https://app.box.com/shared/static/7ydhorubh7xe67kmp2b0.jpg

Olympic Sunset Sunset - 129s - F18 - ISO 100 - 24mm - Canon 16-35 F4 with A7R


There's very slight CA on the distant ridge lines, but it's consistently well controlled and is much less pronounced than my 14-24 and 17-40


Sharpness detail is excellent on this lens, similar to my 17-40 on center subjects, but with much less CA


Even on corners this thing performs very well, both in terms of sharpness and CA


If you guys have any questions about the lens let me know, I'll do my best to answer them!

Graham

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 7