November 27, 2014, 11:23:42 PM

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 - Loren E

Pages: [1] 2
1
Lenses / Re: Would you buy a hypothetical 85mm f/1.4L portrait lens if...
« on: September 29, 2014, 12:26:51 AM »

I'm holding out for the 85mm f/1.0 L, myself.  More light, not less.  IMO, the notion that sensor improvements negate the value of fast lenses is just silly.  Sensor improvements make fast lenses more capable.  :)

Yes.  I want to be able use my aperture as much for creative decisions as just technical(exposure).  It's baffled me for years hearing the excuse thrown around from manufactures and other photographers alike that we no longer need fast glass because cameras are now capable of ISO speeds in the realm of science fiction when all you had was film or even just 5-10 years ago with digital.  Hell, because we have cameras that can shoot in the 100K+ and 200k+ ISO realms, should manufactures just start making all lenses starting at f/8?  8)

Depends, as there are two sides in this. There will always be a need for lenses with large apertures in certain focal lengths for the depth of field effect. However, at the other end, both high-ISO sensors and IS has negated the need for large aperture lenses for pure low-light photography. This means that an 85mm f/1.4 lens makes sense, because the aperture is used for DoF effect (29cm @ 5m); however, a 24mm f/1.4 lens makes absolutely no sense as such a focal length has already way too much DoF for it to be of any artistic value (423cm @ 5m), hence the huge aperture was purely for "available light" - which is not necessary anymore now with 4-stop IS and ISO12800 sensors being "standard".

this is just wrong.

1) IS has no affect on subject motion blur, where F1.4 provides a hell of a faster shutter speed for freezing motion than F2.8 for example (1/50th of a second vs 1/200th).

2) obviously low light photography has been benefitted by new sensors, but that certainly doesn't mean that new sensors negate the benefit of fast glass for low light shooting. I would MUCH rather shoot at F1.4 at night at ISO 1600 than F2.8 at ISO 6400. 1600 is a hell of a lot cleaner than 6400 even if today's 6400 wasn't possible in the days of older sensors.

3) Also ridiculous to say that a 24mm F1.4 doesn't provide shallow enough depth of field for a really pleasing effect when used well. If your subject is close to the lens and the background is a ways back, F1.4 at 24mm can provide great out of focus backgrounds, that are much more melted away and less distracting than shooting at F2.8.

In short, the above post is just perpetuating misinformation! I hope inexperienced photogs aren't mislead by it.

2
Lenses / Re: Would you buy a hypothetical 85mm f/1.4L portrait lens if...
« on: September 17, 2014, 04:42:11 PM »
I would LOVE an 85L F1.4 with faster focusing, no sketchy rear element, no focus-by-wire, and with 77mm filter threads. Would be really sweet if it could take a 1.4 teleconverter though that might not be possible. No need for IS on this.

3
Lenses / Re: What would a 16mm or 18mm F2 FF lens look like?
« on: July 23, 2014, 01:39:12 AM »
FYI:
http://www.thephoblographer.com/2013/10/12/the-top-five-most-extreme-wide-angle-lenses-ever-built/

2.8 is fast enough for UWA - no point having a f/1.4 with tons of CA, coma effect and others, that would only be mild to tolerable above f/4..... sharp f3.5 with high iso is better than f2.0 images a lower iso I suppose.
I really don't  know - maybe it's design/optical law restriction., and only can imagine either with huge front element (>95mm)

Certainly an F1.4 wide angle would not be feasible with cost to produce and front element size, but an F2 16mm for example would be the same focal length as the 16-35 F2.8 version 1 at it's widest, not have all the glass associated with a zoom, and just 1 stop faster...seeing as the 16-35 F2.8 version 1 has a 77mm filter size, I wouldn't think that while losing the zooming but making it a stop faster, we would then be talking about a front element greater than 95mm. I don't know the calculations involved for knowing exactly so this is just based on what makes sense to me.

Perhaps I did not elaborate as to what I meant by a good lens.  Check out the price of a Zeiss 15mm lens, its not f/2, but it costs $5,000.  Wide angle lenses are very difficult to build, and that extra stop comes at a huge price.  I use a Canon 135mm f/2 for concerts and theater, I do carry my 16-35L, but its far too wide for almost of my stuff.  I don't do astronomy, but wouldn't coma be a issue on a lens at f/2?

You can't base Canon lens prices on Zeiss lens prices. When does a Canon lens ever cost what it's Zeiss counterpart does? Canon's L 50 F1.2 costs $1,620 and the Zeiss 55 F1.4 otus costs $4,000. Yeah an extra stop is gonna cost more, but you have to be kidding to suggest that a 16mm or 18mm F2 L lens would cost $5,000. It's a Canon and not a Zeiss.
 The 24 F1.4L is a super fast wide angle specialty lens and there is not a $3,000 surplus for the extra 2 stops compared to an F2.8.

I guess you don't get to shoot very close to the stage - when I shoot concerts I am either at the base of the stage or on the stage, and often use a fisheye lens at shows so the wider the better for some shots. With an F2.8 fisheye I struggle with shutter speeds though...F2.8 doesn't do it for dimly lit shows where I can't use flash even with an ultra wide angle. F2 would make a big difference (I've been a lot happier with F1.8 lenses, though even then I have to go to ISO 12,800. Thank god for the 5DmkIII. Point is every stop counts.


4
Lenses / Re: What would a 16mm or 18mm F2 FF lens look like?
« on: July 22, 2014, 04:13:26 PM »
FYI:
http://www.thephoblographer.com/2013/10/12/the-top-five-most-extreme-wide-angle-lenses-ever-built/

2.8 is fast enough for UWA - no point having a f/1.4 with tons of CA, coma effect and others, that would only be mild to tolerable above f/4..... sharp f3.5 with high iso is better than f2.0 images a lower iso I suppose.
I really don't  know - maybe it's design/optical law restriction., and only can imagine either with huge front element (>95mm)

Certainly an F1.4 wide angle would not be feasible with cost to produce and front element size, but an F2 16mm for example would be the same focal length as the 16-35 F2.8 version 1 at it's widest, not have all the glass associated with a zoom, and just 1 stop faster...seeing as the 16-35 F2.8 version 1 has a 77mm filter size, I wouldn't think that while losing the zooming but making it a stop faster, we would then be talking about a front element greater than 95mm. I don't know the calculations involved for knowing exactly so this is just based on what makes sense to me.

5
Lenses / Re: What would a 16mm or 18mm F2 FF lens look like?
« on: July 22, 2014, 04:09:20 PM »
At the cost for a good lens, the market would be small.  Since most (not all) wide lens usage is for landscapes, where f/16 is often used, it would be a waste.  For real estate interiors, auto interiors, or in tight quarters, it might work, but having proper lighting would be better and cheaper than paying $5,000 for a lens, and then not having the depth of field needed for interior photos.

What kind of use would you have for it?  A wide angle like that is not suitable for portraits.

Concerts, night skies, photojournalism (poor light is common), all would be super suited to an F2 wide angle prime. For a lot of these examples, a flash is often not an option and you're stuck with what you got for light (+ shallow DOF is not a problem). It certainly wouldn't cost $5,000 either - that is a bit ridiculous of an exaggeration.

6
Lenses / What would a 16mm or 18mm F2 FF lens look like?
« on: July 22, 2014, 02:55:21 PM »
Wider than the Canon 24 F1.4L, there are no lenses in the lineup faster than F2.8. Do others think there would be a market for a 16mm F2L or 18mm F2L prime lens? It would be a stop faster than a 16-35/2.8 which would be awesome for indoors shooting, night sky photography, photojournalism, etc. Would a lens as wide as 16 or 18mm at F2 be able to retain a 72mm or 77mm filter size?

7
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 7D Replacement Mentioned Again [CR1]
« on: May 15, 2014, 12:57:00 PM »

Better AF, yes, maybe mixing dual pixel from the 70D with the 61 point setup from the 5DIII would be nice.
Same or lower price than the 5D III.


Nikon folk are lucky to have a crop camera with F8 autofocus in the D7100 - Canon really needs one!

8
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 7D Replacement Mentioned Again [CR1]
« on: May 12, 2014, 05:15:38 PM »
if it has the Same AF as the 5Dmk3 I will probably get one to use with the tamron 150-600, hopefully the body and ergonomics will be essentially the same as the 5Dmk3 and also please please use the same battery as the 5Dmk3

sigma 50mm 1.4 on the 5Dmk3 tamron 150-600 on the 7Dmk2 and the 11-22EF-M on the EOS-M and i might never have to change lenses again :P.... (that was sort of a joke for anyone thinking of giving me a lecture)

I just want the 7DII to be a 5DmkIII with an APS-C sensor that trades high ISO and dynamic range full frame glory for a nice FPS boost. (Of course high ISO and DR would hopefully be significantly improved over the current 7D but obviously won't come close to FF standards.) I doubt Canon is going to give me this 22mp-ish APS-C workhorse though.

9
Lenses / Will Sigma 50/1.4 Art push Canon to release a 50/1.2L II?
« on: April 21, 2014, 02:17:55 AM »
The Canon 50mm F1.2L certainly can produce a beautiful photo, and has wonderful bokeh, but there are still many complaints that users have regarding softness wide open, focus shift, and major AF shortcomings. This lens was released 8 years ago. Do folks think that Sigma's production of their 50 F1.4 art will put pressure on Canon to release a higher-performing 50 F1.2L II to outcompete it? If the Sigma ends up performing as well as anticipated, at its price I would think many 50L users might jump ship. Curious to hear folks' thoughts on this...

10
Lenses / Re: New Wide Angles Lenses in 2013 [CR2]
« on: February 14, 2014, 12:41:00 PM »
A weather-sealed 16-50mm f/4 IS sounds wonderful.  As does the 14-24mm f/2.8 - but what'll she cost? $3K?
As a 16-35mm f/2.8 L III ...

with 77mm filter threads and IS please...

11
Lenses / Re: Why no 400mm f/4L IS exists?
« on: February 11, 2014, 10:15:40 AM »
Hi Loren, glad you are enjoying the 400 DO!!...join the (small??) club!!

I use a mk3 2x as I also have a mk2 300 2.8, and I'm using a 1Dx which I think (although it's a bit subjective) improves the keeper rate over my previous 1 Ds3....although..oops..just seen you have a 5D3..

My photography is mostly wildlife, mammals, so I'm not doing birds in flight generally therefore perhaps not pushing the combo as much as others as my subjects tend to be slower moving, however almost all shots are sharp as a tack.

I'd go for the mk3 anyway, as firstly, it's future proof, and secondly, I think it's sharper than the mk2.

Best of luck!!

George.

Thanks for reporting back George on what you're using, much appreciated!

12
Lenses / Re: Why no 400mm f/4L IS exists?
« on: February 11, 2014, 02:00:07 AM »
I'd take issue with anyone who says the 400 DO isn't as sharp as other more recent lenses.
I use one with a 1DX and 1.4 and 2X TC and have some really excellent results...the only thing I'd say is it needs a wee tweak in PP on the contrast front.....and it can be picked up very reasonably second hand.

George.

Hey George, I am loving my 400 DO with 1.4 TCII. I want to get a 2x TC to use with it on my 5DmkIII. Which version of the 2x TC are you using? I am hoping I can get good results with the version II since this lens won't benefit from the chip in the version III anyways. Best -L

13
Lenses / Re: Sigma 16-20mm f/2 Coming?
« on: December 19, 2013, 06:57:37 PM »
The last three Sigma rumors I read about have been for this 16-20 F2, a 24-70 F2 OS, and a 135 F2 OS. How sweet of a trio would those three lenses make!

For a while I tried covering my focal ranges with F2.8 zooms but found that F2.8 is just too far from F1.4 for some of my low light and portrait work, yet it is hard to justify owning F2.8 zooms in addition to fast primes that overlap the focal length like the 24 F1.4L, 50 F1.2L, and 85 F1.2L. I ended up going with the fast F1.x primes for low light and f4 zooms for travel. F2 zooms however might make me really reconsider having those primes and instead sell the fast primes and F4 zooms and just simplify down to two F2 zooms. I like that idea a lot. Sure F2 zooms would be big and heavy but I'd have half as many lenses and switch them half as often. I love the idea of a 16-20 F2 on the 5d mkIII and 24-70 F2 on the 7D, with the 135 F2 in the bag for when longer reach or shallower DOF are needed. I'd be all on board with some F2 zooms and wouldn't mind the short 16-20 focal length if IQ was good! OS would be sweet as well - I enjoyed it on the nikon 16-35 when I didn't have a tripod and needed to stop down!

14
EOS Bodies / Re: Dual-pixel AF and ISO performance?
« on: November 30, 2013, 02:47:58 PM »
You said "The Dual pixel does not hinder AF performance" and then said "Let me repeat it, Dual Pixel does not hinder the ISO"....did my confusion arise because you meant to say ISO performance instead of AF performance in your first post?

And hasn't the Nikon D7100 been tested to be close to 2 stops better at high ISO than the 7d? I didn't do any side by side comparisons but definitely felt like my level of satisfaction with ISO 6400 on the D7100 was similar to that felt with ISO 1600 on the 7D...at least in terms of where I felt I wanted to cap my high ISO usage for the respective bodies....maybe to be fair 1600 on the 7D is more like 4000 on the D7100 than 6400.

There is perceptually better and actually better. There is most definitely a psychological component to thinking that the D7100 is "two stops" better at high ISO. From a technical standpoint, it probably isn't possible to actually get truly two stops better, since stops are a power of two, and ISO performance is dependent upon Q.E. and pixel area. The 7D has larger pixels (4.16µm vs. 3.91µm), which is it's benefit, where as the D7100 has more Q.E. (but certainly not enough to literally be two stops better.) The D7100 has 11% better Q.E. than the 7D (52% vs. 41%). In terms of pixel area, the 7D pixels are 13% larger. Technologically, the D7100 has a better sensor with a better architecture, which also probably gives it an edge when it comes to high ISO (primarily, it has a higher SNR, which means that at every ISO, it has a larger usable signal). Overall, from a literal, physical, technical standpoint, the difference between these two sensors is fairly small, and while the D7100, thanks to its excellent SNR, does better, it isn't anywhere close to two stops (i.e. the 7D at ISO 6400 has a saturation point of 536 vs. the D7100 at ISO 6400 which has a saturation point of 541...almost negligible.)

To truly have a full two stops better noise performance, where the amount of noise at ISO 6400 is the same as the amount of noise at ISO 1600, you either need to reduce megapixel count by a factor of two (pixels that are four times greater area...i.e. a pixel pitch of 7.82µm)...or you need to increase quantum efficiency by two orders of magnitude. The 7D has a Q.E. of 41%. Twice the efficiency is 82%. Twice that is 164%. Well, it's impossible to gather more photons than exist, so you can't have more than 100% Q.E. (and achieving that usually requires rather bulky cooling equipment that would render such a camera immobile.)

From a perceptual standpoint...softer detail appears to suffer more from noise. The 7D has an AA filter, where as the D7100 does not. The D7100 is going to have much sharper detail due to having more acutance. THIS is its true strong point when it comes to ISO performance, and probably the key reason why it "feels" as though it has less noise. Detail is sharper with the D7100, so noise doesn't appear to be as prevalent, even though it is roughly the same as the 7D. There is a tradeoff for this...more aliasing and moire. General aliasing can be delt with to a degree with downsampling, moire can be very difficult to deal with (there are some tools, however most simply reduce color moire and mitigate monochrome moire, but none can actually eliminate it.)

If you don't shoot subjects that have repeating patterns or clean edges that might result in aliasing, then the D7100 is certainly an amazing camera, and its sharper detail will certainly result in perceptually less noise.

The 70D is still using the same general sensor design and architecture as the 7D, so it is doubtful much of its weaknesses have been resolved. I get the feeling that the 70D is sharper, which will go a long way to mitigating how noisy it "feels". It has a larger signal, however again thanks to Canon's read-noisy archaic sensor+ADC architecture, it still isn't as good as the D7100 (26726e- vs. 29236e- FWC.) The 70D also still uses an AA filter, which is going to soften detail around nyquist...and while that eliminates (or greatly reduces) aliasing, the lower acutance will still make it "feel" as though it is noisier...dual pixel architecture or not.

Really informative post, very interesting about the affect of an AA filter on noise perception. I wonder if Canon will begin going the Nikon route and moving AA filters.

15
Lenses / Re: IS Versions of the 50mm, 85mm & 135mm Coming? [CR1]
« on: November 29, 2013, 06:32:17 PM »
135mm F1.8L IS please! I'll take one along with a 16-50m F4L IS and a 7D mk II :)

Pages: [1] 2