March 03, 2015, 03:43:20 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 - ahsanford

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 73
Lenses / Re: Next L Lens From Canon Will be a Prime [CR2]
« on: Today at 02:10:28 PM »
As this is not a 50mm IS refresh rumor (which will undoubtedly not be an L lens), if there was a new L lens on offer, I'd guess the one most in need of a refresh would be:

35mm   f/1.4L - 17 years old
135mm f/2L - 19 years old

Those aren't the oldest L primes, but they are a strong combination of old and in high demand.  My money would be on one of those.

- A

Is the 135mm in need of an update? I haven't heard anything put praise for that lens.

Crudely, there are three camps with the 135L:

  • The lens is stellar and does not need modifying.
  • The glass is fine but IS would be a great add.
  • Sony has a 135 f/1.8 and we don't.  Also: Waaaaaah.  (My rebuttal?  Our autofocus works.)

And deep down, as legendary as lenses like the 135L and 200 F/2L IS have been, old is old:  there's always room to improve resolution for higher resolving sensors, reduce flare, reduce distortion, reduce chromatic aberration, reduce weight, improve weathersealing, offer or improve the IS, etc.

The bigger question is whether those improvements are worth putting off my future non-L 50mm f/nooneknows IS USM.  And the answer is no.  Gimme my 50, dammit.

- A

Lenses / Re: Next L Lens From Canon Will be a Prime [CR2]
« on: Today at 01:28:22 PM »
As this is not a 50mm IS refresh rumor (which will undoubtedly not be an L lens), if there was a new L lens on offer, I'd guess the one most in need of a refresh would be:

35mm   f/1.4L - 17 years old
135mm f/2L - 19 years old

Those aren't the oldest L primes, but they are a strong combination of old and in high demand.  My money would be on one of those.

- A

Lenses / Re: Next L Lens From Canon Will be a Prime [CR2]
« on: Today at 12:34:49 PM »
35L II picture captured while in field testing:

Lenses / Re: Canon ef-s 17-55mm 2.8 is usm GONE
« on: Today at 10:45:11 AM »

To maximize the AF performance of the 7D2 for sports, a short fixed f2.8 lens is a must.

Agree.  Crop shooters are stuck with a 16-35 f/2.8L II or third party zooms to get an f/2.8 lens wide enough to be considered a 'standard' zoom.

I'll go a step further.  The 7D2 is not a toy.  Many of its owners see crop as a strength and not a weakness for what they shoot (i.e. stuff that is further away) and have cabinets full of high-end glass.  Yet for closer FLs, they are stuck with UWA L zooms as their best standard zoom option.

How about one -- just one -- great L lens for crop? 

17-55 in crop is 27-88mm in FF which many would agree is not wide enough for many folks' walkaround needs.   How about an EF-S 15-55 f/2.8L IS USM?  Make it awesome.  Be overpricey Canon and charge $1,200-1,500 for it.  Birders and sports guys who love that their 7D2 obviates the need for that 600mm supertele would gladly get in line to buy such a lens -- if they haven't bought the Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 already.

- A

Lenses / Re: Canon ef-s 17-55mm 2.8 is usm GONE
« on: March 02, 2015, 10:19:59 PM »
I expect a decent update for 17-55mm F2.8. It could be a STM version launch price below $800, and not sucking dust inside.

Huge opportunity to make an L lens (or for FF purists, L lens quality) in the EF-S mount.  This was the crop luxury lens when it came out, and I think 7D2 users would prefer an EF-S native sized 17-55 F/2.8 USM IS II over slapping an ultrawide EF mount L zoom on and calling it a 'standard zoom' after the crop factor.

But make it STM and it's absolutely dead on arrival for me.  I don't shoot video, so STM is simply a cheaper and slower way to autofocus, and moving from USM to STM would be a downgrade as a result.

- A

Like others here I am really awaiting Roger Cicala's first review of the new 16-35/4 IS. I personally never really understood why someone needs such a fast f/2.8 ultra wide angle lens, besides some event photographers shooting in dark environments using ambient light. Typical UWA applications are landscapes and cityscapes, am I right? f/2.8 would produce a much too short depth of field for such a purpose (maybe there are a few exceptions) - so mostly the big block of optical glass is not really used. I have e.g. a Zeiss 18/3.5 - and I never go below f/5.6 with that lens. Btw I use this Zeiss sometimes for street photography, because it can produce funny results, but again never completely wide open.

You can see in Roger's review that those big lenses needed for making such UWA zooms create a lot of optical problems, and no lensmaker so far can control this completely. For landscape and cityscape you need a lens that is really tack sharp right from the middle to the edges at medium and far distances. That's crucial, as many of you here in this forum certainly know. So I think it is quite logical that a less fast UWA zoom with a modern optical design should deliver overall superior results, because it is simpler to make it.

He actually already reviewed the 16-35 f4 - it about 6 months ago

One more time on the 16-35 f/4L IS:

- A

I am a landscape shooter too. What you say is true but it depends on the composition, of course, and the focal length, but many landscape compositions simulate flat wall test targets in the form of infinity across the frame. Many of my shots are like this, shooting from a ledge, at a Grand Vista. With a 24-70 II, I have found no need to stop down past f5.6 for these kinds of compositions and get plenty sharp corners and edges. Lots of landscape photogs can't even picture what I am describing because they always put a close foreground object in the composition that requires stopping down. :)

Of course -- if there's nothing in the background and you are tackling a far off vista, you choose the sharpest aperture.  I'm trying to get out of tourist / vista shooting (which can be marvelous, I certainly won't knock it) as it often mutes the sense of scale.  Rules are silly, but foreground elements can greatly strengthen landscape compositions.  Those shots need a large working DOF or focus stacking to pull off. 

And as I'm often not on a tripod when I come across these moments, I'm stuck stopping down past f/11 and trial-of-erroring to get everything basically in focus with the DOF preview button.  For those kind of shots, being slightly soft due to diffraction is far preferable to being blurred out of the working DOF, but others may think differently.

- A

Also I would like to see tests at F8, F11 and F16.

Tests at these apertures introduce diffraction. Bad for pixel peeping.

I'm pretty sure that was a landscaper question. :P   They don't always have the luxury to shoot at the sharpest aperture.

I'm assuming that not many people are cherry-picking the absolutely sharpest aperture and focus-stacking with their landscapes.  Like HDR work, some folks lack the patience, tripod, or windless day to attempt compositing a multiple exposure landscape, so F/8 - F/11 are still very useful apertures for those folks.

- A

Lenses / Re: 16-35 f4 IS Lens hood question.
« on: February 24, 2015, 03:09:41 PM »
I can't explain it, either, but the new 24-70 f/2.8 II and 16-35 f/4 IS hoods sure are a pleasure to use compared to their predecessors.  The 24-70 f/2.8 hood was actually kind of cool, but the 16-35 f/2.8 II hood was a beast and I hated it.

Agree on all counts, Mackguyver.  The EF-S 10-22mm hood was similarly a really pain to pack in my bag.  Large diameter items suck to pack in a satchel with inserts for 77/82mm lenses.

- A

Why wasn't the new Canon 16-35 f4 tested instead of the older 16-35 f2.8 ?

Because he's already done that test:

You can back out the 16-35 f/2.8L II vs. the 16-35 f/4L IS from the link above to compare it to the Tamron.

- A

Lenses / Re: 16-35 f4 IS Lens hood question.
« on: February 24, 2015, 02:52:01 PM »
But this comparison might imply something other than the 24-70 reason is going on:

I have noticed that the 16-35 F/4L IS does wonderfully well at wide angles with my Lee 100mm 4x6/4x4 filter setup.  It allows a wider FOV before the filtering hardware occludes the corners (i.e. vignettes) than what others have reported on other similar FL lens.  As the lens is not a radically different diameter up front than the other UWA lenses, the conclusion you draw from that is Canon must have (wisely) brought the filter ring as close to the front element as they could with the 16-35 F/4L IS.  That might explain why the hood is of a smaller form factor, but it's only speculation on my part.

(Again, paging an UWA lover / hood junky to answer this one.)

- A

Lenses / Re: 16-35 f4 IS Lens hood question.
« on: February 24, 2015, 02:45:37 PM »
I'm not a hood expert, Viggo, but Canon has trended towards simplifying some hoods to only optimally block sunlight only at the widest FL of a zoom.  That allows them to make a smaller hood.

A good example of this is the 24-70 f/2.8L (original version) vs. I believe every 24-whatever L zoom that has come since.  Taken from TDP:

"The 24-70 L II is nicer to use with the much smaller Canon EW-88C Lens Hood (included) in place and it stores more compactly. The lens is also much easier to grasp with the hood in reversed position. The downside is that the 24-70 L II's hood only properly shades the front element at 24mm. A much larger hood is needed to shade this lens at 70mm."

Compare and contrast -- new version on top, old FL on bottom:

(in fairness, the original version extended out in the opposite of the zoom direction, so 24mm is oddly the longest form of that lens.)

So if the internally zooming / non-housing extending UWA lenses are similar, it would appear to be a classic tradeoff -- smaller is better for packing, allows more access to the lens' features when reversed, and is more likely to come along in your bag as a result.  The downside?  May not block the sun so much.  :o

(I'm waiting for a proper hood / FOV scholar to answer your question, though.  The 24-70 original version I referenced is -- admittedly -- and odd duck to use to answer your UWA zoom question.)

- A

Also I would like to see tests at F8, F11 and F16.

Me, too.  I wouldn't hold your breath on getting data on the narrower apertures.  Roger is a great resource, but he usually reports wide open data and one stop down to allow an f/2.8 lens to be compared to an f/4 lens.

There are sooooo many test-loving enthusiasts out there that if he went all Photozone / LensTip / DXO on lenses (obviously, with his rig, his metrics and his comments) -- he could charge a Consumer Reports-like few bucks a month and he'd pay off his rig in no time.

But, that's not Roger.  He posts these things out of a fickle curiosity and personal interest, and whatever we get from him I'm glad to read.

- A

Lenses / Re: Review: Tamron 15-30mm f/2.8 Di VC USD
« on: February 24, 2015, 01:34:26 PM »
Nice work, Dustin.  Appreciated!

The more I see of this lens, I see that it might be fine but it's not for me.

Personally, I...

  • ...applaud the application of IS here.  I often shoot static things handheld in low light, and even in UWA FLs, IS is gold for keeping the ISO reasonable.
  • ...question the need for the weight of f/2.8 (nearly twice the weight of the 16-35 F/4L IS!), but I understand that it is vital in some applications.
  • ...utterly shake my head at clawing out that one more mm on the wide end. Going to 15mm pushed this lens from being conveniently front-filterable to having that train wreck of a bulbous front end.  For ultra-ultra-wide work, I understand why you need the front element like that, but surely, this lens is more attractive to more photographers if you can screw things on easily.  So I am shocked they threw that opportunity away for a 1mm wider FOV.  This isn't the Nikon 14-24, so don't expect a high-quality Lee filter mount for this lens, so you'd be limited to third party iffyness and the possibility of being locked out of the huge 4x6/4x4 filter ecosystem. That single decision, IMHO, makes this lens a lot less attractive for landscape work compared to other options.

So, put those three things together, and you have a nice event / video / astro lens (though I'm sure some astro folks would prefer an f/1.4 prime even if they can't get one as wide as this Tamron). 

But despite the nice shots Dustin has reeled in, landscapers (who strongly value front-filtering and rarely need f/2.8 ) and hiking photogs (weight is king) have far, far better options in an UWA zoom. 

- A

EOS-M / Re: Canon EOS M3 Specifications
« on: February 05, 2015, 04:51:45 PM »
also removing the DPAF wiring, extra switch and walls to split the PD in half, etc - makes sense would allow canon to increase the Mp to 24 from 20 without a loss of QE.  the lower market seems to be MP driven so this isn't a bad idea from canon's perspective either.

This all but guarantees that Rebels will climb up to 24 MP as well, correct?

- A

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 73