« on: January 19, 2013, 10:12:25 AM »
hate to say it, but maybe the 14-24 will be a F/4 instead of 2.8.I'm guessing a high quality f/4 version would be more attractive generally. Lower price, smaller size & weight. The ultra-wide range of 14-24 is very cool, but how many of us really need it to be f/2.8 and want to pay extra for it to be f/2.8 and want to carry the a big bulbous design that f/2.8 requires? I'm sure some people want it to be f/2.8, but I'm guessing many would be as happy or even much happier with with an f/4 version.
I would be happier with the price and range, but 2.8 helps a bit in nightscapes. For daytime shots, not so much; after all general rule for it, places the apt in the f5.6-f11 range.
With that in mind, what about a 1.4 or 1.8 UWA prime? a 16mm focal would be fine with me
An F/4 UWA - great. I'd go for such a lens. Even for nightscapes, as I often stop it down to f/8. Results with the 28 f/2.8 and the forementioned settings are pretty fine.
Z96A2899bMasterKLEIN by Peter Hauri, on Flickr
So, I would prefer a 14-24 f/4 over a 2.8 as the price tag would be much nicer...
For inhouse low light photography I re-discovered my 50 f/1.4 after my recent upgrade to FF.
Recently I was shooting my cat at ISO 51200 in an almost dark bedroom at 6:30 a.m. Canon 5D3, Canon EF 50 F/1.4 @ F/1.6, 1/40 sec. While a small amount of ambiental light fingered into the room I manually focussed at the animals ears which I saw better than it's eyes, therefore the face is slightly out of focus. Photograph above: no NR applied. Photograph below: NR value in both Luminance Noise & Chromniance Noise: 14 out of 20 in Canon's free software Digital Photo Professional. This goes way beyond my wildest enthusiast amateur dreams! Watch it in full mode, although due to reduction in post for webupload the difference is less obvious. But the pic without NR looks as grainy as back in the filmdays...But that's quite awesome at these ISOs!
Shooting my Cat at ISO 51k by Peter Hauri, on Flickr