September 30, 2014, 08:03:07 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 - infared

Pages: 1 ... 9 10 [11] 12 13 ... 63
151
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 16-35 F/4L IS -- Reviews are trickling in...
« on: July 16, 2014, 09:39:56 PM »
Ahsanford,
Yeah..everything I have read is super positive about the IS.  I am an extremely experienced  photographer. 

...

Like I said, I am very experienced and truly know and understand ALL the variables...except the IS ..LOL!

Super helpful, thanks.  I'd agree your test should absolutely net sharp shots.  Something seems amiss.

Potential culprits:

  • How good is your grip / mechanics of holding the camera steady?  I presume this is not your problem, but it's worth ruling out:  pick a 'tough to handhold without IS' shutter speed (say 1/4s for a 16mm shot or a 1/15s for a 35mm shot) and take 10 shots with and without the IS on.  If the IS shots have a higher hit rate and the than the non-IS shots, that implies the IS is working and it may be your grip / holding technique.

  • Do you know the IS is on and working?  One simple test is with your ears.  Verify the IS switch is 'on' and switch the lens to MF (so you don't hear focusing adjustments) and then you press the shutter halfway with your ear next to the lens.  You'll initially hear a little noise at half-shutter-press, but after you let go, the IS motor/mechanism/whatever should be whirring in the background for an additional moment or two.  It's really, really faint with IS in the year 2014, but the sound is there if you listen for it.  If you don't hear that noise, I'd wonder if there was a glitch with the IS internals or possibly you have a faulty connection with the IS switch.  I defer to the nerdy folks and professionals on this forum, but if you can't hear the IS going when the switch for IS is 'on', something is off and I'd consider returning the lens.

  • It could be a poor AF, potentially.  Take AF out of the possible root causes and repeat your test:  switch to MF, go LiveView and 10x manually focus and repeat your 'tough to handhold without IS' test.  And yes, you need to handhold during LiveView for this -- it shouldn't be too hard with these wide FLs (I'm reaching / speculating at this point.)

- A

Thanks for all the HELPFUL suggestions...I have tried to be very specific...have to be to diagnose the situation! Being vague and non descriptive won't get us anywhere. You have brought up some things that I have not tried.
So...I gave a listen...and I can hear the IS motor kick on and continuously run...  I knew it was working as my IS shots  were sharper than my non IS shots...but my concern is that the IS is not performing as intended or at 100%.
Your suggestion about using manual focus is a great idea...that will eliminate one more variable...I am going to shoot more tests over the next few days.  I have a lot of IS lenses and also use Olympus MFT  cameras as well...so I am no stranger to IS...and with all the rant about how fantastic the IS is on this lens I think that I am intuitively finding it lacking a little or that something is not quite right.  Could be me , i.e. operator error or too much expectation! LOL!
I do have good grip tech, etc...but my experience is that if I go thru all those monkey shines to be as rock solid as possible it is to push my results past expectation...which many times I can...but if this lens is at all what it is touted to be I should expect consistent excellent results at 1/15-1/30 while casually (not carelessly) gripping the camera.
Don't you agree?

152
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 16-35 F/4L IS -- Reviews are trickling in...
« on: July 16, 2014, 05:51:11 PM »
I have to say, "never felt a need to take out the Zeiss 21" says a lot about the quality of the zoom. I can't imagine not wanting to take photos with the Zeiss if you have it available at the time. 16-35mm f/4L would have great application as a hking lens to replace a heavier primes kit for landscape. Dragging both the Zeiss and the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 (current landscape and astro-landscape kit, with 6D, tripod, filters, etc - 12 pounds?) up the side of a mountain made me aware that I need to do more conditioning.

Yeah....I have a Zeiss 21mm and the Sigma 35mm Art that I did personal, informal testing against my new Canon 16-35mm  IS.    So...I used to never use my 16-35mm f/2.8 II because the Zeiss and the Sigma blew it away....but damn...these are all very close in sharpness now....hmmmmmmm...the others do offer the faster f/stops though.

I have noticed some funky motion blur in some of my shots caused by the I S though, when I am shooting at reasonable  shutter speeds like 1/30... Anyone else seeing this issue?
I haven't personally, but I haven't shot longer than perhaps 1/8s exposures handheld with this lens yet.   Just curious: have you verified it's a legit lens event and not wind, moving subject, etc.?

I just assumed the IS worked like other Canon lenses.  Reviewers like Bryan Carnathan certainly raved about it:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-16-35mm-f-4-L-IS-USM-Lens.aspx

"Under ideal conditions (standing indoors on a solid floor) and shooting completely freehand, at 16mm, I obtained a decent sharp image percentage down to about .6 seconds for just over 3 stops of assistance. A very slow trail-off in keeper rate ensued and with an occasional sharp image at exposures as long as an unreal 2.5 seconds (as shared above and a new record for me). At 35mm, I had a decent sharp image percentage down to about .4 seconds (just under 4 stops) with a few sharp images remaining at exposures as long as 1 second."

- A

Ahsanford,
Yeah..everything I have read is super positive about the IS.  I am an extremely experienced  photographer.  I just took the three lenses into  a decently lit area of my kitchen and did steady-Eddie hand-held shots.  So I had no moving objects in the frame etc.  In some of my shots with the Zeiss I shot as low as 1/25sec... And the images had classic motion blur...I expected it...but sometimes I can hold steady.  My co/fusion/concern is when I shot with the New Canon zoom. I did not shoot below 1/8sec ...and I shot up into 1/30sec...well within (and above) the range that critics are raving that the lens can handle...now I would think that In the 1/8 area I could have a percentage of sharp shots...but when I start getting into the 1/20sec-1/30sec...I would expect all images to be sharp as the IS should compensate....but some of the images in this shutter range had that double-shot effect type blur...(I think that this is characteristic of IS attempting to freeze the shot, but failing).  It was no just blur like I have with the Sigma and the Zeiss.  I know what that looks like, all too often LOL!
I think we can agree that with the Canon lens on 16mm and the IS on, about 5ft. from subject at f/10 (no it isn't an out of focus phenomenon at this fstop.and I focus at a mid point in the depth of the frame)... These pics should be sharp EVERY time I hit the shutter with this much-touted IS....but some of the frames had that double image softness.
My thought is, and it is why I asked the question here is maybe I have a clunker with faulty IS?
I bought the lens @B &H so I have 30days to return it...
I will do some more testing and see if it is reoccurring.
Would you agree that at anywhere in the zoom range at 1/20sec all my shots should be crystal clear of stationary objects when focused in the middle of the depth of the scene at say f/9-f/16?
Like I said, I am very experienced and truly know and understand ALL the variables...except the IS ..LOL!

153
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 16-35 F/4L IS -- Reviews are trickling in...
« on: July 16, 2014, 02:56:48 PM »
I have to say, "never felt a need to take out the Zeiss 21" says a lot about the quality of the zoom. I can't imagine not wanting to take photos with the Zeiss if you have it available at the time. 16-35mm f/4L would have great application as a hking lens to replace a heavier primes kit for landscape. Dragging both the Zeiss and the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 (current landscape and astro-landscape kit, with 6D, tripod, filters, etc - 12 pounds?) up the side of a mountain made me aware that I need to do more conditioning.

Yeah....I have a Zeiss 21mm and the Sigma 35mm Art that I did personal, informal testing against my new Canon 16-35mm  IS.    So...I used to never use my 16-35mm f/2.8 II because the Zeiss and the Sigma blew it away....but damn...these are all very close in sharpness now....hmmmmmmm...the others do offer the faster f/stops though.

I have noticed some funky motion blur in some of my shots caused by the I S though, when I am shooting at reasonable  shutter speeds like 1/30... Anyone else seeing this issue?

154
Black & White / Re: Black & White
« on: July 16, 2014, 02:40:59 AM »
17mm TSE...it was almost dark...very hard to set the lens tilt, etc. 5DIII is amazing!

+1
How many exposures did you take? 3?

I think I shot 7 exp.  to preserve the highlights around that back door....the image is misleading due to the sensor's ability to record near darkness in the foreground compared to the bright highlights of the sun around that back door.
The dynamic range was extreme.

155
Black & White / Re: Black & White
« on: July 15, 2014, 04:45:49 PM »
17mm TSE...it was almost dark...very hard to set the lens tilt, etc. 5DIII is amazing!

156
Lenses / Re: UV filter on the new 16-35 f/4?
« on: July 13, 2014, 03:24:07 PM »
Come for the rumors, stay for the entertainment!

REALLY!!!!   The train really came off the tracks here.  LOL!
I use filters...my prints hang in galleries...people buy them.   They don't ask if I had a filter on the lens or not. Its all personal choice. I will continue to protect my expensive equipment. It works well for me. If I put a B&W XS-Pro/Nano-MC on my lens and shoot a test with and without, upon close inspection I can see no difference in the images. The only thing that upsets me is that I can't put a filter on my 17mm TSE....especially because the glass sticks out into the room and that makes it the most prone to damage of all of my lenses!  LOL!.

157
Lenses / Re: UV filter on the new 16-35 f/4?
« on: July 12, 2014, 08:02:40 AM »
Thanks for your reply. Is this a slim version (for no vignetting) and can you still use your lenscap?

It is a neutral clear filter to prevent vignetting when using wide angle lenses. You can still use your lenscap.

EDIT:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/756817-REG/

Jack this is what I used on my new 16-35mm IS ..These are always the best in my opinion, too. I have noticed no additional vignetting from the filter.

158
EOS Bodies / Re: The Always Hidden Camera at the World Cup
« on: July 04, 2014, 02:19:23 PM »
Kindof silly to go to such extreme measures to hide a prototype.   What's the big deal. Its just the outside of a camera body, that basically looks like most of the other black boxes that Canon has produced for the last ten years. Right?  It is the tech and the insides that matter and they don't show.

159
I had this problem. I simply attached the 100mm f/2.8L IS Macro and started shooting similar bugs mating. He ran right out of my mirror box to get some action. (If you do not own the 100mm f/2.8L IS Macro I suggest you buy one. This will accomplish 3 things. It will get rid of your bug, make him happy AND satisfy any G.A.S. pains that may be lingering in you. So it's a win/win/win!  8) )
I you want to go the distance, you would also have the opportunity to shoot a photo series of your bug copulating, therefore preserving the memory and justifying your G.A.S. by having utilized your gear!

160
Lenses / Re: Review: Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS
« on: July 01, 2014, 08:40:21 AM »
"Look, you're happy with the 16-35/f2.8L II and for you it has value so keep it.

For most everyone else it now has no value - or at least not $1700 worth of value and quite possibly not even $1200 of value."


I find this comment to be a little over the top.
If you have two great images exactly the same and you add a little contrast and sharpening to the L II...
...there really will be not much to talk about here.

I also think we will see the price of the II come down a little as the new lens should have that effect on the LII.

The LII still has f/2.8 and less distortion, so I am thinking this is pretty much a wash. I am not selling my LII.
Now if Canon comes out with a 14-24 f/2.8 (with or without IS) to rival the Nikkor...I will reconsider my above statement.

161
Yeah?  ERASERHEAD is a cult classic.  Enjoy.

LOL!
It's not for everyone!

162
I've got one for review purposes right now, and I dislike it so much that I'm having a hard time doing the review.  So much green fringing, and I can't seem to get it to nail focus even after multiple AFMAs.

It may not help it that I am also reviewing the Zeiss APO Sonnar T 2/135mm ZE and it is pretty close to optical perfection (and should be for a manual only focus lens that costs nearly $2500!)

Dustin I feel your pain...but I must have the only good copy of the Sigma 50mm Classic...Mine is spot on with AF, and I really like the rendering of the lens..yeah...it needs some defringing in LR...but hey..when I bought that lens I was looking at the 50mm f/1.8 and the 50mm f/1.4 and they are both basically junk lenses...I think the results are as good (to me) as I see being rendered by the 50mm f/1.2L. I got my copy for about $400...Peanuts compared to the "L". It is a lens that I do not use that often...but when you need it, you need it!!!! The bokeh is great at 1.4.  I am using the lens on a 5DIII with no Micro Focus Adjust. It is set to zero.
Even Roger at Lens Rentals (who I hold as an incredibly valuable source of info regarding any lens) winces at the issues of the Sigma classic...but he basically likes and rents the lens.....According to him is the lens is misfocusing you cannot micro adjust it as the lens front focuses close and then thee lens back focuses at medium distances (or vice versa, I cannot remember) so if you tune the camera to focus it makes it better in one area and makes it worse in the other plane of focus....
I am not a measurebator or FoCal guy, etc...I like to take photos, not sit around doing tests...I had a reason this weekend to double check the focusing with my copy and it just seems to nail the focus  whereever I put my focus point. Close far, it does not matter. A LOT of people sure have cursed this lens over the years ....so you are not alone. 
I am thinking about selling mine (which will be a trip I know...if I sell it to a FoCal guy it will be a drag!!! LOL!) to buy the new Sigma 50mm...but I am waiting for your review...so GIVE IT UP...will ya!!!!!! LOL!
Oh...and the price has gone up on a new 50mm classic....if you can find one they are selling for $500 again.   B&H was out of stock for months...but they have more in stock now. Its only for the brave of heart!!!!! LOL!

164
Photography Technique / Re: Taking HDR shots
« on: June 29, 2014, 10:35:25 PM »

165
Definitely not running out to buy this lens, as I have the 16-35mm f/2.8II. Pretty much a wash.
Now, if it was a super-tight 14-24mm f/2.8 IS that kept pace with the Nikkor...it may be a different story.
The new canon looks like a great lens though,  and is priced more reasonably upon release than most of Canon's more recent releases.  We can probably thank Sigma for that! LOL. (My next lens will most likely be the Sigma 50mm Art, when they become readily available).  ::)

Pages: 1 ... 9 10 [11] 12 13 ... 63