September 02, 2014, 09:15:44 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 ... 21 22 [23] 24 25 ... 59
331
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L II Mentioned [CR1]
« on: June 25, 2013, 06:48:56 AM »
God bless Canon, who only makes good things now when forced to by a competitor.

First, the previous 35mm f/1.4L was an excellent lens. Claiming it wasn't good at all is completely laughable! The 35/1.4 L was one of Canon's best-regarded lenses for, what...at least a decade??

Second, Canon is not necessarily updating this lens solely because of competition. It is probably a factor, for sure (third party lens makers have never been as aggressive as they have been the last five years, and they are starting to produce some great stuff.) I believe Canon has been updating their entire lineup of L-series lenses in order to prepare for a future world where the EF mount is matched with very high density sensors that will be demanding much more from lenses than DSLRs have to date (keep in mind, it was only about four years ago that CMOS pixel density reached levels where it started producing images that surpassed the resolution of a drum-scanned 135 slide.)

Third, even IF Canon only made this lens in response to competition....well, that is the very nature of a COMPETITIVE MARKETPLACE! One shouldn't be surprised by any competitor in a competitive marketplace holding out as long as they can so long as they continue to have a superior product, or a product that their customers are not regularly complaining about (and, in my experience, most people seem to love their 35/1.4 Ls...I'm surprised by the comments in this thread so far. My personal experience with several rented copies has been nothing but excellent...does no one use AFMA?) The best time to one-up the competition is when the competition is trying to one-up you. No point in spending hundreds of millions of dollars designing new lenses when neither the competition, nor marketplace, nor sensor technology are demanding them.

Those factors have only RECENTLY changed...so, Canon is updating and competing...wow, shocker.

I agree with most everything you said...the current Canon lens is a good lens.  I recently bought the Sigma (mine seems just fine out of the box, uber sharp)...it's just refreshing to see an alternative for what should be a reasonably priced lens...it is just a 35mm after all.   I also splurged two weeks ago and bought a 17mm TSE (amazing) and that seems like a super bargain compared to Canon's post/tsunami pricing on newly released glass....but the lenses with the high pricing are phenomenal. I will say that.
If Sigma brought out an Art Series 50mm f/1.4 and it got GREAT reviews...I would not hesitate to buy it.

332
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L II Mentioned [CR1]
« on: June 24, 2013, 11:19:13 PM »
God bless Canon, who only makes good things now when forced to by a competitor.

...but they won't be on the same playing field as Sigma when it comes to pricing....and, in this case possibly performance.

333
5D MK III Sample Images / Re: 5D MK III Images
« on: June 23, 2013, 05:44:06 PM »
5DMKIII 24-70f/2.8 L II, Shot @ 53mm f/4.0 & 1/100th ISO640

ELM, your shot "dreaming" ...may I ask what was the light source on your subjects?  It has a shimmering quality.
You also have an incredibly full tonal range in the image.  Quite beautiful!

334
Canon General / Re: Is this a fair offer for an on location job?
« on: June 23, 2013, 11:57:14 AM »
For that amount of compensation, I would leave my camera at home and just bring a musket for any shooting I would be doing.  :D

335
5D MK III Sample Images / Re: 5D MK III Images
« on: June 23, 2013, 11:10:46 AM »
Although it is very expensive, the 5D Mark III is an incredible camera!
Used a 17mm TSE here....

336
Lenses / Re: EF 100mm f2,8 L IS Macro... is IS worth it?
« on: June 22, 2013, 06:41:45 AM »
I have one... was initially put off by the fact that it was an all plastic body for $1000.....but the lens is great...With the IS you can do macro "light" quite nicely...by that I mean...I can take hand-held macro shots that I could never shoot before...but.... any really serious macro work needs a tripod in my world...and I went into this purchase knowing that...macro is at the extreme end of photography...really testing the physics to get great images (focus stacking adds another option if you are truly dedicated)...but I feel that this lens has broken down some of the barriers and moved the quest forward... Also...I don't believe you will find a sharper L lens out there. Quite remarkable and very useful as a portrait lens etc. (that is actually where the IS can really shine...). Have not regretted the purchase.
Best comment above: "Is it worth it? Hell Yeah!!!! " LOL!

337
Lenses / Re: New Wide Angles Lenses in 2013 [CR2]
« on: June 19, 2013, 08:33:16 PM »
YIPPEE!!!
I just picked up a 17mm TSE...(tried it out last weekend...AMAZING LENS!)....so with this news about the new Wide Angles...I will be putting my 16-35mm II on the block...it is getting less and less use with my growing collection of primes.   I expect the new 14-24mm to be spectacular, (and expensive...YIKES!)....but I plan on having one in my quiver for when I need quick versatility and fast AF!

338
EOS Bodies / Re: Patents: New 50mm, 85mm & 135mm Lenses
« on: June 19, 2013, 06:31:18 AM »
135 f/2.0 with IS would be awesome ... if they do release it, I hope Canon goes easy on its pricing.

Your hopes will be dashed!! It will double in price from the current version, for sure.

I agree with DS... "If" Canon produces a 135mm f/1.8 with IS it will have a hefty price based on their current upgrade pricing policies...  I think a 135mm f/2 IS is more realistic and even that will carry a heavy price for admittance. No doubt!  I do not own the current 135mm, but most photographers wax poetic about its abilities...so if an update is made I would expect conservative Canon to make it an incremental update, nothing big and splashy....but ya never know.

339
Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II
« on: June 11, 2013, 09:54:08 AM »
Well-balanced, real review. Thanks Justin. I also like how you throw in you personal biases (your 24 TSE sidebar), it let's us know your approach to shooting and why "you" may or may not like something about a lens.
It's interesting how we photographers all have our own needs, which evolve over time.
I've owned both lenses, 17-40mm & the 16-35mm (which I still own...but would kick to the curb if Canon ever delivers a 14-24mm like the Nikon! LOL!)....I only owned the 17-40mm for about 2 weeks (it was the 1st lens that I had purchased after my kit 24-105 that came on my 5DII).
The one thing that really bothered me immediately about the 17-40mm (something I feel that Justin missed), was the "short throw" on the wide end of the zoom ring..say from 17-24mm. There is almost no throw. It feels truncated and abrupt...so that when zooming to the wide end I had no latitude to adjust my field of view. That REALLY bother "me". The lens did not seem well-balanced because of that factor. Also, I found the softness at f/4 to be disappointing.  I ended up shipping the lens back to the seller for a full return of purchase price (something I have never done since with an L lens), and purchasing the 16-35mm L II. Although I gulped on the price, as Justin reports, I found it to be a better lens in every way and I never looked back, (my retirement fund may have,though  ).

340
Lenses / Re: Review - Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II
« on: June 11, 2013, 08:26:23 AM »
Well-balanced, real review. Thanks Justin. I also like how you throw in you personal biases (your 24 TSE sidebar), it let's us know your approach to shooting and why "you" may or may not like something about a lens.
It's interesting how we photographers all have our own needs, which evolve over time.
I've owned both lenses, 17-40mm & the 16-35mm (which I still own...but would kick to the curb if Canon ever delivers a 14-24mm like the Nikon! LOL!)....I only owned the 17-40mm for about 2 weeks (it was the 1st lens that I had purchased after my kit 24-105 that came on my 5DII).
The one thing that really bothered me immediately about the 17-40mm (something I feel that Justin missed), was the "short throw" on the wide end of the zoom ring..say from 17-24mm. There is almost no throw. It feels truncated and abrupt...so that when zooming to the wide end I had no latitude to adjust my field of view. That REALLY bother "me". The lens did not seem well-balanced because of that factor. Also, I found the softness at f/4 to be disappointing.  I ended up shipping the lens back to the seller for a full return of purchase price (something I have never done since with an L lens), and purchasing the 16-35mm L II. Although I gulped on the price, as Justin reports, I found it to be a better lens in every way and I never looked back, (my retirement fund may have,though  :-\).

341
... I cannot understand why we do not have a stunning, well-priced normal lens for our camera bodies....this continually perplexes me and obviously it perplexes others as well and has for quite some time.

Two reasons:

(1) Zoom lenses sell cameras. Who, especially the target audience of the "entry-level" cameras, will today buy a DSLR kitted with a prime lens?

(2) The non-L primes that are being "updated" are just being done because they are "traditional" lenses and Canon obviously feels that they should still manufacture them. Therefore they get "updated" and made current/modern with IS. The prices of these lenses suggest that Canon felt right from the start that sales will be very slow.

Valid points....perhaps a Sigma Artline 50mm f/1.4 is the best hope for a reasonably priced, better quality AF normal lens.  I know the Zeiss is going to cost a fortune but set a new standard, which it most likely will.

342
EOS-M / Re: New Lens, New Firmware for EOS-M
« on: June 09, 2013, 08:33:06 AM »
Hopefully the Firmware download adds a viewfinder.

LOL!...eml58, I had the same thought but figured that I would keep my sarcasm to myself until I saw your post. LOL! From reading other threads I know that you own an M as a small backup body for your full system. At least that was the intention upon purchase. I am slightly tempted to buy one at the low price they are now selling for (I would be buying one for the same reason that you did), more  tempting now with the AF software fix coming....but your comment helps me to realize that if the camera sold for $5 and had blazing AF I probably would not ever really actually use it. I am a serious shooter...and for me anything without a viewfinder just is kind of a novelty toy...ya really can't "shoot" with one.  (In my world).
I will just hold on and keep using my MFT system to complement my FF gear until something really changes. If Canon does ever deliver an M with a VF and good AF...after the price drop I might purchase one (keeping both of my kits) to have as a second body...but that will be quite a ways off in the future, because when that new M is introduced, you know the price is going to be a little ridiculous.

343
Based on the quality of the Canon 50mm lenses (especially the f/1.8 & f/1.4) it tells me that Canon is not too interested or concerned about a great quality, fine-tuned normal lens for their full-frame cameras.  I think perhaps your hope is displaced here as it appears that Sigma and Zeiss are on the brink of satisfying our needs long before Canon will,(but, you never know!).  Although...I cannot understand why we do not have a stunning, well-priced normal lens for our camera bodies....this continually perplexes me and obviously it perplexes others as well and has for quite some time.

344
Hmmm....you have the 24-105mm which definitely covers your stated needs. I think if you add the 70-200mm you would have a much fuller and versatile kit and could get some nice candids and feature-compressed portraits...that being said..the 85mm delivers some beautifully artful low DOF portraits which can be stunning...but it is slow to focus, so is not very practical with moving children. The 135mm f/2 could fit into you considerations as well because it is a great portrait lens, fast focuser and nice bokeh as well.

345
Lenses / Re: 200-400 f4 and the "new" 100-400 zoom
« on: June 07, 2013, 08:34:42 AM »
First 200-400.... probably about $50,000,000 to build...
second 200-400, probably about $5000 to build...and canon probably makes around $2500 profit per lens
To make their money back they have to sell 20,000 lenses.... a tough target to hit.

First 100-400.... probably about $20,000,000 to build...
second 100-400, probably about $200 to build and canon probably makes $500 profit per lens.
To make their money back they have to sell 100,000 lenses.... an easy target to hit.

Do you mean $50,000,000 to research, develop and design????

Do you mean $50,000,000 to research, develop and design????  :)

Pages: 1 ... 21 22 [23] 24 25 ... 59