Messages

391

Lenses / Re: EF 300 f/4L IS II Patent

« on: February 15, 2011, 01:21:02 PM »

I'll be really interested to see what the electro-optical component does! Just hope is it more affordable and useful than diffractive optics proved to be in practice.

meanwhile there are Sigma zooms that go to 500mm featuring OS that weigh in under 2 kilos; I don't think there's any reason a canon 500 f/5.6 L IS prime lens should be any heavier.

Sigma uses a trick of making their 50-500 and 150-500 zooms f/6.3 at the long end. That smaller aperture does help bring the size, and consequently cost down too. Then throw in the usual build quality considerations.

392

Lenses / Re: Too Many Lens Rumours

« on: February 13, 2011, 02:23:11 PM »

Looking at the recent past Canon have been averaging about 4 or 5 lenses a year. Now, most of these are L and exotic lenses, so I don't know if they could do more if they were only simple ones. Given Nikon are expected to unveil their mirrorless system soon, they're going to want to back that up with a strong lens lineup, so that increased capacity might not all go to SLR lenses. Given how secretive Canon manages to be, who knows what their plans are in that department.

393

Lenses / Re: Opinions on the EF 28-300L

« on: February 13, 2011, 01:34:12 PM »

I think the biggest points stopping it from selling more are the price, the cost, and did I mention the price? If it was close to say the 100-400L I'd consider it seriously, and think many more would too.

While I haven't used the 28-300L myself, I have used its predecessor 35-350L and the similar build style 100-400L. I think it makes sense where you need the zoom range in a single lens, with the physical aspects down to user preferences and the job at hand. The 35-350 I think performs great for a 10x zoom. It isn't up to the 100-400 for example, but it is very close. And from reviews the 28-300 is at least comparable or better than the 35-350. If you want the ultimate in optical quality, of course you might look elsewhere, but convenience is often a tradeoff against quality.

Price aside, as a general travel lens I'd say the size and weight are downsides. It's bigger than the 100-400L on spec, and I don't like to carry that around unless I know I will be needing it. Other times, I use the 70-300DO mainly because it is that small. If you're on crop sensor, the Tamron 18-270 is another possibility, but it comes down to how small/few lenses you want to go. I have looked at the Tamron 28-300 in the past, which is much more affordable in comparison, but you get what you pay for and it simply isn't a high quality lens.

394

Lenses / Re: EF-S 15-60 f/2.8 IS [CR1]

« on: February 12, 2011, 01:45:29 PM »

Right now, we don't know what the product will look like and if it will be developed at all. But if its quality (either optical or build quality) falls short of that of the 17-55, I'm definitely not gonna buy it.

Fair enough, we all have different wants and needs. My personal perspective is that a zoom should offer flexibility at "good enough" quality over going for a prime.

Even then we need to define what aspects and weighting we apply, such as but not limited to resolution (centre and border), at various apertures, at various focal lengths and even focus distances. Throw in considerations for vignetting, astigmatism, coma, bokeh characteristic and colour rendition. All in, "better" will be subjective.

If they make such a lens, increasing zoom range may impact some of those parameters. How it does so will be the question.

If this lens does ever get released, you can bet your life it will be 30% more expensive than the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8.

You can see it like bodies too. The new version will always come in at a high price. Over its life it might creep down slowly until it seems a bargain, when they replace it with another expensive one. Canon are not alone in this...

395

Lenses / Re: Your lenses wishlist for 2011 - RESULTS

« on: February 12, 2011, 03:18:36 AM »

Plus, EF-S lenses concentrate at the wide-angle end of the focal length spectrum. Beyond wide-angle lenses, it's easy to substitute a full-frame lens for an EF-S lens. Is a 70-300 mm lens a full-frame lens or is it an EF-S lens? It depends on the camera it's on.

I was going to say that but there it is already.

I think the relative lack of interest in EF-S lenses is that most of it is well covered already. You have cheap zooms, wide and tele, and less cheap standard zooms too. What gaps are there? I think some cheap EF-S primes will help keep up with Sony and Nikon e.g. 30/35mm f/1.8 and a 8-16 would keep up with Sigma. On the long end, you can go EF lens easily.

396

Lenses / Re: EF-S 15-60 f/2.8 IS [CR1]

« on: February 12, 2011, 03:04:33 AM »

The 15-85 is weaker than the 17-55 both in terms of optical quality (resolution, barrel distortions...) and build quality. So I don't understand why Canon believes such a lens would be a worthy replacement of the 17-55. If they don't make it as good as (or better than) the current 17-55, I can hardly imagine a 17-55 owner willing to "upgrade"(downgrade would be the better word actually)...

While the 17-55 does have less distortion on its wide end, the 15-85 isn't that much more and if you really hate distortion, you would still have to apply correction to both. The 18-55 has less distortion on the mid and long end though. Resolution wise there isn't much in it. Yes, the 17-55 has a slight advantage at equivalent focal lengths and apertures, but I think we need far more than the 18MP sensor to see if there is much of a difference. The increase zoom range would be welcome I feel, as 17mm just isn't that wide.

On other replies in this thread, while it would be the longest zoom constant f/2.8 lens made on SLR mount, do note lens zoom ranges and apertures have increased through the years. Don't expect to be limited to around 3x for f/2.8 forever.

Price wise, if it happens I'd expect it to be significantly more than the 17-55. For example, look at the 70-200 II compared to its predecessor.

397

Lenses / Re: EF-S 15-60 f/2.8 IS [CR1]

« on: February 11, 2011, 01:36:56 PM »

If it happens, I might get it. I went for the 15-85 as my standard zoom as I need range (at good enough quality) more than aperture, but sometimes the extra aperture could come in handy... the extra wide angle is enough to make it interesting that I would be willing to lose a little on the long end.

398

Lenses / Re: Your lenses wishlist for 2011.

« on: February 11, 2011, 01:33:35 PM »

Cute idea, but as you say it could only possibly work to put the full frame field of view onto an APS-C size sensor. You would not gain in the aperture, and I don't know what would happen to the DOF either.

You would gain aperture value though, in the same way you lose it using an extender. These are used in telescopes already, but they don't have the mirror getting in the way. A simple design would reduce the back focus distance of the lens, and I can only assume a more complex one required for a SLR system is either too complicated or expensive for anyone to bother making such a converter.

399

Lenses / Re: Your lenses wishlist for 2011.

« on: February 09, 2011, 02:59:06 AM »

Just for fun, anyone here like a focal reducer? Yup, the opposite of a extender/teleconverter. Reduces focal length and increases effective aperture. You will run out of image circle at some point, so this would only be useful to shrink EF lenses to EF-S image circle really.

400

Lenses / Re: Canon MP-E 65 Add on's & Tips

« on: February 07, 2011, 07:25:39 PM »

Seen it, and it's on my wish list but not too high up. Sounds ideal for use with the MP-E where the remote control focus method isn't available, assuming the subject stays still long enough.

401

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 200-400 f/4L IS Development Announced

« on: February 07, 2011, 01:05:16 PM »

This is the best surprise of the announcements today! A dream wildlife lens, within the known laws of physics anyway. I wanted a long-ish zoom tele beyond the 100-400 for a while, as primes would be limiting even if you could afford to faff around swapping extenders around. I think the balance of range and spec keeps it well within my hand holding ability.

I'd guess the eventual street price will be in the ball park of the 300mm f/2.8L II. I think my saving up time will be comparable to the development time so this is perfect too!

402

Lenses / Re: Your lenses wishlist for 2011.

« on: February 05, 2011, 11:40:02 AM »

Rated on do-ability:

Just do it:
EF-S 30mm f/2.8 1:1 macro USM (like the Sony or better)
EF-S 8-16mm f/4 "practically L" USM (like the Sigma or better)

Probably possible:
EF 50mm f/0.95L USM cheaper than Leica!
EF 100-500mm f/5.6L IS USM (not so interested in another 100-400, rather have more reach)

Fantasyland:
MP-E 150mm f/2.8 IS 1-5x macro (just want more working distance than the existing 65mm. Might have a problem with extension unless they can do this in IF design)
EF 300mm f/4L 1:1 macro IS USM (even more working distance please)

403

EOS Bodies / Re: Different camera numbers internationally - why?

« on: January 17, 2011, 07:37:19 AM »

The number system seems the most unambiguous to me. Within the entry level series, bigger = newer. The Japanese "Kiss" models are not far off I suppose, as they seem to be just increasing the number each time. The US one is just horrific. Did they pick random letters out for them?

I'm not familiar with Canon history, so I guess the question is, when did they first start using different names?

I can imagine they realised quickly that "Kiss" wasn't going to cut it in the West. Imagine going into a camera store and saying, "Give me a Kiss". Also given the variety of languages particularly in Europe, any word name might be harder to use, so the number system is quite safe in that respect.

404

EOS Bodies / Re: How much longer will the EOS and EF system endure?

« on: January 12, 2011, 03:19:22 AM »

Let's consider what would "kill" EF mount. The only thing I can think of is EVIL, and even then that's a bit of a stretch. I'm not talking short term here, but suppose in the distant future we have an EVIL camera with AF system that is as good as DSLR phase AF in every way. That would be enough to obsolete crop sensor DSLRs, and only leave FF serving a niche position (unless Canon goes FF EVIL!), and who knows by then "affordable" medium format might be squeezing that space too.

The post above on video is interesting but I'm not familiar enough with it to guess any possible impact there. Videographers seem to be doing well enough with current kit. What lens functionality additions would increase value for video use? Consider what might be done in body as opposed to lens too.

405

Lenses / Re: Canon MP-E 65 Add on's & Tips

« on: January 05, 2011, 08:01:29 AM »

I use the cheap China rails and it has worked ok for me. More thoughts on it here. I don't doubt the more expensive ones are better, but I'm not complaining for the price I paid for mine. The only thing I'm thinking of adding to it is a gear head for the tripod to give some additional fine degrees of adjustment.