November 27, 2014, 07:53:48 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 - Lee Jay

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 84
16
Lenses / Re: Did Canon Leak the EF 11-24mm f/4L?
« on: November 13, 2014, 08:54:48 AM »
I call this a fake. Some reasons:

1. No space between the "EF" and the "11-24" in the screenshot. This is inconsistent with the other lenses on that page.
2. A typo in "Vollformat", in the screenshot there is just one "l" which is wrong.
3. I am a native german speaker. The text sounds somewhat fishy to me, not in the way Canon would say it.
4. Everybody can edit a web page and make a screenshot of it.

In fairness, the (sort of) smoking gun that would tip the needle from "it's a rumor" to "I think this is happening" would be a live Canon URL that we can look up.  That conveniently doesn't exist anymore, does it?

- A

Yeah, there's no URL in the "screenshot". Another hint. And I was unable to get to a page that looks like the one in the "screenshot" when browsing http://www.canon.de/

Why not try again on the Canon CPN site instead, as it said in the post?

17
Lenses / Re: Did Canon Leak the EF 11-24mm f/4L?
« on: November 11, 2014, 02:12:36 PM »
Would it be physically possible to have an 11-24 that has a flat front element that could take 82mm filters?

Probably.

The front element is going to be very similar to that of the 17-TSE.



And here's the maybe-real maybe-not image posted earlier.


18
Lenses / Re: Did Canon Leak the EF 11-24mm f/4L?
« on: November 11, 2014, 02:00:47 PM »
... so, perhaps (going back to my original question), this new lens is all about bridging fishes and traditional ultrawides.  This may be strictly a focal-length driven gap rather than a need for Canon to put out a much sharper lens.  Hmmm.

That`s exactly the way I see it, yes.
"Zoom Holy Trinity" ... 11-24/4; 24-70/2.8 IS; 70-200 II or "gang of 4" with 100-400 II  8) ;D
[Plus 100/2.8 L IS Macro ... if one really needs it. ]

All of these zooms very sharp from fully open. basically replacing primes for everything except speed.
Only one missing will be 24-70/2.8 IS.  :)

Actually it is the Four Horsemen of the Zoom Apocalypse

11-24/4
24-70/2.8
70-200/2.8
200-400/4

Wouldn't that be the Zoombie Apocalypse?

That would be the "my-kids-aren't-going-to-college-and-my-wife-is-divorcing me" Apocalypse.

19
Lenses / Re: Did Canon Leak the EF 11-24mm f/4L?
« on: November 11, 2014, 11:54:59 AM »
A 15mm fisheye defished is the equivalent of a 5.25mm rectilinear.

yes. But I am not interested at all in fisheyes nor in having to de-fish images ... at least as long as I can have nicely de-fished, rectilinear, regular UWA lenses.  ;D

Why not?

It's easy, and it works.  And my Sigma is f/2.8 and as sharp as an L-prime!

20
Lenses / Re: Did Canon Leak the EF 11-24mm f/4L?
« on: November 11, 2014, 11:49:44 AM »
I'd use it - but not very often - as a "specialty landscape and UrbEX lens" and want it as wide as possible ... for UWA effect.

A 15mm fisheye defished is the equivalent of a 5.25mm rectilinear.

Quote
I would love a 24-70/2.8 with IS however.

Me too.  In my view, Canon really messed up on that one.

21
Lenses / Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II
« on: November 11, 2014, 09:15:49 AM »
The old one had lousy handling, terrible optical performance from 300mm to 400mm wide open with the IS activated, and the IS was just this side of useless.
While I strongly disagree on the first point (I really like push-pull zoom) and wouldn't use anywhere near as strong words on the others either (having taken thousands of pictures with it and been happy with the results), I would definitely like better optics and IS and while the extra weight worries me (as I'd be hiking with it in the wilderness), I probably will upgrade mine if the new one is good enough. I'll wait for reviews first, though.

I like the push pull too.  That wasn't the lousy handling part.

I use mine wide open at 400mm all the time and it takes sharp shots.  The IS is a little weak I will agree.

With the IS on, that setting will be hit and miss depending on where the IS elements happen to be at the time of the shot.  If you're lucky and they are in the middle, they'll be great.  If they are off to a side, they'll be terrible.

22
Lenses / Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II
« on: November 11, 2014, 07:50:01 AM »
The old one had lousy handling, terrible optical performance from 300mm to 400mm wide open with the IS activated, and the IS was just this side of useless.
While I strongly disagree on the first point (I really like push-pull zoom) and wouldn't use anywhere near as strong words on the others either (having taken thousands of pictures with it and been happy with the results), I would definitely like better optics and IS and while the extra weight worries me (as I'd be hiking with it in the wilderness), I probably will upgrade mine if the new one is good enough. I'll wait for reviews first, though.

I like the push pull too.  That wasn't the lousy handling part.

23
It IS compatible with both the 1.4x and 2x teleconverters.


Sure, but what camera body is going to AF at f/11?

The 70D and 7D2 will using dual pixel PDAF in live view.  All the rest will using CDAF in live view.

24
Lenses / Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II
« on: November 10, 2014, 11:33:54 PM »
Well, Canon itself is showing MTF charts with BOTH 1.4 and 2x extenders so I suppose that answers the question of whether this lens works with them. It does.

That link doesn't work for me.  Where did you find the MTF charts?

25
It IS compatible with both the 1.4x and 2x teleconverters.

26
Lenses / Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II
« on: November 10, 2014, 07:42:50 PM »
So. Same filter size, same F range, same focal length, except heavier, longer, wider and also 50% more expensive than the previous version.  Am I missing something?  Unless the AF performance or sharpness or something blows the prior version away (hard to imagine at the same F stop) we just waited 10 years and are paying 50% more for turn-style zoom? Please someone tell me I am missing something major here.

The old one had lousy handling, terrible optical performance from 300mm to 400mm wide open with the IS activated, and the IS was just this side of useless.

Fixing those serious faults would definitely be worth it.  And, yes, I do own one of the old ones, and tested four other copies all with the same faults.

27
EOS Bodies / Re: Focus problems with the Canon 7DII?
« on: November 10, 2014, 07:40:48 PM »
You really should activate the little-known but highly-useful "remove food from face" custom function.

28
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 7D Mark II - Finally using Canon's newer fab?
« on: November 10, 2014, 04:01:09 PM »
well if they screen out the entire CFA effects then the 59% level seems even less believable

Other way around.  It could be 59% at the silicon, but the whole thing would be 59% minus whatever the CFA absorbs.

29
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 7D Mark II - Finally using Canon's newer fab?
« on: November 10, 2014, 01:47:21 PM »
Maybe it's just from the CFA filter having been made even more color blind.

The low color measurement on DxOmark does seem to indicate they may have picked up a little QE from a looser CFA.

I don't think one has to do with the other.  I've been told in the past that the QE modeling approach makes it effectively ignore the CFA.

30
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 7D Mark II - Finally using Canon's newer fab?
« on: November 10, 2014, 01:15:16 PM »
Regarding Sensorgen.info data, he regenerated it all recently. After the site went down, a lot more data was brought over. I think there is a bug in whatever code brings the data over, because some sensors have wild read noise values and several hundred percent Q.E. I don't believe any of those numbers are valid...I think they are flukes generated by a buggy algorithm.

There's evidence to support this.

http://www.sensorgen.info/NikonD2X.html
https://web.archive.org/web/20140715194150/http://www.sensorgen.info/NikonD2X.html

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 84