April 21, 2014, 08:12:11 AM

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 - KyleSTL

Pages: 1 ... 19 20 [21] 22 23 ... 27
301
Lenses / Re: What is the most EXOTIC Canon lens?
« on: April 11, 2012, 02:17:37 PM »
I would say, in order:

1200mm f/5.6L 1.4x FD (extinct)
1200mm f/5.6L
65mm MP-E
17mm f/4L TS-E
8-15mm f/4L fisheye
50mm f/1L
150-600mm f/5.6L nFD
38-76mm f/4.5-5.6 (rare, but not desirable)
35-80mm f/4-5.6 PZ (rare, power zoom)

Third party EF mount:

200-500mm f/2.8 Sigma

The Canon 8-15 F4L is pretty unique.  If I'm not mistaken, I don't think there has ever been another fisheye zoom lens on the market.


Tokina has the 10-17mm fisheye for crop cameras.
http://www.tokinalens.com/products/tokina/atx107afdx-a.html
Which is the same as the Pentax 10-17mm
http://www.photozone.de/pentax/132-pentax-smc-da-10-17mm-f35-45-edif-fisheye-review--test-report

302
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: best autofocusing bodies and lenses
« on: April 09, 2012, 12:16:28 PM »
In terms of 'overall' AF performance, I'd stack rank the recent bodies as follows:  1D X > 5DIII > 1DIV > 1DsIII > 7D > 60/50/40D > 5DII > xxxD.

I'm surprized that the 60/50/40D > 5DII.  I always thought the 20D through 60D had identical AF systems.

I'd approximately rank them as 300/2.8 IS II = 400/2.8 IS II > 300/2.8 IS = 400/2.8 IS > 500/4 > 400/4 DO > 300/4 IS = 300/4 non-IS.

But wouldn't 400mm f/2.8 IS II >> 300mm f/2.8 IS II+1.4x TC?  That's more of an apples-to-apples comparison and similar to framing the OP is talking about.

303
Lenses / Re: Be Carefull what you buy a true story
« on: March 30, 2012, 10:37:32 AM »
LOL, nice.  I have the Bible on an iphone app, and it updates about once a month, so I'm really starting to wonder what they're updating!

Bug fixes?  Stability issues?

I'll echo Neuro's sentiments about craigslist, here in St Louis it is pretty active and the selection can be pretty decent (I'm sure not even close to NYC, LA, Chicago, etc - but it's still pretty good).  As an eBay seller I know I can have items sold and gone in 1, 3, 5, or 7 days, but the 12% fees really cut into the sale price (9% eBay and 3% Paypal).  Sometimes it takes a bit longer and more effort to move stuff on CL for the right price, but at least there are no fees.  All the really good deals I've gotten have been on craigslist

304
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon 5D Mark 3 + 85mm f1.2 II
« on: March 28, 2012, 04:14:00 PM »
Well, I just caved and bought the Canon 85mm f1.2 USM II. 5D3 tomorrow and the 85 on Friday! it's gonna be a fun weekend! :D
That's great.  Congrats.  I just noticed in your profile you have a 24-70mm f/2.8 II listed.  Do you really have this lens already?  I think a lot of people around here would be very interested in your thoughts on this new lens (especially coupled with the new 5D Mark III).

305
Lenses / Re: EF 50-140mm f/2 IS
« on: February 16, 2012, 04:56:38 PM »
Back in the FD days the fastest zoom lenses were f/3.5 and f/4 and had very short ranges -
FD 20-35mm f/3.5L
FD 24-35mm f/3.5L
FD 28-50mm f/3.5
FD 35-105mm f/3.5
FD 50-135mm f/3.5
FD 80-200mm f/4L

Is it unreasonable to assume they might progress to larger apertures?

The Olympus 35-100 f/2 is not that much larger than the 70-200mm IS II:
Oly 35-100mm f/2:
Diameter: 96.5mm
Length: 213.5mm
Mass: 1650g

Canon 70-200mm IS II
Diameter: 86.2mm
Length: 197mm
Mass: 1470g

306
Lenses / EF 50-140mm f/2 IS
« on: February 16, 2012, 04:20:43 PM »
Disclaimer:  THIS IS NOT A RUMOR, JUST A WISH LIST OR THEORETICAL LENS.

Just out of curiosity is there anything that would keep Canon (or any other maker of APS-C of FF SLRs) from making an f/2 zoom like this?  In theory, the lens would be identical to the size of a 70-200mm f/2.8 (and likely just as expensive - if not more so), and would act like an 80-225mm f/2.8 with the 1.6x crop factor of APS-C cameras.  On top of that it would make a killer portrait lens on a full frame camera and could replicate 4 other lenses (50mm f/1.8, 85mm f/1.8, 100mm f/2, and 135mm f/2) with the flexibility of zooming and added benefit of IS.

Adding on a 1.4x teleconverter would make it a 70-200mm f/2.8; a 2.0x would bring it up to 100-280mm f/4.

What do you guys think?  Would you be interested in such a beast?  I know Olympus has made a line of f/2 zooms, just wondered what the CR community would think of one in the Canon mount.

307
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L Version 1 vs Version 2
« on: February 09, 2012, 04:26:58 PM »
I have resized the four MTF graphs onto a single picture.  Much easier to read this way.  Looks like the new one is definitely sharper.

308
EOS Bodies / Re: What's Next? Lenses & Cameras
« on: February 08, 2012, 03:44:15 PM »
Because we haven't seen it before.  The unknown territory is the combination of high pixel density and the perpiphery of the image circle.   If you look at lens performance and/or theoretical MTF curves, you notice that lenses perform best in the center of the image circle, and that's the part that we see with an EF lens and an APS-C sensor.

That is very true. We have only seen the center 39% of the area (62% of the vertical and horizontal dimensions) at that density. I guess based on that we have seen, we have not hit the point of diminishing returns on resolution for that section. What remains to be seen is if the corners of the lenses are out-resolved by the sensor.

309
EOS Bodies / Re: What's Next? Lenses & Cameras
« on: February 08, 2012, 03:30:50 PM »
... But a great lens, affordable and  weather sealed that i can use for wildlife photography that's what i'm waiting for ! ...

I believe affordable is a dying breed.  This is the same company that just released an $800 lens to replace a $270 lens; $850 for $360; and a $2300 for $1350.  I think 'great' and 'affordable' are becoming mutually exclusive.  While Nikon is updating their cheap primes with new cheap primes (35mm f/1.8G, 50mm f/1.8G), Canon adds unnecessary features and increases the price a couple fold.

If the exchange rate between the US dollar and the Japanese yen had of been the same today as it was when the 20-70/2.8 was originally launched then the new 24-70/2.8 II would be circa $1850.

Both the 24/2.8 and 28/2.8 introduce IS and USM to those lenses. That doesn't come for free - compare the price of the 70-200/4 USM ($640) with the 70-200/4 IS USM ($1160). $500 price difference.  The comparable price for the 24/2.8 and 28/2.8 is ~$640 (instead of $800) and ~$680 (instead of $850) if the US dollar was strong. New features (IS and USM) do not come for free.

I wasn't trying to say they should be the same price, only that the increase in price is more than I would have anticipated.

310
EOS Bodies / Re: What's Next? Lenses & Cameras
« on: February 08, 2012, 02:27:39 PM »
... The question is, how will the current line of lenses fare under 36+ MP scrutiny? ...

Have you seen images taken with good glass on a 7D?  They are good, right?  That is the same pixel density as a 46MP FF camera.  A 37MP camera is equivalent to 16MP APS-C (D7000).  Why is this still part of the conversation?  The only APS-C/FF camera with a high density than the 7D is the Sony a77 at 24MP APS-C.  Why does everyone think this is some unknown territory we have never seen before?

My 10MP XTi has a higher density sensor than the 5D Mark II, 1Dx, and D4 (would come out to be a 26.3MP FF).  Can I still get pixel-level sharpness with excellent glass?  The answer is yes.

311
EOS Bodies / Re: What's Next? Lenses & Cameras
« on: February 08, 2012, 02:13:41 PM »
... But a great lens, affordable and  weather sealed that i can use for wildlife photography that's what i'm waiting for ! ...

I believe affordable is a dying breed.  This is the same company that just released an $800 lens to replace a $270 lens; $850 for $360; and a $2300 for $1350.  I think 'great' and 'affordable' are becoming mutually exclusive.  While Nikon is updating their cheap primes with new cheap primes (35mm f/1.8G, 50mm f/1.8G), Canon adds unnecessary features and increases the price a couple fold.

312
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II
« on: February 07, 2012, 06:00:07 PM »
Going to throw out a prediction -

The next 70-200mm f/2.8 will have an 82mm filter (not that I think it is or should be anytime soon).

Evidence:
72mm - 20-35mm f/2.8L USM (1989), 28-80mm F/2.8-4L USM (1989), 80-200mm f/2.8L (1989)
77mm - 17-35mm f/2.8L USM (1996), 16-35mm f/2.8L USM (2001), 28-70mm f/2.8L USM (1993), 24-70mm f/2.8L (2002),
     70-200mm f/2.8L (1995, 2001 - IS, 2010 - IS II)
82mm - 16-35mm f/2.8L USM II (2006), 24-70mm f/2.8L USM II (2012)

313
Lenses / Re: Pricing of the New Lenses
« on: February 07, 2012, 10:41:48 AM »
... But the 24mm and 28mm primes are replacing the oldest primes in Canon's lineup ( they were built in 1987-88 ).

Fixed it for you.  You were a decade off.  They were among the very first lenses in the EF system.

314
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 24 f/2.8 IS USM
« on: February 06, 2012, 04:35:15 PM »
... I will not be surprised if Canon releases mirrorless or Rebel-like FF some time this year.


I like the way you think. 


As for the comments about the silver ring:
75-300mm III has a silver ring (1999) -

90-300mm had it too (2003) -

28-90mm III as well (2004) -


Canon attempted to differentiate lenses with USM by using the gold ring (see 17-85mm, 70-300mm IS non-L, 10-22mm, 17-85mm) regardless of mount (EF or EF-S).  Looks like since 2009, they have abandoned that practice (see 15-85mm).  The 15-85mm lens is the only non-L lens released with USM since 2006 (17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM).

Additionally, the mounting dot is red, which is 100% indicative of EF mount.

315
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 24 f/2.8 IS USM
« on: February 06, 2012, 02:13:05 PM »
Comparing the picture of the new lens to the existing 24mm f/2.8 shows that both use a 58mm filter and the front elements are the same size ~43mm.  I would assume, then, that the new lens would have the same aperture as the old lens.

For comparison, the 24mm f/1.4L II USM has a 77mm filter thread and a front element with a diameter ~50mm.

Pages: 1 ... 19 20 [21] 22 23 ... 27