Messages

1

Pricewatch Deals / Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS in Stock at B&H Photo

« on: January 04, 2013, 03:35:07 PM »

...Canon introduces a lens twice as expensive (current street price) as a similar lens, with less focal length and as yet undetermined quality. When enough people rush in to pay what Canon demands, the bean counters are going to say to themselves: "Hey, we price this thing $400 more than we should, but people buy them anyway. Guess we should price all future lenses really, really high!" On the other hand, if all Canon hears is, as you call it, moans and complains, maybe, just maybe, they will be more realistic next time they try to price their products into the stratosphere.

Yes! +1 ... the market suffers a lot from the unconditional early adopters that will pay whichever price.  Mind it, I don't consider early adopters that (as correctly depicted by Rienzphotoz) either want or actually NEED the product (I'm sure it was the case for many with the 5DmIII!) 'crazy', at all!.  Every one has their reasons behind their purchases... many would be working photographers that can pay off the higher price tag with a few jobs, others may be really wealthy and price is not an issue at all.  But I believe its a fact that introductory prices are over-inflated because of those type of buyers which affects the overall price of the product (and, in some degree, allows for lesser innovation or poorer design as a product will still make a profit and sell like hotcake, be it the next wonder or not).

Thanks friends for all the support!  Thanks specially @roguewave ... and, by the way: who are you? (I couldn't find a PM system here to ask privately!)

Best regards,
Rafa.
ps.  It appears the resolution quality of the lens is a bit bellow the f2.8 mII and a good 10% above the 24-105, lets see how it fares in real life pictures, but these early tests do show an improvement.

2

Pricewatch Deals / Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS in Stock at B&H Photo

« on: January 03, 2013, 10:49:48 PM »

A slow, mid range range zoom for $1500 dollars...  for me, the sweet spot on price is about $800 bucks. F4 for me equals cheap, and this lens ain't that.

Exactly my thoughts.

3

Pricewatch Deals / Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS in Stock at B&H Photo

« on: January 03, 2013, 10:47:10 PM »

...IF u don't like Canon strategy or product's there is an alternative solutions & it is good as Canon just no need to stick with it & complain how bad they are.

I can complain all I want... and I will give my opinion, and my opinion of your opinion.  And I will stick with Canon and the products that make sense and are relatively well priced.  This is not it, and I will, as I see fit, complain about it wherever I want!

If you don't want to read my complaints, don't read them, but don't tell me not to complain.
Rafa.

4

Pricewatch Deals / Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS in Stock at B&H Photo

« on: January 03, 2013, 05:02:41 PM »

...any way if any body don't like don't buy it there is no need for complaining or whining...

This is, precisely, a place to actually discuss and disagree about opinions, ideas and the decisions behind Canon's new products.  Also, many people eagerly await new releases, precisely, because they usually address key downsides or shortcomings of previous products.

That is why several people are complaining about this product (with good reason, IMHO).  Most everyone was expecting that, given the shorter range and identical luminosity of the 24-105, this would be significantly better in IQ to justify both the release of a newer product with shorter range and its at-release higher (MUCH! higher) price tag.

According to initial pre-views, it appears this lens does NOT fill those expectations.  Furthermore, Canon has, as of late, given many mind-baffling products: the very-expensive, very-slow but ISed 24, 28 and 35.  On the other hand, it has delayed what seems like forever the products people actually where looking for, like the 200-400, so many loyal Canon customers are really NOT happy with the trends of late.

I will repeat myself here, but I cannot see who would be seriously (and massively at that) interested in this lens.  Of course there are people here and there, but I can't see lots of people flocking to this lens if you can have the 24-105 for half the price!  Even if the IQ of the 24-70 is a bit better (which still remains to be seen and I'm willing to give it the benefit of the doubt), paying twice as much for half the range and identical luminosity only for the macro option is kind of absurd.

I follow several sites and forums dedicated to photography and this is a general trend.  Incidentally, those other lenses I mentioned 24 f2.8, 28 f2.8 and 35 f2 have received equally bellow-expectation marks, and places like POTN with over 100K members, do not show anyone using those $800 lenses.  I feel this will be the same for this ultra expensive de-buffed 24-105 .  So Canon either missed the specs, or missed the price point.  The combo of both makes this lens really not very appealing to anyone other than the people that really need to have the latest for no other reason than being new.

Best regards,
Rafa.

5

Lenses / Re: EF 24-70 f/2.8L IS Exists as a Working Prototype [CR2]

« on: December 20, 2012, 12:33:24 AM »

I don't think its just a matter of price... I actually think that they really need to push the release date as far as possible in order to avoid infuriating current buyers.  If a new lens is just out of the oven, you don't expect the company to put out in the market exactly what this should have been in about a year... every person that bought the mII will feel cheated, and that is not a good practice!!!

(Although Apple does it every time they put out a new product in the market almost identical to the previous one and everyone pays them... so what do I know really! )

The other problem is that the mII release price was just too much!... it should have been $1900 not $2500, so now they have no price to ask for this one, as no one will pay $3000 for this one over the Tamron, even if its 3 times better.  I really can't understand Canon current lens roadmap, save for the pancake 40!

Rafa.

6

Contests / Re: Gura Gear Giveaway!

« on: December 06, 2012, 06:55:22 PM »

Well, I've been mostly a Lowepro fan, but I'm willing to be 'converted' over to the Gura side!   Sign me up for the chance to change my mind and fall in love with Gura just as you...

I'd like to win!

Best regards,
Rafa.

7

Pricewatch Deals / Re: Canon EF 50 f/1.4 for $299 at B&H

« on: December 04, 2012, 01:50:55 AM »

Friends, quick survey... I *may* have a few bucks to spare, and the 50mm f1.4 sounds interesting! What are your thoughts?

Please consider I'm on crop sensor. Should I go for it? The two extra stops over my 17-55 f2.8 would be nice, but if I have to stop down to f2.8 to get decent results, it may not be worth it... if the AF will fail me within two months, it certainly wont be worth it. On the other hand, I really like the alternative of low light shooting.

The other option is wait 6 months or so (perhaps even more) and get one of the 35mm options that would be a bit more of a 'normal' lens on my T2i (the Sigma 35mm f1.4 appears to be a FANTASTIC lens... everyone is jumping through hoops for it!).

What do you guys think? And if you think anything at all... please write ultra fast as the promo will not last long!

Thanks in advance!
Rafa.

8

Pricewatch Deals / Re: Canon EOS-1D C Available for Preorder from B&H Photo

« on: December 01, 2012, 03:43:53 PM »

What I do not get is why they are putting such a clearly "videographer"-spec'd system in a DSLR body and not in a movie camera body like Cxxx... 

This!!! Exactly my feelings and complete bewilderment regarding this camera and who is it really supposed to target .  Canon needs to follow Apple and Microsoft and fire their head of products .

Rafa.

9

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 Di VC USD Hands-On

« on: November 29, 2012, 02:55:47 PM »

This really feels like a Tamron advertisement rather than an actual review .  I agree with others that reading the word 'Legendary' in any Tamron specification other than price just throws away the entire review.

Best regards,
Rafa.

10

Lenses / Re: 24-70/4 MFT charts

« on: November 08, 2012, 03:04:06 AM »

...Look, if I had to have only one lens in my bag, it would probably be the 24-105. Don't want to be controversial here, but from what I understand, this lens is usually considered good but not really stellar. If the MTF (sorry for misspelling...) charts deliver what they promise, this 24-70/4 should be markedly better - at least in sharpness - than the 24-105 and close to 24-70/II...

Glad to see the perspective of the actual buyers this lens might be targeted to (I really failed to see cases like yours).  My only note on your decision making process is that you are basing it on charts.  When we saw the 24-70 mII charts we all thought: Ok, nothing will touch this lens... but on-the-field experiences have shown that it is good, but not that much better than the mI (certainly NOT $1000 extra!).

So, I'm sure Canon is not about to butcher their own sells of the mII producing a sharpness-matching $1500 lens, they'd have to be crazy! So I believe we can all assume that the f4 would be considerably less good than the f2.8 mII (for the 2.8 to be still a viable choice!).  So I believe you'll see marginal (if any) improvements over the 24-105!  This is, of course, speculation, I have no hard facts to support this, I'll just have to wait until there is reasonable out on the field samples.

At any rate, I'm glad you see in this your niche lens.  Perhaps I really don't know the market at all.  Best regards,
Rafa.

11

Lenses / Re: 24-70/4 MFT charts

« on: November 08, 2012, 02:59:16 AM »

...Since Canon obviously is not able to release something better than the very iso-limited 18mp sensor (i.e. everything above iso 800 is crappy) it makes sense even for an amateur to get ff...

Well, I disagree with you apparently in every front .  I have a T2i and can count on ISO1600 for everything, even big and important shots, and I can count on ISO3200 for semi-decent results (if I nail the exposure... underexpose a 1/3th of a stop and you are dead!), but I might concede to the fact that we are limited in ISO.

But to claim that amateurs can go for a FF is really a bold statement.  Most amateurs (or even some budget-limited half-time professionals like me) simply cannot afford FF, both in camera and glass.  So crop sensor + good lenses for us is quite a different approach all togther.

So, while I see where your reasoning is coming from, its not really true for a lot of us who simply cannot afford a $2500 camera and another $2500 lens!

Best regards,
Rafa.

12

Lenses / Re: 24-70/4 MFT charts

« on: November 08, 2012, 01:51:54 AM »

I myself fail completely to see the market for this lens.  Sure, if they are going to 'force it down your throat' as a Kit lens, maybe... but lets see who would choose this lens:
- For versatility, the 24-105 has the same widest aperture, and considerably longer reach.
- For speed, you have any of the 24-70 2.8 options (including the mI) in Canon and even other brands.
- For those 'amateurs' looking for a good lens, they are probably on an APS-C sensor, and therefore have MUCH better and less expensive choices like the 17-55 f2.8 IS .

Again, if it would be on the $1K range... then I can see this as a good lens which several people will chose: newer better optics vs. the extra 35mm reach of the 24-105 could be interesting, but not paying TWICE as much!!! Never!  As mentioned, for APS-C sensors, the shorter focal range zooms are actually more in the 'normal' range, the 17-40 included, which sells for about $700!.

So this lens is certainly best for FF cameras, and those having them will either pay the extra for the 2.8 versions or go for primes.  I really only see them ditching the 24-105 (which would be purely from a marketing point of view as it is a fantastic lens! they would really be ill-treating customers if they dropped it!) and forcing this new 24-70 f4 as a kit lens.

So, IMHO, I see a purely commercial move that will involve some very 'wrong' (from the customer point of view) decisions.  I see no other 'great' scenario for this lens.  The 17-40 is better for most landscapers and crop sensors, the 24-70 mI, mII and Tamron are better choices for professionals and the 24-105 is a better choice for an all around lens.

I really fail to see this lenses purpose as well as others (and I don't think the 24-70 mII is a great success from a technological point of view, its a great success commercially because people just *have* to have the latest and priciest, but I believe, as others, that Canon 'failed' with that lens - which doesn't mean people are not buying it... perhaps we are talking about different types of 'fail' here - )

Rafa.

13

Pricewatch Deals / Re: Sigma 35 f/1.4 Available for Preorder

« on: November 07, 2012, 01:41:41 PM »

Thanks for the comparative info @Freelancer and @Dianoda!  It puts it into some perspective.  My other surprise was the linearity of the falloff... I would have expected light decay to be more like it looks at f/5.6... as it is, it really drops fast! 

@Freelancer... that MTF chart I believe is incorrectly color coded (or the legend was incorrectly labeled) so, assuming red is the usual f/8 and green is f/1.4... I'm not that impressed that there isn't a single point of the line at f/1.4 above, but that is true for Canon 35L as well.  My main problem is, again, the fast drop out of the nice zone.  By 1/3 of the frame you are below 0.7 and at f8 things are not much better .

Perhaps I'm being overly demanding?  Of course, I prefer samples rather than charts, so I'll wait for those

Rafa.

14

Pricewatch Deals / Re: Sigma 35 f/1.4 Available for Preorder

« on: November 07, 2012, 01:05:49 PM »

Perhaps because I have never seen a Vignetting graph before... but is anyone else completely astounded by the Vignetting graph of this lens at f/1.4? Shooting into a white wall will yield a white canter and almost pitch black corners!  It drops to 20% of light in the corners!

I'm sure that borders the 'unacceptable' range for most images other than very 'artistic' portraits.  While some vignetting can be correct in post, upping more than 2 fstops of difference is really not my ideal lens .

Of course, neither is Canon's ultra pricey f/2 version!  I'd much rather have f/1.4!

Rafa.

15

Pricewatch Deals / Re: The 5D Mark II & 5D Mark III Get Cheaper

« on: October 24, 2012, 05:42:55 PM »

...Almost makes you feel like a true fool!

Early adopting has certainly that remarkable downside .  Those that want the hot rolls out of the oven usually end up paying a hefty premium.

Rafa.