October 21, 2014, 04:04:37 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 - Dianoda

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7
76
Lenses / Re: New canon 24 2.8 USM - consumer or Pro ?
« on: February 14, 2012, 03:43:09 PM »
Not sure if the new Canon 24mm f/2.8 IS is worth waiting or not.  It is somewhat appealing - small, lightweight, USM AF, probably pretty sharp, and IS is always convenient - but the price is really quite high for what it is.  I know a big part of that is just the exchange rates finally catching up, but still, it's pretty hard to see a US$350 lens replaced in the lineup with a US$850 lens.

If a full manual lens and size are not major concerns for you, I'd recommend checking out the samyang/rokinon 24mm f/1.4.  B&H currently has it for pre-order at $700.  I have the rokinon 35mm f/1.4 and it's an exceptional optic regardless of price (once stopped down to f/2.8 and beyond).  I've also used the 24L II and it is a very nice lens - great if you need AF, but there are better options out there for pure IQ (24mm TSE f/3.5L II, the 21mm Zeiss you mentioned).

vuilang makes a good point - foregoing a new lens and getting a full-frame body instead is another option to consider.

77
What neuro said is true, but if you think you may want one anyways, go to a local camera shop and try one on your 7D first. Some people love to have extra surface area to grab onto and some people hate it. Best to find out before you buy.

I love the extra grip area when using a large lens like the 70-200 f/2.8L.  It makes all the difference in the world (er, well, all the difference between a sore hand and a not so sore hand at the end of a 6 hour event shoot).  The extra battery life comes in handy, too - one less thing to worry about.

78
Lenses / Re: Recommendation 70-200/2.8+2x vs 100-400 f/4-5.6L ?
« on: February 13, 2012, 12:35:47 PM »
Is the 50% reduction on a camera by camera basis?
Eg the 1DX might focus 50% slower with an extender on, but still have comparitively quick AF to a lower model without an extender on?

The AF speed reduction is based on the len's native auto-focus speed.  The camera body will make a difference in ultimate AF performance, but the AF speed reduction due to telecovertor use is independent of camera body.

79
Lenses / Re: Recommendation 70-200/2.8+2x vs 100-400 f/4-5.6L ?
« on: February 13, 2012, 11:53:17 AM »
In practice, the IQ difference between the 100-400mm and the 70-200 II + 2x is probably not going to be too noticeable (or not at all) in real-world shooting.  But also, as you mention, using an extender slows down AF - in fact, with the 2x extender there's a 50% reduction in AF speed.  That means the 100-400mm will focus faster than the 70-200 II + 2xIII (it's noticable in real-world use, but it's not too bad).   Finally, there's cost - the 100-400mm is over $1000 less than the 70-200 II + 2xIII. 

Minor nitpick: I'm pretty sure the reduction in AF speed compared to a bare lens is 50% for the 1.4x TC and 75% for the 2x TC.

Yep, found the reference - Here's a quote from the EF 1.4x III review @ thedigitalpicture.com (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-Extender-EF-1.4x-III-Review.aspx):
According to Chuck Westfall (Canon USA): "As with previous EF Extenders, usage of Series III EF Extenders lowers AF drive speed to improve AF performance. When Extender EF 1.4X III is used, AF drive speed is reduced by 50%. When Extender EF 2X III is used, AF drive speed is reduced by 75%. This may seem like a drawback, but in reality subject tracking performance remains quite high when Series III Extenders are used with IS II lenses. This is due to improvements in AF precision made possible by the new microcomputer in the extenders."

And further in the review:
Note that "AF precision remains the same as the Series II Extenders when the Series III Extenders are used with earlier extender-compatible EF lenses." [Canon]

Just to clarify, the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II does not benefit from the AF precision improvements of the new III series TC's (Chuck's IS II reference is specific to the new super-tele primes); I believe development of the 70-200 was too far ahead of the new super-teles/TC's to take advantage of the improvements.

In my personal experience, the difference in AF speed between the bare 70-200 IS II and the lens plus 1.4x III  is noticeable, but the AF speed of bare lens is so incredibly fast that, in practice, even a 50% reduction to AF speed is rarely an issue (assuming I'm not limited by available light).

80
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L Version 1 vs Version 2
« on: February 09, 2012, 03:29:15 PM »
I've posted this elsewhere, but looking at the MTF charts, and knowing a ton of people will now be seeking used Mark I's out there, I may very well trade up for the Mark II.  I especially think that if this is your bread-and-butter lens, it's definitely worth having the newer version.  the old one is great but I wouldn't say prime-rivaling, but the new certainly looks like it could really negate the need for f/2.8 primes in that focal range, like ... ever.

Yeah, except there will probably still be plenty of distortion at either end of the zoom, and primes tend to have more appealing bokeh.  I expect the use of Canon's most recent coatings to minimize flare.

Probably the biggest unknown is something I haven't read anything about yet:  has there been any discussion regarding the II fixing the field curvature present in ver. 1?

81
EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Why the hate for video capable DSLRs?
« on: February 09, 2012, 11:03:48 AM »
I don't think there is much hate for video that can be justified (not that there's really much hate for it to begin with).  The biggest thing that sticks out to me is that some don't like seeing the influence that the evolution of video features has had on DSLRs (which is arguably pretty minimal, as DSLRs are still very much focused on stills first, video second).

I've never felt that my 7D was in any compromised as a camera due to the inclusion of video.  I mean, look - LiveView is convenient to the point that I wouldn't want a DSLR without the feature, and so if adding a few lines of code to the camera firmware allows for the camera to record that output as video, why not?  Who does it hurt?

82
Lenses / Re: come on, make an affordable 600mm or 800mm!!
« on: February 08, 2012, 05:24:46 PM »
But your math isn't right.

A 500mm f/4 lens is a 500mm f/4 lens, no matter what size sensor you put behind it. It still needs an entrance pupil of 500/4=125mm, regardless.

As Neuro has pointed out many times here, there is NO advantage to making lenses for EF-S when it comes to long telephoto lenses, for this very reason. There is nothing to be gained in terms of lens size or therefore, cost.

Ugh, you are right.  So the lens I describe is really more of a 312mm F/4.  Crap.  Let me serve as a warning for those of you who would try to function with not enough sleep and too much coffee.

83
Lenses / Re: come on, make an affordable 600mm or 800mm!!
« on: February 08, 2012, 04:42:57 PM »
Well, we'd need at least f/5.6 for AF to function.  And I'm all for a 600mm f/5.6L IS, but the lens would need to be as big as the 300 f/2.8 II (and probably cost as much), because unfortunately physics dictates front element size.  So it'd still be a pretty hefty lens.

How about this for an interesting idea: an EF-S super tele?  Think about it, an EF-S 500mm f/4 could be close in size to the EF 400L f/5.6.  If my math is right, a designed for APS-C 500mm f/4 would need a front element of approx. 77-78mm, so with a fudge factor to limit edge distortion plus lens casing, etc., a final lens diameter of 90mm is probably pretty reasonable.  So you'd get crazy, crazy reach (800mm eff) in a compact package.  Birders/wildlife guys would go nuts.

But the cost?  Who knows?  I don't think it'd be all that affordable if Canon had to grow fluorite crystals for it.  My guess is that it could probably be done for around $3K, and for less if no fluorite element.  Part of me wants to see Canon make it just for the hell of it.  It's a crazy fun idea.

84
Lenses / Re: Poll on new 24-70 f/2.8L mk.II
« on: February 08, 2012, 12:40:54 PM »
I'm not a fan of the available answers to the poll, where's my "wait and see" option?  Or "Maybe, if IQ is awesome and Canon puts it on rebate"?

85
EOS Bodies / Re: How does Canon respond to the D800?
« on: February 07, 2012, 03:33:51 PM »
To truly respond to the D800, canon will have to make a 5D3 that will cannibalize the sales of the 1D X.

And we all know they do not want to do so.

Well played Nikon. Well played..

Exactly. Wish they'd do. We had it all here:
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php/topic,3131.0.html

Yeah, if Canon matches those rumored specs, then the 5DIII/5DX will easily win my money.  For my next body, it's really just a fight between the 1DX and 5DII successor anyways.  I have enough fancy Canon glass that I wouldn't consider switching systems, Nikon's ergonomics don't sit well with me, and I'm not interested in another APS-C camera, either (I want the better DoF control and cleaner high-ISO output that full frame offers).

For the Nikon users, the D800 definitely looks pretty sweet.  Although, judging from test images, the fabled 14-24 f/2.8 isn't quite up to snuff for a 36MP FF sensor.  Test shots with the 24-70 and 70-200 look pretty great for the most part.

86
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II
« on: February 07, 2012, 02:12:01 PM »
Interested?  Sure, once I've gone full-frame, and after I've seen some reviews, and once the lens is on rebate for $200 off, then we'll talk.  For the price, IQ needs to be better than the 70-200 IS II (or at least match).  If Canon includes this lens as a kit with the successor to the 5D2, then the chances of my jumping on board would increase quite a bit.

Then again, I tend to prefer larger aperture primes once the focal drops under 100mm, so what I really want to see is a 35mm f/1.4L II.  It would be awesome to have a weather-sealed, auto-focusing 35mm lens with smooth bokeh and kickbutt across the frame IQ wide open.  I mean, hey, it's okay to dream, right?

87
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon EOS-1D X High Resolution Samples
« on: February 07, 2012, 01:00:41 PM »
ISO 1600 looks almost as good as my 7D @ ISO 160-200.  At lower ISO (check the ISO 400-800 examples), shadows in the 1DX are much cleaner, and subtle color transitions are much, much smoother than the 7D at base ISO (especially in ISO 400 sample).  DR is visibly better, too; I'm really looking forward to going FF...

88
Lenses / Re: Why Dont more lenses have IS?
« on: February 06, 2012, 03:31:26 PM »
Good call with the note about IS and video, IS on the new 24mm and 28mm primes makes a lot more sense now...

89
Lenses / Re: Why Dont more lenses have IS?
« on: February 06, 2012, 03:22:02 PM »
I'm newish to high end photography, but one thing has struck me. there dont appear to be a lot of EF lenses with IS.. is there a reason for this? is it not as required on short focal lengths?

Yep, implementing IS adds marginally to weight and cost, isn't as necessary for short focal length/large aperture lenses, and provides little to no IQ benefit at high shutter speeds.  The combination of the standard convention of a shutter speed of 1/focal length to avoid image shake from camera movement and the large apertures typically found on the short L primes tends to limit the practical need for image stabilization.

I mean, how dark does it need to be for a shutter speed of 1/50 @ f/1.4 not to be enough?  Answer: if it's that dark, use a tripod if subject movement is not an issue, and if subject movement is an issue, then no amount of IS will save you.

Seems to me like Canon's general response to IS in short focal length lenses has been "why bother?"  Of course, 2 rumored EF primes with IS could mean that Canon might be changing their stance...

90
EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: 400 f/4, 300 f/4, 200 f/5.6
« on: February 03, 2012, 04:35:43 PM »
The other two lenses make perfect sense, but I think that people expecting the 400mm f/4 lens to be cheap are going to be in for a shock.  Whilst I've no doubt that it would be cheaper than the 500mm f/4L IS II, I don't think it would be much cheaper than the 300mm f/2.8 IS II.  I think that you'd be looking at a lens filling the US$3500 to US$4500 range that is at present dominated by Sigma, not in the price bracket of lenses like the current 300mm F/4L IS, 4oomm f/5.6L, 100-400mm F/4.5-5.6L IS.

I would have no problem dropping $3500 to $3800 for a high-quality 400mm f/4 L IS lens.  that's still a huge step away from even the 300mm f/2.8 L IS II at 7K.

Unless Canon omitted the use of fluorite elements or other steps to drive down costs (no IS? weather-sealing?), you'd probably still be looking a final cost close to the 300 f/2.8 or 400 f/4 DO.  Physics dictates that the diameter of the front objective would need to match that of the 400 f/4 DO IS, which is something like 122-125mm.  And given the advances in performance (AF speed/accuracy, optics) with the new III TCs, I doubt we'll ever get this lens from Canon.  An update to the 400 f/5.6 or 300 f/4 would make more sense.

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7