January 27, 2015, 09:31:08 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 - jd7

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 7
1
Lenses / Re: 24-70 f4 IS vs. 24-105 IS
« on: Today at 07:26:52 AM »

... my belief is you had a poor 24-70 f/4L.

That's possible, but the comparison at "the digital picture" reflects my experience pretty well:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=355&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=0&LensComp=823&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=0

Here as well, the 24-70 @ 50 mm looks bad in comparison. But of course, the 24-70 is not "crap". It's just that for me it is not the improvement I had hoped for.

I will try the Tamron 24-70 next. @4 it looks sooo much better than the Canon 4/24-70 and at 2.8 it looks about equal.

There do seem to be substantially varying experiences and opinions about the 25-70 f/4L.  Perhaps explained by substantial variation between copies?  As was pointed out to me a while Iago by Sporgon, Roger Cicala opened one up and commented it has a lot of parts which can be adjusted.

Good luck with the Tamron.  I have seen a few people around here who certainly sing its praises.

PS something I've mentioned in other threads is that my 24-70 4L was very poor out of the box. It improved a lot after a trip to Canon.

2
Lenses / Re: 24-70 f4 IS vs. 24-105 IS
« on: January 26, 2015, 08:21:00 PM »
I own the 24-105 L and tested the 24-70 f/4 L because I was unhappy with the distortion of my lens at 24 mm. The 24-70 is clearly better at 24 mm and features a macro mode that can be useful but is not sooooo great. Unfortunately the 24-70 was significantly worse than my 24-105 from 50 to 70 mm. And I missed the 105 mm too.

For what it is worth, my belief is you had a poor 24-70 f/4L.  My experience is different from yours (after getting my 24-70 f/4L calibrated by Canon).  Of course, my sample is n=1 so you may question the reliability of my evidence!  Still, my experience is in line with what LensRentals resolution tests suggest, and in line with what I've seen on some of the review sites (SLR Lounge is one I recall off-hand).

The 24-105 f/4L is definitely better from 71 to 105 though :)

3
Lenses / Re: 24-70 f4 IS vs. 24-105 IS
« on: January 26, 2015, 07:29:43 AM »
Monkey44 you may have seen this already but if not you might want to have a glance at http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/01/canon-24-70-f4-is-resolution-tests and at http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2014/07/canon-wide-angle-zoom-comparison.
Resolution testing doesn't tell you everything you might want to know about a lens but something to consider.

4
Lenses / Re: Auto Focus MicroAdjust--Why the Stigma?
« on: January 25, 2015, 06:49:29 AM »
A lot of people don't understand AFMA, and return a lens when its the camera that is also a part of the issue.
 
However, if A lens shows excessive error, needing 17 or higher to correct it, I'll return it, because the next camera I buy might need even more, and I'd be required to pay to have the lens adjusted.
 
That happened with my 35mm f/1.4, it needed about 7 AFMA on my 5D MK II, but required +17 when I bought a 1D MK IV, likely due to additive errors in the MK IV.  I sent the lens in for adjustment under warranty, and it was right-on for both cameras after that.

The issue raised by the OP does seem to come up (disappointingly) frequently enough on the internet, and I can only assume the answer is as above - a lot of people don't understand AFMA.  With a fast lens, I would be far more surprised if it didn't need AFMA than if it did!  And that is not a criticism of either lens or camera.

5
Lenses / Re: 24-70 f4 IS vs. 24-105 IS
« on: January 25, 2015, 06:41:38 AM »
I've come to quite like my 24-70 f/4L.  I have never owned the 24-105 f/4L, though, so my experience with it is very limited (occasional use of one which belongs to my sister).  In the very limited comparison testing I've done, the 24-70 f/4L is a little sharper (throughout the whole 24-70 range) and it retains colour and contrast a little better when shooting into bright light.  I also like the fact it is a bit more compact and it has a zoom lock - nice features if you use the lens when hiking (as I sometimes do), although neither is a big deal really.  I still sometimes wonder about trading my 24-70 for a 24-105 for the convenience of the extra range, but I'm inclined to stick with what I have.

If you decide to give the 24-70 f/4L a go, I will be interested to hear how you think it compares to the 24-105 f/4L.

6
Lenses / Re: Review: Canon EF 24-105 f/3.5-5.6 IS STM
« on: January 18, 2015, 06:22:19 AM »

Count me as another happy user of the 24-70 f/4L IS.  As I've said in another thread, my copy was excellent at 24 and 70 out of the box, but disappointing at 35 and downright poor at 50 ... my sister's 24-105L was definitely better at 35 and 50.  However, after sending my lens back to Canon for calibration, I'll happily pit my 24-70 4L against a 24-105L at any focal length.  As has already been pointed out to my by a couple of CR users, Roger Cicala has commented the 24-704L has a lot of adjustable parts (more than most lenses), and it does seem the 24-70 4L suffers from substantial copy to copy variation.  Get one properly calibrated though, and I think it is a very good lens.

My brother has the Tamron 24-70 2.8 VR so I will have to do some comparisons if I can find some time. I did some very quick comparisons just after I got my lens calibrated and came away with the feeling my 24-70 4L was at least as sharp from f/4 (I was probably concentrating most on centre sharpness), and its focussing was quicker and more consistent than the Tamron.  That said, my testing to-date was pretty limited (and the possibility of new lens owner bias cannot be ignored!  :) ) so I wouldn't draw any conclusions from it.

I noticed this sentence in Dustin's review:
"The trend of many lenses that Canon has offered in the past few years have been lenses that didn’t necessarily wow people on paper (or thrill them with their announcement) but have proven to be extremely competent lenses that have won people over on their merits."

I have to say I agree with that.  I wasn't that excited about the 40 2.8 or the 35 2 IS but now own and like both, and looking beyond lenses I think the same sentiment applies to the 6D.   I think perhaps the 24-70 4L might end up being another lens to which the sentiment applies, if Canon can find a way to reduce copy variation and get the "average" 24-70 4L performing closer to its best performance.

Anyway, Dustin, thanks for the review of the 24-105 3.5-5.6.  Interesting to get your take on a consumer-grade lens after reading your reviews of high end gear.  The new 24-105 sounds like it could be a good lens for a lot of people, even if not many of the people who haunt places like CR.

How does your 24-70 do at close focusing distance, particularly at the long end? Mine REALLY seems to struggle. It's fine until I get near MFD and then the picture totally softens up...

I find that the 24-105 is still noticeably better at 50mm though. It has gone back to being my default lens.

Hi Act444
Rather than hijack this thread further, I've started a new thread to try to answer your question about my 24-70 f/4 near MFD ...
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=24642.msg484694#msg484694

7
Lenses / Re: Canon 24-70 f/4L IS sharpness
« on: January 18, 2015, 06:18:54 AM »
For what it is worth, here are crops from two shots I took before I sent my 24-70 f/4 to Canon for calibration.  One is at 50mm and the other 70mm, both at f/4.  You will see how soft it was at 50mm.  As with the tests above, the shots were taken handheld and using AF so that needs to be considered.  However I did quite a number of tests before sending my lens back to Canon and the softness at 50mm was consistent.  The lens was pretty good at 24mm and at 70mm, and a little soft at 35mm (although not as bad as at 50mm). 

The lens may not be perfect now, but it's definitely a lot better - more consistent across the whole zoom range - since I got it calibrated.

8
Lenses / Re: Canon 24-70 f/4L IS sharpness
« on: January 18, 2015, 06:08:24 AM »
Here are a series of crops from shots at 50mm, f/4, getting closer to the target ...

9
Lenses / Re: Canon 24-70 f/4L IS sharpness
« on: January 18, 2015, 06:04:44 AM »
Here are a series of crops from shots taken at 70mm, all at f/4, getting closer to the subject.
The last shot is definitely soft, but maybe I got inside the MFD ...?  I also note the suggestion in the TDP review to shift into the macro mode rather than use it close to MFD at 70mm - see http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-24-70mm-f-4-L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

I will have to find time to re-do the test at 70mm f/4 near MFD.

10
Lenses / Canon 24-70 f/4L IS sharpness
« on: January 18, 2015, 06:01:00 AM »
Hi all

I've started this thread as a result of a question Act444 asked in another thread:
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=24523.0
The other thread was about a review of Canon's new 24-105 non-L lens so it seemed better to start a new thread for this rather than further side-track the old thread.

I'm going to try posting some sample images (never posted images to CR before) to try to show something about the sharpness of my 24-70 f/4L IS towards the long end of its range and near MFD.  Please note I only had a couple of minutes today to grab a few shots so these are all shot on a 6D, handheld at ISO 400, with IS on, using centre-point AF, with shutter speed in the 1/100 to 1/200 range.  (Yes, it would have been better if I'd taken them with a tripod and using Live View!)  Obviously, then, the testing methodology leaves something to be desired!  In particular, movement by me when shooting or AF issues could be significant in making a shot seem soft.

11
Canon General / Re: Opinion: The myth of the upgrade path
« on: January 14, 2015, 08:28:52 PM »
...
Besides, if us lumpen proletariat took your advice and all went full frame, ...

Then sooner or later there would be no more APS-C cameras in production. FF would become much cheaper. FF Rebel class would materialize and bring a lot of joy for everyone. As simple as that.


And wildlife and sports shooters who enjoyed longer reach without having to shell out for the equivalent reach on full frame are hosed. So now you have a "cheap" full frame body...and have to spend twice as much on lenses. :P

No. Why? :) 50+mp FF can capture everything that 20mp APS-C can (and more, 2.5x more), with the same lens.

But never at the same speed, same price etc. CR is made up of people who are a far cry from your run of the mill dslr shooter. The majority do not want FF: they don't want the size, dof,  longer focal length, cost, lens size/ cost etc etc.

My daughter returned recently from Iceland where she had her 1100D and 55-250 STM, and she has some superb images of Puffins, including some in flight. The last thing she wants is a FF camera for all the reasons given above.

The same though crossed my mind with ATM's comment about being held back by APS. He must shoot some very niche stuff.

It is possible to get the same speed in crop mode, if you like, but you'll lose the "crop later" feature.
The majority want magic P&S, which runs without batteries, with a FB upload button and x-ray vision :).
Actually, EF-S 55-250 STM is a very good lens, almost as good as it gets, on a crop body. The sensor size is the real bottleneck there and if you want better IQ zoom lens (than 55-250), you should get a larger sensor camera.

I think the point about all of this is simply to remember that APS-C and FF are significantly different formats, in the same way that, say, m4/3 and medium format are significantly different formats.  The fact some lenses can be shared between APS-C cameras and FF cameras (and the fact FF cameras generally tend to be higher end) tends to encourage people to see FF as an "upgrade path" from APS-C, but if that's the case then similarly APS-C should be seen as an upgrade path from m4/3, and medium format should be seen as an upgrade path from FF.  There is a level at which that is arguably correct - assuming sensors with similar quantum efficiency and other technology, you will get lower noise as the sensor size increases (because more total light will be captured at a given level of exposure) and you would generally expect "better" IQ, and you would also get the option of shallower depth of field.  Of course, in practise there is more to it than that - depending on your use case and budget, factors such as AF, cost, size, weight, etc, will be more or less significant in determining what a particular user considers an "upgrade".  In the end, anyone who chooses APS-C over FF is making the same sort of choice that those who choose FF over medium format are making - just assigning different levels of importance to various factors.  As already suggested above, no doubt there are many people out there who prefer the trade-offs involved in using an APS-C setup over the trade-offs involved in using a FF setup ... and there is nothing wrong with that.

12
Lenses / Re: Review: Canon EF 24-105 f/3.5-5.6 IS STM
« on: January 11, 2015, 12:06:44 AM »

Count me as another happy user of the 24-70 f/4L IS.  As I've said in another thread, my copy was excellent at 24 and 70 out of the box, but disappointing at 35 and downright poor at 50 ... my sister's 24-105L was definitely better at 35 and 50.  However, after sending my lens back to Canon for calibration, I'll happily pit my 24-70 4L against a 24-105L at any focal length.  As has already been pointed out to my by a couple of CR users, Roger Cicala has commented the 24-704L has a lot of adjustable parts (more than most lenses), and it does seem the 24-70 4L suffers from substantial copy to copy variation.  Get one properly calibrated though, and I think it is a very good lens.


How does your 24-70 do at close focusing distance, particularly at the long end? Mine REALLY seems to struggle. It's fine until I get near MFD and then the picture totally softens up...

I find that the 24-105 is still noticeably better at 50mm though. It has gone back to being my default lens.

I will do some tests with my 24-70 and see whether it gets softer near MFD at 70. Unfortunately it will probably be next weekend before I get a chance. Will report back as soon as I've had a chance to test.

With my 24-70, looking at sharpness you'd be hard pressed to tell any difference between focal lengths.  At 50 it is pretty much as sharp as it is at 70 or 24.  If anything, 35 might be its softest focal length now, but really there is not much difference at all at any focal length.

13
Lenses / Re: Review: Canon EF 24-105 f/3.5-5.6 IS STM
« on: January 08, 2015, 07:37:05 PM »
I appreciate the discussion from everyone.  I think this lens is going to be a little polarizing because Canon is moving the STM technology out of the EF-S/EOS M sphere and into full frame lenses (most will agree that the 40mm Pancake was a different story for a lot of reasons).

I'm actually happy to hear the 24-70 f/4L have some ardent supporters.  Frankly, I hadn't seen evidence of too many of them!  For me, however, this is the biggest reason why the 24-70 f/4L still doesn't make a ton of sense:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=786&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=2&LensComp=823&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

I have to say that the tests (not necessarily his comments or star ratings at the end by any means, but all of the data in his plots) at photozone.de far more often match my own carefully tested findings than what I see at TDP.

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/798-canon2470f4?start=1
http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/420-canon_24105_4_5d?start=1

I've used two copies of 24-70 f/4 IS and about five of 24-105L and the photozone.de results are closer to what I saw. I was never satisfied with the 24-105L near 24mm for finely detailed edge to edge FF landscape work, but I had no issue with the 24-70 f/4 IS (although the 24 1.4 II and 24-70 II were a bit better). And the 24-70 f/4 IS shots of fine branches against clouds and such were so much freer of nasty longitudinal CA (never mind better lateral CA, although this is a bit more easily corrected) than the 24-105 L real world test shots.

I will say that the first 24-70 f/4 IS I tried, while better than the 24-105L, definitely was not as sharp anywhere in the border regions as the second copy, noticeable difference. So lens copy to copy variation is real. The first one also suffered more in the mid-range than the second copy (still not worse than the 24-105L, but maybe not any better at all for the first copy). So some may depend upon whether you get a poor copy or a really nice copy. From what I saw from my own careful tests (25' target, indoors with constant lighting, 6+ manual 10x liveview focused trials at each stage, refocused for mid-frame and edges) and real world snaps of tricky forest scenes my impression was that a good copy of the 24-70 f/4 IS is just simply quite noticeably, considerably, better at 24mm than the 24-105L. (Although I looked at it less, I also felt the same for 70mm, in fact the top 24-70 f/4 IS I tried actually did better FF 70mm edges than any 24-70 II I've tried (And that's a number of copies) although it wasn't quite ever with the biting mico-contrast center frame of teh 24-70 II and it's a bit more like the 24-105L micro-contrast there).

Count me as another happy user of the 24-70 f/4L IS.  As I've said in another thread, my copy was excellent at 24 and 70 out of the box, but disappointing at 35 and downright poor at 50 ... my sister's 24-105L was definitely better at 35 and 50.  However, after sending my lens back to Canon for calibration, I'll happily pit my 24-70 4L against a 24-105L at any focal length.  As has already been pointed out to my by a couple of CR users, Roger Cicala has commented the 24-704L has a lot of adjustable parts (more than most lenses), and it does seem the 24-70 4L suffers from substantial copy to copy variation.  Get one properly calibrated though, and I think it is a very good lens.

My brother has the Tamron 24-70 2.8 VR so I will have to do some comparisons if I can find some time. I did some very quick comparisons just after I got my lens calibrated and came away with the feeling my 24-70 4L was at least as sharp from f/4 (I was probably concentrating most on centre sharpness), and its focussing was quicker and more consistent than the Tamron.  That said, my testing to-date was pretty limited (and the possibility of new lens owner bias cannot be ignored!  :) ) so I wouldn't draw any conclusions from it.

I noticed this sentence in Dustin's review:
"The trend of many lenses that Canon has offered in the past few years have been lenses that didn’t necessarily wow people on paper (or thrill them with their announcement) but have proven to be extremely competent lenses that have won people over on their merits."

I have to say I agree with that.  I wasn't that excited about the 40 2.8 or the 35 2 IS but now own and like both, and looking beyond lenses I think the same sentiment applies to the 6D.   I think perhaps the 24-70 4L might end up being another lens to which the sentiment applies, if Canon can find a way to reduce copy variation and get the "average" 24-70 4L performing closer to its best performance.

Anyway, Dustin, thanks for the review of the 24-105 3.5-5.6.  Interesting to get your take on a consumer-grade lens after reading your reviews of high end gear.  The new 24-105 sounds like it could be a good lens for a lot of people, even if not many of the people who haunt places like CR.


14
Software & Accessories / Re: Blackrapid strap slips (no it doesn't!)
« on: January 07, 2015, 05:46:44 PM »
Well, this story has had a happy ending.  I contacted Black Rapid as Neuro suggested and their support was fantastic.  They decided my strap was faulty and replaced it.  I've just come back from 4 days and 75 km of hiking and the new strap performed perfectly.  I was carrying only a 6D + 24-70 f/4L on this trip, but if the strap can work perfectly in those conditions (I was wearing it pretty much the whole time I was hiking) I reckon it will handle anything I could reasonably throw at it.

Kudos to Black Rapid for standing behind their products.  As I said, their support was fantastic.  And now I've tried a properly working version of the Black Rapid Sport strap, I wouldn't hesitate to recommend it.

15
Lenses / Re: Where are the new Canon 50mm and 85mm lenses?
« on: January 07, 2015, 05:31:06 PM »
As long as Canon keeps selling the 50 f/1.4 and 85 f/1.8 like they have been, I think we'll be in for a long wait.  Those lens productions must be almost pure profit at this point and while they aren't the world's best lenses, they are good enough for a great many people.  The 24, 28, and 35 lenses were rather poor in comparison and not good sellers from what I understand, so the economics to replace them made sense.  Sigma certainly hears the voices of discontent, however...

This is pretty much what I think as well.  The 50/1.4 and 85/1.8 are great as they are so the improvement will be harder to sell at a higher price point.  Canon knows that the ROI for a prime lens factors heavily into pro shooters' decisions and many already own the existing 50 and 85.  Canon must find or somehow create a demand for the replacement versions and that was a lot easier with lackluster 24, 28 and 35 version 1 lenses.  And while they're at it, Canon doesn't want to create an EF lens that is so good that the L versions become less of an upgrade at their even higher price point!

I assume zooms probably sell much better at a higher price point so they get all the love first.

Surely there would be a large demand, at least for an updated 50 1.4?  I'd really like a fast 50 but there just isn't one which appeals to me at the moment.  The build quality of the Canon 50 1.4 seems to be ordinary at best (from what I've read), it's soft wide open, and I've seen a number of photos (on flickr, etc) which had harsh bokeh which didn't appeal to me.  I'm hesitant about the Sigma 50 Art - I don't want to spend that much money on a lens which may have focus problems, plus it's bigger and heavier than I'd prefer.  I'm actually thinking of picking up a Sigma 50 1.4 EX (ie Sigma's older 50 1.4), as a "best compromise" (for my purposes) of sharpness/bokeh/build quality/cost, despite the potential focus problems and the softness wide open, but have been holding off in the hope Canon might release something compelling.


Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 7