Messages

136

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 STM in Stock

« on: June 16, 2012, 03:17:30 PM »

well I ordered mine yesterday and got it today. It is a great walk around lens, the camera (5D MKIII) just feels like I am walking about with a body only. Also the focusing is quieter and seems much faster than my EF 50mm 1.4, havent tried in low light yet.

Photos shot as RAW, default Lightroom profile, no further processing

[...]

Thank you for your samples - it seems to me that the lens has a great overall quality in terms of color reproduction, contrast, bokeh and sharpness. I ordered my copy of that lens yesterday but I think I have to wait a couple of days until it arrives. After waiting so long for such a lens (was interested in the Voigtländer Ultron) it comes true ... funny thing.

Best - Michael

137

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: What modes do you usually use on your camera?

« on: June 12, 2012, 01:20:38 AM »

ISO set manually according to general conditions
Metering is spot

Roughly
40% Manual if lighting conditions are more or less stable
60% Av with *-Button to select the right exposure with the right area in the frame by the spot metering field
        under changing lighting conditions

Best, Michael

138

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 STM Information.

« on: June 08, 2012, 03:14:53 AM »

I've got a bad feeling about the price of these new STM lenses....

I sure hope this pancake comes in at about $200.   We could start a pricing pool -- unfortunately my guess would be $400.

Sure hope $200 wins the pool!

If Canon  can sell the 50mm f1.8 II at $100. The 40mm f2.8 can be sold for $100 also if the sales volume is large enough. Canon price it at $200 to make sure it can get the R &D and tooling cost back fast enough. Also canon does not expect the 40MM f2.8 will be sold as much as the 50mm f 1.8 II.

I think "hmmm" is right

• if the lens is FTM capable and
• if the rear element is aspherical
• because it has 6 lens elements (element number counts more then sheer size if compared to 1.8/50
• because miniaturization of components makes things more complicated/drives price

Why do I think of aspherical rear element? - If the color code of the lenses is according to that of the canon.jp web site, the last element IS aspherical. And that makes sens if you want a very well corrected lens.

If usability and IQ of this lens are a lot better compared to the 50mm/1.8 this one will sell well.

50mm f1.8 II is also 6 element. I know the last element of the 40mm f2.8 is a "molded" aspherical element. It should not be more expensive than a polished element. As for size of the elements, both lenses are comparable. I think the real difference of the price is from the R & D and tooling cost per lens. Obviously, the 40mm f 2.8 will have a much lower volume than the 50mm f1.8 II.

40mm is FTM -> much higher usability for many photographers, more complicated built
rear element is aspherical -> plan 20-30EUR more production cost
6-element -> I know that 50/1.8 is 6 element, 40mm is not cheaper in production
small outline -> small systems are - often - more complicated to built

Additionally we have a rounded 7 blade diaphragm compared to the 5 blades of 50/1.8 ...
We have a metal mount compared to the plastic mount of 50/1.8 ...
We have STM (hopefully it fulfills expectations) as a silent, video capable AF (if someone wants to use it) ...

IMHO pricing of the new lens can be understood without any tooling or R&D costs ... 200 vs 125 $ is a fair difference ... if general IQ of the new lens is great.

Best Michael

139

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 Pancake

« on: June 07, 2012, 05:43:28 PM »

Why is everyone complaining about this lens?  It's as if every product Canon makes has to be made just for you, and if you don't like it then it's a complete piece of crap.  When I heard the rumors about this lens I ignored them, because it's just not something I'm interested in and from the response it seems like not many you are interested either.  So why not just say "well this isn't for me" and let it go instead of questioning every aspect of it?   

It's obviously an entry-level lens, and it's $200 for crying out loud, what do you expect?  And just because it's an odd focal length to you doesn't mean that others won't find it useful, a good photographer can produce good images with any focal length.

Thanks for your lines - some participants of this forum do not understand (IMHO) that many companies produce many tools for the vast crowd of photographers.

Nobody NEEDS a 40mm FF EF lens as a pancake. 

Many of us are mad at Canon, because they are WASTING research & manufacturing capacity on  "nice to have" products rather than on delivering the essentials: "fully competitive, bleeding edge" cameras and lenses and true INNOVATION.  A FF pancake would make a lot of sense  with a killer FF-mirrorless Canon camera as compact as a mMinolta CLE. THAT would be innovative and welcome. An EF 40mm -f/2.8 pancake is ... YAWN.
[...]

You have made the decision that nobody needs a 40mm pancake?

No one of us has seen that lens, knows about it's capabilities, has used it.

I see a very good lens in terms of IQ (IMO last lens element is aspherical), i see an advantage in a pancake as a space saver - sometimes 20mm or 30mm count if you want to have your camera with you.

You don't buy that lens, I probably buy it. No reasoning about "who needs what" is necessary.

Best - Michael

140

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 STM Information.

« on: June 07, 2012, 05:34:41 PM »

I've got a bad feeling about the price of these new STM lenses....

I sure hope this pancake comes in at about $200.   We could start a pricing pool -- unfortunately my guess would be $400.

Sure hope $200 wins the pool!

If Canon  can sell the 50mm f1.8 II at $100. The 40mm f2.8 can be sold for $100 also if the sales volume is large enough. Canon price it at $200 to make sure it can get the R &D and tooling cost back fast enough. Also canon does not expect the 40MM f2.8 will be sold as much as the 50mm f 1.8 II.

I think "hmmm" is right

• if the lens is FTM capable and
• if the rear element is aspherical
• because it has 6 lens elements (element number counts more then sheer size if compared to 1.8/50
• because miniaturization of components makes things more complicated/drives price

Why do I think of aspherical rear element? - If the color code of the lenses is according to that of the canon.jp web site, the last element IS aspherical. And that makes sens if you want a very well corrected lens.

If usability and IQ of this lens are a lot better compared to the 50mm/1.8 this one will sell well.

141

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 STM Information.

« on: June 07, 2012, 05:26:34 PM »

I need a physics lesson:

Why cant they put bigger glass in it, and make it pancake size 40mm F0.5 or similar?

A 40mm 0.5 would have a diameter of 80mm and the lens thickness might be in the range of 30 or 40 mm ...

The other point is: A large lens diameter for short focal lenghs means a lot of spherical aberration. Lenses with spherical surfaces do not bend the light of each ray passing through it to one point. Now you have two options: Use aspherical surfaces or a set of other lenses to correct spherical aberration.

Another point: Correcting CAs means you need TWO lenses with different disperion functions to compensate for different focal lengths for different wavelengths (=colors).

These corrections need a lot of space for additional lenses and ... you need a retrofocus design to circumvent using space in the mirror box. Retrofocus designs can be seen as a design that "shifts virtual lenses" behind the last real element. Necessary for a 24 mm full frame lens and a lot others.

142

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 Pancake

« on: June 07, 2012, 05:02:44 PM »

Why is everyone complaining about this lens?  It's as if every product Canon makes has to be made just for you, and if you don't like it then it's a complete piece of crap.  When I heard the rumors about this lens I ignored them, because it's just not something I'm interested in and from the response it seems like not many you are interested either.  So why not just say "well this isn't for me" and let it go instead of questioning every aspect of it?   

It's obviously an entry-level lens, and it's $200 for crying out loud, what do you expect?  And just because it's an odd focal length to you doesn't mean that others won't find it useful, a good photographer can produce good images with any focal length.

Thanks for your lines - some participants of this forum do not understand (IMHO) that many companies produce many tools for the vast crowd of photographers.

Besides: 40mm is not too odd - it is THE standard focal length for FF!

143

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 Pancake

« on: June 07, 2012, 04:31:26 PM »

Interesting, the more I think about this lens to more I believe that canons mirror less system will be EF mount.

Does anyone believe so also?

Yes, I do - after thinking they will release a low profile lens mount. It doesn't make sense to cripple a lens mount down to incompatibility with the rest of 50+ lenses to achieve a flatter body and - use a zoom lens with 40 or 50 mm length.

I would appreciate an EF mount ...

• because it avoids the hassle to fiddle around with an adaptor which will cost around 200 Euro
• if Canon builts camera components in the "wasted" space between sensor plane and lens mount flange to keep other dimensions small.
• if they go full frame including EF-S compatibility - EF-S will use the APS-C area of the sensor

And I am shure that canon will release a FF mirrorless soon - the 40mm is THE LENS for walkaround purposes and classical photography.

I always dreamed of a mirrorless which has compact size - compact doesn't mean pocketable but compact in terms that you can carry around a tertiary body in your photo bag which has the size and shape of a thicker lens. If the camera is - let's say - 100mm x 70mm and 50mm thick it is COMPACT and the the 40mm will add another 20mm or so. - For me: I like extreme wide angle or extreme telephoto, but sometimes I need the "boring focal length" of 40mm or 60mm equiv - the 40mm with a compact body would be a welcome thingy to fill the gap I see now in my lenses focal lengths.

EDIT:
I made a rough sketch of my vision of an artists compact mirrorless camera TOOL:

Can you explain how the camera in your 'artist's' impression offer any advantages over a DSLR? It looks like a Canon version of the Pentax K-01, a camera that seems to spectacularly miss the whole point of mirrorless cameras by having all their deficiencies (poor AF, no viewfinder) without their biggest advantage -size:

http://camerasize.com/compare/#285,34
http://camerasize.com/compare/#285,326
http://camerasize.com/compare/#285,99

[Note: I think that the Canon 'Rebels' could be slimmed down in size quite a bit, which is why I included a link to the Sony A37]

Once you've made a camera that's too big to easily fit in a pocket, you might as well go the whole hog and give it a mirror for phase detect AF and a decent viewfinder.

Yes, I can ... my rough sketch depicts a camera which can be stowed into a photo back pack or bag in some lens compartment. That is not possible with a 40D and I think it might be a problem with a 6xxD.

The missing mirror box helps to to implement a ring control around the lens base.

Removing the mirror box means space for electronics/sensor heat spreaders and gives room for a large capacity battery like the one for the 5D ii+ or 7D. This helps for video applications where battery capacity is essential.

Best - Michael

Your sketch shows the mirror box sticks out even more than the handle Which is not the case for ALL Canon DSLR.  All you have done is just remove the penta prism in the expense of  a good eye level view finder and fast AF that we are enjoying now on the DSLR.  I can fit 2 DSLR bodies (40D and 20D)and 3 lenses in a Nova 4 bag.

It is meant as a rough sketch (perhaps my last one if it disturbs so much) - and thanks for the hint: The camera can be even smaller.

I cannot put 2 bodies (40D with 400mm and 100mm macro)  into a mini trekker with lenses attached and access both cameras without hassles. Additionally I was speaking about a tertiary body.

Besides that: Perhaps I am satisfied with a TFT and don't need an eye level view finder for each camera ... please respect my dreams and my potential applications of such a camera ...  - Michael

144

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 Pancake

« on: June 07, 2012, 02:32:52 PM »

Interesting, the more I think about this lens to more I believe that canons mirror less system will be EF mount.

Does anyone believe so also?

Yes, I do - after thinking they will release a low profile lens mount. It doesn't make sense to cripple a lens mount down to incompatibility with the rest of 50+ lenses to achieve a flatter body and - use a zoom lens with 40 or 50 mm length.

I would appreciate an EF mount ...

• because it avoids the hassle to fiddle around with an adaptor which will cost around 200 Euro
• if Canon builts camera components in the "wasted" space between sensor plane and lens mount flange to keep other dimensions small.
• if they go full frame including EF-S compatibility - EF-S will use the APS-C area of the sensor

And I am shure that canon will release a FF mirrorless soon - the 40mm is THE LENS for walkaround purposes and classical photography.

I always dreamed of a mirrorless which has compact size - compact doesn't mean pocketable but compact in terms that you can carry around a tertiary body in your photo bag which has the size and shape of a thicker lens. If the camera is - let's say - 100mm x 70mm and 50mm thick it is COMPACT and the the 40mm will add another 20mm or so. - For me: I like extreme wide angle or extreme telephoto, but sometimes I need the "boring focal length" of 40mm or 60mm equiv - the 40mm with a compact body would be a welcome thingy to fill the gap I see now in my lenses focal lengths.

EDIT:
I made a rough sketch of my vision of an artists compact mirrorless camera TOOL:

Can you explain how the camera in your 'artist's' impression offer any advantages over a DSLR? It looks like a Canon version of the Pentax K-01, a camera that seems to spectacularly miss the whole point of mirrorless cameras by having all their deficiencies (poor AF, no viewfinder) without their biggest advantage -size:

http://camerasize.com/compare/#285,34
http://camerasize.com/compare/#285,326
http://camerasize.com/compare/#285,99

[Note: I think that the Canon 'Rebels' could be slimmed down in size quite a bit, which is why I included a link to the Sony A37]

Once you've made a camera that's too big to easily fit in a pocket, you might as well go the whole hog and give it a mirror for phase detect AF and a decent viewfinder.

Yes, I can ... my rough sketch depicts a camera which can be stowed into a photo back pack or bag in some lens compartment. That is not possible with a 40D and I think it might be a problem with a 6xxD.

The missing mirror box helps to to implement a ring control around the lens base.

Removing the mirror box means space for electronics/sensor heat spreaders and gives room for a large capacity battery like the one for the 5D ii+ or 7D. This helps for video applications where battery capacity is essential.

Best - Michael

145

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 STM Information.

« on: June 07, 2012, 02:24:45 PM »

Wow...a very flat, very light normal prime. Such a lens will make carrying and shooting with my forthcoming 1D X like.....carrying and shooting with a 1D X.  Guess I just don't see the point.  Maybe with the new Rebel...

Don't think of it as a cheap lens, think of it as an expensive body cap that you can take pictures through.

Good remark!

What's missing: A tiny mirrorless. Think of it as an expensive lens cap that you can take pictures with. 

Both would make a great combo.

146

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 Pancake

« on: June 07, 2012, 04:56:58 AM »

Interesting, the more I think about this lens to more I believe that canons mirror less system will be EF mount.

Does anyone believe so also?

Yes, I do - after thinking they will release a low profile lens mount. It doesn't make sense to cripple a lens mount down to incompatibility with the rest of 50+ lenses to achieve a flatter body and - use a zoom lens with 40 or 50 mm length.

I would appreciate an EF mount ...

• because it avoids the hassle to fiddle around with an adaptor which will cost around 200 Euro
• if Canon builts camera components in the "wasted" space between sensor plane and lens mount flange to keep other dimensions small.
• if they go full frame including EF-S compatibility - EF-S will use the APS-C area of the sensor

And I am shure that canon will release a FF mirrorless soon - the 40mm is THE LENS for walkaround purposes and classical photography.

I always dreamed of a mirrorless which has compact size - compact doesn't mean pocketable but compact in terms that you can carry around a tertiary body in your photo bag which has the size and shape of a thicker lens. If the camera is - let's say - 100mm x 70mm and 50mm thick it is COMPACT and the the 40mm will add another 20mm or so. - For me: I like extreme wide angle or extreme telephoto, but sometimes I need the "boring focal length" of 40mm or 60mm equiv - the 40mm with a compact body would be a welcome thingy to fill the gap I see now in my lenses focal lengths.

EDIT:
I made a rough sketch of my vision of an artists compact mirrorless camera TOOL:

147

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 40 f/2.8 Pancake

« on: June 06, 2012, 04:36:05 PM »

This might be my dream lens I really waited for ... and I will buy one if it has good IQ, good close focus range and costs less than 300EUR/$.

I liked the 24 mm for crop cameras which correspond to 40 mm for FF cameras and that new thing might be a great lens for FF cams, hopefuly a mirrorless FF which accepts EF-S lenses.

I am really dazzled ... I hoped for so long that canon will produce a 40mm lens with compact design ...and they really do it ... pure fun ...

148

Lenses / Re: Which 3 Primes to go for. Your advice will be appreciated

« on: June 03, 2012, 08:01:44 AM »

IMO (too as others said) a combination of two primes and one zoom might give you a high flexibility:

24mm/2.8 IS (after price has settled) - 24mm great for landscape and IS might help for your 20% of video
  -> if it will come available: sth. like 50mm/1.8 IS (just a guess of mine) for standard situations
  -> if compact lens is 100mm/2.0 - a great lens, very compact, very clean and realistic image files
100mm/2.8 non-IS macro - for macro shooting/high versatility, low price
70-200/2.8 IS II (perhaps with TC) gives you reach and helps a lot for video / low light via IS funcionality and good close focus

This might be a 3000 $/EUR lens set wich gives you large flexibility and is - by IS - helpful for video (24 + 70-200) and an optional 2x TC gives you longer reach. And Canons tele zooms are in many aspects prime quality (except sometimes contrast in contralight situations but that is the difference between sth. like 15 vs. 5 lens groups ... mere physics).

Best - Michael

EDIT:
About flash usage: I don't like flash too, because standard use gives ugly photographs.
But you can use a standard external flash by a reflector. I built mine by myself:

• aluminum strip glued to a cartoon of roughly 15 x 15 cm with some "overhang" to fix it via a rubber band to the movable flash head (Speedlite 380ex)
• the mentioned cartoon was colored a little bit yellowish to get warmer flash colors

Area of cartoon means softer light but still directional, the higher distance between light and lens avoids red eyes and the yellowish coloring gives better color rendition - flashes are usually to cool compared to sunlight, especially sunlight during morning and evening hours and compared to incandescent lamps.

About your remarks about buying things: That's just my style of purchasing products (if possible) - buy good things which last a long time so you have no hassle with purchasing decisions and it IS cheaper on the long run!
 

/[/font]

149

Lenses / Re: Going full frame and needing more reach. Suggestions please?

« on: June 02, 2012, 03:56:59 AM »

I'm moving from a crop sensor to a full-frame and I'm getting worried that my 70-200 f/2.8 isn't going to get me close enough to the action anymore. I do a lot of motor sport photography so have been enjoying a fast lens with 320mm equivalent reach.

The 400mm f/5.6 has caught my eye as an affordable option. I'm getting the Canon 5D3 so I'm thinking I just ramp up the ISO to maintain the shutter speeds I usually use. I've managed to live ok without IS as my subjects are moving faster than I shake the camera anyway.

Everybody seems to end up suggesting the 100-400mm IS but I won't be using that 100-200mm end, not sure about how much IS I'll end up using, and it's not as sharp as the prime.

I guess I want to know, does anyone use the 400mm prime for this type of thing or is it really designed for sitting on a tripod looking at birds?

Also, extenders... are these as foggy as some of the examples photos make them look or are they ok? Fast auto-focus is pretty important in this environment too so I don't want to compromise on that too much. Is there much difference between using an extender and just cropping a shot?

Thanks for any comments you can give.

My 2 ct. about the 5.6/400L:
I needed more reach for my 40D (640mm equiv is a good medium telephoto for some situations, 100mm is my "light wide angle"  ) and I really like to have contrasty images under all conditions (esp. contralight).

I have the 4.0/70-200L and the 2x TC mark I and I experienced good quality just at 400mm/f8.0 or f11.0 but:
I don't like to fiddle around with live view and manual focus. If you make landscape with large focal lengths turbulences of the atmosphere bring a lot of unsharpness into the images - shorter exp. times help a lot!

Options:
 1.  100-400
 2.  400
 3.  70-200/2.8 II + TC

Options 1.,2. were in my mind when I bought the 5.6/400 and it was a clear decision: Mark II of 100-400 (better IQ, IS) or Mark II of the 400/5.6 (IS) would increase the prices by e.g. a factor 2 and will bring it out of my reach.
Prime above zoom: Fast AF, just 6 lens groups -> good contrast, good contralight ability. Very sturdy construction, easily handholdable at 1/125s @ 640mm equiv (o.k., you should fire 2 or 3 shots but 1 is o.k.)!
If I go to fullframe: Lens has very good IQ straight to the corners in FF - I like to put important elements in corners or near the edges!

Option 3. came in my mind just a few days ago: Selling my 70-200/4.0 and the money spend on the 400/5.6 were near the equivalent of a 70-200/2.8 II and I would have a great zoom with 400mm reach via my older TC.

But: 70-200/4.0 is a great walkaround lens (just 700g) and I would lose the possibility to go to 800/11.0 or 1280/11.0 equiv. for a stronger telephoto effect. So I might live with my solution and - with two 40D bodies I have a chance to gain flexibility without changing lenses.

Two examples of the 400/5.6:

• 100% crop at close focus (without atmospheric turbulences!), near center (but non-distinguishable from corner quality), subject might be a Canada goose
• downscaled image at a sunny day after a frosty night - lots of turbulences smear the landscape - it is not unsharpness due to DOF

150

EOS Bodies / Re: Odds & Ends - Mirrorless [CR1]

« on: June 02, 2012, 03:23:57 AM »

[...]

The only FF "mirrorless"exists is LEICA M9. It is a $9K camera. Let us look back into history. In the late 60's the price of the best Canon Range finder camera is about 80% of Leica M3. So if we strap the curve, A Canon M9 comparable mirror from Canon will be about $6k to $7K. Will you buy a 1D-X or the Mirrorless. Also Leica may be holding the offset micro lenses   pattern also. Event some Leica lense cannot be used in M9 due to incident angle concern.  If the FF mirrorless can be built so easily and cheaply,whay nobody is doing it???
I am not saying a good mirrorless cannot be done. It just have to be compromised and canot satisfy every body.

IMO a full frame mirrorless might be offered by canon for roughly 1200 Euro/$ if based on 5D Mark II components: It's just a exercise in removing non-needed parts:
Mirrorbox with mechanics and motor, pentaprism and related optics, phase detect AF with mechanics.

This reduces the need to align different delicate optical parts with an internal chassis - can be reduced to "hold sensor and lens flange".

Add a 1024x768 pixel EVF with good optics and you will have a 1200 Euro/$ FF mirrorless camera.

IMHO this camera might not be attractive enough to the typical FF user who needs fps and fast AF. On the other side for landscape, macro photographers and videographers such a system might be extremely interesting.

Your argument with the offset microlenses is a good one but I think it is just important for Leica because they never had a mirror box for their M-series cameras and lenses - lens back elements have a shorter distance to the sensor and the incident angles are larger (compared to a perpendicular axis of the sensor).
EF lenses are designed to bend the light at smaller angles - to allow the mirrorbox gap between last lense element and sensor. Again IMHO: This should avoid to use offset microlenses on the sensor.

I agree with you that comparable compactness (with 35mm film) is not possible due to the need for batteries and other stuff. Additionally the waste heat of the sensor hast to be spreaded - perhaps a special problem for a FF mirrorless of compact size to keep the sensor at low noise levels. Camera size helps here a lot: To give enough material to spread the heat and enough surface to remove it from the camera body!

Best - Michael