July 24, 2014, 01:23:41 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 - dilbert

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 177
46
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 5D Mark IV To Feature 4K Video?
« on: July 03, 2014, 12:10:52 PM »
This might be disappointing news, as Canon might use 4K to differentiate the 7D replacement from the 5D replacement, meaning the 7D replacement wouldn't get 4K.  That would be the disappointing part.

As to whether or not the 7D replacement being disappointing without 4K, that'll depend on its price point. If it is over $2000, then yes. Under $2000, not as much.

47
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 16-35 F/4L IS -- Reviews are trickling in...
« on: July 02, 2014, 12:44:47 PM »
...
which makes it all the more tricky to compare real world.

So it sounds like you've discovered why DxO use the methodology that they do.

48
The rumor says:

"new telephoto lens"

which could easily mean a telephoto lens design that currently doesn't exist as well as an update of one that does.

Why not announce a new APS-C telephoto lens with a new APS-C camera?

because there is no point in an aps-c telephoto

If there is no point in an APS-C telephoto then why does the EF-S 55-250 exist?

49
Lenses / Re: Review: Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS
« on: July 01, 2014, 10:35:49 PM »
The IS will be nice for anyone using this lens without a tripod and the video crowd will dig it, and it's the only Canon UWA zoom that's ready for a higher resolution camera. It's reasonably priced. What's not to love?

What's not to love?

The price of course! It should be cheaper by $200 - $300 :)

Will the street price drop over time? Hard to say but for a lens that is reviewing so well, why would anyone feel the need to drop the price? People want it already at the current price!

50
The rumor says:

"new telephoto lens"

which could easily mean a telephoto lens design that currently doesn't exist as well as an update of one that does.

Why not announce a new APS-C telephoto lens with a new APS-C camera?

51
Lenses / Re: Any word on the 50mm with Image Stabilzation?
« on: July 01, 2014, 08:44:03 AM »
Canon is likely saving up for a big showing at Photokina in the fall, would not be surprised if that is one of the lenses announced.

I would also not be surprised if this is not announced, if the outdated 50/1.8 and 50/1.4 have been selling so far they will continue to do so. The 50/1.2 is a unique prestige cash cow not to be easily endangered by a faster 50mm with IS and good bokeh.

Yes, as has been explained, many consider the 50/1.2L to be a sacred cow that nobody else can better. Canon could bring out a new 50/1.8 IS USM that was sharper, less CA, less distortion, something like the Sigma 50/Art of Zeiss and people would fall over themselves with praise - except for those with the 50/1.2L because it would still have a special something in its IQ that the sharper/clearer lens didn't. That is until Canon brings out the 50/1.2L II that fixes all of the I's image problems..

52
Lenses / Re: Review: Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS
« on: July 01, 2014, 01:00:29 AM »
Anyone wanna compare it with the Tokina 16-28mm F2.8?

Tokina lens has a curved front element that is much easier to damage and much harder to filter.

53
Lenses / Re: Review: Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS
« on: June 30, 2014, 09:00:55 PM »


Except when you are forced to 12800+ ISO on the f/4 IS to compensate for less light entering the camera due to a maximum aperture of f/4 at a dim event, in which case the IQ of the 16-35 f/2.8L II at f/2.8-ISO 6400 will be far superior.  f/4 lets in half the light of f/2.8, meaning you will be forced into motion-blur inducing shutter speeds or very high isos in dim light with moving subjects.  IS can't help motion blur.  I did see you qualify with your statements with "unless you need f/2.8," but the rest of your post seems to ignore these important issues.

How often do you need to do that? Doesn't superior IQ 99% of the time trump the other 1%?

I'd say about 50% of the events I do require f/2.8.

And, the superior IQ you speak of is primarily in the corners and only hugely noticeable at f/4-f/5.6 -- f/8 is close in quality and f/11 is about similar. 12800 ISO would be radically more detrimental than the lesser corner sharpness of the 16-35 II.

When I take pictures of people, they are in the center of the frame at this focal length to avoid perspective distortion.  Thus, center sharpness is most important.

When I take landscape pics, which is probably only about 5-10% of my work, I usually stop down to f/8-f/11 anyway to get better DOF.

So the areas where this new lens excels are ones I don't use that much, but losing f/2.8 would be a big problem.  If I was forced to sell the 16-35 II, I would use the cash for another telephoto prime, not the 16-35 f/4 IS.  F/4 is simply too slow for my style/work.

Look, you're happy with the 16-35/f2.8L II and for you it has value so keep it.

For most everyone else it now has no value - or at least not $1700 worth of value and quite possibly not even $1200 of value.

54
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 16-35 F/4L IS -- Reviews are trickling in...
« on: June 30, 2014, 07:06:53 PM »

Finally, note that the 16-35 f/2.8L II is actually sharp across the frame at f/11 (and pretty close at f/8).  So if you have this lens, all you have to do is stop down - which you probably would be doing for DOF in landscape anyway.  f/4 is really where the 16-35 f/2.8L II gets trounced in sharpness by the 16-35 f/4 IS, but that is the aperture that would likely be least used by either event or landscape photographers - too slow for event photographers, not enough DOF for landscape.

Have a look at these comparisons at F/11, though.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Comparisons/Canon-EF-16-35mm-f-4-L-IS-USM-Lens.aspx
(mouseover the aperture values to see the pictures change)

I would not call that "sharp across the frame" for the F/2.8 lens.  At 16mm, the F/4 lens is very slightly better in the corners at F/11.  And at 24mm and 35mm, it's clearly better.  The new zoom even fares well against a Zeiss prime on that same page.

The one distinction is why a boatload of landscape people will buy the new F/4 lens. No Canon UWA zoom has delivered sharp corners... until possibly now.  I'd like a few more reviews corroborating TDP's findings, but I'm optimistic.


Every review/poster of samples has shown similar IQ.

55
Lenses / Re: Review: Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS
« on: June 30, 2014, 03:00:14 PM »
"only 1 stop" means you lose half the light.  It means the difference between a usable ISO 6400 and very noisy ISO 12800, or the difference between a sharp picture and one affected by motion blur due to slow shutter speeds.  Unless all of your events are outside in the daytime, f/4 honestly is not flexible enough to consider for events, as the optimal shot may call for something quite wide without flash.  You can use primes in dim light, but there will be times when the flexibility of a zoom is needed for the event, or you simply need something wider than 24mm.  Enter the 16-35mm f/2.8L II.

If you are so worried about high ISO IQ, get the Sony A7S.

56
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 16-35 F/4L IS -- Reviews are trickling in...
« on: June 30, 2014, 01:51:50 PM »
Yup, in terms of IQ, this lens just blows away the 16-35 and 17-40.

If you've still got one of those two lenses, you could try giving it away for free because they're not really worth having now.

Unless you are a professional that does events.  Better corner sharpness from f/4-f/8 is not worth losing f/2.8.  IS can't help motion blur.

Lets see. The trade off is 1 stop of ISO for sharp across the frame.

And if you need 24/28/35 at f/2.8, Canon now has three primes with IS.

57
Lenses / Re: Review: Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS
« on: June 30, 2014, 01:48:17 PM »
Darn you, Bryan...   ;)

Time to sell my 16-35/2.8L II.
...
IMHO the 16-35/f4L reduces the value of the all previous wide angle zooms to sub-$400, if that.
...
No other Canon or Canon-mount ultra-wide angle zoom lens can touch this one.

Except when you are forced to 12800+ ISO on the f/4 IS to compensate for less light entering the camera due to a maximum aperture of f/4 at a dim event, in which case the IQ of the 16-35 f/2.8L II at f/2.8-ISO 6400 will be far superior.  f/4 lets in half the light of f/2.8, meaning you will be forced into motion-blur inducing shutter speeds or very high isos in dim light with moving subjects.  IS can't help motion blur.  I did see you qualify with your statements with "unless you need f/2.8," but the rest of your post seems to ignore these important issues.

The difference between f/2.8 and f/4 is only 1 stop.

I can't help but wonder if a 16-35/f4L IS and one of the other (24,28,35) primes with IS for low light would be the way to go.

58
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 16-35 F/4L IS -- Reviews are trickling in...
« on: June 30, 2014, 12:30:01 PM »
Yup, in terms of IQ, this lens just blows away the 16-35 and 17-40.

If you've still got one of those two lenses, you could try giving it away for free because they're not really worth having now.

59
Lenses / Re: Review: Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS
« on: June 30, 2014, 12:25:36 PM »
Darn you, Bryan...   ;)

Time to sell my 16-35/2.8L II.

The quality of this lens has been evident for a week or two or more now. There was some guy PhilA that posted pics and the corners are pretty good.

IMHO the 16-35/f4L reduces the value of the all previous wide angle zooms to sub-$400, if that.

Unless you need f/2.8, the 17-40 and 16-35 are just not worth having on a FF Canon now that this lens is here.

The only purpose they have now is for a mid-range zoom on APS-C cameras.

That's not to say that people won't find a buyers for the 16-35/f2.8 at ~$1195 or more because there are always uninformed buyers that want to be robbed of their money.

If you now offered me a 16-35/f2.8L II for free, I'd say "No thank you."

So if you haven't sold your wide angle zoom already then your chances of getting close to your money back are quickly evaporating. Can you beat the thundering heard of other owners that rush to offload their lens?

Bryan's closing remark echos my thoughts:

No other Canon or Canon-mount ultra-wide angle zoom lens can touch this one.

60
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: D810!!!
« on: June 29, 2014, 05:32:52 AM »
...
In my Reality most of the real Photografers use Canon, including me.
I also wait for an 12/14-24 f2.8 Lens with outstanding IQ for Canon, but how often i will use it ?
The new 16-35 f4 IS L is a interesting Lens for most People who need an real wide Angle.
...

The real reason for using Nikon's wide angle lens (Nikkor 14-24) on Canon was that Canon didn't have a wide angle zoom lens that was worthy of using when you needed corner to corner sharpness. The 16-35/f4L changes that.

Now the reason that you'd buy it plus adapter for Canon would be if you needed the extra 2mm or you need f/2.8 (low light) plus corner to corner sharpness below 24mm.

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 177