October 23, 2014, 05:29:36 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 - Random Orbits

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 92
16
Canon General / Re: More Canon Lens Mentions [CR2]
« on: October 10, 2014, 11:49:42 AM »
Before we burn the barns in indignation lets get a couple of things clear:
  • The Nikon 12-24 is a crop camera only coverage lens, a $1,099 crop camera only lens that doesn't do the "ultra wide" job half as well as the Canon 10-22 EF-s and that costs $599.
  • The Nikon 14-24 is a FF ultra wide that costs $1,999. And those that herald it's all conquering capabilities probably haven't actually used it, yes it is much better than the Canon 16-35 f2.8 in the corners etc, but the 17 TS-E is a much better corrected lens for resolution, distortion and CA.
  • The 17 TS-E has a coverage of 11mm if you do a horizontal stitch, the projection distortion from an 11mm to rectilinear on ff is pretty bad, virtually unusable most of the time.

Whilst I don't see 14mm as being a hard limit for ff rectilinear lenses, 11mm is beyond extreme, at these focal lengths a couple of mm makes a huge difference. The 16-35 f4 IS has confirmed Canon can make fine ultra wide zooms, but where is the market for an 11-24 f4 next to that 16-35 f4 IS? If it was f2.8 I'd probably buy it, but my most used lens is the 17 TS-E anyway so it would be a nice compliment to that, at f4 I can stitch the 17 to get 11 on the very rare occasions I need the fov. The 16-35 f4 IS appeals, but it has limited utility for me over the 17 TS-E.

I can see the market for an f2.8 ultra wide zoom to compliment the 16-35 f4 IS, and the kudos of going wider than the 14-24, I am sure Canon would like the title of widest ff rectilinear lens back too, but the Sigma 12-24 is an f4 so even a 12-24 f2.8 would give Canon the fastest widest ever (so far)........

Nikon's 14-24 f/2.8 weighs more than 2 lb.  How much heavier would a well-corrected 12-24 f/2.8 weigh?  Would a 3-4 lb lens sell?

I'm hoping that the Canon is working on a 16-35 f/2.8 III that is as easily filterable as the II.  A 16-35 f/2.8 III, 16-35 f/4 IS, and a 11-24 f/4 will meet most photographers needs and would provide the best breadth of high performance lenses amongst mainstream camera/lens manufacturers.  How will 11mm be used?  I'm not sure, but I'm sure that people will figure out a use for it, and then it'll be copied ad naseum like the Go Pro action video or aerial/drone stuff...

17
Reviews / Re: Tamron 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 Di III VC Review (EOS M and NEX)
« on: October 10, 2014, 10:32:59 AM »
Thanks for the review, Dustin!  It would be nice to see a comparison versus the EF-M 55-200 if you get the chance.  Granted it's not sold natively in the US, but sourcing it from Canada is easy enough.  It is interesting how quickly the Tamron gets to f/5.6 (near 50mm) and see how that stacks up against Canon's 55-200.  Given how small the EF-M 18-55 is, carrying an extra lens for the M system is not as large a penalty compared to FF.

18
Canon General / Re: More Canon Lens Mentions [CR2]
« on: October 10, 2014, 09:31:43 AM »
$3000?!?!?!?!?  That's triple what overpriced Nikon charges for its popular 12-24 f/4!!!!!!!!!!

Isn't the 12-24 f/4 for crop only?!  This is for FF.

19
Canon General / Re: More Canon Lens Mentions [CR2]
« on: October 10, 2014, 09:09:38 AM »
The pricing of this lens is out of alignment with it being an f/4. Several factors could contribute to this:

1) difficult to manufacture in quantity
2) Canon perceives that there is a large, pent up, demand for this lens given how desirable it is to use the Nikon 12-24 plus adapter and thus lots of people willing to pay handsomely
3) the IQ is exceptional and Canon don't want to "give it away"
4) any combination of the above 3

Best advice in reaction to this lens is to wait a year or so and see what happens with the street price - similar to how the price corrected for the 24-70/f4L IS USM

If it has similar wide open performance to the 16-35 f/4 IS, then it will sell.  The Sigma 12-24 comes closest -- it costs close to 1k and has mushy corners.  11mm is much wider than 14, so even though it is f/4, it might still be as large as Nikon's 14-24, which is about 2k now, years after its introduction.  I'll wait for the reviews and also see where the price goes.  The 16-35 f/4 IS is so good, but there is something special about 11mm...

20
Lenses / Re: Thoughts on Having a 35 and a 50 on Crop?
« on: October 09, 2014, 02:21:07 PM »
Having both is fine.  When I used APS-C, I used fast 24 and 35 lenses.  Now on FF, I prefer 35 and 50 most of the time, 85 for portraits (50 on crop).  I love using fast primes indoors where the light levels are low and flash is not allowed/desired.

21
Lenses / Re: 16-35 f4 IS vs 16-35 f2.8 II stopped down
« on: October 03, 2014, 12:22:31 PM »
Not too much of a difference if that is where you use it exclusively.  The f/4 IS might handle color fringing a bit better...  It's improved midrange to corner performance wide open is well-known, and that improvement might tempt you to explore using ultrawides for other purposes than just stopped down for landscapes....

22
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: What is your DSLR favorite use?
« on: September 30, 2014, 12:51:41 PM »
All of the above.

+1, which is why I have a DSLR and not a mirrorless.

23
Lenses / Re: The New Canon EF-S 24mm f/2.8 STM Pancake
« on: September 23, 2014, 08:22:23 AM »
it really should have been a EF-22/2.0 STM pancake. Not EF-S. Not 24mm. Not f/2.8.

Right... because a EF-22 f/2 pancake is possible...

24
Lenses / Re: Lenses that you want Canon to release next
« on: September 18, 2014, 08:42:45 PM »
I want a work over of the normal to short telephoto lenses with is, like the 24, 28, and 30 is.

Maybe I get you wrong (or incompletely) but what is missing for you from the 16-35 f/4?

Jim

I think he's saying that he would like to see lenses like the 50 and 85 get the same makeover/upgrade as the 24 f/2.8 IS, 28 f/2.8 IS and 35 f/2 IS.

25
Lenses / Re: Lenses that you want Canon to release next
« on: September 18, 2014, 06:06:16 PM »
I can't argue with any of that.  My only real point was that if this lens is real, Canon will continue to have no fast and sharp (compared to the new 16-35 f/4) ultra wide zoom, which is a shame.

And before this year, Canon had nothing that was sharp wide open in the ultrazoom category at all.  Now we have the 16-35 f/4 IS and, if the rumor is true, a 11-24 f/4 might appear soon.  Perhaps Canon can't figure out a way to design a good 14-24 f/2.8 w/o infringing on Nikon's patents, or maybe it did market research and found that people would rather have a 11-24 f/4 rather than a 14-24 f/2.8.  I'd prefer that Canon update the 16-35 f/2.8 II rather than a 14-24 f/2.8 anyway.  The extra FL on the long end saves on a lot of lens-changes and makes the 16-35 much more versatile (and easily filterable).

26
Lenses / Re: Lenses that you want Canon to release next
« on: September 18, 2014, 10:47:02 AM »
2.  EF 14-24/2.8L USM.  A competitor to Nikon's version.  But I believe Canon will not offer f/2.8 in this focal length range.

I personally feel  should Canon not offer f/2.8, it's not really a true competitor.  The rumor was that this new wider zoom would cost $2800, so without at least f/2.8, Canon would be asking that we pay significantly more than the excellent Nikon 14-24 f/2.8 for a slower Canon version.

I very much hope you're wrong.  If Canon wants to offer an f/4 or so, then I'd prefer to see two offerings by Canon just like Nikon's f/4 12-24 and f/2.8 14-24.

If the rumored Canon zoom starts at 11mm, then it is a different league than what Nikon has no matter the aperture.  Nikon's 12-24mm f/4 is for APS-C only, so the angle of view isn't as wide 11mm, and there is a big difference between 11mm and 24mm.

27
EOS Bodies / Re: 5diii to 7dii?
« on: September 16, 2014, 08:03:29 PM »
Relax.  Wait for the reviews and comparisons to come out, try it out in a store, and then decide.

28
Lenses / Re: EF11-24mm F4L listed on a Japanese site
« on: September 16, 2014, 12:17:07 PM »
Fake.  F/4 makes no sense.

Makes perfectly sense... People photogs (the only ones that need 2.8) would never use 11mm, because it distorts the image too much. For them, a new 16-35/2.8 is much better, which this lens would leave space for. Then Canon would have three wide angles to choose from, but to have all FL's and apertures covered, you gotta at least buy two of them... ;)
Besides, I don't think you could do 11mm/2.8 that easy. But looks like a nice supplement for the already great lens lineup! :D

Hmm...Reasonable. I was thinking too little differentiation after release of newest 16-35 f4, and Nikon has done so well with its 14-24mm...And you know Canon wants another $2500 L in the lineup.

I still say the image is a fake.  Too ugly.

Plus the website OP says this is "listed" on looks like a shady electronics dumping ground.

How large do you think a 11-24 f/2.8 would be?  The Nikon 13mm f/5.6 weighs 2.5 lb.  The Sigma 12-24 f/4.5-5.6 weighs close to 1.5 lb and is soft in the corners/edges.  A high IQ f/2.8 version that goes 1 mm wider would be a beast!

29
Lenses / Re: Which Tilt/Shift lens to choose?
« on: September 16, 2014, 10:50:06 AM »
...

Since noone have objected to my statement about 17mm & 24mm = architecture and 90mm = product shots, I presume this is right. I guess the addition is now "45mm = The Dog, avoid it at all cost" ;D

It really comes down to what you want to use it for.  The TS-Es can be used in many types of photography, so it is up to the user to decide which one(s) work for him.  Tilting to minimize the focal zone can by done handheld, but tilting to maximize the focal zone is usually done on a tripod and checking mutiple spots in the frame with liveview.  Shift can done handheld as well.

As others have noted, the TS-E 24 is a good one for landscapes, and you can add a 1.4x TC in a pinch and not degrade the quality too much.  Many use tripods for landscape and architectural photography anyway, so the added complexity of tilting and shifting is not much of an additional burden.  Same thing with macro and product shots.  The 45 is interesting because it is not one that fits in one of those categories.  And it falls into the "normal" range where people tend to be prominent subjects.  You can imagine tilting for a group shot where the people are not in the same "normal" image plane or tilting to partially correct or stress shots from below/above.

So I guess my recommendation is to choose one that fits with how you intend to use it the most.  Getting that right will increase your satifisfaction with using TS-Es.

30
Lenses / Re: Which Tilt/Shift lens to choose?
« on: September 15, 2014, 10:27:12 PM »
The 17 and 24 TS-Es have two rotations, so the shift and tilt directions can be decoupled, which is really nice.  The 45 and 90s don't have this.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 92