March 04, 2015, 09:51:47 PM

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 ... 49 50 [51] 52 53 ... 97
Lenses / Re: Euro Trip Lens selection.
« on: June 06, 2013, 12:01:51 PM »
I didn't want to bring the 24-105L as it's redundant but I'll squeeze it into my carry-on. I might use it, I might not but everyone agree's I should take it.

Most everyone here agrees that 300mm is seldom used in these citys. So the 70-200 f/4L IS is the choice for me.

That makes this

-70-200L F/4 IS

Should I take one of my additional fast primes like the 24L II or the 135L? I could fit one more in my carry-on.

Honestly, I'd suggest bringing what you use regularly:  24L II, 50L, 135L and then add a 1.4x III if you want more reach.  You'll know exactly when to use each lens, and you'll have low light/shallow DOF capability across the range.  How often will you really need the UWA at 17mm instead of using the 24L II?  If you plan on using it indoors, renting a TS-E 17 for perspective corrections might be an option but that will require a tripod to do it well.  If you're not bring a tripod, is the 17mm really going to be used well to make it worth it?

Lenses / Re: $1550 for a used 85L f1.2 II
« on: June 06, 2013, 11:42:27 AM »
Yes.  I'd ask for the receipt anyway with name/address blacked out, etc.  If it just expired, Canon might give you a break anyway if you find something immediately.

EOS-M / Re: EF-M 11-22 / 4-5.6 IS STM - officially announced
« on: June 06, 2013, 07:59:32 AM »
If they wanted, Canon could sell M-pancakes at prices very similar to the ultra-compact FF-capable EF 40/2.8 pancake - with excellent IQ and "good enough for me" build quality - and still make tons of money. 

And for € 399 they could just as well have built an EF-M 11-22 IS with a constant f/4 aperture. All the difference would have been a slightly larger front element and a 62 filter thread instead of 55.

But lets wait what image quality the 11-22 will really deliver. And as long as there is no adequately performing EOS-M body, I am not interested anyways.  :P

And a 62mm front element would have retracted into the barrel how?  If they make the barrel wider and longer, then it has little advantage over EF-S/EF designs.  Canon favored compactness for this design, and I think it's right for the target market.  What would a constant f/4 do for you?  3 stops of IS will more than offset the decreased shutter speed, and if you need shallower DOF, then the lenses are a lot bigger (i.e. Tokina 11-16), and your better off using FF anyway.

Lenses / Re: Euro Trip Lens selection.
« on: June 05, 2013, 01:44:51 PM »
70-300L.  Slightly shorter and heavier but fatter, but the key is 100mm more range for a fractional stop.  Unless you know you won't go beyond 200mm, the 70-300L will be more versatile.

Reviews / Re: what utter crap this is.... samyang 24mm TS
« on: June 04, 2013, 09:26:00 AM »
Let me get this right.
A $1k lens is not as sharp as a $2k lens... and you're spitting mad? Have you never thought that (usually) you pay for what you get? Quite often, you pay a lot more.

I think people are always upset when their expectations aren't met.  Samyang has released several lenses that are optically very good, and at a bargain price.   This lens appears to be neither.

+1.  Before it was released, a lot of people were hoping that it would approach the TS-E 24L II in performance.  Now it seems like the discussion is turning to comparing how it does versus TS-E 24L (version I), which is similar in price used...

Reviews / Re: what utter crap this is.... samyang 24mm TS
« on: June 04, 2013, 07:23:48 AM »
Before we go all crazy on hating the lens, lets all remember that that was one lens tested.  Rokinon is known for not always having the most constant quality of product.  This lens might have just been a bad copy, when they start trying out more of them and find the same thing, then we can get a little upset but before then, we should just wait and see.

LensRentals tested 4 copies against the TS-E 24 and found it wanting wide open (unshifted) as well.  LR found that the Samyang catches up to the Canon at f/11 and smaller, but the build quality of the Samyang is also much worse.  People are definitely expecting more after Samyang produced some good products at very good prices.  An optically inferior and less robust tilt shift costing 1000 is not a screaming bargain like some of their other products.  Now if the price drops to 500, I'm sure there will be a more that will consider and buy it.

Lenses / Re: Sell 24/1.4L II and 70-200/f4L IS for 24-70 II or not?
« on: June 03, 2013, 10:08:21 PM »
At smaller apertures, there isn't much of a difference between the two.  If anything, the zoom might have better edge/corner performance and also more vignetting than the prime at larger apertures.  Because you don't use the 24L II much at the largest apertures, it looks like the 24-70 II is a good choice for you.

Lenses / Re: If you could only have three lenses...
« on: June 03, 2013, 01:03:23 PM »
If I didn't have to pay for it, I'd take three 1200s and retire a lot sooner!     ;D

I used to carry the 16-35 II/50L/70-200L II combo.  The 16-35 II was the least favorite/used out of the three, but it's range is versatile.  The three lenses covered a wide range of photographic situations, but after trying the 24-70 II, that trio will have to be broken up to include the 24-70 II.  The 70-200 II stays, so the question is what is the third lens -- fast prime or ultrawide (i.e. TS-E 17).  I tend to use fast primes more, so now I would pick the 24-70 II, 85 II and 70-200 II.

If Canon made a 50L II that rivaled the 24-70 II, then I'd opt for that over the 85 II.  I tend to use the 50mm focal length a lot more...

EOS-M / Re: EF-M 11-22mm f/4-5.6 IS STM Announcement Soon? [CR2]
« on: June 03, 2013, 11:44:04 AM »
How many people have an 'M'? I mean there isn't even a section in the gallery for it.

Just seems like they are making a new lens for a camera that has flopped hard.

It's a first gen product.  I'd reserve judgement until after seeing how the second gen performs.

I saw prices near 400 a while ago (haven't checked recently).  For that price, I'd prefer it with the 22mm and the adaptor to something like the S100 for small walkaround setup.

EOS-M / Re: EF-M 11-22mm f/4-5.6 IS STM Announcement Soon? [CR2]
« on: June 03, 2013, 10:39:29 AM »
Did anyone else raise an eyebrow at the "IS" in that lens name?

I didn't think people really needed to handhold 1-second exposures at 11mm, but I suppose the technology does help sell lenses to novices.
Imagine being able to drag shutter for water shots (maybe 1/5 to 1/2s) without a tripod...for someone already considering the EOS-M line, that's another few pounds saved.

+1.  I'd choose a larger max aperture over IS, but I'm sure it will come in handy for the target audience.

Lenses / Re: Tele for backpacking
« on: June 03, 2013, 07:19:43 AM »
If you already have the 70-200 f/4, then use it with the 1.4x.  The weight with the extender will be comparable to the 70-300L, and you don't have to shell out 1000-1500.

If you no longer have the 70-200 f/4, then the 70-300L is a good choice. 

Lighting / Re: 600EX-RTs Now or Later?
« on: May 30, 2013, 11:06:52 PM »
If you need it now, then get it now.  If you can wait and get them piecemeal (dollar cost averaging), then that is another option.  According to canonpricewatch, 400 was about the lowest price for the 580ex II over the last 1-2 years, so I would expect the future min price to fall between 400 and 500.  Given that the refurb price (on sale) is close to 400, then I'd suspect the new ones to cost close to 500 for quite a while.  Picked up a used ST-E3 for 250, a new 600ex-rt for 520 and a refurb for less than 400.

Lenses / Re: DXO tests the Canon 500 II and 600 II lenses
« on: May 30, 2013, 02:18:00 PM »
" MTFs curves also tend to get higher for longer focal lengths as well."

no they don't,  longer focal lengths are measured around 10lp/mm which gives higher higher curves, for example  Canons 300mm has higher resolution than 500 or 600 who are optimized for  high contrast and do well at lower Lp/mm
300/2,8  and shorter lenses has higher resolution and are often measured around 30-50Lp/mm when they are compared to each other

So,  there are nothing strange about that 300/2,8 are a sharper lens regarding resolution and contrast

Please explain.  The Canon MTF charts have both thin and thick lines.  I thought the thick lines corresponded to 10 lp/mm and that the thin lines corresponded to 30 lp/mm.  We're not comparing thick from one lens to thin on the other.  Unless you are saying that what the thick and thin lines represent (x lp/mm) varies depending on the Canon lens focal length.  Does it?

If it does not, then what Insanitybeard points out is correct.   The 300/2.8 has lower 30 lp/mm curves than the 500/4, yet it measures having higher resolution.  That is the crux of the question.  Neuro points out that MTF curves/sharpness do not have a 1:1 relationship, which is fine.  However, we often get MTF curves in advance of lens testing results, so we often use them as proxies for sharpness, and most of time, it works well.  Noting something that does not follow the pattern is interesting.

And my statement that longer focal lengths tend to produce higher MTF curves is a general trend born out by Canon's MTFs.  See the F/8 lines for the 24L II, 35L, 85L II and then the telephoto primes (200 and up).

Lenses / Re: DXO tests the Canon 500 II and 600 II lenses
« on: May 30, 2013, 11:16:34 AM »
The 300 f/2.8 IS II would be at a disadvantage for the thin lines because that's at max aperture, so you're comparing f/2.8 versus f/4 for the other two lenses.  MTFs curves also tend to get higher for longer focal lengths as well.

But you are right in that the MTFs for the 500 are better than 600.  I wonder if DxO's reversal is due to copy-to-copy variation...

But as I understand it the thin dotted blue line is sagittal resolution af f/8, the 300mm still has a larger drop off towards the edges than the 500mm in that regard.

Yes, you are correct.  I do not know how MTFs translate to resolution, although higher curves should produce better resolution results.  I've always been wary of trying to compare MTFs across different focal lengths and among different companies for this very reason.

It is technically feasible, a 50mm lens is one of the easiest to design, a IS for f/1.4 would be small and lightweight, just expensive.  I doubt that too many want a $1500 lens.
Canon does price out various designs and marketing then has to decide if a design is going to sell enough to be profitable.  The tooling and startup cost for a new design is high, and a f/1.4 might be extremely high.  Still, it would sell if they keep the price to $1000 and the IQ is high.

+1.  Which is one reason why I think the f/1.4 IS makes a lot more sense than the f/1.8.  The f/1.8 is much less expensive than the 24, 28 and 35 mm lenses that were replaced with IS versions.  The IS versions came out at about 850 USD.  The 50 f/1.4 is closer in price to what the older 24, 28 and 35s were priced at, so hopefully, an IS f/1.4 would be 800-900.  I'd expect the IQ of the 50mm IS to fall between the current 50s and the 24-70 II at 50mm, which is fantastic.  The only problem with this line of thinking is that the 50L II would then have to be much better and released first (similar or better than the Sigma 35 wide open and comparable/better than the 24-70 II at equal apertures).  If Canon can not figure that 50L II formula, then a 50 f/1.8 IS starts making more sense. 

Pages: 1 ... 49 50 [51] 52 53 ... 97