« on: June 02, 2014, 08:44:22 AM »
Something else to consider. Tenba 48 inch airline compatible case. Between this and the lowepo Trekker I can store ship or carry everything including a light stand, umbrellas etc.
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.
f/2.8 is not that thin DOF as you go to UWA. A 50 mm FL at 6 feet away f/2.8 gives DOF 0.78 ft (very thin, and difficult to manage), whereas a 24mm FL gives 3.4 feet, which is more than enough. At 15 feet away for a group, 24mm lens gives a whopping 36 feet of DOF. The razor thin concern doesn't apply at ultra wide.
An extreme example here: 24mm f/1.4 at 15 feet still has a DOF of 11 feet (but Canon's 24 1.4L is very soft in the corners at 1.4, different issue).
16mm f/2.8 at 6 feet away still has a very easy to manage DOF of 11 feet. Even as close as 3 feet, gives about 2 feet DOF.
So, f/2.8 really can help indoor photography for ultrawides without causing DOF problems.
I'm using 7D, pairing with 16-35 II... as my regular walk around lens
wonder shall I go for the 16-35 IS? worth?
also I haven't got my wide for APS-C , which should I go for?
I) New, 10-18 STM
II) Old, 10-22 USM
Guess I have to ask why? I feel like there are so many better options for a standard zoom lens on a APS-C. Why not the 17-55? Or something like a 24-70 or 24-105 if you want an EF lens.
If you're willing to spend that kind of cash on a lens then I wouldn't be lured in by the low price of the 10-18, unless it proves to be markedly sharper, which seems unlikely. So unless you want STM for video I'd stick with the tried and true 10-22.
You are 100% dead on. You could just as easily have replaced my three bullet point idea with:
- Do something unnecessary.
- Do something unnecessary.
- Lee solves the problem with epically large hardware.
The first two ideas I offered were just make the nasty magic wand / deus ex machina solution of 'a company solving it' less big than it might have to be. For instance, I haven't done the trig, but the first two bullet points might keep filters down to 6" wide, but not doing those two things might require 8" filters.
nice analysis A. I think our best bet is for the market to see the need for stacked filters in a sub 24mm world. Such a solution might be larger than 100mm and quite costly, but how else are you going to stack an ND, and ND grad, and a CPL in front of a 16mm
One might argue lens and filter manufacturers should team up in certain focal lengths and co-develop lenses. Keep in mind that filter threads themselves add thickness to the vignetting problem. Killing those off would help.
Less Exciting but also Less Whack Idea:
- The lens company would design a WA lens with a flat front element and no front filter threads or make them removable somehow. This eliminates thickness add #1 -- the filter ring. (Admittedly, lens cap just got problematic.)
- The filter company would then use the lens's hood mount (outside of the lens on the barrel, possibly specially designed for this) as the basis to snap on an outrigger a la Lee Foundation that is ever-so-close to flush with the front element. This eliminates thickness add #2 -- the basic hardware to mount the filters.
- The final step would be wide as hell filters to support 15-16mm FF focal length needs without vignetting. They might be monstrously big, but it's do-able, right?
My thinking is that Canon will make something new like a 14-24 or 12-24 f/2.8 instead of just updating the 16-35 II. If you think about it from a marketing point of view making a version 3 of the same lens is like saying "oh man, it took us three attempts to get it right! Doh, but here you are now!" Or they can be like "hey, look here's something completely new that we cooked up" to help you forget about the version 2.
Also, now with this new 16-35mm f/4 IS anyone needing this particular focal range but not the f/2.8 aperture in a way already have an updated option.
Might just have to get the 16-35/4L IS. Selling the 16-35/2.8L II would cover the cost. Less than 15% of my 16-35L shots are wider than f/4, and of those a reasonable fraction are of static subjects where 3-4 stops of IS would be of more benefit than 1 stop of light. Sharper would be welcome, too.
Bummer (for me) about the 77mm filter size, as the 24-70/2.8L II and TS-E 24L II both use 82mm, as does the 16-35/2.8L II. I have the needed filters in 77mm (B+W Käsemann CPL, 10-stop ND, and the Lee WA adapter), it just means carrying them, too.