December 22, 2014, 10:20:33 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 - dlleno

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 41
16
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.

yea.   so f/2.8 can help isolate the subject from the background as well.  in your example, the DOF extends from about 2 feet in front to 9 feet behind, which may be pushing it for subject isolation but still  doable (you would more likely be stepping back and zooming in to 21 mm for example, for better results --  But to continue the example:   at f/4 (still 16mm and subject distance of 6 feet)  you loose almost all hope of subject isolation from the background because everything 34 feet behind the subject  is in focus.     so in this particular example, the f/2.8 lens has a hope of capturing a venue feature like a candelabra or whatever, with some isolation from the background, but the f/4 lens has little hope.  I doubt very many people/group shots are taken at 16mm and 6 foot distance... but I'm not a wedding 'tog so I'm open to correction here :D 


17
I'm using 7D, pairing with 16-35 II... as my regular walk around lens  :D
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

Thanks...  8)

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.


+1.  f/2.8 is going to be more important on the 7D, so for the required FOV the 17-55 f/2.8 IS is the better choice imho for a walkabout lens, than the 16-35 f/4 IS.   16-35 f/2.8 II is certainly doable -- its corner softness will be mitigated by the crop body, and it will serve as an upgrade path to FF, but it does not give you IS in the so-called "normal" FOV region (i.e. ~28-80 FF equivalent).  Note also that the 7D's AF system will benefit from f/2.8.   

But to help answer the question, you need to ask: in what situations does the 16-35 f/2.8 II fail for you?  what capabilities does it lack that would allow you to take better photos?  what are the situations where you have a low keeper rate?  If the answer is "low keeper rate due to camera shake" then you need to add IS.  If the answer is "low keeper rate due to motion blur" then for sure you don't want to give up f/2.8, while IS may not be important.  you can see here that the combination of IS and f/2.8 may or may not be important to you.

I would also recommend you review the meta data of your 16-35 f/2.8 II photos and  see what percentage of them use f/2.8.  Consider too, that the region between 35mm and 55mm may be important to you as well.

I sold both my 17-55 and 10-22 but they were important regulars in my crop body bag.  Only downside to the 17-55 is that it is flare-prone and needs a front filter.  FYI  I had a $250 repair experience gone way bad (on my 17-55 before it sold)  -- took Canon four attempts and four months to get it right, so make sure you test your copy, and beware of purchases from individuals. 

18
oh duh -- the std foundation does not offer independent rotation, which is why the outboard 105mm CPL is an attractive option.   As Neuro suggested,  and as my calculations confirmed, stacking holders for independent rotation does not sound good from a vignetting standpoint, so to me that's a dead end -- now I see the wisdom of the 105mm CPL. Stick with one foundation and use to ND media, with only one of them requiring rotation.  Use  the CPL when it is necessary. 

ok so I just just came up to speed where y'all have already been.

Sagittariansrock -- thanks for the pointer to WonderPana.   looks to be lens-specific'; I better do some more reading. 
   

19
that's some creative thinking, to be sure!  so my only worry here is that light does weird stuff when passing through curved media, so my first thought here is phys 201 where we learned that angle of incidence = angle of reflection.  Light transmission is going to be critical when  three external media surfaces are used, especially if two of the three have to be rotated and/or otherwise critically adjusted with respect to the other.   

I'll yield to the optical engineers to properly express the effects of curved media and of stopping the iris down.

Well I think we've successfully  torpedoed the thread.  meanwhile did you say you could shoot at 16mm with TWO lee filters in the holder, for example, an ND grad and a CPL?  at least one could, with such a setup, use HDR to deal with the amount of light in the scene;  you just wouldn't be able to blur the water. How often do landscapers need three media AND 16mm?

 

20
lol you're right about us punks just figuring this out.  Unless the lens mfg comes out with a proprietary mounting and filtering system using custom  gels OE from the likes of Lee I don't think and easy answer is coming soon.  BTW  I don't know enough about the lens geometries to make any generalizations but the benefit of stopping down has to be greater than zero.  meanwhile we could get some relief from a 150mm filter and hopefully a more compressed foundation to keep things close;   I suspect there aren't many 16mm photos with the benefit of all three:   ND grad, ND, and CPL. 

I guess one thing that gave me pause was the very expensive approach of a 105mm adapter plus a 105mm CPL without a prayer of using the UWA FLs .  that puts the most expensive piece of glass, and one that requires find adjustment,  the furthest away from the lens, making it the largest component.   the component that needs to be the furthest away would be the cheapest -- an 8" straight ND for example.   

I haven't tried any of this before, so forgive my ignorance:  but suppose one could keep the adjustable elements close to the lens, i.e. a 4"  nd Grad and a 4 "CPL, and then hand hold a large ND in front of that assembly, would that work?  how often would one need a three-element setup that included a 10 stop ND?

21
ok I'm tired of seeing arguments about how no one asked for a lens that several of us want and a few have already ordered.

I'm more interested in this topic:


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.

- A

You are spot on.  I just ran  first order approximation,  using a 98 degree horizontal viewing angle and assuming that 77mm diameter threads occur right at the viewing angle boundary.  In order to maintain a 98 degree viewing angle at 2 inches beyond this point, the filter surface would have to be 193mm wide.  Add margin to that and you are right at 8" just to place something two inches beyond the lens -- and lenses that have 82mm fronts are even worse.   I doubt that is going to happen though-- it is 4x the filter surface area and probably 10x the cost. 

This isn't too hard to visualize though.  if our filter is  only 100mm and the front diameter is already 77mm (or 82mm), then you can see that the 100mm filter will have to be placed very close to maintain a 98 degree viewing angle. 

using a 150mm instead of a 100mm filter would buy us some, but again the cost...

22
Software & Accessories / Re: how do you transfer your images?
« on: May 14, 2014, 02:19:40 PM »
EOS utility is the best, imho.  LR fails because it's definition of "new" is "whatever is not in the catalog", which means it won't respect that you have already rejected a photo that might still be on the card.    I know the LR experts all defend LR download capabilities but it just doesn't work for me.

If you are careful enough to keep the USB connection safe, while working around the USB cord, the camera, and the computer, then you can certainly be to be trusted with R&R'ing a CF card.  The CF card mechanics are so robust I'd suggest the risk of damaging a USB pin on the camera is 100x that of damaging a CF card slot on the camera. 

But,  to be sure you are right about preferences and whatever works.  I used the USB cord method for 7 ish years and  75,000 ish photos on my 40D, and I didn't damage a single cord or  connector on the camera.  either one works. 

Another reason I switched to the card reader method is that the 5D3 doubled my data xfer needs, and the "in camera USB" method is pretty s...l...o...w  especially for large cards that can hold over 1000 photos.

23
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?
 
- A

  I think the market will always demand the single screw-in filter, i.e. UV and even CPLs.  for rectilinear lenses. I wonder if there are mechanical limitations using to the lens hood mount though - it was never intended to support any kind of weight and the last thing you want is breaking bayonet tabs.  you would have to supplement with some secondary holding/fastening system, but that sounds doable.   

but I must be missing something here -- if the lens mfg can design the front to accept a screw in filter without vignetting, then Lee can make an adapter to accommodate  a new, larger, foundation kit and a larger filter set.   However,  as you rightly point out, the filter sizes and foundation system required to stack three things in front of a 16mm would be vast, however, and may approach the mechanical limits of the screw mount.

24
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

25
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.

yea the 16-35 f/2.8 II is a conundrum  to me, and I suspect Canon's arrogance to continue as well without a version III.  They can divert attention from the version II shortcomings by producing key answers to Nikon's present offering as you mention.  Those who really want steller IQ at the edges in this focal length range will have several other ways to fulfill their needs.   meanwhile the version II will continue to ride on Canon's reputation and the soft-ball glowing reviews that don't want to point out its weaknesses, preferring instead to use such language as "L quality" and "flagship". 

26
In case it matters.... I've asked for  this one  since  the  16-50 rumor and I'm somebody so therefore it is not true that nobody asked for it. Oh And available June30 per Amazon

27
Software & Accessories / Re: how do you transfer your images?
« on: May 13, 2014, 05:02:33 PM »
I know this is old but I thought I would share something that is likely obvious;  just not to me until recently.  BTW I'm definitely in the card reader camp now -- have two 1000x Lexar cards that get rotated;   I just don't see the wear/mechanical risk in the card R&R, and the Lexar reader itself works really well over USB3. 

what I discovered, however, is that I don't like LR as the file transfer mechanism. I'm using the Canon software instead now, because it has the right definition of what a "new" image is :-). 

28
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 K√§semann CPL, 10-stop ND, and the Lee WA adapter), it just means carrying them, too.

yea I'm glad I waited and was pleasantly surprised at the price.  I just pre-ordered.  now pondering the Lee setup and solving the vignetting issue... I'm hearing that even the Lee + 105mm adapter + B+W CPL will vignette wider than 20-ish?

29
So do we have an approximate date that these will be available? I know "June", but I'm leaving on a trip June 28th and would love to have the 16-35 with me.

B&H and Adorama won't say, and Amazon claims first availability June 30

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 41