Messages

106

Lenses / Re: Anyone Want an Improved 16-35mm over the much requested 14-24mm?

« on: March 18, 2013, 09:01:06 AM »

I'm personally not too crazy about a 14-24mm f/2.8 lens. I would much much rather Canon release a further updated 16-35mm f/2.8 III, specifically based on this insane lens patent:

16-35mm f/2.8 IS Pro Lens.

http://egami.blog.so-net.ne.jp/2013-01-06

That patent is by Nikon, I don't see Canon making a lens based on it.


Personally, I prefer a Canon EF 14-24mm as good as Nikon's. If Canon makes a 16-35mm with sharpness that rivals the 14-24mm wide open, image stabilization, and low vignette, I'll be happy to buy that one instead.

Well, most of the pro photographers I know who are on the Nikon format don't like using the 14-24mm lens. It's a bit too wide, doesn't do filters in a conveinient way, it's big and heavy and while it's wide open performance is astounding...stopped down (landscapes or DOF) it's no better than older the 17-35mm. There's quite a few for sale S/H and that tends to say a bit about it.

I personally belive that a single wide lens, regardless how good it is, will never enough to cover every eventuality. I have used my 16-35IIL and Siggi 12-24mm lens for a very long time and I've only just replaced the Siggi 12-24 for a TS-e 17L. But my main "goto" wide lens is my 16-35IIL

107

Lenses / Re: Anyone Want an Improved 16-35mm over the much requested 14-24mm?

« on: March 18, 2013, 06:34:30 AM »

The 14-24mm was on my wish list. But instead I bought the 16-35 II
I actually like the range 16-35. It suites me well as landscape / walkaround and indoor lens. The thing that could be improved though is the sharpness at 2.8 in 16 to 24 mm. There are other things like some vignetting at 16mm but those can be taken care of in post-processing.

I think there is room in the market for both, a 12/14-24 f2.8 and a 16-35III 2.8.
The first lens will certainly have a bulbous front element and therefore be a pain with filters, which make lanscape work a pain the back side. Polarisers and NDs are pretty much precluded unless the filter sizes become huge and therefore unmanagable in the field.
The 16-35 is a compromise lens, it does a lot well but not spectacularly well. It's very wide, but these days there is wider. It's not too corrected but just enough so that post prod correction is effective. It's a useful range and quite sharp....but it could be sharper. Although it's sharp enough for most applications, there will always be some sharpess monkey out there who claims it's not sharp enough. It takes filters very very well and it's easily the most versatile wide lens. Unfortunatly it flares and ghosts quite a bit and could do with an improvement. It's weather sealed and it's easy to wipe water off the front element (or front filter), where as one rain drop on the front of a TS-e 17 is hard to remove and is massive on the final image.
If the 16-35 front element gets damaged (and I've had mine replaced) then it's expensive...but not as expensive or vaulrable as a big front bulging element.
For regular pro work, the 16-35IIL is currently the best choice. It's hardy, versatile and sharp enough. I think a 12/14-24 is more of a fan boy dream...usefull for shooting charts and not so usefull in the real pro use arena. Imagine taking a 12/14-24 to a war zone? Hell, even Cornwall UK on a windy rainy day would render this lens useless.

108

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 200 f/2L IS & EF 800 f/5.6L IS [CR2]

« on: March 13, 2013, 11:15:04 AM »

I'm kind of surprised to hear about the 200 f/2L IS being up for replacement already.  The current model is already considered to be pretty close to optically perfect and has an effective IS system.  I also doubt that it is a high volume lens at its current price, and Canon seems incapable of designing replacements that are even close to the price of current models.

This seems like a bit of a head scratcher to me, although I wouldn't be sad to see some MK I's at reduced prices on the used market.

The newer hood design needs a different front to each lens. The newer lenses don't have a protection element, which the mkI lenses do. The newer ones are a complete redesign, mechanically and optically. The newer ones are a LOT lighter, the new 400 f2.8 is hanholdable and the new 500L is amazingly light in weight. The newer lenses are better in every regard, sharper, less vignetting, better TC results, better IS and faster AF. There are newer coatings (SWF or what ever Canon now call it), Flourite coatings to reduce dust attraction and make them less flare prone.

Sure the new ones are expensive, but they are slowly coming down in price. If you couldn't afford a white tele before the mkII's the increase in price isn't going to make any difference. There's plenty of great condition S/H copies of the mkI lenses available.

All Canon lenses are rediculously over priced in their first year...but there's plenty of muppets who want to pay this premium to brag the newest toys. Wait a few years, let the initial batch issues get ironed out and then snag a bargain. Just remember that well looked after Canon lenses are usually worth more over time. Most of my lenses from 6 years back, which I bought new are now worth more S/H than what I originally paid for them. The same is true with the big whites. If you buy a mkI 500L S/H...it will never loose you money and probably go up in value over time. Where as the resale value of DSLR camera bodies drop like a lead ballon over time. 

109

EOS Bodies - For Stills / T-Stop Web Site listings

« on: March 13, 2013, 09:40:06 AM »

Guys, I'm wondering if we can collate a set of web links which points to sites which show T-Stop listings for Canon lenses?
DP review are now adding T Stop listings for their reviews, starting with the new 24-70 f2.8 II L. But they aren't retrospectively re-working all their other reviews. So I'm wondering if there's any other sources? DXO optics list a single T-Stop value for their lens reviews...but this is only good for primes. Zooms need at least two values, one from each end of the zoom.   

110

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Exposing to the left?

« on: March 13, 2013, 09:35:38 AM »

This is a very good point. It's why lenses are calibrated in T-stops rather than F-stops over in the cinema world.
Cheers,

b&

Do you know of a web site which charts the T-Stop values for Canon lenses? Do they chart zooms across their focal length too? Most constant aperture zooms are not fixed T-Stop zooms. A lens T-Stop value can also change according to how close it's focussed. I've yet to see a review site which comprehensively tests this criterior. DXO mark seems to have a single T Stop value per lens, which is useful for a prime but not very usefull for a zoom....a 24-70 f2.8 L will need testing at 24mm and 70mm and probably every major focal point in between.

111

Canon General / Re: Why did you choose Canon?

« on: March 13, 2013, 08:55:02 AM »

I've been a Canon man for my whole photographic life. My influence came from my father, who used an AE-1 Program and had a number of nice lenses. At the age of 15, I bought my first SLR, an AV-1 so that I could borrow some of my Dad's kit. After 28 years, I'm pretty well "in-Canon" and I can use any of their gear intuatively. When I pick up another branded camera, I find the metering, focus and User Interface work with different assumptions and feel very alien to me. Nikon's are just wrong in my hands...a confused button layout and poorly though out ergonomics. Where as I can pick up any Canon DSLR or ef lens and I can fully use it in seconds.
I've seen a lot of photographers jumping ship, Nikon to Canon....Canon to Nikon, over the years and this seems crazy to me. One might gain a small advantage in the short term, but loses quite a lot in cost....but the differences are nearly always made up within a single camera generation. So I'd rather enjoy my kit, keep my current developed familiarity and see what the next model offers.
In the current array of cameras, I think the Canon 5DIII is the most versatile DSLR currently available from any brand. I also think that it stands alone in the market place at the moment.

112

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: f/22 and diffraction

« on: March 11, 2013, 11:52:13 AM »

It all depends on what you're shooting and what your personal preference is for that shot.

Most landscape shots won't have many things drastically out of focus at sensible apertures (unless something is very close in the foreground), so without a tilt shift you can argue in some cases it's worth sacrificing ultimate depth of field to avoid diffraction softness, although equally you could argue it the other way around.

However, with a much narrower depth of field such as macro, if the depth of field is too narrow, it'll be painfully obvious even in a thumbnail sized image. Stop that lens down loads, and it'll look much better overall to everyone except pixel peepers.

In summary, do what suits you. But if you want to be as close to perfection as is possible, start saving for a TS-E lens.

There are a few problems with TS-E lenses, mostly related to them being quite a faf in the field. Complex movements need to be mastered and they really are quite hard to master at first and are very hard to set up in changing light. There's filter issues with the wider TS-e lenses, which can be remedied but only add to the complexity of use. The new Photodios filters come to mind...I have a set. There's also the fact that these are primes and loose versatility to any zoom. It's quite likely that a photographer can't get the desired angle of view with just one TS-e lens. Then the photographer needs to lug about all four TS-e lenses for every eventuallity. They are heavy for what they do and four of them is a lot more heavy than a bag of f2.8 zooms....in my opinion, TS-E lenses are not practical for general landscape work and certainly not practical for low light landscape work. Sure they might be good for mid day work - architectural stuff, but for windy sunsets on the coast....er....no. I'd choose diffraction over a TS-e headache any day.
Don't get me wrong, I really like my TS-e lenses in the right contex. But for many applications, a zoom is a better choice.

113

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: f/22 and diffraction

« on: March 11, 2013, 10:51:19 AM »

most aps-c sensors are affected by diffraction from f/8
FF sensors are affected from f/11 and it gets critical after f/16

dont forget that when shooting digital you can always focus stack for DOF while staying in the sweet spot f range of your lens

i always go for the highest quality possible under the circumstances and never go beyond f/16

Sorry but no you can't focus stack a landscape without registration issues....most zoom lenses change their focal length when the focus ring changes. This is true of all the 70-200, 24-70, 16-35 lenses.

114

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Spec List [CR2]

« on: March 07, 2013, 07:56:04 AM »

I know i I wouldn't buy a 60D, T4i, or 7D today. They will all be replaced soon.
Wait or buy a 6D, 5DIII, 1Dx etc.

If I was in the market to buy a 7D, I'd buy one used but in great condition. Why take the depreciation hit when it's so close to being replaced. Second hand units in the Uk are trading around the £850 mark. New copies are around the £1050 mark. When the 7DII comes out, both will be worth the same due to depreciation so get the S/H copy because that's already depreciated a chunk.
I'd be interested in how good the rumoured 7DII's high iso performance is when compared to the current 5DIII. The old 7D is pretty bad over iso 400 in RAW and is it's greatest deficiency. The camera needs to vastly improve in this area to be competative. It also needs a better AA filter, I found the 7D's to be overy strong. Which is good for video, but yeilded softer still images when compared to other Canon DSLR's. Other than that, it's a great camera and it still has some very compelling features. Unfortunatly it's sensor is it's weakest point.

115

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Spec List [CR2]

« on: February 19, 2013, 10:57:04 AM »

And this makes the 6D look pointless..

Not at all.  The 6D offers a sensor twice as big in a body that is slightly smaller and lighter than the 7D, and likely slightly smaller and lighter than the 7DII.  Each camera will have its purpose.

Yep, completley different cameras, different markets, application and specs.
I'm considering a 3rd camera and the 6D is ticking all the right boxes for me to go alongside my current 5DIII's....the 7DII prolly wouldn't be so attractive to me unless the ISO raw capability was close to a 5DIII/6D.

116

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Spec List [CR2]

« on: February 19, 2013, 10:43:41 AM »

The 61 point AF is an obvious upgrade. The 10 fps would be welcome, but 8 was fine. 24mp? Well ok, but what's it's pixel quality and iso ability like? These are the two biggest dissapointments with the 7D. Compare the files from a 5DIII and there's no comparison.

117

Lenses / Re: Help Me Build My Lens Stable!

« on: February 19, 2013, 06:47:45 AM »

5D III (toying with the 1D IV for build and speed but perhaps as a second body next year?)

16-35 II (traveling, street, some landscape, group or environmental portraits even)
70-200 2.8 IS II (everything...weddings, events, portrait, some closer wildlife)
135L (covers my portraits, some street stuff, events/stage stuff)
24 1.4L (not as good as the TS but it's more versatile. churches, markets, lowlight, astro)
100 Macro (L or not? IS can come in handy and its only a $240 difference, weather sealing is a selling point)
50 1.4 (better bokeh than the 1.8, which I'd keep as backup or lightweight setup)

MAYBE a 600-RT but that likely comes last.

Thanks in advance for all the help! If you want some degree of feel for what I shoot, visit www.rfaganphotography.com.

I would choose a 5DIII over a 1D4 any day. Higher rez, better iso ability....a quiet mode which is spookily quiet and a build quality which is very close to a 1D series. It's AF system is better than the 1D4 too. It's not like any previous 5D series cameras. If you are shooting weddings then a pair of 5DIII's are probably the most perfect fit from any brand....those cameras were designed to shoot weddings.

16-35IIL is probably the most versatile ultra wide currently available. Sure it could do with an improvement...but it's a great all round package and does what it says on the box very well.

You won't need a 70-200 f2.8 and a 135L...they are very close in range and application. Either sell your zoom and replace with a prime or stick with your current zoom.

I personally prefer the 35L over the 24IIL, but both are optical gems and great performers. If I was using a 16-35IIL, I would choose a 35L. But the best thing to do is rent them both and see which one floats your boat. Your making long term investments...so it's wise to make informed choices.

The 100L macro is sharper than any 100mm USM macro I've tried and the IS is great for handheld wide open shots. It has better contrast and colours too.

If I was buying a 35L, I wouldn't bother with the 50mm f1.4...they are very close together in range...just half a foot step closer. Optically, the 35L is in a different league...as well as build.

The 600RT is a great flash, but it's radio options need further units and triggers to have a working system. If this is an area you wish to explore later by adding further units, then it's the model to go for. If not, then a 580 would probably be a better fit for you and a bit cheaper too.

Your welcome

118

Lenses / Re: FoV difference between Tamron 70-300VC and Canon 70-300L

« on: February 19, 2013, 06:32:23 AM »

I was wondering if there is anyone else out there that has shot with both of these lenses and noticed the rather substantial field of view (FoV) difference between the two lenses.

If the Tamron is 300mm at 300mm then it feels like the Canon is maybe 290 or 280. A brick wall or newspaper test makes this very readily apparent.

Has anyone else noticed this?

There's a few lenses which focus breathing is really apparent and the Canon 70-300L is one of them. At MFD, the 300mm rating is slightly less than 200mm. Which is quite extream. Most macro lenses do the same due to their interal focussing design. The Canon 70-200 lenses (IS / f2.8 /f4 ect) hardly breath at all, where as the Nikon's do. The VRII is well known to be nearly 135mm at MFD. Each lens has to be evaluated for it's strengths and weaknesses. Most review web sites are such a poor level of testing, they rarely spot this vice consistently.
Another observation is that none of the Canon 70-200 mm lenses are particularly sharp at their Min Focus distances. They are usable but even racked out to a few feet more and they really sharpen up. The 70-300L is sharp all though it's focus and zoom range. While it looses focal length at close focus distances, it's more usable and sharp. Again...I've not seen a reliable test site which even begins to unpack this.
All lens formulas are a set of compromises. The flare and star bursts from the Canon 70-200 f2.8 L IS II is really ugly, the Nikon version fares better and the 70-300L is really nice in this regard. They are all sharp lenses, the 70-300L is particularly sharp. On paper one wonders how useful it would be. In real world use, it's probably more useful to many more photo genres than the sports / press orientated 70-200 lenses. Landscapes, travel, documentary, details, a bit of wildlife...etc

119

Lenses / Re: Weddings 70-200mm 2.8 is vs 4 is

« on: February 19, 2013, 05:15:55 AM »

I know this should be an easy decision, but my female, 51 yo, 5'3" frame is wanting the smaller, lighter, less expensive f4 to be an acceptable compromise. I am upgrading lenses this year and just ordered a 100mm macro f2.8l is. I also want a 135 f2. Any comments on the zooms? My bf is pushing me to get the best lenses, since we've already invested in multiple 5d bodies. Any suggestions and input appreciated. I do understand the 2.8 ii is great, just worried that it's too much for me to pack for a full day wedding.

I've used all three, the f4 was the lightest and easiest to use. But it's half as bright as the 2.8 and a lot less than the 135L. During ceremonies, I tend to perfer fast primes because of the light levels. But for receptions I prefer the flexiblity of a zoom and are generally better lit. So I put my 70-200 f2.8 LIS II in a camera bag in my car and after the ceremony I swap over lenses and pop the bag under the wedding cake table....the safest place

120

Lenses / Re: How to reduce the nd filter warm color cast?

« on: February 16, 2013, 07:15:02 PM »

Buy LEE or schnider optic.

Lee had some of the most variability in quality control and colour casts of all the filters I've tried their ND grads often have a purple cast in the darker densities. The B+W cast is very strong and like a copper tone. Very odd and quite harsh.
Heliopan are my preferred choice and offer more options in their range. I personally find their 5 stop to be the most useful. The Hoya 9 stop has a nice pink hue, which I really like too.