December 19, 2014, 03:58:24 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 - GMCPhotographics

Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10 ... 49
Lenses / Re: Why do fast primes not have IS?
« on: June 25, 2014, 08:09:51 AM »
There is an upward trend in weight with the L lenses. I'm ignoring the newer mkII super tele's here. But generally there is an upwards trend. The mkII 70-200 f2.8 LIS is heavier, the 16-35 f4 LIS is heavier and larger than the 17-40L. While the newer 24-70IIL is lighter and smaller, it's a different optical design and the old one was over engineered for sure.
The 70-200 f4 LIS vs the 70-300 LIS....that new lens is actually quite heavy compared to the old 70-200 f4 LIS. The 70-200 f4 LIS is a really sweet lens, it's so impressively light. But I don't think it's upto the ruggedness of the f2.8 version. The f2.8 version has a number of metal parts to it's casing, where as the f4 is all plastic, including where colar to which the hood fits. I'm not putting the f4 lens down, just stating a few observations about it. I think the newer and heavier L's are being built to a higher robustness and are heavier as a consequence. I don't think adding an IS unit to the formula adds much weight, but adding lots of new elements to make it sharper and then making the mechanism stronger by using more metal must increase the weight significantly. 

Lenses / Re: Why do fast primes not have IS?
« on: June 25, 2014, 07:11:54 AM »
I think people want absolutely IS, but don't know why..
Hi endiendo!

I could also live without IS (most of the time) and so I can understand your opinion.
But if useful tech is available at a reasonable price, size and weight, why avoid it?

I can remember a picture I took of a young Siberian tiger in really dim light at the zoo.
It was at ISO 3200, 400 mm and 1/20 s, handheld.
I still don't know how I and/or the IS could manage to get it quite sharp.
But I am sure that it was not my (non existing) sniper ability but more to the IS.

Which again shows that the IS merit is stronger at the longer focal lengths and less so for the wider focal lengths.

Lenses / Re: 24-70 f4 IS macro performance
« on: June 25, 2014, 07:09:59 AM »
I've not tried this particular lens, but from my understaning is that you have to get pretty close to get to large magnifications. From my experiance of macro work, usually the longer working distances tend to work better (100mm, 150mm or 180mm come to mind).

Lenses / Re: Why do fast primes not have IS?
« on: June 25, 2014, 06:49:03 AM »
2 stops [2.8 - 2.0 - 1.4]  ... to be precise.  ;D

Ok, hair splitter....several means more than one...
2 Stops is more than 6 clicks on a dial. It bumps shutter speed to x4 at teh same iso, which is a huge benefit.
So lets take an exposure of f1.4 @ iso 6400 @ f1/25th. at f2.8, I would get a shutter speed of 1/6th of a second....pretty slow.

I shot a wedding by candle light in a church crypt a few years back...f2.8 just wasn't possible. but due to f1.4 and f1.2 glass, I could get shutter speeds of 1/50th and 1/100th second at ios 6400. No flashes were allowed and during the service, shutter speeds of less than 1/50th would have been riddeled with motion blur by the targets in the photos.

Lenses / Re: Why do fast primes not have IS?
« on: June 25, 2014, 06:41:05 AM »
I have a 400mm f2.8 LIS. It's a fast prime and it's got an image stabiliser.
I have a 24mm f1.4 L, it doesn't need and IS unit because it can be shot hand held at 1/25th second easily and due to it's huge light gathering capabilities, it can shoot at light levels several stops below what an f2.8 lens can achieve. So what could an Is offer a 24mm f1.4? Very little.

2 stops [2.8 - 2.0 - 1.4]  ... to be precise.  ;D

IS would not hurt, even on f/1.4 lenses. Not everyone shoots them fully open ALL the time. Sometimes a bit more DOF is desirable. Or 2 stops closed (f/2.8) for IQ. etc.

If i wanted sharp stopped down photos I'd use a 24-70IIL.
An is usint would only degrade IQ at f1.4 by introducing extra glass elements into the lens forumla. I was my farst primes as sharp as possible wide open....if not then there's little point to it. if you are going to stop down, then there's no need for a bag od heavy fast primes...a 16-35 and a 24-70 would be lighter, more versatile and cheaper.

Lenses / Re: Waiting for the 35 1.4L II
« on: June 25, 2014, 04:59:00 AM »
Optically, yes there is a little bit of room for improvement on the 35L.
Yes, from a weather sealing and build quality, there is also room for improvement.
Flare control, colour, contrast...ability to render beautiful and stunning photos in the right hands...not much room for improvement.
I've got my 35L very wet from rain water a number of issues. So the weather sealing is a bit of gimmick, it's already very good, although it doesn't have that little rubber gasket on the rear mount. Hey, I've even got my 85IIL soaked with no issues either. I'm a UK wedding photographer...although it's been fairly dry this year and last year. But the year before was astonishingly wet. I've had more problem with the weather sealing on my 5DII / 5DIII than I ever did with my 35L or 85IIL.

it's a few years old, but here's an example of how wet my cams sometimes get:

Lenses / Re: Why do fast primes not have IS?
« on: June 25, 2014, 04:51:48 AM »
I have a 400mm f2.8 LIS. It's a fast prime and it's got an image stabiliser.
I have a 24mm f1.4 L, it doesn't need and IS unit because it can be shot hand held at 1/25th second easily and due to it's huge light gathering capabilities, it can shoot at light levels several stops below what an f2.8 lens can achieve. So what could an Is offer a 24mm f1.4? Very little.

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 16-35 f/4L IS Sample Images
« on: June 25, 2014, 04:49:00 AM »
Got mine today from B&H. What a beautiful lens!

Ran through FoCal 1.9.7 tonight:
AFMA: +1 at 16mm; 0 at 35mm
AF Consistency (on 5DIII): 99.7%
Aperture Sharpness: Relatively flat from f4 to f6.3 at 16mm; sharpest at f4.5 at 35mm
Quality of Focus values are lower at 35mm (max around 1,920) than at 16mm (max around 1,970).
Testing condition: 2x 150W bulbs; EV 10.6; tested at both 25x and 50x distance.

Real world shooting experience: super fast AF; IS operation is extremely fast.

I love this lens. Will take it to a trip in Oregon in August.

If you are testing with tunsten bulbs and not natural daylight, you are limiting your testing to a shallow portion of the light spectrum. As the colour of light moved to the red end of the scale, there can be a focus shift and more inaccuracys. All you are testing there is the camera / lens focus ability under those lighting conditions.
I'm often correcting photographers who are calibrating their lenses at night (becuase that's when they have the spare time) when they should be calibrating them out doors in good light during the daytime.

You think it might just be an economies of scale issue. Maybe the 7DII will have a sensor built on a new smaller say 50nm production line and to get the most out of the new line Canon needs to produce all it's new sensors on that line and retire the old 500nm line(s). This would make economic sense no? The "new revolutionary" sensor in the 7DII I think will point out where ALL EOS cameras are going.

Canon used the 7D as a development mule for camera ergonomics and User Interface updates, which is why the camera's handling is still so fresh. Nearly all of it's design changes went into the 5DIII and 1DX. So much so many people called the 5DIII a full frame 7D than a 5DII replacement (which is what the 6D eventually became). The AF redesign paved the way for the 61 point array and control and apart from the sensor, there is still a lot to like about the 7D. So it makes sense for Canon to use the 7DII as a development tool to updaqte the sensor technology and design. As long as the 7DII breaks even in the market place then the develeopment and lessons learnt from this model are effectively free to Canon, who can then incorporate it's features into the next gen of camera 5D4, 6DII, 1DXII ect. If the sensor is fantastic, then it's hype will generate a natural desire for full frame variants...and the next gen camera models will pretty much sell themselves with little marketing. In my view, that's the wise application of innovation which leads to market dominance.
If I rememebr the 40D introduced Live view to Canon, which was later incorporated into the 1DsIII and 5DII models. For landscape work, it was a game changer...somehitng which Nikon have never fully engaged with. 

Car makers are a stagnant market with very little change from year to year.... mostly cosmetic changes. No real surprises anywhere... As a point in case, with pickup trucks the big thing this year is GM with a step in the corner of the bumper.... that's it!

Or Ford's 700 pound reduction in weight going from steel to aluminum.

Or how about the Toyota Hybrid System announcements, fuel cell vehicle announcements, or other maker's (including Tesla) battery electric vehicle announcements?  Those are hardly "stagnant".
I stand corrected!

The VW XL1 is pretty amazing too. 300+ mpg. It's so efficient the oil dependant USA government have banned it from sale.

Pricewatch Deals / Re: Canon EF 16-35 f/4L IS Shipping This Week
« on: June 24, 2014, 05:15:39 AM »
Now I just have to decide whether to keep the 16-35/2.8L II or sell it and buy the 16-35/4L IS.

You already know that you must buy the new f/4L. It's just too sharp and convenient. The question is whether or not you also keep your f/2.8...
Doesn't make sense to me. I sold my 16-35 f/2.8 II
Since 3 days I own the 16-35 f/4. Haven't used it extensively but enough to say that it is a better lens - for me - and it was a good decision to sell the 16-35 f/2.8 II. Why keep both?

Well, this is fairly simple.  The 16-35 f/4L IS is not a better lens than the 16-35 f/2.8L II, it is a different lens that is better at some things and worse at others.  The f/4L IS may be a better lens for you, but it is definitely not a better lens overall - just different.

Specifically, if you use the 16-35 f/2.8L II to do event photography, such as crowded dancefloor shots at dim receptions or indoor sports - all of which will likely require at minimum 1/100 shutter speed - the 16-35 f/4L IS will be virtually unusable in this situation compared to the 16-35 f/2.8L II.  At events with dim lighting f/2.8 is the bare minimum you need to get by to both avoid motion blur and get enough light, as flash is not always possible or desirable; sure you could use the f/4L IS in this situation, but it will look horrendous with the five-digit ISOs it will need to keep up.

On the other hand, the 16-35 f/4L IS is much sharper in the corners from f/4-f/8, and a bit sharper at f/11 than the f/2.8L II - meaning the f/4L IS would probably be a better bet if you did landscapes only.   Although that being said, I like the sunstars on the 16-35 f/2.8L II better than the sunstars on the 16-35 f/4L.  Still, overall for landscape the f/4L IS will be the better bet for most.

So, in short:
Event photography: 16-35 f/2.8L II is a much better bet than the the 16-35 f/4L IS in most situations.
Landscape: 16-35 f/4L IS is much better than the 16-35 f/2.8L II from f/4-f/8, and a bit better at f/11.

In other words, if you want the "best" 16-35 lens, you need to buy both.  Well played, Canon ;)

Wow...carefull, common sense like this might catch on!  ;)
I can't see me getting rid of my 16-35IIL any time soon. I need that extra stop and I don't need an image stabiliser or slower shutter speed.
Optically, the f4 lens looks a lot stronger wide open. But rest assured, in a few years Canon will update the f2.8 version to the same capability.

Lenses / Re: The sharpness curse!
« on: June 24, 2014, 05:03:19 AM »
Sharpness is a very personal and subjective thing. Every photographer has their own level of aceptable sharpness. Some are easily swayed by forums and other photographers, but cost has a lot to do with this. We all set our bar based on what we can afford and to be honest this is an irrational behaviour. Surely our view of aceptable sharpness should be defined by how large we print and that it looks like on the wall?

Here's a shot I took a few weeks ago of a Puffin. At the time, sharpness was the least of my concearns. At the time, composition, tripod craft, exposue and not scaring this chap off were my priority. I was using a 400mm f2.8 at the time and I didn't want to get any closer, so I fitted a 2x converter and shot it nearly wide open. It was only when i got back to base I realised how sharp it was....stunningly so!

Here's the image, 5DIII 400mm f2.8 and a 2x TC f6.3, Manual Exposure, Gitzo Systematic tripod

Here's the 100%, it's looking like a Flickr is aplying some jpeg compression to my image. It looks sharper on my local file.

Lenses / Re: EF 16-35 F/4L IS corner samples & comparison
« on: June 23, 2014, 09:11:54 AM »
Time to sell the TS-E 17.  Better sharpness, better handling and operation, ability to use filters, and cheaper.  Yes please!

Lol....just don't try to swing the front element on your new 16-35 f4 LIS!

An internal 1TB SSD drive and a Thunderbolt port...  ::) ::) ::)

Do you mean that largely unsupported proprietry interface which only some Apple machines seem to be using?
Surely USB 3.0 is the way to go. Far more general support, even Apple is starting to adopt it as a format.

Lenses / Re: EF 16-35 F/4L IS corner samples & comparison
« on: June 23, 2014, 05:23:53 AM »
Thanks for posting. And yes, in my experience the 2.8 really IS that underwhelming in the corners, even at f8.

The new 4 shows significant improvement here at the wide end, but otherwise there really seems to be little to no difference at the other settings based on what I've seen so far.

For landscape work, which is generally stopped down, then no there isn't a lot of optical benefit of this new f4 lens over the existing f2.8 II version. But if you need to shoot wide open, the the optical improvements are clear.
It's looking a lot sharper in the corners and that looks partially due to the newer flat film plane. But the increased contrast and colour looks very good. I can't help think that the f2.8 was slightly over exposing and the f4 is slightly under? There's a huge difference in the blue sky colour between them.

Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10 ... 49