April 21, 2014, 05:55:44 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 [2] 3 4 ... 35
16
EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: EF 85mm f/1.2L III and Others
« on: April 01, 2014, 08:59:46 PM »
I have to take issue with it being sharp wide open.  It's not remotely as sharp at f/1.2, as for example the 135L is at its wide open f/2 (not even in the center...and at the borders the 85L is pretty soft, and suffers from coma).  Also, the 85L has a fairly high vignette anywhere near wide open aperture.

My copy of the 85II L is really sharp wide open. It's sharper than my 135L wide open. My 2nd photographer's copy isn't quite as sharp as mine but it's still very sharp.

I'm really not that fussed about coma, it's very easily correctable. The point of the 85IIL is that it's a portraiture lens, hence the soft corners, dreamy bokeh and strong vignette wide open...it's an optical photoshop look...and really works wonders with portraits.

17
EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: EF 85mm f/1.2L III and Others
« on: March 31, 2014, 06:33:29 PM »
I love, love, love my 85II for all reasons stated above, but seriously, this lens has really bad LOCA that's difficult to fix in post.

If they found a way to reduce the green/magenta bokeh CA, I would upgrade in a heartbeat (assuming that's even possible on 1.2 lenses)

It is correctable to some degree through use of APO lens designs.  As always, though, there are varying degrees of effectivity even among respective APO designs, and if we REALLY demand the goods...we're probably in Leica territory for price. 

The third party makers (Sigma!) often designate APO on lenses, but while the design may be APO, their particular realization of the design usually leaves much to be desired.  This can be due to any number of design constraints. 

Canon's L-series Flourite coatings are part of their APO equations where used.  However, to the best of my knowledge, the 85mm f/1.2L is not an APO design.  Maybe someone has more or better information than I have, though.

Leica made a 90mm APO lens that will show you what REAL APO can achieve in shorter lenses in the portrait range.  It sold for almost $4k, though.  How badly do you want rid of that LOCA on the Canon 85?  I'm pretty ok with mine! ;-)

The 85IIL is an expensive lens to design, engineer and build. It uses some pretty high grade design components not seen in other lenses...like automotive grade ball bearings to shunt the internal glass about smotthly and reliably. Canon can easily match zeiss optics if the wanted to and the lens priced wouldn't be anywhere near the level of the Zeiss glass. Canon sells a lot more lenses than Zeiss, so it's R&D can be spread over a larger number of production units and Zeiss ever could. Canon also will need to add a top tier AF system to their lenses...and sometimes this is a logistical problem...which is why the 85IIL uses a purely electronic AF system with no mechanical linkage. Full time Manual focusing is achieved using the AF motor because some of the glass elements which need to be precisely moved have a lot of mass. A mechanical link just isn't possible with this optical formula.

18
Has anyone had problems with the lens hood to a 24-70 F2.8L II falling off?  Purchased one from B&H which arrived Friday and used it once so far and what a mistake!
Didn't your lens come with a hood?  My hood locks just fine and stays on the lens.  It stays on MUCH better than the huge hood on the old 24-70 that came off all of the time.

I'm wondering if we are seeing manufacturing tolerances in the plastic moldings here. My mkI 24-70L 's large hood is very stable and rock solid. But the recent 24-70IIL's hood which I recently hired wasn't so great and a lot weaker than any of the other newer "push button" hoods I've used or currently own. I'm not sure it's confined to any particular lens or hood design. When I hired a 35L many years ago, the hood was way too tight and nearly impossible to take off, when I bought my own copy, the hood is a lot looser and fits nicely.

19
EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: EF 85mm f/1.2L III and Others
« on: March 31, 2014, 09:49:17 AM »
The 85IIL is bitingly sharp wide open, although the AF is slow it's still very accurate. But I'm not sure I'd be selling my mkII for a mkIII. There's not much to update here, especially if my existing copy is so good. My copy is sharper than my 135L wide open. It's THAT good!

A new 50mm f1.2 II L, well there's not much more to say to that than "bring it on" and lets hope it's better than the last one. The Zeiss Otus and new Siggi are the new benchmarks, where as most of the 50mm lenses from Canon have been sub optimal in the last 20 years. It's been a game of which drawbacks is a photographer prepared to put up with as opposed to which features are most useful.

The other two lenses? Well, not really my bag.

20
Lenses / Re: Patent: Canon EF 300-600 f/5.6 w/1.4x TC
« on: March 18, 2014, 07:14:14 AM »
The wide aperture affects AF speed and AF point precision and capability. Remember, particularly in the 61pt AF system, there are f/2.8 double cross type points, f/4 cross type points, f/5.6 line points, and the center expansion f/8 points. With an f/4 lens, you ALWAYS AF at f/4, no matter what you stop down to for actual shooting. The extra stop of light allows the AF system to operate more quickly and more accurately. When f/4 AF points are used, they tend to be more precise than f/5.6 points, which need larger pixels in order to sense as well as f/4 pixels.

The point of an f/4 lens isn't that you always shoot wide open (although in the evening, it isn't uncommon...I tend to be around f/8 aperture for shooting during daytime, and f/4-5.6 for shooting around sunset, for wildlife.) It's that you ALWAYS AF wide open (by design.) And yes, with an f/4 lens, when you slap on a 1.4x TC, you still AF at f/5.6, which is still better than AF at f/8, no question.


Jrista, thank you.
I actually completely forgot about the difference between f4 AF points and f5.6 ones. The high precision f2.8 AF points are referenced so much I guess I clumped all the others into the same group. (After reading multiple articles detailing all the AF points, and watching the entire B&H Canon AF seminar [ ww.youtube.com/watch?v=iAx86nblZ2g ][great video BTW], you would think that someone would remember something like that. I guess a guy can only fill his head with so much.)
That changes my perception of the TCs quite a bit. I've been assuming that you get "worse AF" when using a TC because of a combination of optical performance and some kind of interference in the circuitry, if on the other hand it's actually just due to the change in the type of AF points used, then the 600f4+1.4xTC is actually going to AF exactly the same as the 800f5.6. I was assuming the latter would have an advantage.
Indeed that does make a very good case for the 600f4, and makes the 300f2.8 more appealing now that I know it's not some mystical interference from the teleconverter making AF worse at 600mm.


A little digging brings this up

From the TDP review http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-Extender-EF-1.4x-III-Review.aspx

Quote
Shooting with the Canon EF 1.4x III Extender mounted results in reduction of autofocus speed. According to Chuck Westfall (Canon USA): "As with previous EF Extenders, usage of Series III EF Extenders lowers AF drive speed to improve AF performance. When Extender EF 1.4X III is used, AF drive speed is reduced by 50%. When Extender EF 2X III is used, AF drive speed is reduced by 75%. This may seem like a drawback, but in reality subject tracking performance remains quite high when Series III Extenders are used with IS II lenses. This is due to improvements in AF precision made possible by the new microcomputer in the extenders."


So adding an extender does specifically and purposefully slow down AF.


Maximum drive speed is determined by the body, though. The 1D X drives lenses faster than a 5D III, which drives them faster than a 7D. Yes, adding an EF TC III does reduce speed, but it is still faster with higher grade bodies than lower grade bodies.


I read a comment by Chuck Wesfall, who said that AF speed difference between the 1D and non 1D cameras was due to the slightly higher voltage the 1D series runs at. Different batteries, different voltage, slightly different AF speed.

21
Lenses / Re: New Wide Angles Lenses in 2013 [CR2]
« on: March 18, 2014, 07:08:36 AM »
The trick here is you have to realize that optical designers can do very funny things with focal length, like making an 800mm lens that's only 461mm long, or "retrofocusing" design with an effective focal length that exists entirely outside the lens.
The "focal length divided by aperture" rule is true, but the definition of focal length is more than meets the eye.

I'm sure the video guys here would point out we would all be better off using T-stop anyway.

The word "telephoto" indicates that a lens' focal length is longer than it's physical length. So a 135L is a telephoto lens, but a 85L isn't. Many photographer's assume that a "tele" indicates a longer focal length, but it doesn't. It is possible to have a fairly wide telephoto lens.   

22
Lenses / Re: IS Versions of the 50mm, 85mm & 135mm Coming? [CR1]
« on: March 14, 2014, 03:34:04 PM »
In Body Image Stabilisation.

Yep and it's not quite as good as an bespoke in lens stabilization...each lens has an optimized IS unit and not a sensor which wobbles

23
I bought a pair of 600RT's an a trigger. They work and were worth every penny....naturally I found a great UK seller who wanted £315 for the flashes...which was about half what the RRP and every other seller was selling them for! I sold my 430 and 580, which paid for one flash. The versatility, the ease of use and the recycle time have more than paid for them selves in a professional capacity.
If you want the best, then it's worth saving for the Canon kit...everything else is 2nd rate for a reason.

24
Lenses / Re: Sigma ART Series: 70-200mm f2.8 possible?
« on: March 11, 2014, 07:39:07 AM »
For a while Sigma seemed to pop out a new 70-200 f2.8 almost every year.
The problem Sigma have with this area is that Canon and Nikon's offering as very strong and very very good.
I have no doubt that Sigma could match or come close the the Canon mkII in terms of Image quality. But I haven't yet seen anything that comes close to it in terms of AF accuracy, AF speed. The newer IS unit is amazingly smooth and noise free, it's probably the best IS unit put into a lens to date and the over all lens construction and quality of build is still ahead of the competition.
Can Sigma match or exceed all theses and still bring a cheaper price point? I don't know. But the Canon version is the best of the breed so far.

25
Lenses / Re: IS Versions of the 50mm, 85mm & 135mm Coming? [CR1]
« on: March 11, 2014, 07:33:35 AM »
So, while I also would often not trade larger aperture (f/1.2-f/1.4) for smaller aperture (f/1.8-f/2. 8) + IS, it is rare that the former offers no disadvantages and the latter no advantages.  In fact, I'd say for most the new "IS" range is probably the best bang-per-buck combination in the primes.  With Canon zoom lenses, though, getting the more expensive L range is almost a necessity as the non-L lenses are too slow.

I agree with you on the new range of non L IS primes; they are very good and not only the best value for money but also versatility, as you say.

However I don't agree on the 135L; the Sporgon crystal ball doesn't see an IS version of this coming, or at least not in the foreseeable future. Whilst the current lens may be the Holy Grail of L lenses to many aspiring photographers - indeed if CR had Coat of Arms it would probably be two crossed 135L lenses mounted in front of a FF sensor atop a pile of third party junk - it's reached that position because it is 'affordable'. To be worthwhile for Canon to develop a better lens with IS it is going to have to be considerably more expensive, and I suspect at the present time they won't feel there is a financial benefit to themselves as a business. Also the third party manufacturers haven't produced a 135 IS or 1.8 version which is a sign they don't think the sales volume / price point is worthwhile.

I do think we will see a 50 IS very soon, and possibly a 85 version after that which bridges the price gulf between the current version and the 1.2L

For anyone who has used the 135 f/2 for a long time, we understand the quality of bokeh it has, and it's not something trivial.  Any new version, or third party version, will very likely have a poorer quality of bokeh.  That's the reason I may never sell mine.  Sure, it's priced at a point that is accessible to entry level photogs (and for that reason it's spat on by those who won't be caught dead using any lens under $1500).  But its overall image quality combined with its usable medium telephoto focal length (especially on a full frame) really is as good as it gets, it seems to me.  It simply can't be improved upon.

And given the history of these new IS primes, they seem to favor replacing the older lens with a slower aperture, along with the IS...and making it all very dinky and feather light.  Given the existence of (what I say would actually be on a coat of arms instead) the ubiquitous 70-200 f/2.8 ii IS and the 100mm f/2.8 IS macro, there certainly will never be a 135mm f/2.8 IS, especially one that is a macro.

Is a new 135mm f/1.8 stabilized third party lens, going to be enough to make me buy one (let alone replace my 135L with it)?  No.  Would I if it were f/1.6 or f/1.4?  Yes, I would at least buy it and use it alongside the current 135!  I'd love even faster primes at other focal lengths also, though...but I guess since the "rebel masses" don't ever want to buy a big lens of any kind, and the "pro photogs" like things the way they are...it will never happen.

I feel the same way its going to be VERY hard to beat the current 135 i always take the 135 over the 70-200 now unless i am shooting something where the zoom is essential

You've touched on an interesting point. The 135L doesn't drop much focal length when it's focussed close to MFD. Most 70-200 lenses drop a little or a lot depending on the design (The newest Nikon version took quite a rap over it). So I find that the difference in framing between a 135L and a 70-200 f2.8 LIS II fully zoomed is only a few foot steps difference. There isn't a great deal between them at the long end if you are prepared to step forward a few feet.

The 135L is one of Canon's finest in terms of image output and rendering. But there is a small room for improvement, it could do with newer coatings. The MFD could do with matching or exceeding the current 70-200 lenses. It could gain an extra 1/3 stop easily by pushing the filter size to 77mm and upping the objective lens diameter a tad. The aperture blades are from an older era and are a round design when stopped down. Drop down to f2.8 or f4 and shoot at a spectacular highlight and you will see a distinct shape to the bokeh, corresponding to the aperture blades. Wide open, it's fine.
So yes, it's a stunning lens to use and in the right hands can achieve lovely photographs, yes it's a lot easier to use than a 85mm f1.2 II L. Yes it has a small margin of potential improvement...as long as all of the benefits which the current model has.
The new 24-70IIL sacrifices some of the older models benefits, the new hood isn't any where near as useful as the old one. The new one flares worse as a result (even with the new coatings). It's slightly wider at the 24mm end...but is no where near a 70mm at the long end. Looks more like a 60mm to me. Plus, it looses focal length as the point of focus draws to MFD and it's MFD isn't anywhere near as close. For wedding work, a stellar copy of the mkI is the better choice. For landscape work, the mkII is the better choice.

26
EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: EF 16-35 f/4L, 17-40 f/4L and Others
« on: March 11, 2014, 06:54:52 AM »
i have no idea why canon suddenly hate wide aperture lenses.  :'(

They're bigger, heavier and more expensive. In the current climate, why (and how!) would you want to sell something to the consumer that is bigger, heavier and more expensive than what they already have with marginal improvement?

Some of us need the f2.8 aperture. It's not an option, I'd go fast if it was possible but currently it isn't. It's frustrating that I can go to f1.4 on a 24mm but any wider than that and the fastest I can go is f2.8. Such is life.
I can dial in a slower shutter speed to hand hold (1/15th sec vs say 1/25th on a 24mm) but the 24mm f1.4 still has several stops advantage, allowing a darker EV at the same iso value.

An IS on a wide zoom, which is f4 wouldn't really help me. I would loose another stop compared to an f2.8. At 1/15th sec, subject movement becomes a serious issue in wedding work and landscape work. Shooting at 1/8th or 1/4 second isn't going to stop leaves blowing in the breeze or a priest moving his hand.
F1.4 glass offers me a far higher shutter speed compared to f2.8, which is why it's called "fast glass" by pros.
I gain 2 stops, which is 4 times the shutter speed. I can put that towards reducing my iso value for a cleaner shot or I can put it towards my shutter speed for sharp and cleanly frozen images.

These days, there are many ultralight and mini travel pods available. Sure, you can't use them in every circumstance, but a IS unit will never do the job of a pod. It can help but not replace.

27
EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: EF 16-35 f/4L, 17-40 f/4L and Others
« on: March 11, 2014, 06:39:50 AM »
No wide angle f2 zoom lenses? Not interested Canon.

Are you being serious?  Any idea how expensive or cumbersome said lens would be?

Sigma makes a 20mmf1.8 that's reasonably sized, and there's 24mmf1.4 lenses all over the place, how hard could 18mmf2 really be?
I agree though, to do a proper job the Nikkor 14-24 is probably a good example of the necessary size.
People would still love it though.

How hard can it be? Surely the fact that no one has made one yet points to how hard it is.
Wide angle zoom lenses are notoriously hard to manufacturer. The internal elements tend to be very small and need a very high level of precision compared to longer focal lengths. Plus the need to retro focus on any lens wider than 35mm due to the SLR mirror box, just adds complexity to the over all design.

28
Lenses / Re: Canon 600mm f4 IS II Vs Canon 200-400mm w/1.4x TC
« on: March 10, 2014, 03:42:07 PM »
And now Dylan a tough question. Actually a very tough one: Does your wife know? Does she even  know about this poll?  ;D ;D ;D

If the size and color is same as my 400mm f2.8 IS II, she couldn't tell the diff. That why I ruled out Tamron ;D

That is truly very Funny, deceitfully crafty, and smart.

Maybe, but then again his wife my well be on the pradarumors.com and lvrumors.com sites chatting to her friends about the latest Louis Vuitton. She may be saying, "he thinks I do not know, but he has his eyes on this stupid lens he'll hardly ever use anyway. I hope he gets it, as I have had my eyes on the latest LV shoe and bag set for a while now. Those and a nice 2 carat gem. He won't even know, they all look the same to him!!!"

 :o
LOL..... ;D

1. Happy wife = happy me
2. Happy me = more L lenses. My need list is done. My want list is never end...

Win win situation here ;)

Lol....lucky you...keep her close and let her know how much you cherish her...every day. Mine left me 2 years ago and is in the process of Divorcing me. The cool thing is that now I can spend my money on what I like...but I'd rather have her company than not, even after the hell she's put me and my family through over the last 2 years.

29
EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: EF 16-35 f/4L, 17-40 f/4L and Others
« on: March 10, 2014, 03:24:07 PM »
I'd really hoped for the 16-50/4 IS ...  :(

I will love to have a 16-50 f/4 IS too. But I don't think that's coming. It is probably a figment of someone's imagination. Sigh

While I can understand the desire on a 1.6x crop. I really can'y see any benefit of an IS unit on a full frame 16mm lens. If you need stability....then use a tripod. Should anyone really be hand holding less than 1/15th sec? If the shot is that important....put it on a pod, end of story.

30
EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: EF 16-35 f/4L, 17-40 f/4L and Others
« on: March 10, 2014, 03:20:12 PM »
I just bought the 17-40 f4 L.
And I'm a lot satisfied with it.
Yes, sometimes my old 9-18 Zuiko for my panasonic L10 4/3 was a little sharper, in the corner.

But I don't understand why people need a wide angle with F2.8. You don't do portrait with a wide-angle that had "by nature" some distortion.

You use the wide angle at F8, 10 and more..  so why bother and pay for a "new" f2.8 that would be heavier and much costly...  New versions cost always a lot more with canon.

As someone said, with landscape lens, you want to take "nice landscape". And nice landscapes require to travel to good places or to hike. So you don't want a 10 kg equipment.

Group Shots or wide social shots, especially for wedding work

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 35