Messages

541

Lenses / Re: EF 24-70 f/2.8L Replacement [CR2]

« on: October 12, 2010, 05:37:51 PM »

DOF becomes less because in filling the frame for a portrait the magnification increases therefore lessening the DOF.

In terms of FF working better in lower light the issue is not as simple as some would have us believe, put simply bigger pixel sites.  Unfortunately a larger site does not mean a larger sensitive area or pixel, and then there is the isolation of one pixel from the next which is the cause of some noise.  It is possible to have a large sensor with a small number of MP which is worse in low light than a small one with a higher pixel density.

However if you imagine a light source with a constant brightness (white) a lens with a given aperture will project uniform brightness over all the sensor, hence there is no difference between a FF camera and a crop one.

542

Lenses / Re: EF 24-70 f/2.8L Replacement [CR2]

« on: October 12, 2010, 05:00:46 PM »

While the effective field of view on a crop camera may be the same as a longer lens on a 35mm, the focal length does not change and therefore neither does the aperture.  A 17 - 55mm lens may give the same FOV as a 27 -88mm but it's still a 17 - 55mm and the relationship between the first element and the focal length remains unchanged as does the aperture.

543

Lenses / Re: Which Lens Are You Looking Forward To?

« on: October 06, 2010, 04:54:51 PM »

18 - 200mm is EF-s only and quality isn't up there with the best by a long way.

However a lens I'd like to see is born from using a 24 - 105mm IS L on a crop frame.  Sometimes you just don't need a wide angle, but do need the long end.  The 70 - 200mm is just too long, so something perhaps 35 - 40mm at the wide end and maybe 150 - 175mm at the long end.

I doubt we'll ever see this so it'll have to be the crop body or even two bodies with different lenses.

544

Lenses / Re: Canon Announces 70-300 f/4-5.6L IS

« on: September 28, 2010, 03:17:54 PM »

It looks like the most recently released EF non-L prime is the 28/1.8, in 1995. ?

The 100mm f/2.8 Macro was released in 2000 MP-e 65mm released 1999 Don't know if you count Macro as prime especially the 65mm but the 100mm shouldn't be left out, but still 5 years without an EF zoom and 10 without a prime does seem like a long long time.

545

Lenses / Re: 24-840mm zoom

« on: September 27, 2010, 05:33:58 PM »

If you really would buy one 'in a heartbeat' then the 28 - 300mm IS L gets you to 300mm, and although they say it's not compatable with teleconverters you can get away with it if you're careful not to let the rear element collide with the TC.  That gets you to 600mm albeit at f/8 and a loss of autofocus on all but the 1D bodies.

Time to get your money out?

546

Lenses / Re: Canon Announces 70-300 f/4-5.6L IS

« on: September 27, 2010, 05:30:05 PM »

Almost every review of Canon products on 'The Digital Picture' is positive, to the point that it can hardly considered impartial, plus there are no real test figures.  The old 70 - 200mm IS L f/2.8 wasn't the best of lenses in it's class which is one of the reasons it was replaced, but have a read of the glowing review it gets on TDP.

I think I'll reserve my judgement until Photozone gets their hands on it and test it properly & impartially.

547

Lenses / Re: List of rumored lenses

« on: September 27, 2010, 05:24:21 PM »

Not a chance of replacing the 28 - 300mm IS L, it was only released in 2004 replacing the 35 - 350mm version, and is a good performer.  How on earth do you think they could improve it realistically?
IS is 3rd generation, and the amount of glass required and pro spec body means it's going to weigh quite a bit.
There are quite a few lenses I'd like to see replaced before this one, the 24 - 70mm f/2.8 L and a new decent performing wide angle too!

548

Lenses / Re: List of rumored lenses

« on: September 24, 2010, 08:14:27 AM »

The 24 - 70mm may only be 8 years old, but it has a significant defect in the field curvature it displays, this is especially noticable on FF.  This is Canons flagship standard zoom, it has the IS technology to hand and a redesign is badly needed, I think it's time for a better flagship product regardless of how old the design is.

549

Lenses / Re: Canon Announces 70-300 f/4-5.6L IS

« on: September 24, 2010, 08:11:25 AM »

I have the Sigma 120 - 300 f/2.8 and it's as sharp as a tack, also have the 70 - 200mm f/2.8 IS L MkII and although it's a little sharper it's not massively so.  The 120 - 300mm is the cheapest way to get to 600mm (with a 2xTC) and still retain auto focus.

Another lens I'm fortunate enough to own is the 28 - 300mm IS L and it's this lens I would recommend ahead of the 70 - 300mm IS L.  It's just as fast at the long end, latest generation IS and you gain the 28 - 70mm.  Image quality is well up to the mark, maybe it's not up with the other two, but why does anyone need to compete in the good, better, best race, when the good is good enough?

Buying this superzoom, although expensive could make most other lenses redundant, and the fact you don't need to change lenses means less sensor cleaning. min focus distance of .7meters and mag of 1:3.3 means a screw on close up filter makes macro possible.  It's also possible to use a TC if you are careful & don't allow the rear element to meet the TC !

All you need (almost) in one lens, and certainly one which shouldn't be overlooked (as superzooms often are).

550

Lenses / Re: Canon Announces 70-300 f/4-5.6L IS

« on: August 26, 2010, 02:39:46 PM »

not sure what's not to love about this .. it's affordable (btw, if a semi pro can't afford a 1.5K USD lens .. there's a problem with the definition of 'semi pro') .. and MTF and physical wise, looks like a great lens.

The price here is not the issue, it's what accountants call opportunity cost, if you buy this then you don't buy something else.  So what's not to love?  If this was the only lens at this price point and focal length that might be reasonable, but there's the 70 - 200mm f/4 IS L a legendary performer and a stop faster; it's not far off the cost of an f/2.8 and that's no contest! Then there's the 100 - 400mm f/4.5 - 5.6 which gives another 100mm reach and again excellent performance.

I have a collection of L lenses and all of them are 77mm so I have filters & other things which fit that size, they won't fit a 67mm lens which again makes it less attractive, and there's the 70 - 300mm DO lens about this price, not a great seller, it's a crowded market place and I'm not sure that this lens has got what it's going to take to make it a great seller.

551

Lenses / Re: Canon Announces 8-15 f/4L Fisheye Zoom

« on: August 26, 2010, 02:26:33 PM »

Pre cut filters are normally pre cut by the user from a sheet of Gel I don't think anyone produces a gel sheet of ND grad, and with the fisheye effect I'm not convinced that a filter with a straight grad would give acceptable results.  I think you'd have to find a filter which followed the fish eye effect, not easy on a zoom!

The 'switch' may be the carrier for the filter, after all you do need to be able to get hold of something to pull it out mount the filter & put it in again.

552

Lenses / Re: Canon Announces 70-300 f/4-5.6L IS

« on: August 26, 2010, 10:06:07 AM »

As many have said on this forum, & on others this lens does not make a lot of sense, too slow, too big & heavy, and far too expensive (£1600 in the UK).  I cannot guess what the mindset behind this latest set of releases was, because Canon users have been crying out for better Wide angle performance, a replacement 24 - 70mm f/2.8 L with IS maybe a better 24 - 120mm f/4 IS L.

We've been presented with improvements to lenses which probably didn't need them, lenses which fit a small niche market, and others which don't fit what users want and are expensive.

Hopefully later in the year we will see some of the things we can feel comfortable parting with money for!

553

Lenses / Re: Canon Announces 8-15 f/4L Fisheye Zoom

« on: August 26, 2010, 09:58:12 AM »

None of the lenses announced today look like being high volume sellers, the fisheye zoom, while I'm sure it's a technological Tour De Force still remains a niche market gimmick, something to use for the odd shot, but not to pay £1000 for.