July 22, 2014, 04:17:35 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 - Albi86

Pages: 1 ... 24 25 [26] 27 28 ... 56
376
Lenses / Re: EF 100-400 Replacement in 2013? [CR2]
« on: May 01, 2013, 10:52:38 AM »
I actually think that we are all agreeing that if the new version is much better, its price will be much higher than the current offering.

To make an analogy, for Nikon users their 300/4 is the best choice for IQ at a reasonable price. The new 80-400G is better in many ways, but the price is exhorbitant. Canon users are even better served by the current 100-400 and 400/5.6 prime. So I wonder if a new killer 100-400 at a killer price is going to be such a good deal for Canon users.

Somehow this simple observation has activated the Canon Patrol.


377
Lenses / Re: EF 100-400 Replacement in 2013? [CR2]
« on: May 01, 2013, 10:25:25 AM »
However, if recent history is of any value, I think that Canon will do an incremental upgrade - i.e. solving the problems of the current version more than reinventing it. There's a 400/5.6 prime too, and they probably wouldn't cannibalize it.

So sharpness-wise I don't think the new model is going to be a lot better. I think they will keep the best selling points being new IS and smoother bokeh. Maybe weather sealing? The push-pull design is a specific feature of this lens and they might well want to keep it.

Hey, thanks for my morning laugh – it was a good one!! How could a brand-new lens with the latest image stabilization system and the same focal length and max aperture NOT cannibalize sales of a 20 year old lens??   The only possible answer is by the 20-year-old lens being substantially cheaper, and no matter what, the old prime is going to be substantially cheaper.  Besides, there are four 70-200 zooms and a 70-300 zoom in the L-series, along with the 100-400, and you think Canon is worried about cannibalization? For most people, a telezoom is the second Glenn's purchased after a standard zoom - Canon is very wisely offering a great selection for that choice.

As for sharpness, don't worry, the new lens will be significantly sharper than the one it replaces.  Think 70-200/2.8 IS differential. I suspect the only people who believe there won't be a substantial boost in sharpness are Nikon fanboys (in or out the closet) who want Nikon to finally have an xx-400mm zoom with IQ that rivals Canon, which they do...and will continue to for however long it takes Canon to get the new 100-400 to market.

Great, I'm glad that I made your day. However...

  • I don't see cannibalization between the 70-200 as they are differentiated in price, aperture, and IS. They go by the simple principle that you pay more for wider aperture and IS and they serve different segments of the market.
  • The 70-300L and non-L are differentiated very well in price and performance.
  • The 70-300L and 100-400L are differentiated by those 100mm of focal length and portability.
  • The 400/5.6 has been for many a 1:1 alternative to the zoom. Similar price, similar application, better IQ at the price of less flexibility. If the new 100-400 puts it to shame, the price will reflect it and so again no cannibalization. If they can make a much better zoom, they can make an even better prime. Eventually Canon will release a new 400/5.6 and the situation will be even again.

In my previous post I clearly stated that the price of the new Nikon 80-400G is ridiculous, but Nikon can get away with that because the previous version was crappy and the upgrade is substantial. The current 100-400L is quite good and making it astonishingly better will be more difficult. If they do, the price will be such that many will wonder if the previous version was a better deal. So I don't know of what imaginary fanboyism you're talking about.

378
Lenses / Re: A review of the Samyang Tilt Shift
« on: May 01, 2013, 06:51:10 AM »
Unfortunately they tested it on the D700 - a very forth-coming sensor.

379
Lenses / Re: EF 100-400 Replacement in 2013? [CR2]
« on: May 01, 2013, 06:49:02 AM »
Personally I would be happy to retain the push/pull design.
It would keep costs down for a Mk II.
All I want is IS2 and a super ED lens element to improve the optics.
It will never happen like this of course...reinvent the wheel etc
So there will be a brand new design at $3k instead of $2k for a new push/pull.
Serious competition for it from the new Nikon which from early reports is a very good zoom particularly when allied to the high res 24Mp DXs.

The Sony 70-400G seems to be a great lens too.

However, if recent history is of any value, I think that Canon will do an incremental upgrade - i.e. solving the problems of the current version more than reinventing it. There's a 400/5.6 prime too, and they probably wouldn't cannibalize it.

So sharpness-wise I don't think the new model is going to be a lot better. I think they will keep the best selling points being new IS and smoother bokeh. Maybe weather sealing? The push-pull design is a specific feature of this lens and they might well want to keep it.

380
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Zeiss 135mm f2 Apo Sonnar Preview
« on: April 30, 2013, 01:45:18 PM »


Sure, Because my opinions are exactly what they are. My own thoughts on a subject and my opinion's are always about practical use of equipment. Which on this particular lens, isn't very high on my list of practicality.

If others find my opinion of value, great. If not, great but doesn't sway me one bit.

Sorry, I admit my fault.

I tried twice to explain that my point is to frame this lens in the price range of other products of similar quality, also high-lighting that it offers something different from Canon/Nikon/Sigma/Whatever and thus it's probably targeted at a different audience. You don't buy a Zeiss because there's no other good lens available in market; you buy a Zeiss because you want a Zeiss - for a number of reasons.

No way I could succeed in my purpose. Unfortunately you are tenaciously remarking that you wouldn't replace your 135L for it.

381
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Zeiss 135mm f2 Apo Sonnar Preview
« on: April 30, 2013, 12:32:09 PM »

It also has a unique 2100$ price tag too but hey! I'm not saying it isn't the best performing 135mm made just like the zeiss 15mm 2.8 is the best UW lens made. I'm simply saying that sharpness and CA were never an issue with years of me using the 135L but IS was, and a bit more speed would be nice.

Well, the price is in line with other top glass. Canon 85L and the new 24-70 are in the same club.

When you consider it in this perspective it's not so expensive after all.

Not really. The 85L is unique because its f/1.2 and the 24-70 is a zoom, can't really compare. Now if this 135mm were f/1.8, then I could hold it in the same category but f/2? No practical reason to consider upgrading.

....

No practical reason for you. Fair enough. But I wasn't talking about you, I was comparing the price of this lens with other lenses in the same quality league. It doesn't seem to me that its price is way off the standard for the best glass club.

382
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Zeiss 135mm f2 Apo Sonnar Preview
« on: April 30, 2013, 09:57:38 AM »

It also has a unique 2100$ price tag too but hey! I'm not saying it isn't the best performing 135mm made just like the zeiss 15mm 2.8 is the best UW lens made. I'm simply saying that sharpness and CA were never an issue with years of me using the 135L but IS was, and a bit more speed would be nice.

Well, the price is in line with other top glass. Canon 85L and the new 24-70 are in the same club.

When you consider it in this perspective it's not so expensive after all.


383
Lenses / Re: EF 100-400 Replacement in 2013? [CR2]
« on: April 30, 2013, 08:11:18 AM »
Good for Canon to upgrade the lens, but as for everyone else, I wonder about the price.

Nikon is charging a ridiculous amount of money for their 80-400G (though prices are going down quickly). However, they could do it because the new lens is much better than the old 80-400.

Canon 100-400 is quite good. Can they do a so-much-better lens optically? I don't know, and if they do the price will be exorbitant. Certainly it will feature better IS, and I think they're going to smoothen the bokeh too - the biggest problem of the current version. So while I'm sure it will be a better lens overall, the margin could be slight to justify the difference in price. I think the MK1 will look like a much more attractive package to the most.

Talking about alternatives... never heard of Sigma 50-500? I'm holding on for my purchase of an expensive telezoom until Sigma and Tamron announce something in this range. In the meanwhile I enjoy the cheapolicius Tamron 70-300.

It's interesting.  Before the 6D came out, many people claimed they'd get a 5DII over the 6D, but it seems like the 6D has done just fine and people are happy with its advantages over the 5DII.  When the 24 IS, 28 IS and 35 IS came out, people complained about price gouging and said they'd never get those lenses, but some of those prices have fallen into the 400 range already.  When the 24-70 II came out, people complained that it lacked IS and was priced through the roof, but people are still buying it even though the Tamron 24-70 has VC and is significantly less costly.

The problem with the 100-400 is that it does some things well, and that other lenses have eroded many of the advantages it had when it was released.  The 70-200L II + 2x is said to come close in IQ at 400mm and is longer when stored and is slightly heavier with the 2x.  The 70-300L is more compact and lighter and has very good IQ.  I'd expect the new 100-400 to soundly beat the current 70-200L II, 70-300L and 400L f/5.6 IQ-wise, especially at the long end.  It might come out closer to 3k initialy but give it a year or two.  Early adopters pay a premium.


The 24-70 MK2 is optically better than the Tamron. If you can afford it and you don't mind IS, the Tamron is not a strong competitor.

As far as the rest is concerned, it's Canon offer at a certain price point. If you want a 35mm prime and you can't afford anything better than that (e.g. 35L) and/or you don't want to buy products from other brands (e.g. Sigma), there's not much of a choice. Afterwards you can only try to get the best out of what you bought.

None of those product is "bad". There's just a discrepancy between their price point vs performance ratio when you compare them to other offerings on the market.

384
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Zeiss 135mm f2 Apo Sonnar Preview
« on: April 30, 2013, 07:30:52 AM »
No IS + F/1.8 = No replacement for 135L.

So the IQ of a lens would be great if it had IS and 1.8? I am sure that someone like you knows that there is much more to a lens: Corner sharpness, build quality, hard stops, Bokah, fall off, sharpness at f2 etc etc. Besides 1.8 or 2 does not make much difference in real life photography. :)

Not saying that. Just saying you get to a point where comparing razors to razors like the 135L and the zeiss that its pretty much irrelevant. For me, The issues I run into is the lack of IS and I could use a bit more speed.

Another sharp 135mm f/2 is nice but I see IS and 1.8 to be much more useful.

We're talking about what seems to be a true apochromatic design = almost ZERO CA and RSA even wideopen.

In Nikonland people say that focus confirmation works flawlessly on D4 and D800. I would assume it's going to be the same for the ZE version.

I agree that AF and IS will probably increase your keeper rate. But this lens is not meant for people who want more keepers; it's meant for people who want the Zeiss look with best optics and the best build out there. For these people all the rest is secondary. There's no reason to compare this lens to others: it's unique.

385
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sigma 50mm 1.4 AF issues question
« on: April 30, 2013, 07:09:34 AM »
So I'm in the market for a 50mm 1.4 (I cannot justify the additional cost of the 1.2L for what I'm doing, no matter how much I'd love to get it) after running into AF issues with a Canon 50mm 1.4.  I have previously tried a Sigma 50mm 1.4 and LOVED how sharp it was at 1.4 - 2 (primarily where I would use it), but had major issues with a shifting depth of field and AF issues.

As I mentioned though, I loved the IQ on the Sigma. But I am wondering what the ratio of this lens having AF issues is, and for those who owned one and had AF issues: whether sending it in to Sigma definitively fixed the AF issues for the body you were using.

So two questions really, for those who own one of these:
If you own one, did you have AF issues out of the box?
If you did have AF issues, did sending it into Sigma fix it?

I wouldn't buy anything from Sigma at this point except for those lenses already in the A/C/S lineup.

386
Lenses / Re: EF 100-400 Replacement in 2013? [CR2]
« on: April 30, 2013, 06:23:26 AM »
Good for Canon to upgrade the lens, but as for everyone else, I wonder about the price.

Nikon is charging a ridiculous amount of money for their 80-400G (though prices are going down quickly). However, they could do it because the new lens is much better than the old 80-400.

Canon 100-400 is quite good. Can they do a so-much-better lens optically? I don't know, and if they do the price will be exorbitant. Certainly it will feature better IS, and I think they're going to smoothen the bokeh too - the biggest problem of the current version. So while I'm sure it will be a better lens overall, the margin could be slight to justify the difference in price. I think the MK1 will look like a much more attractive package to the most.

Talking about alternatives... never heard of Sigma 50-500? I'm holding on for my purchase of an expensive telezoom until Sigma and Tamron announce something in this range. In the meanwhile I enjoy the cheapolicius Tamron 70-300.

387
Yes, once again you're correct that the 1.8 crop lens has the same light-gathering ability as the 2.8 FF lens.

However, the important fact (to me, at least) is that the exposure from the 1.8 lens will be twice as bright-in camera than the 2.8 lens at the same ISO -- for low-light shooting this is more important to me than depth of field.

Which is what I also said. What matters is not the total amount of light, but the luminance on the sensor surface.

Do you understand the otherwise self-contradiction of saying that it gathers the same light but it delivers a twice as bright image....?

388
Ok, maybe I see your point if you consider events like focus breathing or other alterations of the linear ratio between angle of view and reproduction ratio. I agree with you that in those cases it's not 100% correct to reason in terms of angle of view - but they are specific circumstances. In usual conditions the relationship is linear enough to take the approximation for good. If nothing else, reproduction ratio is a nebulous term that is hard to use in a conversation if you aim at being understood. The approximation to angle of view is much more manageable and gives readily comparable figures.

389
... I never quite understood why people say that FF and APS-C have different DoF (provided the same optics, aperture, and distance to the object are used).


Marketing through misinformation, obfuscation, leading and derogation.


DoF is related to angle of view and aperture
. To get the same angle of view at the same distance from the subject, on FF you need a longer focal length (1.6x if we consider a Canon APSC) than on crop.

Then, because f/stops are related to focal length, if you keep the same aperture on both systems you'll see that on crop you end up with a narrower iris. This is why you have more DoF ;)


No it isn't, and this common misunderstanding is why people keep failing to get their heads around this.

Depth of field is a function of two metrics alone, reproduction ratio (how big the subject is projected onto the capturing device)  and aperture. Now if you want to make comparisons across sensor sizes you have to make a standard for reproduction size, it doesn't matter what the standard is, but if you don't you can't make relevant comparisons.

"DOF is determined by subject magnification at the film / sensor plane and the selected lens aperture or f-number." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_of_field

I would strongly suggest people stop talking crap and start reading and learning something authoritative about the subjects they seem so intent on teaching other people about.


Can you provide an example of how reasoning in terms of angle of view may lead to errors?

In my book same reproduction ratio = same framing = same angle of view.

390
... I never quite understood why people say that FF and APS-C have different DoF (provided the same optics, aperture, and distance to the object are used).

Marketing through misinformation, obfuscation, leading and derogation.

DoF is related to angle of view and aperture. To get the same angle of view at the same distance from the subject, on FF you need a longer focal length (1.6x if we consider a Canon APSC) than on crop.

Then, because f/stops are related to focal length, if you keep the same aperture on both systems you'll see that on crop you end up with a narrower iris. This is why you have more DoF ;)

Pages: 1 ... 24 25 [26] 27 28 ... 56