September 20, 2014, 10:35:33 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 - Phenix205

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 10
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 16-35 f/4L IS Sample Images
« on: June 24, 2014, 11:16:27 PM »
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.

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 16-35 f/4L IS Hitting Retailers
« on: June 19, 2014, 05:23:07 PM »
Talked with B&H. Told the lens was on the way and they will start shipping next week. Also told that they would have enough to fill all orders. Look forward to it.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS M Vanishes from Canon USA Web Site
« on: May 27, 2014, 10:42:06 PM »
I never really liked the EOS-M until I put the 100 2.8L Macro on it. Both were my least used gear and I had been seriously thinking about selling them. This combo is absolutely fantastic for still or near still subjects. You can shoot pretty much from any distance. The APS-C sensor gives you greater working distance for macro. And the all-time live view is great for manual focus.

Maybe a close contender to the magic portrait king 85 1.2L II? If its AF is not too bad, with only half the price of 85 1.2L II, I'd seriously consider it. I was planning to get a 85 1.2L for this Christmas. Guess I'll wait a little longer.

Just to follow up, this is the result from FoCal. It is 63 shots in this chart. I stopped it there, because it was (of pretty obvious reasons) not able to determine an AFMA factor.

Holly molly. I can sense the stress as these dots were being plotted on the chart. If you heavily reply on AF for your shooting, this copy needs to be returned.

Lenses / Re: Canon Working on Faster f/2.8 Ultra Wide Zoom [CR2]
« on: May 15, 2014, 10:34:45 AM »
For travel landscape shooting, the 16-35 4L IS is perfect. The IS makes hand held slow shutter speed and low ISO possible which is great. For serious landscape work, really should be looking at the TS-E or Zeiss lenses. For event and photojournalism, the new 2.8 would be the choice to stop the motion.

Lenses / Re: Review: Sigma 50mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art Lens
« on: April 30, 2014, 08:51:41 PM »
Roger at has posted his take on this lens. Go check it out. Again, amazing image quality that almost matches Zeiss 55.

Lenses / Re: Review: Sigma 50mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art Lens
« on: April 29, 2014, 12:14:10 PM »
i'm waiting for someone to complain about the bokeh.... :P

I smell some onion in it.

Lenses / Re: Review: Sigma 50mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art Lens
« on: April 25, 2014, 07:36:45 AM »
All that said, I'm surprised nobody has been discussing how odd it seems that AI Servo was apparently ok, but One Shot on a tripod wasn't...Any conjecture?

With a static subject and on a tripod, the reviewer should have been using "Live View" (contrast based focus) and focused through that and should not have used the normal TTL method of focusing. This would then allow the review to check that the camera was no longer vibrating (at 10x view) when they took the photo: depending on the residual motion, 2 seconds is not always enough to allow the camera to become still.

This makes me think that there are some questions to be asked about the procedures used by the reviewer as they have obviously been found wanting.

Live View focusing uses different communication protocols with the lens. Using that method would not have tested the lens' performance with PDAF, which was the whole point of the test.  A 2 s delay should be quite sufficient at a 50mm FL, given the quality of support gear that Bryan has (I have ample shots – thousands – taken for AFMA to support that assertion).

Where can I find information about which communication protocol(s) are used between the body and lens for each different type of autofocus method?

I don't quite understand why you've included a reference to AFMA there. Can you please explain what you're saying more clearly?

Was the distance from the lens to the subject matter mentioned?
i.e. can we calculate what the DoF was so that we know if the focus was out a lot or a little?

but I'm curious to know how he tested the ability of the lens to focus correctly.
Is it just line up the camera, then repeat half press for focus and shoot ten times?
Or does he manual focus to infinity and then focus-shoot for each test?
Or is it focus and hold the shutter down for 10 shots?

It's the peanut gallery commentator who has been found wanting, as is frequently the case on this forum.

Who was it that said that scientific testing should detail what and how in depth?

I trust Bryan like many of us here do. I doubt he just randomly shot some photos then made made some comments on his own website without thinking it through. If you have a different approach for testing AF, I'd be very interested in hearing about it. Or you can just post a summary of what you find out using your protocol.

Lenses / Re: Review: Sigma 50mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art Lens
« on: April 22, 2014, 01:50:43 PM »
Is there a lens out there that never has occasional AF inconsistency?

Does a 40% miss rate really constitute occasional inconsistency?  I think not...

Compare this to Zeiss missing 100% of AF shots  ;)

My thoughts exactly!  Hey, at under a grand, this lens offers most of the performance of the Zeiss, but it sucks because the AF is inconsistent while the Zeiss with no AF and 4x the cost is awesome?   :o

As Bryan said, if you buy and use it as an MF lens, nothing beats its excellent value. Most people rely on AF in majority of shooting situations, and if it is indeed as bad as 40% missing rate, it's just a shame for such a high optical quality lens. Look forward to hearing from more on the AF consistency tests. 

Lenses / Re: Review: Sigma 50mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art Lens
« on: April 22, 2014, 12:46:52 PM »
I was wondering how the AF consistency test would turn out with this lens using FoCal. Most of Canon's new lenses get 99% AF consistency. If this one is in the 60-70% range, I may just wait for the Canon's new version. Sharpness is meaningless if focus is missed.

I agree. I have one. I can put 5D3 + 70-200 2.8L II, 24-70 II, 16-35, 50, and a flash by using the side pockets and top pocket.

There's also the new f-stop Kenti, with quick access ports on both sides.  I've been eyeing that model myself.

Lenses / Re: Sigma 50mm F/1.4 Art listed in Belarus for $790
« on: March 20, 2014, 11:18:41 PM »
I sold my Canon 50 1.4 immediately after Sigma announced the 50 Art. Before this, I had never thought about buying a third party lens. Can't wait for it to arrive in the US market.

Lenses / Re: 24-70 II Onion Ring Bokeh
« on: December 20, 2013, 10:36:17 PM »
Sorry, should've attached the 100% crop one.

Lenses / 24-70 II Onion Ring Bokeh
« on: December 20, 2013, 10:33:02 PM »
Merry Christmas Everyone.

I've been using my 24-70 II since April. Love it to pieces. Never really paid much attention to the bokeh until I took some photos of the Christmas light. Very very prominent onion ring bokeh. First I thought it might be the filter, but the same thing happened when I took off the filter.

Any thoughts? Is it inherent with this lens design or something is wrong with my specific copy?


Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 10