February 01, 2015, 06:19:52 PM

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 - romanr74

Pages: [1] 2 3 4
Lenses / Re: EF 11-24 f/4L USM Specifications
« on: January 30, 2015, 10:20:12 AM »
i'm in love

EOS Bodies / Re: Bingo! New Canon 5Ds has 50.6 MP new rumored specs
« on: January 30, 2015, 08:19:01 AM »
i cannot work like that: when already i have to live with a lousy 50mp, then i need at least a 15fps burst rate with 409'600 iso. built in flash? swivel-screen? face-recognition? children birthday mode? white paint? hellooooooooooo!!!???

When I forst got into TS-E I utilized: http://www.oopoomoo.com/, they have many tutorials and there ebook on TS-E lenses is one of the best out there. I own the 24mm TS-E lens and it hardly ever leaves my camera.

I also found the oopoomoo guide very good and quite exhaustive on different use cases of a tilt-shift lens.

Lenses / Re: Advice - what to take to Europe
« on: January 23, 2015, 09:48:12 AM »
I'm living in this Europe place and there is no way I'd visit any city without bringing the 16-35mm (or in my case the TS-E 17mm) and the 24-70mm. I usually leave the 70-200mm at home for city trips.

Canon General / Re: More Canon Lens Mentions [CR2]
« on: October 11, 2014, 12:13:22 PM »
I wanna see this baby....!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Come to papa :-) !

Canon General / Re: More Canon Lens Mentions [CR2]
« on: October 10, 2014, 11:25:24 AM »
honestly, imo, if the IQ is matching the latest releases, this is a dream come true! I dont know how often i've really used f/2.8 with my 16-35 unless if it was for indoor architecture shots to shorten exposure time (where you would want to use a tripod anyway if you want to be serious about it). I am not stopping down action.

Canon General / Re: More Canon Lens Mentions [CR2]
« on: October 10, 2014, 11:18:45 AM »
Before we burn the barns in indignation lets get a couple of things clear:
  • The Nikon 12-24 is a crop camera only coverage lens, a $1,099 crop camera only lens that doesn't do the "ultra wide" job half as well as the Canon 10-22 EF-s and that costs $599.
  • The Nikon 14-24 is a FF ultra wide that costs $1,999. And those that herald it's all conquering capabilities probably haven't actually used it, yes it is much better than the Canon 16-35 f2.8 in the corners etc, but the 17 TS-E is a much better corrected lens for resolution, distortion and CA.
  • The 17 TS-E has a coverage of 11mm if you do a horizontal stitch, the projection distortion from an 11mm to rectilinear on ff is pretty bad, virtually unusable most of the time.

Whilst I don't see 14mm as being a hard limit for ff rectilinear lenses, 11mm is beyond extreme, at these focal lengths a couple of mm makes a huge difference. The 16-35 f4 IS has confirmed Canon can make fine ultra wide zooms, but where is the market for an 11-24 f4 next to that 16-35 f4 IS? If it was f2.8 I'd probably buy it, but my most used lens is the 17 TS-E anyway so it would be a nice compliment to that, at f4 I can stitch the 17 to get 11 on the very rare occasions I need the fov. The 16-35 f4 IS appeals, but it has limited utility for me over the 17 TS-E.

I can see the market for an f2.8 ultra wide zoom to compliment the 16-35 f4 IS, and the kudos of going wider than the 14-24, I am sure Canon would like the title of widest ff rectilinear lens back too, but the Sigma 12-24 is an f4 so even a 12-24 f2.8 would give Canon the fastest widest ever (so far)........

I would expect a 11-24 f/4 to have much better image quality in the corners compared to a fully shifted TS-E 17. I love the TS-E 17 but when shifted IQ takes quite a hit in the corners...

I'm honestly sick and tried of comments like "were made of metal as they should be" or "should always be made of metal"...


Animal Kingdom / Re: Lizards
« on: June 09, 2014, 01:52:16 PM »
Calotes Versicolor, pictures taken at the Andaman sea...

16-35 f2.8II was the first lens I ever bought when I got into photography again after 15 years. I was very excited that I had bought (without reading any reviews) a great Canon lens. It was expensive. And then reality hit hard after I took my first few pictures. I could not believe how bad the corners were. Then I slowly realized it was a bad lens and got rid of it. Attached is the photo which I took. Hated the corner sharpness.

Now I have the Zeiss 15mm and 35mm. Canon 24-70 II. But I think this new lens is very tempting.

I love the 16-35 f/2.8 II for the creative possibilities it provides but full agree with the corner image quality comment and share the same frustration - see bottom left corner in the picture below. I like doing inside architectural work where I've recently tried to use the TS-E 17mm f/4 instead of the 16-35 f/2.8 II. For this I consider the new 16-35 f/4 with a 4-stop IS superior over the 16-35 f/2.8 II - even more so if the corner quality is as good as the MTF charts suggest.

Lenses / Re: New TS-E Lenses for Photokina [CR2]
« on: April 21, 2014, 02:36:56 PM »

Lenses / Re: New TS-E Lenses for Photokina [CR2]
« on: April 21, 2014, 02:23:44 PM »
on the 'unique' feature: wasn't there a patent on a focal plane display in the viewfinder a few months ago?

EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: EF 85mm f/1.2L III and Others
« on: March 31, 2014, 08:46:36 AM »
I would be particularly interested to see what an updated EF 85mm f/1.2L would be like. The II is an awesome piece of glass yet a little clumsy and slow. Optically I love it!!!

Lenses / Re: f2.8 16-35mmL vs. f4 17-40mmL
« on: February 21, 2014, 07:55:45 AM »
I love the 16-35 mm for its versatility and it allows for great creativity if corner-to-corner sharpness is not a primary concern. the sun-stars are awesome - i prefer these over photoshop sun-stars.

I am not impressed with the corner image quality of the 16-35 mm though. I would not recommend it for landscape photography, I'd rather recommend either the 24 of 17 mm TS-E lenses for landscape.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4