February 27, 2015, 02:59:56 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 - Etienne

Pages: 1 ... 11 12 [13] 14 15 ... 48
181
Lenses / Re: EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM Image Samples
« on: May 19, 2014, 09:52:08 AM »
The best UWA for APS-C is still the Tokina 11-16 2.8. It's a narrow range, but you get lots of light and it's sharp.  Why settle for lower image quality, and less light?  YMMV

182
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 16-35 f/4L IS Sample Images
« on: May 19, 2014, 09:33:14 AM »
F/4 is fine for almost all users.  I'm probably one of the few who actually use f/2.8 on a regular basis, just because of the lack of light in theaters.  Now that I have my 24-70 MK II, I do not use wider very often.

I'd say this is one of the new family of Video optimized lenses with IS that Canon is developing.  They see video as a big selling point, so we are going to see more video features.  Who knows, if they get good enough for me to use, I might take up video again.  I did do it on Super 8mm film in 1968 for a few years, then again in the lete 1980's and early 1990's on SVHS.  Using the video editors with my Panasonic Industrial recorders was time consuming to a extreme.  Programming the controllers, black-bursting tapes - YUK! 

I've also done it more recently using computers to edit, and even with my DSLR's, but I'm not happy with the results, and not willing to invest time and $$ into video, at least for now.

If you have a 5D3 install ML and then you'll be more than happy with the results (so long as you don't require 4k to be happy). The video quality on 5D3 for 1080p using ML RAW video is really pretty awesome.

ML Raw video ... how many minutes of video do you get on a 32GB card?
And how onerous is the post processing?

thx

183
Lenses / Re: Canon Working on Faster f/2.8 Ultra Wide Zoom [CR2]
« on: May 18, 2014, 11:33:40 PM »
Non of this is urgent for me, but I always will welcome more options.
I'd like to see a top notch 20mm f/2.8 prime, and a 50 f/1.4 IS and a new 85 1.8 IS

184
...my point was that shallow DOF is not the drawing card for UWA lenses...

Not for you, but then, you're not 'everyone'.

Fine, if shallow DOF in ultrawide is your thing, have at it.  But you'd get better results with a 24 1.4, than 2.8 zoom

185
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 16-35 f/4L IS Sample Images
« on: May 17, 2014, 03:36:51 PM »
Just FYI, you can see a full-resolution jpeg of the samples by clicking on:  (点击此处查看大图)  located directly below each image.
-brought to my attention by Bryan over at TDP.
Doesn't look very sharp in the corners (photo of the white house and the church). Or am I a pixel peeper now and does it look better than the 16-35 f/2.8 II?
The white house is 17mm f/8. Hard to say where the focus point was, but corners look sharp to me, some distant details may be a soft because the focus point may be close to the lens.

The church looks good, 16mm f/8, again don't know where the focus is, but should have lots of DOF. The shot is not razor sharp everywhere, but not bad. It is a 10 second exposure, so there could be some camera movement, you can't know how careful they were, or whether they used a good tripod.

Unfortunately, the only thing you can do is wait for reviews from good reliable sources.

186
...but f/2.8 in ultra wides is all about more light and nothing about shallow dof.

I'd have to disagree.  With close subjects (albeit generally not people), I get shallow DoF with my 16-35/2.8, even at 16mm.

You can force some bokeh out of almost any lens, some people even talk about bokeh on their 1/3" camcorders, but I don't see the point, it's not that impressive. I don't find it very impressive at 2.8 on a FF ultra-wide either, so I stopped trying on the 16-35. The 24 1.4 is the exception, you can get good bokeh relatively easily, and still have a lot of flexibility of composition. Anyway, my point was that shallow DOF is not the drawing card for UWA lenses, but everyone wants more light on the sensor.

187
f/2.8 is not that thin DOF as you go to UWA. A 50 mm FL at 6 feet away f/2.8 gives DOF 0.78 ft (very thin, and difficult to manage), whereas a 24mm FL gives 3.4 feet, which is more than enough. At 15 feet away for a group, 24mm lens gives a whopping 36 feet of DOF. The razor thin concern doesn't apply at ultra wide.

An extreme example here: 24mm f/1.4 at 15 feet still has a DOF of 11 feet (but Canon's 24 1.4L is very soft in the corners at 1.4, different issue).

16mm f/2.8 at 6 feet away still has a very easy to manage DOF of 11 feet. Even as close as 3 feet, gives about 2 feet DOF.

So, f/2.8 really can help indoor photography for ultrawides without causing DOF problems.

yea.   so f/2.8 can help isolate the subject from the background as well.  in your example, the DOF extends from about 2 feet in front to 9 feet behind, which may be pushing it for subject isolation but still  doable (you would more likely be stepping back and zooming in to 21 mm for example, for better results --  But to continue the example:   at f/4 (still 16mm and subject distance of 6 feet)  you loose almost all hope of subject isolation from the background because everything 34 feet behind the subject  is in focus.     so in this particular example, the f/2.8 lens has a hope of capturing a venue feature like a candelabra or whatever, with some isolation from the background, but the f/4 lens has little hope.  I doubt very many people/group shots are taken at 16mm and 6 foot distance... but I'm not a wedding 'tog so I'm open to correction here :D

The 70 200 2.8 and 24-70 2.8 can use f/2.8 for subject isolation at 50 mm and above, roughly speaking, but f/2.8 in ultra wides is all about more light and nothing about shallow dof.  The 24 f/1.4 is pretty much the only ultra wide that can achieve an effective shallow dof, and you still have to get in fairly close and stay at 1.4

188
The pricing is right on this lens, easily worth spending the 275 over 17-40/4L.

16-35 II is a different ballgame though.  If you are interested in doing indoor event work, IMO the 16-35 II f/2.8L is the better purchase; there simply isn't enough light at many indoor events to use an f/4 lens.  In fact, often f/2.8 isn't even enough; f/2.8 is more useful in low light than f/4 IS at 35mm, and with shutter speed needing to be 1/100 minimum to freeze motion f/4 will hurt in the ISOs department.  A noisy picture caused by five digit ISOs or motion blur will be much more noticeable in low light than less than perfect corner sharpness, and IS aside from not being as effective at wide focal lengths also will not freeze motion.  I do have primes that are below f/2.8, but none of them at 16mm which can be useful in tight quarters like a dancefloor.  The 16-35 II is one of the rare lenses that has a UWA-wide/normal zoom range, f/2.8, and accepts filters (I don't know how I'd feel with a bulbous element at a crowded event).

On the other hand, for landscape work this new 16-35 f/4L IS looks like an easy winner over the 16-35 II f/2.8.

So it depends what you are going to do with it, as is often the case :)  IMO, 16-35 II f/2.8L remains king for now for event photography.

I'll definitely pick this one up, shortly after my daughter is born my bills are all in order...  As far as the 2.8 vs 4 debate, i've been well vocal enough on this...  and for giggles, as a weekend long event we were hired for to do photography coverage for, (all indoors) we played with different lenses and combinations...  Needless to say, Regardless whether it was F4 or 2.8, we needed flash.  And 2.8 made the DOF even more shallow and unforgiving than the F4 was to boot.  In the end, i instructed my assistant photographer, and my wife and I to use our 24-105's.  Had Flash, chewed through batteries but got a good thousand or so images after culling that were sharp, ISO was ok (manually set at around 4000 which on our 5d3 and 6D came out gorgeous), and flash...  I personally feel the argument that you NEED 2.8 for indoors is just wrong.  If F4 cant pull it off, 2.8 really isn't going to buy you much latitude, and you have a narrower DOF.  1.4 and such is even tougher with DOF, especially for event coverage.  It's good for artistic expression and isolating subjects, but shooting groups of people, shooting moving subjects, shooting events, you will likely still need flash or ISO to get good shots, and with modern cameras, ISO is becoming even better.  I've had indoor wedding shots around 20,000 ISO that came out gorgeous with minimal noise...  It is what it is.

I agree with most of what you say. I shoot my 16-35 2.8L II at 5.6 - 11 most of the time, and I probably use f/16 more than I use f/2.8 on that lens.

 f/ 1.4 DOF can be difficult to get a subject in focus, but mostly on lenses >50mm FL. I think the 24 1.4 is not hard to get the whole subject in focus unless you are  less than 5 ft away. The 35 f/2 IS is not hard to get a sharp focus on subjects at f/2, and I suspect the 35 f/1.4 is not much harder either.

Thanks for your reply.  I would say that it isn't so much that it's hard to get focus as that the DOF is so thin, especially for indoors and shootings, lets hypothetically around 8-10 feet, if I were to shoot a small group, or even a couple, at 1.4 the DOF is still less than a foot (2.8 on average about 1.5 feet).  That would be tough to pull of in a studio setting let alone a grab shot, wham bam thank you mam kinda thing.  So, since most people equate needing fast lenses FOR INDOOR EVENTS, that 1.4 or 2.8 is still very thin. I would estimate the vast majority of event indoor work still settles at around 5.6-8 so most small group shots are in focus, which throws out the advantage of 2.8 or faster anyways.  Now there can be that argument that it may let more light into the lens for AF, and that's always nice, but at the inherent tradeoffs such as weight, cost, and bang for the buck), IMHO Meh

f/2.8 is not that thin DOF as you go to UWA. A 50 mm FL at 6 feet away f/2.8 gives DOF 0.78 ft (very thin, and difficult to manage), whereas a 24mm FL gives 3.4 feet, which is more than enough. At 15 feet away for a group, 24mm lens gives a whopping 36 feet of DOF. The razor thin concern doesn't apply at ultra wide.

An extreme example here: 24mm f/1.4 at 15 feet still has a DOF of 11 feet (but Canon's 24 1.4L is very soft in the corners at 1.4, different issue).

16mm f/2.8 at 6 feet away still has a very easy to manage DOF of 11 feet. Even as close as 3 feet, gives about 2 feet DOF.

So, f/2.8 really can help indoor photography for ultrawides without causing DOF problems.

189
Lenses / Re: Canon Working on Faster f/2.8 Ultra Wide Zoom [CR2]
« on: May 16, 2014, 04:48:40 PM »
I realise f2.8 means faster shutter speeds, was just wondering where you need it in real-world situations with such a wide angle. Astrophotography makes sense but ... sports? What sport gets shot at 16mm, chess? ;-) Just curious, does one normally go wider than 24mm for events/weddings of photojournalism? Maybe travel photography? (artisan in small dark workshop)

Lots of dramatic sports shots are taken with Wide and UW lenses. The first three olympic shots at telegraph here are ultrawide http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/olympics/picturegalleries/9461272/London-2012-Olympics-Photographers-tricks.html?frame=2302709
More on that http://magicvalley.com/blogs/between-the-frames/wide-angle-sports-shooting/article_d875ca72-43ed-11e2-8493-0019bb2963f4.html

Google will get you tons of examples wide shots. And a huge proportion of winning journalism shots are captured at wide - ultrawide.

190
The pricing is right on this lens, easily worth spending the 275 over 17-40/4L.

16-35 II is a different ballgame though.  If you are interested in doing indoor event work, IMO the 16-35 II f/2.8L is the better purchase; there simply isn't enough light at many indoor events to use an f/4 lens.  In fact, often f/2.8 isn't even enough; f/2.8 is more useful in low light than f/4 IS at 35mm, and with shutter speed needing to be 1/100 minimum to freeze motion f/4 will hurt in the ISOs department.  A noisy picture caused by five digit ISOs or motion blur will be much more noticeable in low light than less than perfect corner sharpness, and IS aside from not being as effective at wide focal lengths also will not freeze motion.  I do have primes that are below f/2.8, but none of them at 16mm which can be useful in tight quarters like a dancefloor.  The 16-35 II is one of the rare lenses that has a UWA-wide/normal zoom range, f/2.8, and accepts filters (I don't know how I'd feel with a bulbous element at a crowded event).

On the other hand, for landscape work this new 16-35 f/4L IS looks like an easy winner over the 16-35 II f/2.8.

So it depends what you are going to do with it, as is often the case :)  IMO, 16-35 II f/2.8L remains king for now for event photography.

I'll definitely pick this one up, shortly after my daughter is born my bills are all in order...  As far as the 2.8 vs 4 debate, i've been well vocal enough on this...  and for giggles, as a weekend long event we were hired for to do photography coverage for, (all indoors) we played with different lenses and combinations...  Needless to say, Regardless whether it was F4 or 2.8, we needed flash.  And 2.8 made the DOF even more shallow and unforgiving than the F4 was to boot.  In the end, i instructed my assistant photographer, and my wife and I to use our 24-105's.  Had Flash, chewed through batteries but got a good thousand or so images after culling that were sharp, ISO was ok (manually set at around 4000 which on our 5d3 and 6D came out gorgeous), and flash...  I personally feel the argument that you NEED 2.8 for indoors is just wrong.  If F4 cant pull it off, 2.8 really isn't going to buy you much latitude, and you have a narrower DOF.  1.4 and such is even tougher with DOF, especially for event coverage.  It's good for artistic expression and isolating subjects, but shooting groups of people, shooting moving subjects, shooting events, you will likely still need flash or ISO to get good shots, and with modern cameras, ISO is becoming even better.  I've had indoor wedding shots around 20,000 ISO that came out gorgeous with minimal noise...  It is what it is.

I agree with most of what you say. I shoot my 16-35 2.8L II at 5.6 - 11 most of the time, and I probably use f/16 more than I use f/2.8 on that lens.

 f/ 1.4 DOF can be difficult to get a subject in focus, but mostly on lenses >50mm FL. I think the 24 1.4 is not hard to get the whole subject in focus unless you are  less than 5 ft away. The 35 f/2 IS is not hard to get a sharp focus on subjects at f/2, and I suspect the 35 f/1.4 is not much harder either.

191
Lenses / Re: Canon Working on Faster f/2.8 Ultra Wide Zoom [CR2]
« on: May 16, 2014, 03:30:57 PM »
Off Topic, but I can't resist:

I like extra light (fast lens) as much as the next guy. A lens I'd like to see is a 24 1.4L III , and make it deadly. I'd pay dear for that, and I may end up with another of the current v II.  I returned my last one because I could not get it focus reliably with my 5D2 on anything beyond 5 or 6 feet away. Maybe the 5D3 would be better. The 24 1.4L II is soft in the corners wide open, but it can give great results anyway, so improve on it and I'd give up the flexibility of a zoom when the light disappears. Imagine a 5DIV at ISO 50,000 and a wide 1.4 lens!

Anyway one extra stop from 16-35 f/4 IS to 16-35 2.8 is ok, but I'd be happy with 16-35 f/4L IS for good light, and 24 1.4 + 35 f/2 IS  for see in the dark work. When the light is gone now, I go out with the 35 f/2 IS, and it does a great job. When you really need light, get lots of it with a prime.

Never had a problem with the 24L II on my 5DII when using the center point, even near MFD, but yes, it is awesome with the 5DIII, where so many other AF points can be used to get repeatable/accurate results.

It may have been my copy, or my camera, but that was years ago and I didn't want to switch around copies at the time. I have never forgot about that lens; I think it's one of the more interesting lenses around, and if they made it sharp from 1.4 it would be irresistible.

192
Lenses / Re: Canon Working on Faster f/2.8 Ultra Wide Zoom [CR2]
« on: May 16, 2014, 01:44:30 PM »
Off Topic, but I can't resist:

I like extra light (fast lens) as much as the next guy. A lens I'd like to see is a 24 1.4L III , and make it deadly. I'd pay dear for that, and I may end up with another of the current v II.  I returned my last one because I could not get it focus reliably with my 5D2 on anything beyond 5 or 6 feet away. Maybe the 5D3 would be better. The 24 1.4L II is soft in the corners wide open, but it can give great results anyway, so improve on it and I'd give up the flexibility of a zoom when the light disappears. Imagine a 5DIV at ISO 50,000 and a wide 1.4 lens!

Anyway one extra stop from 16-35 f/4 IS to 16-35 2.8 is ok, but I'd be happy with 16-35 f/4L IS for good light, and 24 1.4 + 35 f/2 IS  for see in the dark work. When the light is gone now, I go out with the 35 f/2 IS, and it does a great job. When you really need light, get lots of it with a prime.

193
Lenses / Re: Canon Working on Faster f/2.8 Ultra Wide Zoom [CR2]
« on: May 15, 2014, 07:00:23 PM »
I know there is a lot of interest in a revamp of the 16-35 f/2.8 II that has the same IQ as the 24-70 f/2.8 II.

I really don't think it is going to happen anytime remotely soon though, and here is why:

Time between 24-70 I and 24-70 II: 10 years
24-70 I designed in 2002.
24-70 II increased size of front element, and total number of elements
Difference?  Massive.

Time between 16-35 I and 16-35 II: 6 years
16-35 I designed in 2001.
16-35 II increased size of front element, total number of groups and elements, new coatings, etc
Difference? Only somewhat better, nowhere near the improvement 24-70 made.
16-35 II is 7 years old.

Given that the 16-35 II is a fairly recent design, being released the same year as the jaw-dropping 85L II, and the fact that ver2 was not largely better than ver1 despite larger front element, more total elements, new coatings, etc - indicates to me that 16-35mm f/2.8 is extremely difficult to get super sharpness from the wide end without a bulbous element.  Every example of a similar zoom range I've heard people trumpet as being super sharp had that bulbous element.

IMO, for reportage and event photography a bulbous element is undesirable.  It sticks out and is not able to handle as much rough and tough action as a regular lens; you don't even have the option of attaching a protective. People/objects banging into your camera and all.  And if you use them, no screw in ND filters or CPL with a bulbous either, instead requiring a contraption for ND filters.

So while a 16-35 f/2.8 with much better performance is likely possible, it likely would also require a bulbous front element.  The minimal improvement despite the size increase and number of elements increased between v1 and v2 makes it look to me that that sort of design is getting near as good as it gets.

If anyone can point to a non-bulbous 16-35 f/2.8 that destroys the 16-35 II in image quality, I would be interested in seeing it.  If not, that might be your answer right there.

A lineup that would make sense to me:


17-40 f/4 - Budget
16-35 f/4 IS - Landscape photography
16-35 f/2.8 II - Event photography/reportage
14-24 f/2.8 (or 12-24) w/ bulbous element - Extreme landscape photography


If Canon came out with a 16-35 III, even if it looked as good as the Nikon 14-24 I'm sure some landscape photographers would be disappointed because it didn't go as wide...  So I think that would be a bigger hit than a 16-35 III.
I don't know why an f/4 lens can get great mtf results without a bulbous lens, but an f/2.8 would need a bulbous front. At 16mm the angles are the same. .. but I don't design lenses, you might be right.  Anyway is good to have choices,  but the new 16-35mm looks like it will produce sharper more contrasty shots than either of the existing lenses

194
Lenses / Re: Canon Working on Faster f/2.8 Ultra Wide Zoom [CR2]
« on: May 15, 2014, 04:44:48 PM »
Does this mean no 16-35 f/2.8 III?

Impossible to predict. It's a favorite photo journalism lens, probably much more practical than the 12-24 range. And future high ISO improvements may make an update to the f/2.8 even less relevant.
Long term, I would think:

1.   12-24 (or 14-24) f/2.8L 
2.   16-35 f/4L IS  (the 17-40 f/4L is a goner I think)
3.   16-35 f/2.8L III (I tend to think there'll be an update)

I think there's room for all three zooms, and if push came to shove I would probably favor an optically excellent 16-35 2.8L III over an optically excellent 16-35 f/4L IS.  But I'd prefer an optically excellent 16-35 f/4L IS over the less-than-excellent 16-35 f/2.8L II (which I currently own, and love).   The 14 f/2.8L II may not see another update.

I think the 17-40L will stay, and so will the 16-35 II. The 12/4-24 and 16-35 will be additions.

same.

with the 17-40 and the 24-105 sticking around, canon doesn't have to create any cheap consumer lenses for full frame for now.

They won't disappear immediately, but I can't see either the 17-40 or the 24-105 sticking around too much longer. I have a 24-105, but if I was buying today, I'd get the 24-70 f/4L IS over the 24-105. The new lenses are much better, why not pay a few extra $

195
Lenses / Re: Canon Working on Faster f/2.8 Ultra Wide Zoom [CR2]
« on: May 15, 2014, 02:05:49 PM »
Does this mean no 16-35 f/2.8 III?

Impossible to predict. It's a favorite photo journalism lens, probably much more practical than the 12-24 range. And future high ISO improvements may make an update to the f/2.8 even less relevant.
Long term, I would think:

1.   12-24 (or 14-24) f/2.8L 
2.   16-35 f/4L IS  (the 17-40 f/4L is a goner I think)
3.   16-35 f/2.8L III (I tend to think there'll be an update)

I think there's room for all three zooms, and if push came to shove I would probably favor an optically excellent 16-35 2.8L III over an optically excellent 16-35 f/4L IS.  But I'd prefer an optically excellent 16-35 f/4L IS over the less-than-excellent 16-35 f/2.8L II (which I currently own, and love).   The 14 f/2.8L II may not see another update.

Pages: 1 ... 11 12 [13] 14 15 ... 48