March 03, 2015, 12:18:06 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 ... 12 13 [14] 15 16 ... 48
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.

Lenses / Re: Canon Working on Faster f/2.8 Ultra Wide Zoom [CR2]
« on: May 15, 2014, 09:42:33 AM »
A lot of people will want both the 16-35 f/4L IS and a 12-24 f/2.8 .... me :)   

Time to start selling stuff

I can see a 16-35 f/4L IS in my bag for christmas

A really sharp, contrasty, low distortion 16 - 35 f/4L IS that's smaller and lighter than the 16-35 2.8 would be a real winner at $1200 - $1300 for me.

I'll take a 16-35 f/4 IS as long as it's really good ...

Shallow DOF is not possible with UW unless you get down under f/2. f/2.8 doesn't cut it there. And you often want deep DOF in wide shots, so you end up at f/8 - f/16 a lot of the time anyway
With new cameras getting good results at really high ISO's, the extra light is getting to be less important too.

the f/4 solution gives you a smaller, lighter lens that may outperform the other ultrawides .

Now IS ... I took this HDR photo handheld standing on the sidewalk at 16mm.

The light was just right when I was walking by with no tripod. The light did not last long. Image Stabilization would have helped a lot.

And for video ... IS takes away the micro-shakes and makes a huge difference . The 28 2.8 IS and the 35 f/2 IS work like a dream for handheld video.

Lenses / Re: More Wide Angle Lens Speculation [CR1]
« on: May 06, 2014, 04:33:37 PM »
I believe Canon should introduce a 16-35 f/2.8L III, a 16-35 f/4L IS and a 14-24 f/2.8L. Then we would be OK as far as UWA FF zooms are concerned (before asking for an IS version of 16-35 2.8L with IS that is)  ;D ;D ;D

Is that too much to ask ?  8) 8)

P.S OK feel free to add other variations, price ranges, APS-C UWA zoom ranges, etc... After all it is a rumor site  :)


And what would be the speculated prices for:
- 16-35 f/2.8 MKIII = ?
- 16-35 f/4 IS = ?
- 14-24 f/2.8 = ?

Who give up the 16-35 f/2.8 MKII for a 16-35 f/4 IS?

If it's really sharp at f/4, and a little smaller and lighter, I'll probably switch.

Lenses / Re: Canon's f/1.2's: What is really going on?
« on: April 30, 2014, 01:30:16 AM »
Wait a second, did someone just compare camera lenses to car pistons?!?!

Yep, that is the kind of "reasoning" we have to try to dispel sometimes.

Not the best analogy maybe, but if you try to read what I said rather than trying to take one sentence out of context, you might understand.  THERE IS METAL TO METAL CONTACT.  Your reasoning is, there is not enough metal to metal contact to cause any "appreciable" wear.  I say, there is certainly metal to metal contact that causes wear, when people rush to change if they are changing wheels on an F1 racecar.  Oops, there's another car analogy!  My whole point was, the mount is far from indestructible, and care should be taken when changing lenses.  If you are just wanting to argue, go ahead, but you have to admit, I have a point.

Hold on, let me post under another name to egg this on...oh wait, I'm above that.   ;D

If you really must worry about your lenses, worry about scratches, oxidation and discoloration, mould growth, wear and tear on the focus and zoom mechanisms.  The lens mount is the least of all problems to worry about. Just dont carelessly ram it on the camera and you should be fine for 20 years.

Canon really does need to update the 50mm 1.4.

Depends on what you mean by update.  I wonder which will generate more revenue - the Sigma 50/1.4 A at $950, or the Canon 50/1.4 at $400?   I think it might be the latter…and the 50/1.8 at $125 will generate more revenue than both. 

I do think Canon will bring out a 50mm IS prime (f/1.8 or f/2) in the relatively near future.  It will be priced lower than Sigma's 50/1.4, and if it has the IQ of the 35/2 IS it will outsell the Sigma 50/1.4A.

I bought the Canon 35 f/2 IS over the sigma and love it. It is compact, light weight, great IQ, and hand-held video is amazingly stable, almost looks tripod mounted sometimes. Far superior to my non-stabilized 16-35 at 35mm handheld.

I've use the Canon 50 f/1.4 for video. Even with a shoulder support, it's tough to keep it steady. I'll buy the Canon 50 IS, if it's at least f/2, but I'm still hoping it will be a 50 f/1.4 IS .

When I read back over TDP's review of the S50A and I think to myself on how to obtain the best focus using a tripod, using the AF from the camera with phase detect focusing is not how I'd do it.

The whole point of the test was to determine the accuracy of the SIR PDAF system with the Sigma 50/1.4 A under controlled conditions, with neither camera nor subject moving.  Should be pretty simple for an AF system with an accurately-focusing lens.   Using Live View would defeat the purpose of the test. 

With Canon lenses mounted on a Canon camera, I've watched it focus on something and lock, then I press the focus button again, it de-focuses and refocuses again. Why can't it just "know" that it has acquired focus and not move the second time?

How does the camera "know" that the subject has not moved?  Having said that, with many subjects, the focus will not change as the PDAF sensor will determine that it is already properly focused.  When the AF does defocus/refocus, that's usually becuase of the characteristics of the subject, for example with a cross-type AF point and a subject having different phase differences in the orthogonal orientations.

The point I was making above is that if you've already focused the lens on X and press the button again, it is doubtful that the lens will end up in exactly the same position as before (and by exact, I mean exact, not some "within half a millimeter.")

Slight variances are one thing - you may see differences with image analysis (MTF/SQF values) that would be too subtle to detect visually.  The OOF shots in the TDP test aren't subtle…the 50A just flat out missed focus on 4/10 shots.

Depends on brightness of scene too. I often focus/re-focus on a subject as I am shooting/ verifying. In good light, my canon lenses either don't change focus distance at all, or very very little, if using single point focus. Most focus changes are probably due to a subtle change in the camera position or change in light quality/contrast on the subject. Defocus/refocus only happens in very low light.

Lenses / Re: Teleconverter advice
« on: April 14, 2014, 10:44:29 AM »
Others have intimated this but I think it needs to be stated forcefully: Canon teleconverters do not tend to fit third party lenses (or even most of Canon's own lenses, especially non-telephoto ones). They have protruding front elements, so the lenses they are attached to must have quite a deep recess at the back to accommodate them. I've not used this Tamron lens, and it's not easy to tell from cross section diagrams how much space there is at the back, but I'd want to be sure others have successfully mated it to Canon extenders before buying one. (You can of course use an extension tube, but that will impact autofocus speed, infinity focus, and possibly image quality).

Third party teleconverters will be more accommodating - I have a Kenko 2x version which fits all lenses I've tried it with - but they will not produce such good results (reflected in the price difference). Nonetheless, they can still be a good choice. It's worth stopping down the aperture a little if you use them, I would say, especially if the lens suffers from distortions/aberrations to begin with.
I've used the Canon 2x III with 12 mm extension tube between it and 50mm 1.4, and the 100mm 2.8L IS macro, and both work quite well for macro. Adding the 2x with extension tube to the 100 mmm macro gives a big boost in magnification.
The 2x converter does result in some loss of sharpness wide open, but for macro the lenses are stopped down quite a bit anyway.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art Gets Reviewed
« on: April 06, 2014, 10:47:40 AM »
It's great to know that it exists, and if I ever need one I can get it, but ...

One of the reasons I like primes is the light weight. I love going out with just my Canon 35 f/2 IS on the 5DIII. It is small and light, and it does a damn good job for both photography and video. I am still hoping for a similar lens at 50mm. I don't really want to add another 2 lbs to my bag, but still I'm glad the Sigma exists in case I need one.

I am a Canon fan, obviously since I have heavily invested in their gear ...

... but I definitely want to know if some of my equipment has known design flaws that should be fixed on warranty. I have had to send in two bodies for repair, and I had to return two other bodies for replacement because they did not function properly from new. The two repairs were for issues that were present when I purchased the cameras, and they were fixed on warranty, but I could have easily missed the warranty period.

Post everything you know!

EOS Bodies / Re: New Canon Cine Zoom Lens?
« on: April 03, 2014, 11:17:39 AM »
I've never used the C100, but most that have them seem to love them and there's no doubt that the image it makes is very good.  Personally, the ergonomics of the Cx00 series don't fit my shooting style, but others LOVE them and if you're one of those that do like it, you can probably do great things with it.

If low light performance is really good, I'll probably go with the XF200. The C100 low light is supposedly incredibly good, better than my 5DIII, so that is really tempting for me.

Ultimately, I think the best filming package for me would be both the XF200 and the C100, but I really want to keep my 5DIII, not just for stills, but I like the video from it as well and many times I am glad to have both in one package. Don't think I can swing keeping all three right now.

Congrats on Sigma!

Although perhaps not technically super-zooms, Canon's best APS-C travel zooms right now are the  EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM Lens and the Canon EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 USM IS (IMHO), and they are not included in the comparison. Both are vastly superior to the Canon 18-200, and probably vastly superior to the Sigma as well.

EOS Bodies / Re: New Canon Cine Zoom Lens?
« on: April 03, 2014, 12:12:52 AM »

What are you using for ENG now? What would you get out of the new stuff?
Right now I have a 5D3 and EF lenses (16-35, 24-105, 70-200 2.8, 2x teleconverter, 28 2.8 IS, 35 f/2.0 IS, 50 1.4, 100 2.8 macro), EOS-M with adapter, and 60D, Tokina 50-135 2.8, Tokina 11-16) and a bunch of other gear (audio, tripods , etc).

I do some event coverage, and documentaries. I want to do more of this. I have been thinking of the C100, at least my lenses would be useful. But I'd also like to have something all-in-one, quick to grab, with a GP all around lens. Thinking of the XA20 or XF200, or maybe even just a little Panasonic camcorder. Not sure what to do. C300 is too much $. Don't know much about the new Panasonic GH4 (with the audio add-on) but I suspect this cam is over-hyped.

What do you think?

My 'bread and butter' camera is a Panasonic 2700(P2 VariCam) w/Fuji HA13x4.5.  I bought the C300 mainly just for sit-down interviews and 'artsy b-roll' for feature pieces, but I do work on one show that specifies the C300 as THE camera(The bulk of that show should really be shot with a "real ENG" camera, but a lens like the 17-120 would help).

I've never shot extensively with a 5 for video.  I have two mkII's and a mkIII, but I bought them for stills.  But I have used my mkIII a few times for a third or fourth angle/lock-off.  We've all seen the beautiful images that can be made with it, but I couldn't imagine trying to cover an event with one.  I look at them primarily as a still cam, but if I look at it in the video sense, it should be more of a specialty camera (interviews, specialty shots/b-roll) not a general ENG camera substitute.  You would be much better served with a true camcorder, like the XF200 you mentioned.

I'm worried about low light performance. I've got some of my favorite stuff when there's been almost no light. What do you think of a C100 ? No power zoom, but most everything else is there.

Pages: 1 ... 12 13 [14] 15 16 ... 48