July 28, 2014, 11:12:17 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 - Etienne

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 38
46
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.

47
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.

48
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.

49
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

50
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 $

51
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.

52
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 ....

...like me :)   

Time to start selling stuff

53
I can see a 16-35 f/4L IS in my bag for christmas

54
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.

55
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. https://www.flickr.com/photos/39860197@N02/9103336331/

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.

56
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  :)


yes!


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.

57
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 lenses...as 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.

58
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 .

59
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.

60
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.

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 38