Messages

1

Lenses / Re: New Wide Angles Lenses in 2013 [CR2]

« on: June 19, 2013, 05:06:57 PM »

24 II corners are pretty much like the 24-70 II and much better than on the 24-105 or 24 2.8 non-IS. Of course a 24 2.8 II non-IS could cost a lot less than the 24 1.4 II and weigh less and be even better.

I wonder how the 24 2.8 IS performs.

Ask and ye shall receive:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=788&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=4&LensComp=486&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=3

Do the mouseover and watch the arrow to show what is being shown at the time.  I've compared to the gold standard 24mm T/S II, starting at F/8 but you can change that as you need to.  I think the new 24 IS solid in the center but leaves something to be desired in the corners.  The T/S really seems to excel there.

Alternatively, PhotoZone has data on the 24mm T/S II and the 28mm IS F/2.8:

Tilt-Shift:  http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/603-canon24f35tse2?start=2
28mm IS: http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/774-canon28f28isff?start=1

And as you can see, the 28 is not too shabby.  I do love it, but I just wish it had a WS gasket.

-100 to everyone who said to lock the 24-70 on 24.    I know it's sharp, but it's also big and heavy.

- A

2

Lenses / Re: New Wide Angles Lenses in 2013 [CR2]

« on: June 19, 2013, 03:52:41 PM »

  I'd pay $1-2K for a breathtakingly sharp autofocusing 24mm L that didn't shoot itself in the foot (i.e. corners) to offer side a wide aperture. 

I thought that the 28mm II fit the bill??  I don't own the lens, but have read some nice things about it on this forum.

28mm II?  If you mean the new non-L 28mm F/2.8 IS, yes, I have it, and it's a peach.   It does lack weather sealing, though.   That said, it's the best option for me right now.

If you mean the 24L II prime, like many huge aperture lenses, it's an art / environmental portraiture tool.  Soft in the corners, spectacular in the middle.  Not for me.

Hopefully these new zooms will trump the primes like the 24-70 II has recently done.  Then I'm buying for sure.

- A

3

Lenses / Re: New Wide Angles Lenses in 2013 [CR2]

« on: June 19, 2013, 03:48:21 PM »

16-50mm ?  That leaves an interesting concept in my mind of a 50-135mm F4 IS - creating a crop centric focal range that migrates to full frame when the user wants too...

Or how about a 24-50mm f/2?

That's what the Sigma 18-35 F/1.8 zoom should have been.  I want that.

- A

4

Lenses / Re: New Wide Angles Lenses in 2013 [CR2]

« on: June 19, 2013, 02:10:39 PM »

The 16-50 F4L IS sounds REALLY intriguing, lets hope it's around 1k and I'll buy it.

+1

let's hope it does 24mm as crisply, edge to edge as the 24-70 II

That's the elephant in the room, isn't it?  The new 24-70 II is such a monster that landscape shooters who own that would need a really compelling reason to look at anything other than a stellar 14-24.

- A

5

Lenses / Re: New Wide Angles Lenses in 2013 [CR2]

« on: June 19, 2013, 02:08:48 PM »

I could see a 16-50 f/4IS sell well among rebel users intending to upgrade from kit and to full frame at a later date. Though it would cut into 17-55 2.8 IS sales. I suspect it would be priced similar to the 24-70 f4 IS. Not sure which I would prefer on a crop camera, a 16-50 or 24-70 given both at f/4. That would be a tough decision.

Good comments.  Tough call on walkaround length -- I think both are attractive for different reasons.

As for supplanting 17-55 business, I am not so sure.  If this is simply an L refresh of the 17-40 with a little more length, you may be right.  But if this is a beastmaster 2.5 pound lens with crazy IQ and top-end weather sealing, it may get priced out of the 17-55's territory. 

- A

6

Lenses / Re: New Wide Angles Lenses in 2013 [CR2]

« on: June 19, 2013, 02:05:34 PM »

Thoughts:

16-50 F/4 IS is an intriguing concept.  A good percentage of us prefer a wider walkaround than 24-70.  I certainly use the 24-50 side of my 24-70 more than the 50-70.  I hope this one gets the smaller/lighter L treatment that we just saw with the currently demonized (but still an interesting design) 24-70 F/4 IS.

The 14-24 has massive shoes to fill.  I am not starting a dynamic range / low ISO / Nikon D800 conversation, but landscape work has been one of the perceived chinks in the armor of Canon's armamentarium.   Something that punches its weight against Nikon's seemingly legendary 14-24, possibly coupled with a high MP sensor, would be two huge steps towards correcting that perception.

For those not visible to the performance of Nikon's homerun hitter, it pulls in resolution figures right up there with the Canon 70-200 F/2.8 IS II.  Landscape filter companies make products specifically to work around this lens' huge front element.  Canon guys use adapters to mount this on their bodies.  It's that amazing, apparently. 

I still don't understand why we don't have a breathtakingly sharp autofocusing prime for landscape work.  I am drowning in a sea of ultrawide zooms (soft in corners), arty huge aperture L lenses (ditto), tilt-shift (no AF), and Zeiss glass (no AF).  I appreciate landscapes ==> tripods ==> liveview ==> no need for AF, but some folks just want to snap a picture of a coastline or a mountain range without all that fanfare.  I'd pay $1-2K for a breathtakingly sharp autofocusing 24mm L that didn't shoot itself in the foot (i.e. corners) to offer side a wide aperture.  Negative points if you tell me to just buy the 24-70 II.   

- A

7

EOS Bodies / Re: SL1 as a "travel" body

« on: June 17, 2013, 12:33:40 AM »

I do my serious shooting with a 5D III, but I had been looking for a while for a small, lightweight camera for family pics and travel. I had considered a high end compact but it somehow seemed too much of a compromise, particularly in operation (shutter lag, viewfinder, etc). When the SL1 came out it seemed an ideal solution, and after having spent some time with it I can say that for me this camera (with the 40mm pancake)  is almost perfect as a lightweight complement to the 5D/III. The great thing, for me, is that both cameras share so many things - the optical view finder (obviously), the Canon layout of the buttons, and the general shooting method. The only real difference in operation is the lack of back button focus (and the lack of the second wheel).

I feel Canon produced a wonderful little camera in the SL1, and for me it is the perfect "informal" complement to the amazing 5D III. I figured others might be wondering about this so I thought I'd share my positive experience!

I still think the missing piece for the SL1 is the wide angle pancake.  The pocketability of that camera lives or dies with a tiny lens (as it does the EOS-M), so pancakes are vital.  But the EF 40mm pancake scales to 64mm FF equivalent on a crop, which is functional for portraits but too long for general walkaround, IMHO.

So the missing piece is what they do offer for the EF-M mount but not for the EF-S mount: a 22mm pancake.  That scales to 35mm, and then you have a truly high-end compact 2nd camera.

- A

8

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Is it time to consider Sigma lenses seriously?? competitive to Canon?

« on: June 16, 2013, 09:27:51 PM »

This thread title made me very angry - it's Canon fanboys like OP that drive the insane Canon glass prices up. 3rd party lenses can be just as good as Canon's at fraction of the cost. Don't blindly recommend Canon's glass against Sigma, Tamron, Tokina, Samyang etc. - they all have some outstanding products, while having to reverse-engineer the AF communication.

The flip side is to get angry at Sigma, etc. fanboys for not being picky enough. This keeps the QC of the Sigma, etc., low; and allows Canon to keep high prices!

I hear both sides of this debate.  Canon does prey on our wallets, but they've done that from the high ground of providing an all-around high quality product.  Sigma has only starting providing such quality recently.

Sigma's only value proposition can't just be 'same as Canon for less money' because discerning professionals will see exactly how 3rd party lenses saved that money.  In many cases, things other than the brute force metrics of sharpness and widest aperture are sacrificed to keep those lenses cheaper than Canon.

Remember that for a very long time, Sigma had quality issues: paint peeling, AF issues, odd copy to copy variation, etc.  I am not a fanboy saying this -- Bryan Carnathan and Roger Cicala were saying this based on using, tearing down and repairing a ton of their products.

That said, Sigma is starting to move past being a 2nd-tier manufacturer and is finally making products that out-perform the Canon lenses.  I cannot say enough how a single lens -- the new 35 prime -- is changing people's opinion of Sigma.

So Sigma getting better is a problem for Canon but a gift for us.  Here's to seeing more lenses like that 35 prime.

- A

9

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Is it time to consider Sigma lenses seriously?? competitive to Canon?

« on: June 14, 2013, 02:12:23 PM »

The new 35 FF prime is supposed to be a complete game changer for them -- I've not tried it on my 5D3 but I'm keen to rent it soon.  Many reviewers have noted that 35's sharpness is spectacular, and the build quality, feel, and user experience is all significantly upgraded from their past offerings.

- A

10

Pricewatch Deals / Re: Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 DC Available for Preorder

« on: June 14, 2013, 02:04:58 PM »

Not too suprised about the price.  Sigma has found a nice spot shy of 1k.  If it were FF, then it'd be 2k or more, depending on it's peformance.

I do have a question about its design, though.  It's heavier and longer than the 16-35L II, so is this lens essentially a 16-35 FF UWA design with a speedbooster added?  If it is, does that imply that a fast FF zoom would be similar is size to a medium format lens?

You raise a fair question -- if Sigma made the ultrafast zoom for FF many in this forum would want, it likely would be a pickle jar of a lens.  One might imagine it would be a standard zoom with the size and weight of the 70-200 F/2.8 IS.

Your analogy is a good one.  I've tinkered briefly with the Leica medium format SLR and everything about it was comically large for obvious (huge sensor/ 'anti-crop') reasons.  A lens like that on a FF SLR would be a major chore to lug around.

- A

11

Pricewatch Deals / Re: Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 DC Available for Preorder

« on: June 14, 2013, 12:19:36 PM »

Well that didn't take long:
http://www.engadget.com/2013/06/14/sigma-18-35mm-f-1-8-lens-only-800/

Make fun of tech blogs all you want, at least Engadget fesses up when they miss the mark so badly.  Respect.

- A

12

Pricewatch Deals / Re: Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 DC Available for Preorder

« on: June 14, 2013, 12:11:32 PM »

I've not used 3rd party lenses before.  How do they usually stack up against OEM?   This is an interesting lens to me.  Can't wait to read more reviews about it.

Generally, I avoid them, but the Sigma 35 F/1.4 is being widely regarded as a game changer for Sigma's future prospects.  From Roger at LensRentals:

"It’s been a long time since a take was so easy. This is the sharpest 35mm made. It costs a lot less than the Canon 35 f/1.4mm or the Zeiss 35mm lenses. Any questions? It’s extremely well built and everything I’ve been able to see, inside and out, indicates quality control has really improved at Sigma.

If you’re a bokeh fanatic, you may like something else better (or maybe not, that’s a subjective call). If you need Image Stabilization, then the 35mm f/2 IS may be worthwhile. Otherwise, this is the 35mm lens.

Arguably as good or better than anything else made, and at a lower price."

That lens also won a rather odd fan-voted blinded study on best bokeh on DigitalRevTV -- they posted three shots without saying which lens was which (no EXIF data posted), and the fans chose the Sigma 35 over the Nikon and Canon.

- A

13

Pricewatch Deals / Re: Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 DC Available for Preorder

« on: June 14, 2013, 11:52:59 AM »

I started another thread on this when the price dropped yesterday...

Engagdet (not a great SLR source of insight) expected this to be priced in the $2k+ range as it was an industry first.  Cue giggling.

But even I am surprised with the $799 price including the hood.

I personally was expecting this to be coming in around $1,000-$1,200 even though it's APS-C only.  A first is still a first, and I'm not convinced something is so easily 'priced out of APS-C user territory' with so many sports / wildlife guys plugging much more expensive glass on their 7Ds.

Any of you surprised by the $799 figure?  The chatter I've seen on other announcement pages (photo rumors, Petapixel, etc.) has been very positive re: the price.

Sigma is on fire right now with that 35mm F/1.4, so people are taking them more seriously.  I still am bent out of shape that they are using whatever witchcraft they have on crop when full frame people would give their left nut for this -- where is the EF 24-50 F/2.2 for full frame?   

- A

14

Lenses / New Sigma 18-35 F/1.8 Zoom priced at only $799

« on: June 14, 2013, 03:57:25 AM »

Sigma's 18-35 F/1.8 zoom for APS-C is coming in at only $799 w/ the hood included:
http://photorumors.com/2013/06/14/simga-announces-pricing-for-the-18-35mm-f1-8-dc-hsm-lens/

LOL, Engadget thought an "industry-first" like this would cost a wee bit more:  http://www.engadget.com/2013/04/18/sigma-announces-18-35mm-f-1-8-dc-hsm/

I personally was expecting this to coming in around $1,000-$1,200 even though it's APS-C only.  A first is still a first, and I'm not convinced something is so easily 'priced out of APS-C user territory' with so many sports / wildlife guys plugging much more expensive glass on their 7Ds.

Any of you surprised by the $799 figure?

- A

15

Lenses / Re: When are we gonna get some news on canons next 50mm (hopefully with IS)

« on: June 10, 2013, 09:17:08 PM »

I just fail to see why this new 50mm will be a problem.  We will then have:

$125 or so --> 50 F/1.8: nifty fifty
$350 or so --> 50 F/1.4 (sort of) USM: a great lens for the dollar (like the 85 F/1.8:)
$800 or so --> new 50 F/? IS USM
$1300? (I have forgotten) --> the 50L F/1.2:  the high art / portraiture lens, the je ne sais quoi lens, the bokeh magic lens, etc.

That third option is perfectly placed.  Many people who feel the L is overpriced or underfeatured will jump at the new offering.  I certainly will.

- A

The problem is --- many feel that the 1.4 is the one that needs to be updated...as a 1.4!!!!  The market for primes seems to have a clear line in the sand ---the camp that wants a slower lens with IS and a camp that wants a fast lens and doesn't care for IS.  The next divide is price - the only way to please both camps is to make a 1.4 with IS but I seriously doubt such a thing would be made available under 1K - or IQ will be garbage from 1.4-2.8. 

I just want an optically improved 1.4...or, lets get it on with a 50mmL 1.2v2!

I think some of us (and this is not an indictment) are getting hung up in F/1.4 vs. F/2.  It's just one stop.  The other improvements -- general overall sharpness, internal focusing, IS, much much faster focusing, better build -- would have me buy this lens at F/2 or F/1.4. 

I know I am in the minority here, but I'd gladly give up one stop for all those improvements.

As for 50Lv2, agree.  It doesn't even stack up to the current F/1.4 in the corners.  For 3-4x the price, it should everything the cheaper one does and more.

- A