March 03, 2015, 10:10:17 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 - ahsanford

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 74
Lenses / Re: Next L Lens From Canon Will be a Prime [CR2]
« on: Today at 04:53:32 PM »
As for the 50 I agree. It would be tough if the new one is only f/2, kind of a step back. And I agree that I would probably pass on it (despite how bad Canon needs a decent, consumer level 50) if it was that slow. With how good optics/designs are getting, one of last big advantages primes have over zooms is their (more often then not) faster speeds. That is why I have not understood the new 24mm and 28mm, them only being f/2.8.

But the prior non-L 24 and 28 primes were f/2.8 as well -- Canon simply modernized those prior designs. 

I have the 28 f/2.8 IS and I am truly fond of it.  It's such a sweet spot of IQ, features and size/weight.  It's a perfect walkaround on my 5D3, IMHO.  Unless you are shooting a lot of astro or environmental portraiture, I'm hard pressed to think of a need for f/2 or faster in those focal lengths. 

- A

Lenses / Re: Next L Lens From Canon Will be a Prime [CR2]
« on: Today at 04:20:16 PM »
It seems Logical, that a 50/2.0 IS USM will come. But who will buy a niftyfifty for 500€?

It will not be the new nifty fifty -- it will be a replacement for the 50 f/1.4 USM.   And again, we don't know it's f/2.  But a 50 prime with...

  • IS
  • Sharper than the 50L, esp. in the corners (a very simple feat if you've seen tests of that lens)
  • Fast + modern + reliable USM AF
  • Internal focusing
  • Solid build quality on par with a 100L
  • Smaller size and weight than the Sigma Art pickle jars

...will sell for a lot more than 500€ (I'd guess $799 or so) and it will still sell like hotcakes.  There is no all-around 9 out of 10 sort of autofocusing 50 prime out there, so people from all corners will come for such a lens.

The fact that this very L prime thread was hijacked to talk about it is a testament to how desirous this lens is.

- A

Lenses / Re: Next L Lens From Canon Will be a Prime [CR2]
« on: Today at 04:14:00 PM »
If they are attempting to replace the 50mm f/1.2, why not go all the way and introduce a new f/1.0 or f/0.95 (with optimal sharpness and focusing capabilities, of course)? It's time for Canon to introduce another revolution, not just an evolution. They've certainly proven that they can do this on the wide end (ie 11-24), but it would be great to see this innovation in the form of a new extreme-aperture lens.

The reason the 50mm f/1.2L is f/1.2 is because by making it f/1.2 Canon was able to significantly increase sharpness and focusing capabilities and reduces artifacts over the 50mm f/1.0.  50mm f/1.0 requires a massive amount of glass to move around and there is not much way to get around that as it is physics.  There is no free lunch with lenses where you can have the widest aperture, fastest focusing speed, best sharpness, and least artifacts - everything is a tradeoff.

Personally I would like to see an 85mm f/1.4L, basically redo the 85mm f/1.2L II with the improvements they made in the 50mm f/1.2.  It would be nice to have an 85L that focuses as fast as the 50L f/1.2.

Agree.  I'm not a pro, but I'm going to assume that pros want reliable workhorses more than they want finnicky racehorses.   f/1.2 lenses have nontrivial tradeoffs and are not 100% money-in-the-bank sort of tools.

- A

Lenses / Re: Next L Lens From Canon Will be a Prime [CR2]
« on: Today at 04:11:20 PM »
Comments in-line below:

It would be nice to have primes with medium focal legth, fast autofocus and good IS.
* 2.8/24 IS USM (done)
* 2.8/28 IS USM (done)
* 2.0/35 IS USM (done)

* 2.0/50 IS USM --> a near-certainty to occur (absolutely the most desired lens on this forum by a comfortable margin as no all-around EF 50 prime exists today), but I still think it's "f/nooneknows".  We've heard everything from f/1.4 IS to f/1.8 IS to f/2 IS.  As this lens is highly likely to be replacing the venerable 50 f/1.4 USM, so an f/1.4 is possible;  remember that no 'non-L IS refresh' lens was released at a slower max aperture than the lens it was replacing.
* 2.0/85 IS USM --> a near-certainty to occur as well, but it may be f/1.8 IS as the existing 85 USM is f/1.8.
* 2.8/100 Macro IS USM (done)
* 2.0/135 IS USM --> Unlikely we'll ever see a non-L in this FL again.  Canon wants us buying 70-200 zooms or ponying up for a 135 F/2L II (or IS) that will certainly come around before too long.
* 3.5/180 Macro IS USM
* 2.8/200 IS USM --> I thought a straight 200 f/2.8 prime has only been an L lens.  This isn't 'non-L IS refresh' material to me.

Canon clearly worked through this, but which of the remaining will be next? The fast primes are made by Zeiss.

Also on the EF non-L midrange prime front are the 100mm f/2 that no one ever talks about and the very well liked 100 F/2.8 non-L macro.  I could see the second one being refreshed -- it's a tremendous value today that has it's admirers. 

- A

Lenses / Re: Next L Lens From Canon Will be a Prime [CR2]
« on: Today at 02:10:28 PM »
As this is not a 50mm IS refresh rumor (which will undoubtedly not be an L lens), if there was a new L lens on offer, I'd guess the one most in need of a refresh would be:

35mm   f/1.4L - 17 years old
135mm f/2L - 19 years old

Those aren't the oldest L primes, but they are a strong combination of old and in high demand.  My money would be on one of those.

- A

Is the 135mm in need of an update? I haven't heard anything put praise for that lens.

Crudely, there are three camps with the 135L:

  • The lens is stellar and does not need modifying.
  • The glass is fine but IS would be a great add.
  • Sony has a 135 f/1.8 and we don't.  Also: Waaaaaah.  (My rebuttal?  Our autofocus works.)

And deep down, as legendary as lenses like the 135L and 200 F/2L IS have been, old is old:  there's always room to improve resolution for higher resolving sensors, reduce flare, reduce distortion, reduce chromatic aberration, reduce weight, improve weathersealing, offer or improve the IS, etc.

The bigger question is whether those improvements are worth putting off my future non-L 50mm f/nooneknows IS USM.  And the answer is no.  Gimme my 50, dammit.

- A

Lenses / Re: Next L Lens From Canon Will be a Prime [CR2]
« on: Today at 01:28:22 PM »
As this is not a 50mm IS refresh rumor (which will undoubtedly not be an L lens), if there was a new L lens on offer, I'd guess the one most in need of a refresh would be:

35mm   f/1.4L - 17 years old
135mm f/2L - 19 years old

Those aren't the oldest L primes, but they are a strong combination of old and in high demand.  My money would be on one of those.

- A

Lenses / Re: Next L Lens From Canon Will be a Prime [CR2]
« on: Today at 12:34:49 PM »
35L II picture captured while in field testing:

Lenses / Re: Canon ef-s 17-55mm 2.8 is usm GONE
« on: Today at 10:45:11 AM »

To maximize the AF performance of the 7D2 for sports, a short fixed f2.8 lens is a must.

Agree.  Crop shooters are stuck with a 16-35 f/2.8L II or third party zooms to get an f/2.8 lens wide enough to be considered a 'standard' zoom.

I'll go a step further.  The 7D2 is not a toy.  Many of its owners see crop as a strength and not a weakness for what they shoot (i.e. stuff that is further away) and have cabinets full of high-end glass.  Yet for closer FLs, they are stuck with UWA L zooms as their best standard zoom option.

How about one -- just one -- great L lens for crop? 

17-55 in crop is 27-88mm in FF which many would agree is not wide enough for many folks' walkaround needs.   How about an EF-S 15-55 f/2.8L IS USM?  Make it awesome.  Be overpricey Canon and charge $1,200-1,500 for it.  Birders and sports guys who love that their 7D2 obviates the need for that 600mm supertele would gladly get in line to buy such a lens -- if they haven't bought the Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 already.

- A

Lenses / Re: Canon ef-s 17-55mm 2.8 is usm GONE
« on: March 02, 2015, 10:19:59 PM »
I expect a decent update for 17-55mm F2.8. It could be a STM version launch price below $800, and not sucking dust inside.

Huge opportunity to make an L lens (or for FF purists, L lens quality) in the EF-S mount.  This was the crop luxury lens when it came out, and I think 7D2 users would prefer an EF-S native sized 17-55 F/2.8 USM IS II over slapping an ultrawide EF mount L zoom on and calling it a 'standard zoom' after the crop factor.

But make it STM and it's absolutely dead on arrival for me.  I don't shoot video, so STM is simply a cheaper and slower way to autofocus, and moving from USM to STM would be a downgrade as a result.

- A

Like others here I am really awaiting Roger Cicala's first review of the new 16-35/4 IS. I personally never really understood why someone needs such a fast f/2.8 ultra wide angle lens, besides some event photographers shooting in dark environments using ambient light. Typical UWA applications are landscapes and cityscapes, am I right? f/2.8 would produce a much too short depth of field for such a purpose (maybe there are a few exceptions) - so mostly the big block of optical glass is not really used. I have e.g. a Zeiss 18/3.5 - and I never go below f/5.6 with that lens. Btw I use this Zeiss sometimes for street photography, because it can produce funny results, but again never completely wide open.

You can see in Roger's review that those big lenses needed for making such UWA zooms create a lot of optical problems, and no lensmaker so far can control this completely. For landscape and cityscape you need a lens that is really tack sharp right from the middle to the edges at medium and far distances. That's crucial, as many of you here in this forum certainly know. So I think it is quite logical that a less fast UWA zoom with a modern optical design should deliver overall superior results, because it is simpler to make it.

He actually already reviewed the 16-35 f4 - it about 6 months ago

One more time on the 16-35 f/4L IS:

- A

I am a landscape shooter too. What you say is true but it depends on the composition, of course, and the focal length, but many landscape compositions simulate flat wall test targets in the form of infinity across the frame. Many of my shots are like this, shooting from a ledge, at a Grand Vista. With a 24-70 II, I have found no need to stop down past f5.6 for these kinds of compositions and get plenty sharp corners and edges. Lots of landscape photogs can't even picture what I am describing because they always put a close foreground object in the composition that requires stopping down. :)

Of course -- if there's nothing in the background and you are tackling a far off vista, you choose the sharpest aperture.  I'm trying to get out of tourist / vista shooting (which can be marvelous, I certainly won't knock it) as it often mutes the sense of scale.  Rules are silly, but foreground elements can greatly strengthen landscape compositions.  Those shots need a large working DOF or focus stacking to pull off. 

And as I'm often not on a tripod when I come across these moments, I'm stuck stopping down past f/11 and trial-of-erroring to get everything basically in focus with the DOF preview button.  For those kind of shots, being slightly soft due to diffraction is far preferable to being blurred out of the working DOF, but others may think differently.

- A

Also I would like to see tests at F8, F11 and F16.

Tests at these apertures introduce diffraction. Bad for pixel peeping.

I'm pretty sure that was a landscaper question. :P   They don't always have the luxury to shoot at the sharpest aperture.

I'm assuming that not many people are cherry-picking the absolutely sharpest aperture and focus-stacking with their landscapes.  Like HDR work, some folks lack the patience, tripod, or windless day to attempt compositing a multiple exposure landscape, so F/8 - F/11 are still very useful apertures for those folks.

- A

Lenses / Re: 16-35 f4 IS Lens hood question.
« on: February 24, 2015, 03:09:41 PM »
I can't explain it, either, but the new 24-70 f/2.8 II and 16-35 f/4 IS hoods sure are a pleasure to use compared to their predecessors.  The 24-70 f/2.8 hood was actually kind of cool, but the 16-35 f/2.8 II hood was a beast and I hated it.

Agree on all counts, Mackguyver.  The EF-S 10-22mm hood was similarly a really pain to pack in my bag.  Large diameter items suck to pack in a satchel with inserts for 77/82mm lenses.

- A

Why wasn't the new Canon 16-35 f4 tested instead of the older 16-35 f2.8 ?

Because he's already done that test:

You can back out the 16-35 f/2.8L II vs. the 16-35 f/4L IS from the link above to compare it to the Tamron.

- A

Lenses / Re: 16-35 f4 IS Lens hood question.
« on: February 24, 2015, 02:52:01 PM »
But this comparison might imply something other than the 24-70 reason is going on:

I have noticed that the 16-35 F/4L IS does wonderfully well at wide angles with my Lee 100mm 4x6/4x4 filter setup.  It allows a wider FOV before the filtering hardware occludes the corners (i.e. vignettes) than what others have reported on other similar FL lens.  As the lens is not a radically different diameter up front than the other UWA lenses, the conclusion you draw from that is Canon must have (wisely) brought the filter ring as close to the front element as they could with the 16-35 F/4L IS.  That might explain why the hood is of a smaller form factor, but it's only speculation on my part.

(Again, paging an UWA lover / hood junky to answer this one.)

- A

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 74