July 31, 2014, 07:07:57 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 - ahsanford

Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10 ... 53
106
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 16-35 F/4L IS -- Reviews are trickling in...
« on: June 30, 2014, 02:06:57 PM »
Yup, in terms of IQ, this lens just blows away the 16-35 and 17-40.

If you've still got one of those two lenses, you could try giving it away for free because they're not really worth having now.

Unless you are a professional that does events.  Better corner sharpness from f/4-f/8 is not worth losing f/2.8.  IS can't help motion blur.

Lets see. The trade off is 1 stop of ISO for sharp across the frame.

And if you need 24/28/35 at f/2.8, Canon now has three primes with IS.

Dilbert, I agree with your tradeoff math and will probably buy the new lens, but if you are shooting moving subjects, sharp corners mean little if your subject is blurry from too slow of a shutter speed.   :P

- A


107
Thanks so much for the info!  I have a 2 slot holder as well as a circular polarizer and was looking into getting this lens.  Is it better then the 2.8 in terms of vingnetting?

I don't have the 2.8, so I couldn't say. 

My test was principally to address how much plastic/ring/leading edge physical crap Canon put in front of the front element at 16mm that would push the entire Lee holder too far 'out' from the 16mm FOV.  The answer is:  not much, and I'm grateful for that.

- A

108
Landscape folks,

I just ran a quick vignetting test with a new 16-35 F/4L IS with Lee Filter setup attached just now.

Method:

  • Used a FF rig, a 5D3 in my case.
  • Shot at F/9 perhaps 18" away from a large white wall.  Confirmed focus once at beginning of series and then switched to MF for all shots so the lens wouldn't hunt on the bare white wall.
  • Used a Lee 77 wide angle adaptor ring directly on the lens' filter threads
  • Attached a 2-slot Foundation Kit holder with the 105mm CPL ring screwed on the front.
  • Ran a series with nothing in the Holder, and then ran it again with the 105 CPL attached.
  • Walked the FL from 16-24 in small manual increments (the gap in the ring is relatively small in between 16 - 20 and 20 - 24, so it was not an exact science.)
  • Cable release, tripod, LV, etc.
  • The CPL was a 105mm B+W Kaesemann filter (BWKCPMC105 at B&H)
  • The camera did not have peripheral illumination enabled, but I don't think it would have mattered as (a) there is no lens profile recognized by my 5D3 and (b) the type of vignetting this issue creates is a black and white hard obstruction.
  • Pulled Focal Length value from the EXIF from a Mac OS Command-I (info) pull.  No idea if there is a more exact way to get the value.

Results with the CPL ring on a two-slot Lee holder but NO CPL in place:

16mm - 24mm:  Clean.  No vignetting. 

Results with the CPL ring on a two-slot Lee holder and the CPL was in place:

16mm: Vignettes considerably.  Expected.
17mm: Vignettes.
18mm: Vignettes slightly.  Cloning/editing this out is only a small chore at this point.
19mm: Vignettes the smallest possible amount.  A trivial fix in PS or whatever you use.
20mm - 24mm: Clean.  No vignetting.

Pleasantly surprised.  I thought I'd need to painstakingly disassemble my Holder down to a 'two options' variety (one slot with CPL, two slots with no CPL ring, etc.) to use this holder at all with the 16-35.  But as my holder stands, I can shoot with 2 slots (no CPL) at 16mm and all three starting at 20mm.  I love it. 

That the only wildcards here that might differ on your FF rig with this lens are (definitely) the thickness of your CPL's front ring and (possibly) the version of your Lee Holder.  Lee is known to have snuck in weird versions over the years that are ever-so-slightly different.

Hope this is helpful to you!

- A



109
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 16-35 F/4L IS -- Reviews are trickling in...
« on: June 27, 2014, 10:54:32 AM »

Basic unboxing and first test shots from DP Review:
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3690354#forum-post-53917409

JPEGs are in the story, but there is a Flickr link to full res in the first comment below the story.

- A



110
Lenses / Canon EF 16-35 F/4L IS -- Reviews are trickling in...
« on: June 26, 2014, 02:34:50 PM »
And Bryan Carnathan at TDP is first:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/News/News-Post.aspx?News=9939

Please post links to any reviews that you see on this thread.  My rental of this lens just arrived -- can't wait to put it through it's paces this weekend.

- A

111
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: New Nikon D800s... Why?
« on: June 25, 2014, 12:26:38 PM »
It never made sense to me why Nikon made a D800 and an D800e.

I don't think Nikon thought they would sell as many D800E's as they did.  I think they expected the majority of the D800 buyers to buy the D800 and only a relatively few buy the D800E.  I still think that Nikon sold more D800's than D800E's, but I also think the sales of the D800E was higher than expected.

So was this representative of the mix of still vs. video shooters they have, i.e. is Nikon's user base more concerned about sharpness than moire?  Do they simply lack a large video user base?

I wonder if a 5D3E -- a 5D3 without an AA filter -- was offered by Canon on day one alongside the 5D3, would we see all the videographers take the vanilla 5D3 and the still shooters all take the 5D3E?

Is it that simple a call?  Are there downsides to pulling the AA filter other than moire?  (Forgive me: the role of the AA filter is lost on me.)

- A

112
I didn't buy one because my evaluation of that lens was that it was a specialist small DOF tool for F/1.2 to F/2, apertures at which I rarely shoot. 

My money is on Canon 50 IS, which, if the 35mm F/2 IS is any indicator, will be 90% as sharp and half the weight of the Art lens at that focal length.  That combination -- Size + Sharpness + IS -- is a winner for me



Can't argue with the solid logic here..  I just hope Canon doesn't lose its mind and gives us 50 f/2.8 IS, as I am strongly hoping for at leaset f/2 IS, f/1.8 IS better yet.   

I myself cannot recall the last time I shot my 50L above F/2 and usually just leave it at f/1.8, which is my personal sweet spot for that lens for the purpose it's great for, e.g. shooting people shots who are not necessarily infant-skinned or model-makeup'd..

I don't think that will happen.  See this prior thread:
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=21377.msg406035#msg406035

In each instance, the non-L IS refresh lens did not get slower with the addition of IS -- max aperture stayed the same.

Read the rest of that thread -- the only wildcard is if the 50/wehavenoidea IS will be replacing the nifty fifty or the 50 F/1.4.  In either case, a 50 F/2.something IS isn't going to happen unless the 50 being obsoleted is the old 50 F/2.5 Macro that no one ever talks about. 

- A

113
Ok so photozone is using a 5d Mark II and praising AF.   Any thoughts?

Yeah, they are admittedly gear poor compared to TDP, DXO, Roger at LR, etc. 

But I love the concise, consistent format of the reviews -- specifically the resolution numbers vs. aperture vs. location in the frame.  It's like reading baseball cards. 

- A

114
At 815g it's a monster lens!

Yep.  And it's as big as a 24-70 F/4 zoom!  It's a monster-sized standard prime.  Almost as big as the Zeiss Otus.

- A

115

And behold!  The FF review is now posted:

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/876-sigma50f14art?start=1

Compared to the 35 Art, the 50 Art is less sharp in the center on the wide open side of things, but it appears to have sharper corners when you stop it down to F/2.8, F/4, etc.

The pincushion distortion was a tad surprising in that FL, though.  Thought we wouldn't see much.

- A

116
Lenses / EF 16-35 F/4L IS corner samples & comparison
« on: June 22, 2014, 03:26:21 PM »

From Phil Aynsley at www.philaphoto.com, we have some corner comparisons of the new EF 16-35 F/4L IS against the EF 16-35 F/2.8L II and the TS-E 17mm F/4L:

http://www.philaphoto.com/images/16-35_Test_series.jpg

Hardly a comprehensive look, but it's clearly showing some corner improvement over prior lenses.

- A

117
Lenses / Re: Any word on new 16-35 F4
« on: June 22, 2014, 03:14:35 PM »

More more more!

10 minute rambly hands-on walkthrough:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3eyPk_ICBk

- A

118
Lenses / Re: Any word on new 16-35 F4
« on: June 20, 2014, 11:48:03 PM »
The content is finally trickling in on the interwebs:

http://www.benneumannphotographyblog.com/canon-16-35mm-f4-is-unboxing/
(Nice side by side for scale with the 24-70 F/4 IS and 70-200 F/2.8 IS II, which is an odd coincidence as those are my two zooms as well.)

Still no reviews yet.  Jeez, it's been like 24 hours, what's taking so long?   ;)

- A

119
EOS Bodies / Re: Reports of EOS 7D Reaching End of Life [CR2]
« on: June 20, 2014, 07:42:42 PM »
Agree with Neuro for the most part.  If you are a competent photog who pushes the limits of your gear, reducing the limits of the gear will lead to better shots, less missed shots, more salvageable shots in poor light, etc. 

But if you don't understand the basics, upgrading from a Rebel to a 5D3 won't do you much good.  "I don't understand the autofocus points so I get a lot of blurry shots, but wow, look at that color...:P

- A

120
Lenses / Re: Any word on new 16-35 F4
« on: June 20, 2014, 04:58:45 PM »

Update: I just got a call -- LensRentals' stock just arrived.  The EF 16-35mm F/4L IS must now be shipping in the US.

- A

Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10 ... 53