Messages

136

Lenses / Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS

« on: November 06, 2012, 01:18:49 PM »

so will they offer a choice of two lenses when the 24-70 f4 is released? How will that work then since the 24-105 kit will be much cheaper?

The 24-105 kits will be just there as long as they've sold all old lenses and the new 24-70 are in volume production.

And the 6d+24-70/4 kit might not be more expensive, the price for the lens alone is likely to be overpriced because Canon wants to make the kit appear more discounted and attractive - otherwise the 6d is sure to loose big time against the d600.

I can see them falling into third place behind Nikon and Sony in a couple of years.

As soon as their strategy appears even non-working to Canon shareholders, they'll come around and fire their executives and revise their pricing. The only ones sure to loose are the customers paying the current high prices until Canon realizes this won't work forever.

I agree the pricing is unreasonable on the 24-70, but people in many cases are paying for it -- Canon thinks that these are the prices the market will bear.  Hell, the EOS-M was #3 on Amazon's best seller list despite a high price + years late to the mirrorless market + numerous reviews panning it for having a glacially slow AF system. 

I know their sales numbers on aggregate haven't been stellar, but in general, the company wouldn't be here very long if it couldn't course correct as needed.

137

Lenses / Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS

« on: November 06, 2012, 02:54:19 AM »

I'm quite excited to see an actual lens announcement from Canon - and well done to CR guy for predicting the 24-70mm L f/4 IS USM. 

As I don't plan to go full frame (at least not in the near future) - the 24-70mm L f/4 doesn't interest me so much. I'm very happy with my 15-85mm IS USM on both my 7D and 350D.

If the 24-70mm f/4 L has great IQ, I can imagine it will be popular as a less expensive / less bulky walk around (aka 'kit lens') for some folks having a FF, perhaps particularly the new 6D.  (though I will say here that a possible price of $1800 USD is quite scary!) 

To me, the 35mm f/2 IS USM is actually a much more interesting lens... and.... in one sense meets a lot of the criteria I have for the 'only lens' that I'm really looking forward to, or - that is what I find 'lacking' in my current lens arsenal: a sharp prime at about 50mm (+/- a few mm).

The new 35mm has the following features, which are important to me:
 - USM - my preferred AF mechanism, with FTM focus
 - 4 stop effective IS
 - 7 or more blade circular aperture

The size of the 35mm f/2 IS USM is still small enough. I guess any 50mm would be a bit longer... possibly could have 58mm or 67mm filter size. (I hope if a 50mm prime comes out, that it has a 58mm, 67mm or I'd even 'put up with' a 72mm filter size - as I have filters for these sizes). 

I expect the IQ of the 35mm f/2 to be very high (better than the 40mm f/2.8 pancake, which has received lots of praise, particularly for its price!)

My 'only' concern is that the 50mm might be a f/2.8 lens.. (no, please, no!)  I had already decided that f/2 is perhaps the limit that I'd be happy with for a 'fast prime'. Obviously f/1.4 would be ideal. With f/1.8 or f/2 being 'good options' - particularly if IS is included. 

There would be some situations that 35mm is more suitable than 50mm (eg some group shots, etc). However my own photography style, means that I really like the 50mm aspect on an APS-C (giving the equivalent of 80mm in FF format).

So... now that the 35mm f/2 USM IS has come out (after the 'earlier this year' new 24mm & 28mm f/2.8 USM IS lenses) - I have more hope that a 50mm f/1.4-f/2 USM (possibly IS) lens will be released in the near future.  I plan to go to a bricks and mortar shop and use the 35mm f/2 USM IS sometime.... see how I like it, get a feel for it, and hopefully see a new 50mm prime in store sometime in the future too...

Cheers   

Paul

@PJ1974:

Let me reassure one thing about a new 50 prime.  The 'mid' level 50 prime to replace the ubiquitous 50mm F/1.4 will undoubtedly have IS based on the 24, 28 and 35 refreshes getting IS.  I'm prepared to call that an absolute given at this stage.

Be advised that this 'mid' level, consistent with the other non-L refreshes, will likely cost 2x what the 50mm F/1.4 does now.  I've posted a number of times (admittedly, in a minority position) that this increase in cost is (a) consistent with the other refreshes and (b) completely warranted given the additions of IS, USM, internal focusing, wonderful small size and an almost L-series build quality.  It's a great disservice to call these refreshes 'budget lenses' -- these are sleeper 'near-L' lenses without weather sealing.  Someday, even newer L lenses will put these to shame, but for now, these non-Ls are great options compared the current red-ringed gear.

What we don't know is whether the 50 w/IS will come with a slower speed / smaller max aperture.  So far, that has not been the case.  In the case of the other refreshes, the 24, 28 and 35 were all obsoleted by new IS lenses of the same max aperture -- 2.8, 2.8, and 2 respectively.  (Some may think the 28mm F/1.8 is an exception, but the 28mm F/2.8 was obsoleted and the 1.8 is in fact still sold).

But, uniquely with the 50, a super fast lens (F/1.4) is the starting point of the refresh discussion.  I have not yet found a reason why 50mm lenses magically can offer such wide apertures so economically while other focal lengths that offer F/1.4 require red rings and a fortune to buy.  Perhaps that trend ends when trying to make F/1.4 coexist with IS.  Perhaps IS in a 50 F/1.4 makes it prohibitively expensive or prohibitively large/heavy.  I'd say based on the other refreshes that the former is possible (as it's never been done*), but the latter is not (the other IS refreshes are quite small).

*Side trivia -- has IS in a lens faster than F/2 ever been done?  The Canon 200mm F/2L IS has it, as does this new 35mm.  But I am not aware of anything faster than F/2.  Just curious.

- A

138

Lenses / Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS

« on: November 05, 2012, 10:44:52 PM »

The pricing on the original source page shows:
24-70/4 : 145,000 yen (~1800$)
35/2 IS: 74,000 (f~900$)

ouch! - esp on the 24-70!  No low budget if this holds true.  35/2 IS seems in line with recent 24 & 28 pricing.

So at that price it seems like it should be at or near the image quality of the 24-70 f/2.8L II and be another addition to the lineup instead of a 24-105 replacement.

And the pricing seems to fit pretty well in line with the scaling of the 70-200 lenses:
70-200 f/4 IS - 1349
70-200 f/2.8 non-IS - 1449
24-70 f/4 IS - ~1800??
24-70 f/2.8 II - 2299

This does create a bit of a positioning / market segmentation problem.  Prior to the spec/price news dropping yesterday, this forum was leaning (but not dead-set) towards the new 24-70 F/4 IS as the likely 6D kit lens.  But an $1800 asking price would be ludicrous for kitting purposes (unless you are kitting a 1DX 8 ).

So what is it?  A kit lens that will obsolete the 24-105, or a standalone pricier lens?

139

Lenses / Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS

« on: November 05, 2012, 10:07:45 PM »

The pricing on the original source page shows:
24-70/4 : 145,000 yen (~1800$)
35/2 IS: 74,000 (f~900$)

ouch! - esp on the 24-70!  No low budget if this holds true.  35/2 IS seems in line with recent 24 & 28 pricing.

Wow. at that price, the 6D kit is going to be way overpriced. Since this was meant to be a kit fo rhte 6D and the 6D is supposed to be a cheap FF camera, i highly doubt they'll be silly enough to sell it at that price...it just doesn't make sense..

However, if it IS priced like that, then the 24-105 will be even more affordabel for people wanting their first L lens...already as it is, the 24-105 price is dropping and this new lens will only drive it lower, which is good news for most.
I believe if people can afford 1.7k on the 24-70f4, they would pay a little more for the 2.8 version...this is just priced way to high IMO

I hear you.  Owners of the 24-105 F/4L IS lenses should treat those lenses especially well -- there is so much overlap with this new lens that I think the 24-105 has to be obsoleted for this new one to command a high price.

140

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Weird large card delay problem with 5D3 in Multiple Exposure mode

« on: November 05, 2012, 08:51:25 PM »

Oh, nice -- so I don't need a CF reader?  I can just swap the files from CF to SD on camera? 

Great.  Problem solved -- I'll just use the CF card for ME shots, and keep it cleaned out.

Thanks!

141

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Weird large card delay problem with 5D3 in Multiple Exposure mode

« on: November 05, 2012, 07:43:25 PM »

Hello all,

I thought I'd give some of the onboard composition features a go on my 5D3.  But I have an odd issue that prevents me from trying one of them.

When I go to Multiple Exposure mode, the camera sort of hangs.  It says "Busy.... Please Wait" and never comes out of that screen.  The red 'busy' LED on the bottom right never stops flickering, so I assumed it was a full card issue.  I have a 50% full 128 GB SD card (which works brilliantly otherwise), and apparently, in Multiple Exposure mode, it needs to access every damn picture, presumably if I want to choose one of those existing shots to be part of an ME composition.

So I put my backup (empty 8GB) card and it snapped right to attention and ME mode was working.  But I still prefer to keep all my shots on one card.  I transfer and backup militantly, but it's much easier to know where my shots are if they're all in one place.

So how I do avoid the ME mode hanging other than routinely cleaning out my card or swapping in an empty one? 

To be fair, this may be a case of me being very stubborn, in that I prefer:

• To shoot with SD (much easier to share shots with non-photogs, I don't shoot video, etc.)
• To keep the last 3-6 months of shots on the card despite having already transferred to a computer
• To not have to swap to another card for ME mode as I'll certainly leave it in there and now have keeper shots on two cards

...so someone may need to tell me that ME mode simply won't fly in that particular environment.  But here's hoping someone else found a solution.   

Thx,
A

142

Lenses / Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS

« on: November 05, 2012, 03:14:54 PM »

it is dubbed hybrid is just because the lens is almost a macro (0.7 macro factor...wow)

Agree agree agree.  That's the only arrow in the quiver (along with better IQ, to be fair) that might justify this $1800 price from the translation.

I'm probably in the minority here that I'm more likely to bring my relatively small and light 100L macro over my 70-200 F/2.8L IS II on trips.  So if this magnification is true, this could become an epic kill-two-birds-with-one-not-so-big-or-heavy-stone sort of lens for travel.

143

Lenses / Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS

« on: November 05, 2012, 03:01:27 PM »

And The hybrid IS will shine on the standard zoom since it's wasted on real macro lenses like the 100L - the IS is nearly useless at very close distances.

By that logic, though, the Hybrid IS is equally useless on the 24-70/4L IS.  The translational motion compensation, which is the 'hybrid' part of H-IS, is only effective with very close subjects; regular IS compensates for angular motion, which dominates for subjects beyond a couple of feet from the camera.  That's why H-IS isn't used on other lenses.  To get to the near-macro 0.7x mag with the 24-70/4 IS you're at the MFD of 20 cm, and the MFD of the 100L macro is 30 cm - further out than the new lens.

I wonder, is there any chance that this Hybrid IS is simply the non-mode-selectable type of IS I have on the new 28 IS?  I seem to recall (sorry, no reference) reading something to the effect of the new 24 and 28 IS having a new mode of IS that simply auto-switched between a panning IS and a standard (all-purpose) IS based on the lens' movement.  Any chance that is what Canon means with the new lenses' IS?

And for those not fond of the Hybrid IS with the 100L macro, though I agree that at macro focus distances the IS is less effective, two things I'd share from my use of that lens: 

1) In my hands, it seems to work just fine in keeping slower shutters stable as traditional IS would, and

2) The 100L is not remotely a dedicated macro lens -- it's a fully functional 100mm prime.  The 180L macro is such a slow focuser that it's effectively a specialist lens (though I'm sure our forum's creative users have found neat ways to use it for more than as a macro).  But to relegate the 100L to strictly macro work is a big miss, IMHO.  One quick switch on focus range and it becomes a solid 100mm prime for portraiture, concerts, etc.  Remember that not everyone owns the pro portrait staple lengths of 85 and 135, so the 100 is a great option for some.

- A

144

Lenses / Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS

« on: November 05, 2012, 02:11:59 PM »

@Act444:  Roger at LR posted the new non-L primes vs. the 24L II here:
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/06/the-other-canon-primes-why-did-they-do-that

As you can see, at similar apertures, the 28 punched its weight brilliantly, the 24 non-L almost as well.

I believe (from other sites) the 24L II has proven a sharper lens the 35L, hence (transitively) my statement of the new non-Ls outperforming the 35L.

Yet...

Now that photozone has posted resolution figures for both the 35L and 28 non-L IS, this may be more of a dead heat (pan down to resolution charts):

New 28 IS:  http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/774-canon28f28isff?start=1
35L:  http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/516-canon35f14ff?start=1

...so I may be eating my words a bit.  At F/2.8, its a virtual dead-heat, but at F/5.6 - 11, the L is slightly sharper in the off-center areas.


Different tester, different results it seems.  You decide.

Full disclosure, I am an engineer, so I'll gladly drown myself in data rather than make a decision and start swimming.   

- A

145

Lenses / Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS

« on: November 05, 2012, 01:44:10 PM »

Also, regarding the 35mm non-L refresh, a number of points come to mind:

• If this is similar to the 24 and 28 IS lenses, the touted price of $800 is absolutely worth it, and I'm strictly a still shooter.  This will be an L lens without a red ring.  The 28 I own is sharper than an equivalently stopped down 35L (i.e. it is not just useable, it is great wide open, and stellar at F/4).  The USM focusing is very fast, it's internally focusing, is very well built (on par with the 100L macro), and it's very small and unassuming.  Plus, F/2.8 (with the 24 & 28) or F/2 (with the new 35) with four stops IS are some of (if not the) most handholdable lenses you'll find.
   
• This is good news for what I am really looking for, which is a newer, sharper, better 50 prime.  We're due, and though I'm bummed it's not happening now, this announcement marks the refresh of a third non-L prime.  This bodes well for future upgraded versions of the 50 prime and 85 prime -- both stellar values vs. their L counterparts, but both are also quite old.  Here's hoping.
• Which begs the question, if I am looking for something better than my current Canon EF 50mm F/1.4 prime, do I look at the 1.2L or wait for this new non-L?  As mentioned before, prior non-L refreshes were sharper than their L counterparts, and they pack a houseload of modern features (ring USM, IS, etc.) over their pro counterparts.  Given all that, it begs the question why the non-Ls are getting the refresh/sharpness/feature updates before the Ls?
   
  
• The 24/28 IS lenses take 58mm filters, but the rumored new 35 will jump from the current 52 filters to 67 filters.  That would likely mean a new 50 (with similar upgrades) might also go to 67mm.  As odd as that diameter is, since I already own the 100L macro, I'm all set.   
   
• The only bummer I see with all these great non-Ls coming out is that I lose the weather sealing I have been accustomed to on my other L lenses.
   

- A

146

Lenses / Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS

« on: November 05, 2012, 01:15:48 PM »

The new 24-70 F/4L IS will be lighter, sure, but the price?

http://photorumors.com/2012/11/05/canon-ef-35mm-f2-is-usm-and-canon-ef-24-70mm-f4l-is-lenses-leaked-ahead-of-announcement/#more-35082

See comment in translation:  "$1800, but the US price will be lower"

Weight alone is not enough to go 2x over the 24-105.  That IQ better knock my socks off or this thing won't sell vs. the 24-105 at all. 

...or they'll have to obsolete the 24-105 outright.  (in that case, this is a 80% takeaway, 20% nice to have, IMHO)

147

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 24-70 f/4L IS Coming [CR3]

« on: November 01, 2012, 09:01:49 PM »

"rumored" canon 14-24 l 2.8 + 24-70 2.8 ii + 70-200 2.8 is ii - this is the pro setup.

Some f4 wide angle (ex. 12-24 f4) + 24-70 f4 is + canon 70-200 f4 is -enthusiast setup

I think the f/2.8 wide angle will be 14-24mm, but I think the f/4 will be 16-35 IS to directly compete in all aspects with the Nikon lens.  That will make it wider than the current f/4, sharper (as pretty much all lenses have been over their predecessors) and likely more expensive.  Hopefully, Canon will come out with cheaper variable aperture [or non-IS] UWA to replace the long-extinct 20-35mm f/3.5-4.5 USM for the lower end of the budget (~$500), as well.  Think about this (as a beginner):

Canon 6D + '24-70mm f/4 IS'  = $2600 (same price as Nikon D600 kit)
Canon '18-35mm f/4' or '16-35mm non-IS' = $500
Canon 70-200mm f/4 USM = $630
TOTAL = $3730

Pretty sweet [theoretical] package for <$4000, right?  Not that 2 of the three lenses even exist, but it is certainly possible.

There already is a value/budget F/4 ultrawide L -- the 17-40 F/4L.  It's super popular -- I'd guess one of the most frequently standalone bought (i.e. non-kit) L lenses due to its price, length and good IQ.

So I'd say no new ultrawide is needed on the cheap end, IMHO.  But this thread (hell, this whole forum) has been screaming for the higher end ultrawide with the 14-24.

148

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Tips on shooting hockey?

« on: October 31, 2012, 06:07:59 PM »

Awesome.   Great guidance all.

@FTb-n:  Super detailed, thanks.  The 'lens collar mount' you refer to is just the native 70-200 tripod ring, right?  You aren't referring to a special swivel mount for a monopod, right?

@bdunbar79:  Oh crap, I never thought of that.  If Auto ISO for Av doesn't have the fast shutter speed I want, I can use Auto ISO on Tv and frame the aperture limits instead.  Clever!

Everyone, any comments on shooting over glass but through the nets above the glass?  Do-able or not?

Can't wait to shoot again.  The next game I can make is in two weeks.

- A

149

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 24-70 f/4L IS Coming [CR3]

« on: October 31, 2012, 03:26:14 PM »

Gang,

This is a fascinating thread.  I've never seen so many people deadset on what they think this new lens is, and what it means for future offerings.

My ongoing list (from all of you) of what this lens might have been made for (besides making Canon money):

1) Video focused, or perhaps more specifically, a still lens that has been modernized to better support DSLR video (STM)

2) Value focused, an inexpensive L lens in the vein of the 17-40, 70-200 F/4, etc.  There has also been chatter on this point that it might be non-L akin to Nikon's 24-85 or Canon's non-L 28-135 -- a reasonably priced standard zoom option.

3) Form factor focused -- a lighter and shorter lens than the large/heavy 2.8 standard zooms. There were a few comments re: smaller sizer allowing -- much like the 70-200 F/4 glass -- smaller / more common filter diameters than their 2.8 counterparts.

4) The new kit FF lens (either just for the 6D or all FF bodies), and in the vein of the (much cheaper) 18-55 EF-S, this becomes the standard length zoom that no one actually buys by itself.  In that sense, this new lens isn't competing with the higher end 2.8 zooms -- it's just another lens with a red ring out there.  That red ring, some folks astutely noted, may become the tantalizing extra that draws people into FF with Canon's 6D rather than into FF with Nikon's D600.

5) Far better IQ than the 24-105 IS.  This plays part and parcel with the notion that this 'family' of new 24-70s is intended for the upcoming high MP bodies we shall see down the road.

6) This new lens will replace the 24-105, eliminating the 70-105 overlap that current lens has.  This is a deliberate move by Canon to sell more 70-200 glass.  (I have poked a few holes in this theory, but it's as plausible as anything else on this list).

...and it obviously could be a combination of a few of the above points.  Time will tell.

And for those calling this a rumor, this is a CR3, and I have faith in our moderators in that call.  :-)

Excellent discussion, all. 

- A

150

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 24-70 f/4L IS Coming [CR3]

« on: October 31, 2012, 01:26:09 AM »

Consensus has shifted from DOA to good 6D kit lens with shorter focal length than 24-105, so does not eat into 70-200 sales (what myself & dilbert said). The 24-105 f4L IS is a very good lens, albeit an odd focal length. Canon probably want a 14-24, 24-70 and 70-200 as wide/standard/telephoto zooms for all FF bodies, and to have both fast and f4 apertures, with and without IS....eventually. As someone else here has said, Canon do conduct their own research...nobody here on CR would object to that variety/choice (3 x reference zooms).

I still think (see prior summaries of this thread) that a better for video (STM?) lens or a super small/light lens are other viable reasons for this new one.  It just needs one value/useability/spec difference to have it stand out as a unique offering to consumers.

I am not buying that Canon is shoe-horning us into 24-70 to protect 70-200 sales.   That can't happen if the 24-105 is still in play.  So to protect 70-200 sales, they will obsolete a very popular lens in the 24-105?   That's only a takeaway, so I just don't buy it.

I still contend this new lens must have an ace up its sleeve (pick any one) -- vastly improved IQ, low cost, modernized for video, small / light, etc. -- or this thing will be DOA without obsoleting the 24-105.