Messages

16

Lenses / Re: I need a 24mm focal lenght Lens.. is the 24mm f2.8 IS right for me?

« on: April 17, 2013, 11:42:08 AM »

That hasn't been the case for ages. The 16-35 II, for example, stomps all over all the non-L primes in the same focal length range (though I don't know about the new IS ones). The new 24-70 even gives the TS-E 24 II a run for its money. The new 70-200 eats (almost) all the primes in that range for lunch. The 5-15 is the best fisheye ever made. And so on....

What primes get you is fast apertures, smaller size, cheaper cost (often), and, in some cases, features like movements or macro that you can't get in a zoom. Oftentimes there's also less distortion. (And then there's the Great Whites, of course....)

But the days when you could automatically assume that a prime beats a zoom are long past.

Cheers,

b&

The new IS primes are sharper than the 16-35, and pretty clearly so at that:

Photozone:
   
   16-35 II:  http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/435-canon_1635_28_5d?start=1
   
   28 IS:  http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/774-canon28f28isff?start=1

DXO (hate their cryptic data, but I'm presuming it's at least consistently cryptic -- I reported all data from 5D3-paired lenses, it certainly does affect test performance):

   16-35 II:  http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Lenses/Camera-Lens-Database/Canon/EF16-35mm-F2.8L-II-USM/%28camera%29/795/%28cameraname%29/Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III

   24 IS:  http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Lenses/Camera-Lens-Database/Canon/Canon-EF-24mm-F28-IS-USM/%28camera%29/795/%28cameraname%29/Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III

   28 IS:  http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Lenses/Camera-Lens-Database/Canon/Canon-EF-28mm-F28-IS-USM/%28camera%29/795/%28cameraname%29/Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III

   35 IS:  http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Lenses/Camera-Lens-Database/Canon/Canon-EF-35mm-F2-IS-USM/%28camera%29/795/%28cameraname%29/Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III

The Digital Picture's sample crops:
(you mouseover these and the arrow changes direction, telling you which lens is being shown.  I've thrown in F/2.8 and F/4.0, but you can tweak this page any way you like)

   16-35 vs. 28 IS @ F/2.8:  http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=412&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=0&LensComp=789&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

   16-35 vs. 28 IS @ F/4:  http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=412&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=2&LensComp=789&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2


You'll giggle when I say I am not a sharpness lunatic, but it's true.  It's just that when three completely different reviewers have the same conclusions, it's probably so.

I still believe that a prime is sharper than a zoom if they were made of the same quality around the same time (i.e. year of release).  The 24-70 II is the only flat-out exception to that rule that I've seen.

- A



 

17

Lenses / Re: I need a 24mm focal lenght Lens.. is the 24mm f2.8 IS right for me?

« on: April 16, 2013, 06:58:33 PM »

Here's the data you want, then:

Primes:  http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/06/the-other-canon-primes-why-did-they-do-that

     Basic finding:  24L II @ F/2.8 > 28 IS @ 2.8 (just barely) > 24 IS @ 2.8 
     To be fair, all of these are considerably sharper compared to the old flagship 24-70L I.

Zooms:  http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/01/canon-24-70-f4-is-resolution-tests
Also:      http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/09/canon-24-70-f2-8-ii-resolution-tests

    Basic finding:  @24mm, the new 24-70L II truly does stack up against Canon's primes, beating the 24L II @ 2.8
    in center and border but just barely losing in the corners.  But it's very expensive, and despite improvements
    in weight, it's still not a tiny thing to carry around.

Hope that helps.  I have to make the statement that resolution is but one of a great many variables in buying a lens, but I would imagine that you know that given your years of shooting.  I love the new IS primes as they are small and light, inconspicuous / unassuming (great for street), use a very common filter diameter, are internal focusing, and have the latest focusing tech  -- all being upsides in my book.

- A

18

Lenses / Re: I need a 24mm focal lenght Lens.. is the 24mm f2.8 IS right for me?

« on: April 16, 2013, 04:48:00 PM »

You want something like the $2,000 Nikon 14-24, and wonder why you can't have it for $700?

never said that, where did you read that?

has canon a 14-24mm like nikon.. no! 
otherwise i would think about buying it.

canons 16-35mm is no match either and in the price range of the nikkor 14-24mm.
nikkor 14-24 = 1500 euros , canon 16-35 = 1350 euros
the 16-35 is a f2.8 but otherwise, stopped down, not much better then the 17-40mm.

so im looking for a prime from 600 to 800 euro.
a prime should be cheaper then a zoom but with good image quality.

the EF 24mm f1.4 from canon is nice. but then im paying for f1.4 i don´t really need.

You have to shell out $$$ for a excellent lens, or just stop down any lens to f/8 or f/11 and they will all be fine

well that opinion is relative. or why did you think i made this thread? 
i did not find the 17-40mm or 24-105mm "fine" on the borders.
useable.. but not great.

Everything you just wrote says to get the best modern non-L 24mm prime that you can.  Assuming that you don't want a manual focus lens, then the 24mm 2.8 IS is the best choice.

My crude logic: 

• Canon Tilt-Shift, Zeiss, and RokiBowYang are MF lenses
• Sigma hasn't made a 24 as good as their most excellent new 35 (yet)
• Canon's prior 24mm non-L prime desperately needed to be updated

So I'd get the new 24mm 2.8 IS.  It is an L lens minus a weathersealing gasket and a red ring.  Best option based on your parameters.   Consider renting first if there is any doubt.

- A

19

Lenses / Re: I need a 24mm focal lenght Lens.. is the 24mm f2.8 IS right for me?

« on: April 16, 2013, 04:23:59 PM »

I have the 28 2.8 IS and adore it -- it's right up there with the 24L II for sharpness.  The 24 2.8 IS is nearly as sharp but not quite from the data I've seen.

What do you shoot with your wide lenses?  If it's large DOF landscape work, any chance you might be...

1) focusing on an infinity point rather than the recommended hyperfocal distance / a third of the way into the frame?
2) stopping down so far as to have softness from diffraction?  Depending on what you read, stopping down past the F/11 - F/14 neighborhood things get a little soft.

I just want to make sure it's not the glass.  I don't know your experience level, but if you own a 5D3 I must presume 1 and 2 above are not the problem.   

- A

20

Lenses / Re: Is the upcoming 50mm F/2 IS USM for me?

« on: April 03, 2013, 08:17:53 PM »

If Canon ever produces a 50/1.4-2.0 with true ring USM, I'd be willing to pay up to $500 for one, and would probably sell my 50/2.5 CM once satisfied with the new glass. I don't care if it has IS or not, although I agree with many here that it probably will. I also realize that to get one for $500, I might have to wait a while (years) for the price to come down. But not having one in my kit really isn't hampering my photography any.

+1

I've heard this from many people.  The 50 prime is just such a useful length / well-rounded tool that people will gladly go up the ladder price-wise for a better offering.

- A

21

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 7D default zoom to actual size option?

« on: April 03, 2013, 10:28:30 AM »

Zero replies for a quick 7D question?  C'mon, team, I know you all have four or five 7D's lying around...   

- A

22

Lenses / Re: Is the upcoming 50mm F/2 IS USM for me?

« on: April 02, 2013, 11:39:47 PM »

wow that alot of faith there, I hope non of you guys are holding your breath
(if you dont reply its ok we will know you were )

It's not faith, it's a certainty based on all common sense, even for a nutty decision-making company like Canon:

• A 50 prime (that general length) is an 'essential' photographic tool.  Demand for a 50mm is high.
• Canon does not have a single best 50 prime lens -- to this day, many folks prefer the non-L f/1.4 to the  F/1.2L for sharpness reasons.
• That F/1.4 lens is 20 years old, and lacks obvious modernities like IS, internal focusing, fast USM focusing, sharper corners, better build, etc.
• Other lenses with a far less loyal following (24mm non-L prime? 28mm anything?) have gotten A+ refreshes of late.
• Canon loves comically pricey lenses, and with the F/1.2L costing $1500 and the non-L F/1.4 costing $400, this is a glorious chance to sneak in between those two price points.
• It's a great value proposition as the comparative L primes lenses (a) are not necessarily sharper than the new stuff and (b) has no threat of new versions coming soon (Canon isn't refreshing its wider L primes right now.  It's been all long glass and zooms of late.  The last new L prime under 300mm was... what?  T/S glass 4 years ago?)

I just think the 50mm is a hammerlock to occur, and nearly as much so for the 85mm.

- A

23

Lenses / Re: Is the upcoming 50mm F/2 IS USM for me?

« on: April 02, 2013, 08:04:15 PM »

i must have missed the rumour!
is there a CR rated rumour about a 50 f2 IS?

I don't think so, but it's fairly safe to assume a new '50' in the style of the 24/28/35 is around the corner

Again, not a rumor -- just a certainty.   

This lens absolutely will happen in the near future (next 12-18 months).  The non-L primes are all being significantly improved (on all fronts, not just IS), and the 50mm and 85mm have to be next. 

The only thing in doubt is what the max apertures of these lenses will be.  Everything so far has retained its predecessor's max aperture:

• 24 mm F/2.8 --> 24mm F/2.8 IS USM
• 28 mm F/2.8 --> 28mm F/2.8 IS USM (yes, there is an old F/1.8 USM, but it's still being sold -- the F/2.8 was discontinued by this new one.)
• 35 mm F/2 --> 35mm F/2 IS USM

What makes the new 50mm F/? IS USM and 85mm F/? IS USM harder to predict is that they are large aperture lenses today (50 = 1.4, 85 = 1.8 ).   We've never seen an IS lens faster than the 35mm F/2 IS or the 200mm F/2 IS.  So some folks are speculating (not a CR rumor) that the 50mm will be F/2 IS and not the old F/1.4. 

There's been zero speculation on the 85 prime to my knowledge, but one would imagine that at 21 years old, it's soon to see a similar refresh.

- A

24

EOS Bodies - For Stills / 7D default zoom to actual size option?

« on: April 02, 2013, 12:52:18 PM »

Hey all,

I love the ability to set the default image review zoom to 100% to see if I nailed a shot.  My friend with a 7D was curious if that was added to his camera after the firmware change.   Was it?

Thanks,
A

25

Lenses / Re: Is the upcoming 50mm F/2 IS USM for me?

« on: March 31, 2013, 05:21:47 PM »

Thank you for the comments.  Again, the 1.2L is a great lens, but I don't know if its a great lens for me.  It seems its virtues start at F/1.2 and end around F/2.8.  Art is not solely relegated to narrow DOF '3D-like' shots -- how do I catch a candid of three people in a poorly lit room at F/1.2?  There is no working DOF @ F/1.2.  If they are lined up on a wall, I've got a shot, but that rarely has been my experience.

To be fair, I've shot a lot of L primes and this isn't one of them.  I owe it to myself to rent both lenses (when available) and compare them in my shooting environments.  That's likely to happen.

As for the engineer lightening up, it isn't going to happen.  I do try, but I'm wired this way.   

- A

Sure completely understand your engineer pov.. (studied Mech Eng then switched to a photography degree )  So trying to help solve your situation needs, I think maybe the 50mm view might not be the best or only lens needed.

If you are indoors shooting candids then 50mm may be too long and as you say have too narrow DOF at wider apertures. How about a 35 mm, either the new IS one or the Sigma? As shooting at even F2 you'll get a lot more DOF than a 50mm and I'd say you might get a more fun engaged feel as you can get closer to your subjects and easily get 3 people in the frame. Plus it may be better for landscapes and general outdoors / city roaming shots as well.

Then continue to use the 50 1.4 for more tighter in portrait type shots, and if you want to shoot some gigs then maybe a 100mm or 85mm USMs could be good for that and get you a bit closer while still having a wide aperture to help with low light.

50mm is a lovely view but sometimes I find it too close for indoor situations. If i use it indoors in informal occasions I tend to only get one person at a time on the shots (plus more of a head shot or chest up view) and like you mentioned a very limited DOF .

Or even a 24-70 2.8 could be the one for you unless you are driven to primes which is not a bad place to be!

Great comments.  Re: 35mm and shooting room, that's why I got the 28 IS.  Love it love it love it.  It would take an 35L II to get me to move off of that.

I think my end primes bag will become 24/28/35 (TBD), 50 and 85.  I like the 35mm FOV on FF, but with a three lens setup and a 50 all but assured to be one of them, the 24 and 28 will be considered.

- A

26

Lenses / Re: Is the upcoming 50mm F/2 IS USM for me?

« on: March 31, 2013, 03:59:40 PM »

Rather radical, but I'd suggest ponying up to the 24-70 II. It is way sharper than either the 50mm f/1.4 or the f/1.2L.  With a lens with IQ like THAT, you probably won't need the prime.

Thanks for the thought.  The 24-70 II's data is great, but I am moving away from zooms.  Again, it's not just 'horsepower' features like length / aperture / IQ.   Something small and unassuming is a bit of priority for me. 

- A

27

Lenses / Re: Is the upcoming 50mm F/2 IS USM for me?

« on: March 31, 2013, 03:56:05 PM »

The idea that L lenses are absolutely better than non-L lenses is just a total load of crap.

+1

That's like folks who claim the upcoming 7D2 can't possibly cost more than the 6D, because even a nerfed FF camera must run circles around a world class APS-C rig.  (equally BS to me).

- A

28

Lenses / Re: Is the upcoming 50mm F/2 IS USM for me?

« on: March 30, 2013, 09:41:15 PM »

• If people will gladly pay $1500 for L primes, they'll gladly pay $750 for non-L primes w/ IS that are as sharp or sharper.

An USM prime is midrange mid budget in enthusiast terms and normally very good optically but lacks the finesse or extra niceness in the image quality you get from a L.

I have to disagree.  For sharpness, the midrange 50 F/1.4 and 85 F/1.8 are optically superior to their L counterparts once you stop down just a bit.  And the new IS primes are right up there for sharpness with their L counterparts.

Check out the Lensrentals data when you get a chance:
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/06/the-other-canon-primes-why-did-they-do-that

Again, this is just sharpness -- the warmth/color/artistic aspects may not be the same.

I own three Ls myself and I'm quite fond -- they are great lenses.  But there are impressive non-Ls out there worth checking out, and not just for price.

- A

29

Lenses / Re: Is the upcoming 50mm F/2 IS USM for me?

« on: March 30, 2013, 09:18:35 PM »

Have you considered the Shorty McForty? Because it's an awesome lens that seems perfectly designed for at least 80% if not more of what you say you're looking for.

No IS, obviously, but I don't miss it and I doubt you would, either.

b&

I own the Shorty McForty and it sadly never leaves my bag.  It's a technical wonder (marvelously sharp), but the AF is too slow for me.

That said, I'd leave a pancake on my backup body (Rebel T1i) if it was a useful focal length.  64mm FF equivalent is useless as a walkaround, IMHO.  I'm in a city, often in cramped spaces where I can't back up any further.  I'd love a 22mm EF (or even EF-S) pancake that I could leave on my crop as a 35mm full frame equivalent (which they did with the EOS-M, btw).

- A

30

Lenses / Re: Is the upcoming 50mm F/2 IS USM for me?

« on: March 30, 2013, 09:10:39 PM »

the first thing I'll say is HAVE YOU ACTUALLY USED THE 50L 1.2 ? because is is such a difference form the 50 1.4usm. It is such a different piece of kit and you will notice that instantly. I had been lamenting over getting it compared to the 1.4 specs, heard about bad or slow  focusing mainly and that 1.4 is sharper, but those or so over exaggerated. And especially when it comes to using it , then seeing the images it produces afterwards.

It feels like a tank and on my first test in low light the 1.4 was hunting and not focusing and the 1.2 got it less than a second. My 1.4 wide open  is so soft and unusable unless I want a soft glowy and fringing look. The 1.2 is not.
And more importantly the 1.2 just renders scenes much much more beautifully images have more of a 3D look to them thats really smooth at the same time. I had always thought the 1.4's sharpness and rendering was a bit harsh though.

Now those charts posted on MTF must be way out, as everything I've read shows the 1.2 is much sharper than the 1.4 up to 2.8 or so then the 1.4 is sharper. And from my tests the 1.2 is not as less sharp as tests produce in the real world.

However none have really blistering focusing speed I'd say the 1.2 is twice as fast and has less tantrums while trying to find focus which is a big thing and much more reassuring.
 

As you guys always ask when someone pipes up about lens selection, here are my shooting needs...
 

• I am an enthusiast only, been shooting about 9 years now
• Currently happily using a 5D3, so climbing up to ISO 6400 is not a problem.
• I never shoot in a studio environment.
• I almost never use a flash.
• I don't mind vignetting... In fact, I kind of like it sometimes
• I'd rather crank up ISO than shoot fully open as everything is soft in the corners
• I am in really low light, handheld situations all the time.  My subjects generally are not moving, but I occasionally shoot at rock concerts.  I generally prefer stopping down for sharpness and more useful DOF with IS than getting handcuffed into having to shoot fully open and accept softness and minimal DOF.
• High priority needs for this length: Walkaround, Candids, Kids, Handheld low-light (Not moving subjects)
• Medium priority needs for this length: Handheld Low-Light (Concerts), Street, Portraits
• Low priority needs for this length: Landscapes, Handheld low-light (Gymnasium Sports)
• Zero need for this length:  Video, Macro, Field Sports, Wildlife
• I'll pay more for better gear at this stage.
• Weather sealing is great for a landscape-prioritized lens, but as I live in a place with near zero inclement weather, sealing is not a must for me in this length.
• I rarely take things to print.
• I generally shoot my Canon 50mm F/1.4mm in the F/2 to F/5.6 range.  I appreciate what large aperture glass offers, but I almost always stop those lenses down for more sharpness, more working DOF, etc.

What I'm considering...

Now you say that most of your subjects arent moving then either should be fine unless your shooting in really dark environments a 5D III should be fine for most places, maybe a really dark bar would test it. But remember these aren't miracle machines to all situations! We now have imho stupidly high ISO options at our hands, and a lot of lenses / AF cant cope and imagine how difficult it would of been in the past on film and MF lenses. So I have to say to people get real about where you can expect to shoot and get a decent result, just because Canon says you 'can' shoot at 128000 . It or even 32000 is going to get compromised results. Now if its only capturing a moment that wasn't previously able to be captured then thats fine isn't it? And like you say you are an enthusiast. Should you expect to have a shooting and viewing experience and expectation that is similar to  the equipment being used in prime situations and conditions to give an absolutely stunning result.


Remember photography is a skill not a demo or expectation of technology just because you've bought it.

Release the artist in you and relax that engineer hat you don and you will learn more, understand photography & images  in new way. An engineer and artist combined is very powerful combination..

Thank you for the comments.  Again, the 1.2L is a great lens, but I don't know if its a great lens for me.  It seems its virtues start at F/1.2 and end around F/2.8.  Art is not solely relegated to narrow DOF '3D-like' shots -- how do I catch a candid of three people in a poorly lit room at F/1.2?  There is no working DOF @ F/1.2.  If they are lined up on a wall, I've got a shot, but that rarely has been my experience.

To be fair, I've shot a lot of L primes and this isn't one of them.  I owe it to myself to rent both lenses (when available) and compare them in my shooting environments.  That's likely to happen.

As for the engineer lightening up, it isn't going to happen.  I do try, but I'm wired this way.   

- A