November 27, 2014, 09:12:13 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 4 ... 68
16
EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: Canon EF-S 11-24mm f/3.5-4.5
« on: November 18, 2014, 12:21:16 PM »
So now two 11-24s ?

http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/11/did-canon-leak-the-ef-11-24mm-f4l/

Wonder if both these rumours could be connected, would it be EF-S or EF though?

Apples and oranges -- a coincidence of numbers, nothing more.  If both rumors are true, the EF 11-24 will look like a completely different lens than an EF-S or EF-M 11-24, and their optical design would be quite different.

Designs can vary a bit, but I'm guessing an EF-S/EF-M 11-24 would resemble one of the three crop ultrawides they sell today (EF-S 10-18, EF-S 10-22, EF-M 11-22), but an 11-24 full frame EF lens would look like some altogether new hybrid of a fish and an ultrawide zoom.  Unless they'd want a flat leading element the size of a teacup saucer, you'd expect the leading element of the EF lens to be exceptionally bulbous and almost certainly lack the ability to be front-filtered.

I think you can loosely compare the 10-22s of the crop world to the 16-35s & 17-40 of the FF world.  But once you get down under 16mm, FF lenses get bulbous very quickly and the similarities fall away.

- A

17
EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: Canon EF-S 11-24mm f/3.5-4.5
« on: November 18, 2014, 12:05:32 PM »
I agree it seems odd to degrade the wide end. It would be difficult to sell an 11-24mm as an upgrade over the existing 10-22 without something like an f/2.8 aperture or IS.

I respectfully disagree.  Make it sharper/lighter/more accurate focusing/better build quality and people will buy the 'same' lens.  I don't see why a 10-22 "II" wouldn't sell.  Canon has sold their pants off with Mark II versions of lenses with the same FL, aperture, and IS (or no-IS) specs.

Of course, Canon needs to deliver or folks won't buy it, but it can be done.  And I think they have ample room to improve.  The 10-22 is loved for it's focal length -- not for it's sharpness. 

If the recent 16-35 F/4L IS is delivering sharper performance in a FF corner than the 10-22 delivers in a crop corner, it tells me that Canon can up their game in this focal length, and I think people would pay for it if they did.

- A

18
EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: Canon EF-S 11-24mm f/3.5-4.5
« on: November 18, 2014, 10:55:40 AM »
For STM, there's the new 10-18 for that, and IS too. :o

If only it says f/2.8, but still. If this was just an EF lens.

USM trumps STM for focusing speed -- if you don't shoot video, USM is the way to go.

11-24 would equal something like a 17-40 FF lens, right?  (Okay, 17.6 - 38.4mm)  Why walk away from the 10-22 (i.e. 16-35 equivalent) they currently have?

- A

19
Hey all,

I caught this story doing the rounds on PetaPixel and SLR lounge:
http://www.slrlounge.com/lightswitch-tries-change-nd-filter-game/

Watch the video.  Besides being a wretched sales pitch (zero details on filter size or reasons why this is better than anything else), this idea appears to be an alternative for the Lee SW150 holder, which is made for non-front-threaded lenses like the Nikon 14-24.  It has the added upside of automagically not needing any threading or assembly -- it's a pretty simple one-piece push-on usage.

Commenters on the stories are calling BS over a $265 asking price for just the holder, but upon further review, the Lee SW150 holder is a solid $400 in comparison (I had no idea!).

I'm a happy Lee 100mm (standard/foundation) user and am invested in that setup.  So this new product certainly isn't for me.  But I was curious what I'm missing with this idea -- what (besides the push-on use, which I am not convinced is a net positive thing) is the point of this system, and what might it offer over the Lee SW150 or Wonderpana setups?

- A

20

I echo the veterans' comments in that you have a well thought out strategy.  Not crazy at all.

If I'm going to be critical -- and this is admittedly pretty picky -- I'd point out that you seem to love portraiture-friendly primes -- you'll have three options between the 50L, 85 1.8 and the 135L.  My guess is one of those primes will sit unused for large chunks of time.  You might consider dropping one of those to free up funds for another focal length or (possibly) a bigger-ticket accessory you've been meaning to get: the Sigma 18-35 f/1.8, a flash, a good ball head, etc.  But I'm not sure what you do/don't have and what else you might be in the market for.

- A

21
Lenses / Re: EF 35mm f/1.4L II to Finally Come as Well? [CR2]
« on: November 15, 2014, 01:41:54 PM »
The addition of IS would be a different line, so instead of being the 35L mkii, it would be the 35L is (mki).

I'm pretty sure I'm right about this... so I need to read the original post again.

Totally forgot.  You are correct. 

So if indeed it is a 35L mk II -- and Canon is consistent with its past naming schemes -- it won't have IS.

- A

22
Lenses / Re: EF 35mm f/1.4L II to Finally Come as Well? [CR2]
« on: November 15, 2014, 12:41:50 PM »

  • Video on SLRs was in its infancy 5 years ago, but now...  Any chance they'd put IS on this?  Surely they'd keep USM over STM, right?
  • Will they go with the 'nice' engineering plastic of the 100L, 16-35 f/4L IS, 24-70 f/4L IS to keep the weight down, or will they stick with the tank-like build they put in the 24L II?
  • Is 82mm the new filter diameter for all the higher end L lenses, now that the 24-70 II has that size?  It may not need to be for aperture reasons, but if the pros already have 82s in their bag, why not grab as much light as possible?
  • Any chance Canon would try to pull a rabbit out of the hat to make a distinction between this new lens and the Art lens?  Is an f/1.2 lens possible at this FL?

- A

  • None, not with the very well rated and liked 35mm f2 IS already out there.
  • Probably engineering plastic, it works better, is more durable, lighter, easier to work etc etc. The 100 L is a fine lens, the 17 TS-E a recommissioned tank.
  • There was always a prime and f2.8 zoom filter distinction (until the 82mm 16-35 MkII?), 72mm and 77mm, that the zooms have gone bigger doesn't necessitate the primes following
  • No, none, it is possible but there is little reason and probably an even smaller market, besides, it would make it yet bigger and heavier and that seems to be against the current ideology, as does additional speed

Thanks for the reply.  Agree across the board, save perhaps the lack of IS with the 35L II.  I feel like Canon wants its L lenses to be the best tech and clearly better than the non-L lenses, so there's an argument for offering IS with this lens -- it kills off the possibility of folks having to choose between IS or f/1.4.

Plus, it would be a nice distinctive over the Art lenses and the Zeiss MF glass for (presumably better funded) videographers.  It might help them keep the price up in that light.

But I could certainly see it going the other way.

- A

23
Lenses / Re: EF 35mm f/1.4L II to Finally Come as Well? [CR2]
« on: November 15, 2014, 12:35:51 PM »
No one would know anything, but I will point out that the current 35L has a filter thread of 72mm.  I can't see them going to 82mm.  It won't change the amount of light captured, it would just reduce vignetting in the corners.

I was always curious about that.  I see many folks running the math on a minimum front element diameter necessary to be able to allow a certain max aperture, but I rarely see talk about oversizing the front element for the job at hand.

Yet we've seen some 'Mk II' versions of lenses go +5mm bigger than their predecessors (e.g. 16-35 2.8 and 24-70 2.8 ).  So that only helps with vignetting?

- A

24
Lenses / Re: EF 35mm f/1.4L II to Finally Come as Well? [CR2]
« on: November 15, 2014, 12:18:57 PM »
And the second important bit about this:  the last non-suptertele L prime Canon released was... the 100L and tilt-shifts in 2009, right?

So this is the first non-white L prime in a long time, and it's replacing one of the vital ones that defined what L lenses could do.  Interesting questions come from this:

  • Video on SLRs was in its infancy 5 years ago, but now...  Any chance they'd put IS on this?  Surely they'd keep USM over STM, right?
  • Will they go with the 'nice' engineering plastic of the 100L, 16-35 f/4L IS, 24-70 f/4L IS to keep the weight down, or will they stick with the tank-like build they put in the 24L II?
  • Is 82mm the new filter diameter for all the higher end L lenses, now that the 24-70 II has that size?  It may not need to be for aperture reasons, but if the pros already have 82s in their bag, why not grab as much light as possible?
  • Any chance Canon would try to pull a rabbit out of the hat to make a distinction between this new lens and the Art lens?  Is an f/1.2 lens possible at this FL?

Or should I stop looking at it as a harbinger of future-L-things-to-come and just think of it as an update/refresh at one focal length?

- A

Re: the 35L II

Other than a few folks responding about IS, my question largely went unanswered.   I realize it's fairly wild speculation, but do you have any thoughts on the bullet points above?  Thanks in advance.

- A

25
Lenses / Re: EF 35mm f/1.4L II to Finally Come as Well? [CR2]
« on: November 14, 2014, 07:43:33 PM »
Everyone get your credit cards ready for a $2,000 hit! Regardless of how good this lens is, it's about to make the Sigma look like a steal!
Actually, Canon has been releasing the updated lenses and cameras at essentially the same retail price as their predecessor. So, the new 100-400 was within $100 of the retail price of the old 100-400 at its initial release. Likewise for the 7DII and a few others. I cant find what the retail price for the 35L was on release, but, I'd bet it'd be within 10% of what that was.

Probably $1799 if it doesnt have IS

I hope you are right.  But as I stated before, we haven't seen an new non-supertele L prime in 5 years.  Canon may have been using all this time to unleash a real corker of a lens on us.  This could be the super duper future glass for the high MP bodies, it could have IS, or the next DPAF / anti-flicker / batsh-- left field innovation no one was beating the drums for.  If that happens, matching the old price isn't going to happen.

- A

26
Lenses / Re: EF 35mm f/1.4L II to Finally Come as Well? [CR2]
« on: November 14, 2014, 07:38:41 PM »
I am completely satisfied by the 35IS at this focal length.  Beyond being sharp and having IS, there is one other HUGE quality - it is the most accurately focusing lens that I have used to date (and I have owned or reviewed something like 50+ lenses over the past few years).  It never misses.  I am currently reviewing the ART 50mm right now, and it is an excellent lens, but the focus accuracy of the 35IS is head and shoulders above it.

+1.  My 28 2.8 IS just doesn't make mistakes with focusing.

That's why I want that 24/28/35 non-L IS lens at the 50 focal length.  It would probably be in the 35 f/2 IS shape and size (based on the past 'groupings' of non-L lenses:  24/28, 35/50, 85/100, etc.), and I would pre-order on day one.

- A

27
Lenses / Re: EF 35mm f/1.4L II to Finally Come as Well? [CR2]
« on: November 14, 2014, 07:32:15 PM »
I'm curious, if this turns out to be bigger than a Zeiss Otus, would that put people off buying the updated lens?

Of late, pickle jar primes have sold just fine.  Both the EF mount Art primes are large and heavy and few seem to mind.  Heck, that 50 Art is effectively the mass of a 24-70 zoom.

I'm in the minority in that I'd gladly give up a stop to reduce the size, especially if IS is on offer.  I wouldn't even mind if the new 50 IS was f/2.  But keep in mind, this is coming from a guy with the 28 f/2.8 IS and the 24-70 f/4L IS and I love them both.  My sensibilities are clearly not normal.

Further, small size is as important as weight to me.  When I'm shooting casually with friends and family, the pickle jar lenses and red rings and lens hoods don't make it into my bag.  I pack the 28 2.8 IS and the 50 1.4 and call it good.  Unassuming looking gear is useful for candids and street, of course.

- A

28
Lenses / Re: EF 35mm f/1.4L II to Finally Come as Well? [CR2]
« on: November 14, 2014, 03:55:47 PM »
Everyone get your credit cards ready for a $2,000 hit! Regardless of how good this lens is, it's about to make the Sigma look like a steal!

That's the question isn't it? 

I am stunned the 35L is still being offered at $1,479 (before rebate) at B&H right now, which represents a 65% premium over a lens of the same max aperture that beats it from a resolution perspective (and handily so on the wide open end).

I recognize there is far more to a lens than it's sharpness and max aperture, but the disparity in price between the L and the Art would imply there is something important missing from the Art lens (other than the red ring), like reliable AF, great color, control of flare / distortion / chromatic effects, etc.  I haven't tortured those reviews -- has that been the case?

If not, Canon's going to have to pull a rabbit out of the hat to ask for $1500-2000 for the 35L II.

- A


29
Lenses / Re: EF 35mm f/1.4L II to Finally Come as Well? [CR2]
« on: November 14, 2014, 02:26:00 PM »
It's been a good year for the high performance 50s but not for the lower end stuff. The 50 1.8 is fine--an IS version might be nice-- but the lens is fast, cheap and sharp enough. The 50 1.4 is the current weak link. The 50 1.2 is even fine. It's really supposed to be a portrait lens, and its rendering quality is really nice for that. It doesn't need to be knife sharp. For the folks that want that, there is the Sigma or Zeiss. Give me a nice update to the 50 1.4 that's not in a huge package. I don't want a solid 50 that's as big as a zoom.

Excellent comments.  Agree wholeheartedly. 

The list of people who would want this new 50 f/? IS is pretty long:

  • People prefer sharpness over draw.  Heck, even the ancient EF 50/1.4 has sharper corners over the 50 1.2L -- imagine what a newer design will be able to do.
  • People who prefer smaller primes, both in weight and size
  • People who need IS for hand-held low-light or video work
  • People who want modern, super-reliable USM focusing performance

The list of niggling little wants on the non-L 50 -- if addressed -- add up to a lens many people will want.  Canon just needs to deliver it to us.  Then we'd have a 50 for beginners learning about primes, a 50 for pros who want that magic wow pop factor, and the 50 that does eeeeeeeverything else.   :D

- A

30
Lenses / Re: EF 35mm f/1.4L II to Finally Come as Well? [CR2]
« on: November 14, 2014, 02:01:23 PM »
Too many of the "year of the lens" lenses seem to be specialty lenses like the 400 DO.  If you simply count the number of lenses released recently, yes, it's a good number.  But I feel like recent lenses have more limited appeal.   

True in some cases, but debatable in others.  FF landscapers were screaming for a sharper UWA zoom for some time, so I think the 16-35 F/4L IS addressed a big need (even if it lacked f/2.8 for the event photogs).  It's a nice improvement over its predecessors.

I also think that a value-oriented FF standard zoom was needed, and the 24-105 non-L f/3.5-5.6 IS STM lens fits that bill (presumably it will be a nice improvement over the venerable 1998 EF 28-135 f/3.5-5.6 IS USM lens).

So if Canon will update the 35L, and the non-L 50, 85, and 100 - then I will truly shut up.  Those are my personal priorities, lenses I see myself buying in the near future.

+500 on the non-L 50mm.  I love my tiny 28 f/2.8 IS USM and would love a 50mm version with a larger aperture.  I just shot last night with my semi-trusty jalopy of 50mm f/1.4 and it laid an egg at nailing focus on a portrait with a fairly forgiving f/2.8 aperture (and that was using an off-center point and deliberately not reframing after focusing).  I need that new 50 for AF reliability if nothing else.

The 85 f/1.8 needs the refresh as well, but that lens has its fans -- it makes more people happy today than the 50 f/1.4 does. 

Interesting you bring up the 100 (non-L) f/2 -- it's probably the 2nd-least discussed lens in this forum behind the 200 f/2.8L.  I had almost forgotten about it.  If it is to get the non-L IS treatment, good money would be on it happening with the 85 as I recall the current 85 and 100 share a good number of components.

- A

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 68