November 28, 2014, 11:17:44 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 2 [3] 4 5 ... 68
31
Lenses / Re: EF 35mm f/1.4L II to Finally Come as Well? [CR2]
« on: November 14, 2014, 01:28:56 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

32
Lenses / Re: EF 35mm f/1.4L II to Finally Come as Well? [CR2]
« on: November 14, 2014, 01:17:26 PM »
As far as the announcement itself, of Sigma's Art lenses for Canon...

35 f/1.4 
50 f/1.4
18-35 f/1.8 (EF-S mount only)
24-105 f/4 IS
30 f/1.4 (EF-S mount only)

...three were showered with accolades (the first three) and one was very well-received (the 24-105).  As for the fifth lens, I haven't read enough about the crop 30mm to see how people thought it landed. 

But in particular, the 35 and 50 Art really shook things up.  They are spectacularly sharp, a phenomenal value, and they represented a major course correction for Sigma's quality reputation.  But sharpness is not everything in a lens, and I am very careful to not make a blanket statement that the 35 Art and 50 Art are categorically better than their L counterparts -- but I think that many people actually do believe that. 

In fairness, Sigma was trying to outperform some older Canon L designs at those two focal lengths.  So that's why this 35L II is such a big deal. 

This is Canon's first 'response' (if you want to call it that) to Sigma's Art line.  I know Canon doesn't actually respond to its competitors and this lens was going to happen anyway, but it will be fascinating to see what sort of price to performance value proposition the 35L II will be.

- A

33
Lenses / Re: EF 35mm f/1.4L II to Finally Come as Well? [CR2]
« on: November 14, 2014, 12:56:15 PM »
The 16-35 and 10-18 were both announced sometime in the middle of May, so I suppose they have until then to fit into a 12 month period.  If the 35 pans out then the only thing missing is the supposed TS-E updates.

Goodness, no.  You forgot one of the great bread and butter gripes of this forum.

The EF 50mm f/nooneknows IS USM to replace the ancient EF 50mm f/1.4 fake-USM would also go in the "things missing" bucket.  I want a sharp-in-the-corners 50mm lens with quick autofocusing and a size less than a pickle jar, and that new lens will be it

- A

34
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 7D Mark II - DXO, Tony Northrup, and You
« on: November 13, 2014, 11:32:33 AM »
What I don't understand are people who don't like or don't agree with his videos making threads calling attention to his videos.  If you don't like his videos, ignore his videos.  Simple.

It's a little more complicated than that.  This gent is trying to fill a void out there and trying to educate the ignorant or short-sighted into how to rate the performance of photography products.  As I said before, he's trying to be the pleasant voicebox that articulates what all this camera minutiae and ratings mean -- a Carl Sagan / Neil DeGrasse Tyson of photography, if you will.  To my knowledge, no one else is parsing this down into simple terms for the masses to soak in (except for odd, one-off efforts I've seen on YouTube).

Though the guy seems to be well-intentioned (other than hawking his books), this forum has pointed out on numerous occasions that the dude isn't on top of things technically.  So the comments are not just from haters and fanboys -- folks who care about the correct interpretation of the data are miffed as well. 

But the scale of his visibility on the net is of concern.  If it was ignorance on a forum-level of conversation, that's one thing.  But the man is speaking as if things are so with high visibility across the photography community, and there is no loud, vocal rebuttal or alternative viewpoint.  It would be like if there was only Fox News or only MSNBC on cable. 

I personally don't dislike the man -- I just want him to get it right or have someone call him out when he doesn't.  Call me crazy, but a bunch of photographers who watch his videos are thinking "Oh, man, I could do this so much better than this guy."  I hope they follow that muse and put their perspective out there.

Again:  I nominate Neuro to replace him, or -- oh, wow, even better -- Neuro to become his Ed McMahon or Andy Richter sidekick.  His running comeback would be "No, Tony.  That's not true, Tony.  Bad Tony!" and he could explain where the guy got it wrong.

- A

35
Lenses / Re: Did Canon Leak the EF 11-24mm f/4L?
« on: November 12, 2014, 07:39:28 PM »

You got me there.  Excellent point on the 24-70 f/4L IS focus shift.  That really wound some folks up.

It doesn't affect how/what I shoot with it, but I could see how that would not meet some folks' expectations.

- A

36
Lenses / Re: Did Canon Leak the EF 11-24mm f/4L?
« on: November 12, 2014, 06:15:15 PM »

Interesting sidebar question:  what's the last EF lens Canon rolled out that didn't deliver the goods?  I am not referring to lenses that were unreasonably priced -- I am asking: what's the last time Canon put out an EF lens that wasn't clearly better than its predecessor or had serious quality issues?

- A

Many might say the 24-70 f4 L is a disappointment, particularly for those that bought into it for the macro capabilities. The 50 f1.2 L also springs to mind  :)

Fair.  The 50 f/1.2L is a love it or hate it lens.  I've only rented it and never owned one, so I don't know if this love/hate is due to design or folks having unreasonable expectations.

But I must disagree on the 24-70 F/4L IS.  It is a stellar lens for me.  Lighter and sharper than the 24-105 and 24-70 I in a nice compact design.  That's a perfect travel/hiking lens.

Unless I've missed some negative press on it's macro performance, the principal macro issue people have had was the limited working distance, which was mathematical necessity given this relatively limited focal length for a macro.  But that was clearly published before it was released, wasn't it?  That said, the AF works just fine at macro ranges and I find the macro to be a great function in a pinch (and it often lets me leave the macro at home for casual shooting), but it will never replace my 100L for dedicated macro work.

IMHO, the big beef(s) with the 24-70 F/4L IS were all announcement/launch related snafus that had little to do with how it actually performed:
  • A $1,499 price at launch
  • A belief that the 24-105L was going to be obsoleted by it (i.e. for something with less reach and a higher price.)
  • That whole typo of Canon writing '4' on the lens when eeeeeeeeveryone wanted it to be '2.8'   ;D

Since that time, the price has been corrected (I got mine around $1,000) and the performance has been very good, I thought.

- A

37
Lenses / Re: Did Canon Leak the EF 11-24mm f/4L?
« on: November 12, 2014, 05:51:52 PM »

No it doesn't, not in the age of CAD, Sigma have said they can make a lens from concept meeting to production lens in between six months to a year. Canon have much more resources and probably tighter tolerances so maybe a bit longer, but certainly not years and years.

Sure, but there's more to it than the CAD and production cycle.  Canon has got to be making a larger investment and building more lenses than Sigma.  With a larger investment, they likely would vet the design with a larger pool of test users, and possibly with more iterations of test use and revision of the design.

I am not stating one company is better at this than the other, but Canon has more exposure to lose money/customers with a poor product, so they might take a little longer to dial something in than a company hoping to snatch business while Canon is busy being 'less responsive'.

Canon's in a very weird market where it's a high tech field without the annual crushing pressure to roll out new stuff like with (say) laptops, cell phones, tablets, etc.  It seems like they deliberately don't want to rush EF glass or higher-end body designs to market. 

Interesting sidebar question:  what's the last EF lens Canon rolled out that didn't deliver the goods?  I am not referring to lenses that were unreasonably priced -- I am asking: what's the last time Canon put out an EF lens that wasn't clearly better than its predecessor or had serious quality issues?

That said, Sigma churning out better lenses is terrific for us.   :)

- A

38
Lenses / Re: Did Canon Leak the EF 11-24mm f/4L?
« on: November 12, 2014, 02:37:43 PM »
I call this a fake. Some reasons:

1. No space between the "EF" and the "11-24" in the screenshot. This is inconsistent with the other lenses on that page.
2. A typo in "Vollformat", in the screenshot there is just one "l" which is wrong.
3. I am a native german speaker. The text sounds somewhat fishy to me, not in the way Canon would say it.
4. Everybody can edit a web page and make a screenshot of it.

In fairness, the (sort of) smoking gun that would tip the needle from "it's a rumor" to "I think this is happening" would be a live Canon URL that we can look up.  That conveniently doesn't exist anymore, does it?

- A

39
Lenses / Re: Did Canon Leak the EF 11-24mm f/4L?
« on: November 12, 2014, 12:20:41 AM »
Note that the same story from CW:
http://www.canonwatch.com/announcement-soon-canon-ef-11-24mm-f4l-lens/

...but with the whole "The announcement may be a matter of a week or two" bit.  CW is far less reliable than CR or NL, of course, but a premature announcement on a Canon page -- if real -- would imply that this lens is happening, and soon.  I'd imagine Canon does not upload promotional content to websites too far in advance of actual announcements for fear of leaks just like this.

- A

40
Lenses / Re: Did Canon Leak the EF 11-24mm f/4L?
« on: November 11, 2014, 02:37:58 PM »

That's why I'd have a hard time at 11mm -- even with a flat front element, virtually anything threaded into the filter ring would vignette, and something stout like my Lee 100mm system would be a no go.  It's wonderpana or bust at that FL, isn't it?  (Unless Lee would start making outriggers and filters the size of dinner plates.   :P)

So I agree with Lee Jay -- the 11-24mm picture we've seen (real or fake) is probably in the right flavor of what we'd be getting.  The 11-24 would be bulbous/non-filterable and the front filtering crowd would stick with the various 16-, 17- zooms, the 20mm non-L no one ever talks about, the 24L, the 24 T/S, etc.  I think Zeiss also has an 18mm MF prime that is front filterable.

- A

maybe the Lee SW150 system


I see that product as proof positive of the stranglehold the 14-24 has on landscapers at least in England (where Lee is located).  The people who came up with a terrific system to work with any front filterable lens devoted an entire product line to one lens.  Other lenses work with it, but they designed it because of that one lens.

But even if this worked for the 11-24, I wouldn't migrate away from my Lee 100 system for 5 more mm wider focal length.  Those filters (esp. my 105 front CPL) are not cheap!

- A

41
Lenses / Re: Did Canon Leak the EF 11-24mm f/4L?
« on: November 11, 2014, 02:19:53 PM »
Would it be physically possible to have an 11-24 that has a flat front element that could take 82mm filters?

Probably.

The front element is going to be very similar to that of the 17-TSE.



That's why I'd have a hard time at 11mm -- even with a flat front element, virtually anything threaded into the filter ring would vignette, and something stout like my Lee 100mm system would be a no go.  It's wonderpana or bust at that FL, isn't it?  (Unless Lee would start making outriggers and filters the size of dinner plates.   :P)

So I agree with Lee Jay -- the 11-24mm picture we've seen (real or fake) is probably in the right flavor of what we'd be getting.  The 11-24 would be bulbous/non-filterable and the front filtering crowd would stick with the various 16-, 17- zooms, the 20mm non-L no one ever talks about, the 24L, the 24 T/S, etc.  I think Zeiss also has an 18mm MF prime that is front filterable.

- A

42
Lenses / Re: Did Canon Leak the EF 11-24mm f/4L?
« on: November 11, 2014, 10:55:41 AM »
I'm torn on this one, if it is indeed real.  My head is swirling these sort of thoughts right now:

  • If it's for event photogs, one would think it's a stop too slow, right?
  • If it's for video, where's the IS?
  • If it's for landscapers, how do you filter it?  We'd be stuck in Wonderpana world, wouldn't we?
  • If Canon insists on going pound for pound with Nikon's 14-24 ultrawide, they will be a stop slower.  Isn't the Nikon an f/2.8 design?

So I am clearly missing something here.  So I am left to assume one of the two statements is the big draw of this lens:

  • Photographers really want one zoom to cover all of their ultrawide needs.  A 16-35 is not wide enough for these folks.
  • Sharpness sharpness sharpness.  The 16-35 F/4L IS is a very nice improvement over prior Canon ultrawides, but the Nikon 14-24 (a 7 year old lens!) is still sharper.  This lens represents another chance for Canon give us the sharpest FF ultrawide on the planet.

Please help me get why this lens might be popular for Canon shooters.  I really do want to understand this.

- A


43
Lenses / Re: Is the new 100-400L II going to be a push/pull after all?
« on: November 10, 2014, 05:49:57 PM »
Seriously though, to the OP... It's a definite maybe...

Agree.  My money is on push only.  No pull.   ;D 

- A

44
Reviews / Solid DPReview video (20+ min) with a wildlife photographer
« on: November 10, 2014, 05:48:17 PM »
DPReview just put out a very nicely produced 7d2 hands on with a wildlife photographer, using the 16-35 f/4L IS, 70-200 f/2.8L IS II, and ever-so-affordable 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x.  Mountain lions, wolves and landscapes were shot, as well as some intervalometer and video work (note: the pro in question is a wildlife stills shooter and not a video pro).

A very nice watch if you have 22 minutes to spare:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ThNJm14cSkk

I want to see more 'big picture' reviews like this in the field after a week filled with minutiae and lab tests.  Nicely done, DPReview. 

- A

45
Lenses / Is the new 100-400L II going to be a push/pull after all?
« on: November 10, 2014, 04:43:08 PM »
Just saw this at photo rumors:

http://photorumors.com/2014/11/10/the-canon-ef-100-400mm-f4-5-5-6l-is-ii-lens-already-announced/

Of note:  "New “push-pull” zoom"

The article was then pulled from the site in question.  Is there anything to this?  Any chance that push/pull might live on?

- A

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 68