May 25, 2013, 02:47:32 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 6 ... 14
46
Lenses / Re: 16-35II vs 24-70II IQ?
« on: March 11, 2013, 07:35:11 PM »
ta-daaaaaaaaaaaaan!

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=114&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=787&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0


Love that site. 

You actually linked the old Type I of the 16-35.  The OP was looking for the Type II, wasn't he?  The link you may want is therefore here:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=412&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=787&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

And what the hey is up with the 16-35 II on that page?  The 16 and 35 ends are okay, but 24 is a disaster.  Balls of cotton are sharper than that -- see this one preset to 24mm on the 16-35 II:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=412&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=0&LensComp=787&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

- A

47
EOS Bodies / Announcements on March 22, 2013? [CR1]
« on: March 07, 2013, 02:30:26 AM »

Just posted on Photo Rumors...

http://photorumors.com/2013/03/06/canon-announcement-on-march-22-eos-70d/

No source, but they have had a decent track record on announcement dates.

- A

48
EOS Bodies / Re: Plenty of posts on the 7D, how about the 70d
« on: March 07, 2013, 02:29:23 AM »

This just dropped on Photo Rumors.  No source, though.

http://photorumors.com/2013/03/06/canon-announcement-on-march-22-eos-70d/

 - A

49
Lenses / Re: Photozone spanks the 24-70 F4 USM L IS
« on: March 06, 2013, 12:42:36 PM »
BTW ... I'd still go for the 24-70 2.8 over the f/4. It's not that much extra.

Crystal ball: Canon releases a 24-70 2.8L IS at $2400, and the non-IS version settles in at $1600 - $1800

I don't see it.  If and when that pickle jar of a 2.8 IS lens is offered, those jerks will want extortion money for it -- I'd say $3k.  It's a holy grail sort of lens.

That said, if Nikon offers one first, Canon will only punish us with a nasty markup, and then your prediction will be right in line.

- A

50
Lenses / Re: Photozone spanks the 24-70 F4 USM L IS
« on: March 05, 2013, 11:25:54 AM »
See his Tamron 24-70 IS ... review


Do you have a link?  This page doesn't seem to have many details.  Thanks!


I forgot -- he didn't post it as a formal review because of his quirky findings.  He posted it under news:

Initial story in May of 2012: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/News/News-Post.aspx?News=2357

Follow-up in Jan 2013:  http://www.the-digital-picture.com/News/News-Post.aspx?News=4053

He has a pre-loaded mouseover compare chart here:  http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=786&Camera=453&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=786&Sample=0&SampleComp=1&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

- A

51
Lenses / Re: Photozone spanks the 24-70 F4 USM L IS
« on: March 05, 2013, 10:54:13 AM »
While I trust their methods and unbiasedness at Photozone, as several have pointed out, the sheer number of lenses not tested is also an important aspect to consider when reading the different reviews.

How many lenses does TDP, DPReview, DXO use for tetsing lenses?


You make a fair point.  From the reviews I've read, it appears that each site has strengths and weaknesses:

Roger at LR is king of sharpness data from my perspective, b/c he tests all of LRs stock of the same lens (in some cases, dozens of the same lens).  That trumps most everyone out there for data, but he's not the thoughtful tips/feedback/insights guy that Bryan Carnathan is.  Roger also has (IMHO) massive street cred on being a camera nerd first and a fanboy last.  He'll blow any design out of the water if it underperforms.

TDP -- Carnathan does test multiple copies but not a huge number.  He brings up copy to copy variation when something odd occurs and obtains new glass to verify odd findings.  See his Tamron 24-70 IS and new Mk II 24-70 reviews -- fishy stuff came up and he itemized the differences.

Further, his site is more of a broad read of useability and his personal (though admittedly expert) take on things.  His site excels at fun image-level comparisons of all the lenses taking the same shot (or test page) from a tripod, and then allowing you to mouseover to see what's going on:  L vs. non-L vs. Sigma, aperture, ISO, etc.

I read his site fairly religiously for all-around reasons.  It's thoughtful, useful commentary from a knowledgable user.  But his is a world of insight and adjectives -- it's not a lab-like mountain of details.

Photozone has the most nicely broken down sharpness data that I can read easily.  They have middle/border/extreme resolution data for many focal lengths on a zoom, and they report it for most common apertures selected.  Very helpful.  This is a site opens your mind a bit as you tend to comparison shop.  At a site like this, you see non-L glass punching its weight brilliantly against L glass if you stop it down just a shade.  Big limitation?  I believe it's only one lens they test.

DXOs interesting angle is having combinatorial data of bodies + lenses.  No idea how many lenses they actually test.   I don't read this site much as DXO has (groan) their own metrics on their own hardware that I haven't bothered to learn how to read.  I still don't understand their data fully.

I don't read DPreview reviews as they require a dozen page turns to get ad views.  Fail.  They are wasting my time versus their competitors.

I don't read Ken Rockwell much, but my goodness, if you want a fine detail about metal vs. plastic, if the front element rotates during focusing, how many points on the sunstar created when stopping down, etc. then he's your guy.  Absurd little details for the nerdy camera lover.  TDP has some of this, too, but it's inconsistently reported from review to review.

For me, I trust:

  • TDP for everything but data -- it's just there, easy to find, and thoughtfully explained.
  • Roger at LR for hard sharpness numbers.  End of story.
  • Photozone for quick, easy comparison of two lenses I might be considering

- A

52
Lenses / Re: Photozone spanks the 24-70 F4 USM L IS
« on: March 05, 2013, 02:00:13 AM »
Besides the RSA in macro mode at 70 mm, what else is work this lens?  Nothing.   I seldom use macro mode on many of my lenses, so this is a none issue for me. 

I would like to have seen a comparison between the 24-70 F2.8II, 24-105 and this lens for IQ in non-macro situations.

Again, this has all been published by LR, which unlike most reviewers, runs many copies of a given lens.

As linking the data isn't enough for some readers... :P

LR data attached -- this all came from LR at http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/01/canon-24-70-f4-is-resolution-tests. 

I'll just link the F/4 data -- see attachments.  It's pretty clear that the new F/4 IS lens is very good, but I believe the world will disregard it for petty reasons (i.e. this lens isn't new compared to the 24-105) and legitimate value-based reasons (i.e. overpriced).

Again, I'm not supporting this lens as offered -- it's clearly overpriced.  But to bash it just on three specs (range/speed/IS) is a little nearsighted, IMHO.  This lens will be used, it will be loved, and it will build a following just like the 24-105, though perhaps for different reasons.

- A

53
Lenses / Re: Photozone spanks the 24-70 F4 USM L IS
« on: March 04, 2013, 07:58:26 PM »
It will be an attractive lens to someone who wants the "all in one" approach such as for travel.  The price gets bashed by everyone, but that is the introductory price.  The price of the fantastic much-in-demand 24-70/2.8II is already down a few hundred dollars, so this one will likely head the same way.

The focus shift should be investigated further.  They only tried it at 70mm and without autofocus.  Apparently, the lens is not sharp for close-up work at 70mm at f/4 anyway, but who buys a macro for wide-open aperture work?  Their example shows a much sharper lens in the f/8 example (not just more depth of field).  Someone should test whether the focus shift is a genuine problem at smaller apertures, or whether depth of field covers it.  It's possible that at 50mm and f/8 and smaller there is no problem at all.

It may not meet some people's strict definition of "macro", but at 0.7X it is more macro than the 50/2.5 compact macro.  For some photographers this is a win:  it means one less lens to carry, one less lens to change.

Agree agree agree. 

This is a single lens for travel kind of option.  I'm telling you, as weird as the minimum focusing distance is, the 0.7x macro will be a hit with certain users.  Make fun of them all you want, but this thing will resonate with some users.

- A

54
Lenses / Re: Photozone spanks the 24-70 F4 USM L IS
« on: March 04, 2013, 07:55:08 PM »

When Roger Cicla of lens reviews tests 50 lenses out of his stock, the results are going to be more meaningful.


I would doubt that lensrentals would get 50 copies of this lens.  I would guess that most renters would go for a 2.8 lens either the Canon or the Tamron.

Still I agree with your basic point that Photozone occaisonally gets a poor copy while Lensrentals gives more statistically meaningful data.


Already done:  http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/01/canon-24-70-f4-is-resolution-tests

- A

55
Lenses / Re: Photozone spanks the 24-70 F4 USM L IS
« on: March 04, 2013, 07:54:17 PM »
Not sure how this 24-70mm f4 can compete against a cheaper, longer lens that in many ways delivers equal or better performance. 


The cheaper one is better?  I don't think so.  As I read the resolution numbers on Photozone, the new 24-70/4L is mostly better than the 24-105/4L.  And it offers a much closer minimum focusing distance.  And it's smaller and lighter.  Except for the initial price, it would make a very attractive kit lens.


I have to agree.  It is overpriced, but it's too early to call it DOA.

Those folks who say that range + speed + IS define the value proposition of a lens are potentially missing something.  I am not buying this new lens, but consider:

  • The sharpness clearly shows that the new 24-70 F/4 beats the 24-105 F/4.  The new F/4 is better nearly across the board both wide open and stopped down to F/8, at both 24 and 70.  As much as people treasure their 24-105s, it's a good lens and not a great one.
  • Lighter and smaller is great if it doesn't hurt IQ.
  • Macro 0.7x is a huge upgrade for a kit lens.  The working distance is FUBAR (http://www.digitalrev.com/article/canon-24-70mm-f-4l/NzIxMzE1NDU_A --> see at 7:12 or so in the video), but for some folks, it beats buying and/or packing a dedicated macro lens.

In fairness, Photozone often only tests one lens, so I trust Roger's data at LR much more as a result.  And there (http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/01/canon-24-70-f4-is-resolution-tests), the new F/4 was flagged as a solid step behind the new F/2.8 Mk II.  That data plus this price made this a currently DOA to me kind of lens.

Again, I'm not justifying the new offering, its reduction in range, high cost, etc. -- I'm just saying there are people who will buy this lens and enjoy it tremendously.

- A

56
EOS Bodies / Re: Will the 70d have a new sensor?
« on: February 28, 2013, 07:58:16 PM »

Agree with those saying that the 70D will not have a new sensor.   The 70D can't be perceived by customers as the top of the line APS-C.  But given how old the 7D1 is, people may believe that the 70D is better anyway.

For that reason, I'm really surprised the 7D2 isn't coming out before the 70D.  It's far more logical to go like this:

Lead with 7D2 --> extra processor for highest burst, brand spanking new sensor, 1DX / 5D3 AF, high-end $2k offering, etc.
Stagger 70D 6-12 months later --> just one processor for modest burst, that same 7D2 sensor, a 7D1-like AF
Stagger the next Rebel after that --> same 7D2 sensor but with nerfed AF and burst

- A

57
Pricewatch Deals / Re: Canon Center Pinch Lens Caps Now Shipping
« on: February 25, 2013, 08:07:15 PM »
I heard the mark II pinch caps are just around the cover, and have better sharpness and color.



Yes, but the're only f/2...

Do they have IS?????  My lens caps need stabilization.


Yes, Canon does have IS lens caps, but they're only offered in F/4.   :P

58
Pricewatch Deals / Re: Canon Center Pinch Lens Caps Now Shipping
« on: February 25, 2013, 05:33:31 PM »
I hear that they are working on an IS version of these lens caps that costs twice as much.   :P

- A

59
EOS-M / Re: The Next EOS M? [CR1]
« on: February 24, 2013, 12:51:46 PM »
My EOS-M wishlist:

  • More lenses.
  • Much faster AF.
  • Decent viewfinder.
  • Metabones-style speed booster.  Turn my 50 F/1.4 into some F/0.9-ish 35mm-ish monster.

I won't echo everyone's calls for a FF sensor.  EOS-M means the M mount, which means crop.  Strongly recommend you don't hold your breath for an FF change for years from Canon, b/c that's how long it will take for them to build up a collection of EF-M lenses.

And even if they did make the FF mirrorless that many want, presumably taking native EF glass, it will be huuuuge -- as in comically large in size.  One understands (though does not necessarily agree) why Sony went with a fixed lens on the RX1 -- it makes it smaller.

- A

60
Pricewatch Deals / Re: Deal: Canon EF 28 f/2.8 IS for $549 at Adorama
« on: February 04, 2013, 11:15:42 AM »
Any chance they have the same email deal on the 24 f2.8 IS ???

Wow, the 24 and 35 (albeit more popular lengths) are still $849 at B&H.  That will change, give it time.

Had I known people were truly that picky about 24 v 28, I would have waited and gotten the 28 for song.  Hell, the 28 is the sharper one from the data I've seen.

The one downside of the imminent 50 IS?  Filter size:

24 2.8 IS --> 58mm
28 2.8 IS --> 58mm
35 2.8 IS --> 67mm
50 ?.? IS --> Likely to be 67mm, one would think?  Given how highly similar the 24 and 28 are, perhaps Canon is going up in pairs for common subcomponents to save cost.

With that thinking, that might put the new IS 85mm and 100mm non-L primes at 72 or 77.  I would think it unlikely they'd go 77mm for a non-L, but it could happen, right?

- A

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 14