October 21, 2014, 09:08:17 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 - RS2021

Pages: 1 ... 38 39 [40] 41 42 ... 48
586
Lenses / Re: Buy Canon 24-70l II today or wait for Newer version with IS?
« on: December 20, 2012, 01:11:15 PM »
Why no mention of the new 24-70 f/4 IS version that should be available in January?  I have the  24-70 vII now and just rented the Tamron for comparison.  I didn't care for the Tamron that much and didn't feel their VC comes anywhere close to the Hybrid Canon IS version that is on the 70-200 vII.

Now I am considering returning the f/2.8 and ordering the f/4.  Just don't know.  I love the IQ with the new 24-70 on the 5DMkIII but scared to death of camera shake on the shot that I need to capture.

Any speculation that the IQ will be less on the f/4?

Speaking specifically of the announced 24-70 f4, it is still unclear to me why a shorter range with the same aperture of f4 would be better than the 24-105 L for an average user. Unless perhaps it is almost exclusively geared to be paired as a kit with 6D.

Perhaps 24-105L being rather ubiquitous makes it less disirable for some? But then, the new 24-70 f4 will be equally so in a few years. I can't speak for individual copy variation that seems to exist among 24-105L, but mine is sharp. Unless the IQ and IS are both updated in the 24-70 f4 to the extent where its reduced weight becomes a key selling point, I think the 24-105L is still the better contender at give away prices.

If the price of the new 24-70 f4 L (now listed at $1499) comes down eventually to $900 then I think it becomes a more interesting match up and will present a tougher decision... lighter, marginally higher IQ and IS of the 24-70 f4,  against an older, heavier, bulkier 24-105L. For some, the ergonomics could be an important issue, but not at ~$600 price differential with a shortened range.

587
more glass less IQ

Thanks for that pithy explanation. I've always wondered why the 70-200/2.8L IS II with its 23 elements has so much less IQ than the 35/2 with only 7 elements. Now I know.

Perhaps... but one can still contend the caveat is the glass being added from B+W, Hoya, or tiffin or even high end pro versions of whatever brand was not part of the original optical design while the 20 odd elements or just 7 elements would have been carefully chosen to play well together.

588
more glass less IQ

That's my general bias as well, though I fully admit this is not based on any sound comparison. But personal perceptions matter. And I don't have filters on high end glass.

However, the point of this thread was, even if you hold such a perception that sticking another piece of glass on a precision engineered optical system is awful,  is there a point at which you balance the potential protection afforded by this added glass with the potential smidgen of trade off in IQ of a high quality lens? And I did say potential.

It appears a fair number do think it is justified.



589
Hmm ...with n= 80+, may be a dirty non parametric test is in order?

590
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sigma 35 f/1.4 DG HSM First Impressions
« on: December 19, 2012, 10:56:30 PM »
Here is the sigma 35mm subpar bokeh discussion and graphs at lensrentals blog...scroll down a bit.
Yes he discusses it within the review for the new canon 35mm IS.

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/12/another-35mm-lens-for-canon

591
Lenses / Re: Buy Canon 24-70l II today or wait for Newer version with IS?
« on: December 19, 2012, 10:43:52 PM »
OK, OK, OK. I get the point about not waiting for a rumored lens. Let me ask a follow up question.  Will IS offer a big benefit for photos on this lens in indoor situations for family portraits?

In practical terms, no; because in event photography, or gatherings, the bottleneck is always the subjects themselves moving...be it a vibrant party or a rock concert or active wedding guests in a dark venue... in these cases the subjects would have moved before your hands shaking.... IS in and of itself will not save the day here...but I suppose it never hurts to have IS...may be good for posed situations and portraits. But take into account the added weight and cost, I will take wider apertures and higher ISO any day over IS in these situations.

But I am told IS in the wider range primes recently introduced by Canon (24mm, 28mm,35mm) are partly targeted toward videographers....may be it helps but I don't know much about videos to comment.

592
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sigma 35 f/1.4 DG HSM First Impressions
« on: December 19, 2012, 10:11:05 PM »
When I first saw the Sigma head shot of the girl here on the forum somewhere (someone please link it if you remember), my thoughts were: beautiful subject, sharp lens, very nice OOF but the bokeh is not very pleasing. Granted, one can't look at football-shaped off focus lights always to judge this.. they all tend to look the same...one needs to look at real world backgrounds ...and the quality of the bokeh is not always measurable...it is subjective. I simply did not like the Sigma rendition. There was also something about the color...microcontrast...I dunno... Sigma was clearly a sharp lens but it did not speak to me.

ever shot a 70-200 f2.8L IS II wide open or a 50 f1.4 from canon at 1.4? football shaped bokeh happens on any lens if the conditions are right ::)

That is misreading what I said...I was not saying the football OOF shapes shouldn't occur... I said they are not a good way to judge the quality of bokeh in general...say furniture in the back or trees. Lensrentals' Roger's gallery pics of the sigma 35mm 1.4 is more telling in his recent blog...and ...oddly he directly addresses the sigma bokeh also in the canon 35mm f2 IS review blog with some graphs to boot. All said, I think sigma may very well be sharp, but the bokeh quality may still be behind 35L.

593
Lenses / Re: Buy Canon 24-70l II today or wait for Newer version with IS?
« on: December 19, 2012, 09:44:21 PM »
  A new 100-400L has been 'coming in about a year'....every year for the past 5 years.  If you need/want it now, get it now.

And  the 35L II too will be in by January right after 100-400L II.  I am planning to take the second Sunday off to play with them.

594
Canon General / Re: necessity of photography school
« on: December 19, 2012, 10:56:17 AM »
Going to photography school is the same as going to "art school" in a more broader sense ... I guess they hand out photography diplomas in art schools but I digress. A couple of art history courses and may be a specialized course for 3 or 4 credits on top in a regular liberal arts curriculum will do more good... Granted over priced in this context. But most proprietary "art schools" in small communities are run by people who are more ignorant about art than Mr. Squeers-like schoolmasters from Dickensian novels.

I think art of any kind stands out when it has a unique and personal view point. By training students to mostly conform, we blunt innovation and uniqueness. If I had a nickel for every time I saw a shot of a long straight road going into infinity in a perspective shot... I'll be Donald Trump (hopefully without the badger hair). Most of what an "art school" can teach can be acquired from public sources, me thinks.

And here is a scene from the classic Britcom "Red Dwarf" :)

Lister: I went to art college.
Rimmer: You!!!
Lister: Yeah.
Rimmer: How did you get into art college?
Lister: The normal way you get into art college. The same old usual, boring, normal way you get in. Failed my exams and applied. They snapped me up.

:D

595
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sigma 35 f/1.4 DG HSM First Impressions
« on: December 19, 2012, 03:22:42 AM »
Sounds like the Sigma 35mm is sharper but perhaps there is too much rosey enthusiasm about this lens among some.  I am glad to have Canon play defense... competition is always good for the customers but let me share my subjective view of the Sigma pictures I've seen so far.

When I first saw the Sigma head shot of the girl here on the forum somewhere (someone please link it if you remember), my thoughts were: beautiful subject, sharp lens, very nice OOF but the bokeh is not very pleasing. Granted, one can't look at football-shaped off focus lights always to judge this.. they all tend to look the same...one needs to look at real world backgrounds ...and the quality of the bokeh is not always measurable...it is subjective. I simply did not like the Sigma rendition. There was also something about the color...microcontrast...I dunno... Sigma was clearly a sharp lens but it did not speak to me.

Now, in all fairness, had the Canon 35L been used on the same model, same night lighting, would it be any better? I don't know as there was no head-to-head comparison. So I hope for Sigma's sake that Canon 35L would also have produced the same picture.

But what is more significant is that lensrentals gallery in their Sigma review/blog also has those rather flat looking pictures with color rendition that just doesn't grab me. And Roger from lensrental goes on to say bokeh is in fact subpar with this lens. Another review cited in this thread earlier also states the same thing about the Sigma bokeh.

So sharpness is not everything. There is such a thing as "Je ne sais quoi" about the images that lenses generate and I think 35L has it in spades. It hasn't seen much use with me for some time...but perhaps it is time I paid an old friend some much deserved attention.

596
Lenses / Re: Lens dilemma
« on: December 18, 2012, 08:15:28 PM »
To me versatility beats other considerations if quality is not compromised. And I think even the verrsion 1 zoom in question is great lens. If budget is a consideration, then the order in which combinations are acquired becomes key. I would first get the 70-200 for versatility reach and quality and then acquire 135 f2 lens to complement the zoom for higher speed and yes image quality too... but it is all in balance.

597
Lenses / Re: The next 24-105 v. 24-70
« on: December 17, 2012, 07:14:20 PM »
Seriously dude, what's the deal with the polls?  I don't think people are going to be too happy with you cluttering up this board with impossible polls.

+1. Agree with Axilrod.   I count 4 polls from you in one day...You need a hobby. :)

598
Lenses / Re: The great battle: primes vs zooms
« on: December 17, 2012, 07:06:01 PM »
I went through the phase of collecting the key primes...over it now. Once I looked at what I was actually using, zooms usually came out on top. Versatility is key.  Granted, I am still partial to a few primes and other primes I loath. Indoors, ambient light, primes are called for... Outdoors street photography, I would pick a zoom and not the 35L.

599
Lenses / Re: Canon 50L Sharpness at f1.2 ???
« on: December 17, 2012, 03:12:11 PM »
Had it, sold it... I simply didn't see reliably sharp pictures even in the center at f1.2...When it hit it, it was bang on...loved the contrast. Some swear by it, some blame the photographer ..."you don't know how to use this awesome piece of art...look! Look! It has a red ring! It must be perfect". ;)

But the general opinion even among seasoned users is mixed...with caveats both on focusing and the aperture range where it potentially out-performs. Given the price, it is ok to expect more. It is due for an update anyways.

600
Lenses / Re: Difficulties choosing next L series
« on: December 17, 2012, 10:38:00 AM »
+1 for 16-35 II ...versatile, fills your wide angle needs, reasonably priced for the quality it delivers.  Waiting for future 14-24mm based on rumors and even when true waiting for canon to deliver it on the shelves is rather silly. Having said that, Looking at your current lens  lineup you can already do really high quality work through medium tele range, without further taxing your credit cards... Something to think about :)

Pages: 1 ... 38 39 [40] 41 42 ... 48