October 24, 2014, 12:31:00 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 - Act444

Pages: 1 ... 10 11 [12] 13 14 ... 22
166
Lenses / Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS
« on: November 05, 2012, 02:01:41 PM »

Also, regarding the 35mm non-L refresh, a number of points come to mind:

  • If this is similar to the 24 and 28 IS lenses, the touted price of $800 is absolutely worth it, and I'm strictly a still shooter.  This will be an L lens without a red ring.  The 28 I own is sharper than an equivalently stopped down 35L (i.e. it is not just useable, it is great wide open, and stellar at F/4).  The USM focusing is very fast, it's internally focusing, is very well built (on par with the 100L macro), and it's very small and unassuming.  Plus, F/2.8 (with the 24 & 28) or F/2 (with the new 35) with four stops IS are some of (if not the) most handholdable lenses you'll find.
     
  • This is good news for what I am really looking for, which is a newer, sharper, better 50 prime.  We're due, and though I'm bummed it's not happening now, this announcement marks the refresh of a third non-L prime.  This bodes well for future upgraded versions of the 50 prime and 85 prime -- both stellar values vs. their L counterparts, but both are also quite old.  Here's hoping.
    • Which begs the question, if I am looking for something better than my current Canon EF 50mm F/1.4 prime, do I look at the 1.2L or wait for this new non-L?  As mentioned before, prior non-L refreshes were sharper than their L counterparts, and they pack a houseload of modern features (ring USM, IS, etc.) over their pro counterparts.  Given all that, it begs the question why the non-Ls are getting the refresh/sharpness/feature updates before the Ls?
       
  • The 24/28 IS lenses take 58mm filters, but the rumored new 35 will jump from the current 52 filters to 67 filters.  That would likely mean a new 50 (with similar upgrades) might also go to 67mm.  As odd as that diameter is, since I already own the 100L macro, I'm all set.   8)
     
  • The only bummer I see with all these great non-Ls coming out is that I lose the weather sealing I have been accustomed to on my other L lenses.
     

- A

I have the 35L and it actually lacks weather sealing. So the only advantage it would have now over the new 35 is the extra stop of 1.4. I would be curious to see an IQ comparison...

then again, sharpness is not the whole equation. How well it controls fringing, the color reproduction, distortion, etc. are factors as well. I get the feeling the 35L will still be better in these areas.

167
Lenses / Re: Opinion: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS
« on: November 05, 2012, 12:07:14 PM »
I'd be curious to see how the new 35/2 compares with the current 35L in terms of IQ at f/2 and higher. It's already significantly smaller, lighter and has IS (with loss of 1 stop). Since the 35L has no weather sealing/is not significantly better built its only advantage would be the 1.4 (a very good one, as I love the look). Because of this I'd assume the 35L is due for an update soon at a price point probably closer to $2k...

168
Lenses / Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS
« on: November 05, 2012, 11:29:04 AM »
The 24-105 is a great walkaround- 70mm just isn't enough reach on FF for that purpose.

24-70 is a good range for indoor events, but especially for people shots, 2.8 is better given that often times, they're moving around and faster shutter speeds are needed anyway.

I don't change lenses out in the field- I usually just pick one lens for the day and stick to it. Minimizes accidents, dust on sensor, etc.

If this lens were small and under ~$700 I'd consider it for the 60D. But doesn't sound like the price will be anywhere near that reasonable. Meh.

169
Canon General / Re: EOS-M kicking butt in Japan
« on: November 04, 2012, 09:44:42 PM »
I can imagine only the smallest of the EF lenses being usable - i.e. the 40 2.8, 50 1.8, the 60 EF-S macro, etc. which are all fixed-length lenses. The one zoom lens that might work is the old 24-85mm (no longer in production)- it's the size of the 60 EF-S Macro with a little more weight. I picked up an old one- however the "zoom creep" on it is quite bad...

170
Canon General / Re: EOS-M kicking butt in Japan
« on: November 04, 2012, 12:25:52 PM »

The IQ of the 22mm was pretty good too, slightly better than the 18-55mm.

How was the 18-55? They didn't have it in store, and they don't sell a 18-55 kit in the US so I just got it with the stock 22 (which exceeded my expectations).

Quote
Dislike - AF was slow. I'll try and be specific here. Even when the subject is already close to being in focus it still hunts back and forth once or twice and then locks. Average time to lock on was between 1 to 2 seconds. Lighting conditions were average. You will not be able to take a quick snap with this thing.

1-2 seconds? My experience is usually about 1 second, maybe a little faster. When using the outer focus points near the corners, I agree, 1-2 sec is more common but center point is quite fast actually (assuming your subject is not vastly out of focus- even then, it's not too bad). That said, when I tested it in "rush mode" I did notice a shutter lag (delay between confirmed focus and pic taken) which I hope they can address, perhaps in firmware.

Where it REALLY slowed down was when I switched to the FlexiZone-Multi mode and the face detection. If your scene is OOF and there are a lot of near and far subjects in your shot...be prepared to wait several seconds, especially in low light.

Quote
The EF adapter is pretty heavy. Probably weighs more than my 50mm f/1.8 II.

Interesting...they didn't have the adapter on hand either but I'd love to try it with my 40 2.8. Seems like it would fit well...

Quote
Here in Japan, I visited a photo gallery, and one of the gentlemen who's work was at the exhibition was toying with his M, attached to it was a massive (or with the small body looked that much larger) telephoto. He was taking pictures of me and a few others with it having some fun. For people with a wealth of EF lenses it would be tempting, but man, it doesn't stand out any less, is now awkwardly front heavy, and less controls + no VF would mean slower operation anyways... yeah basically what everyone's been saying, but I saw it happening in the wild!

No point in attaching a big lens to this camera. Defeats its purpose! May as well be using a DSLR.

171
Canon General / Re: EOS-M kicking butt in Japan
« on: November 03, 2012, 11:56:23 PM »
The appeal of this camera for me is quite simple: I'm all about image quality. And the M takes DSLR quality and stuffs it into a P&S body. It has a non-intimidating appearance (with the 22mm), which matters in certain environments. The SD950IS I currently use as my compact camera is no longer cutting it, since the gap in IQ has widened considerably since making DSLR lens upgrades...and if I can't bring the DSLR (for whatever reason) I still want good quality shots. This is where the EOS M comes in.

I was underwhelmed with some test photos I saw online...but changed my mind as soon as I got one and took some pics. The (test) photos I've taken so far with the EOS M - I can't tell a difference between them and my 60D pics. They look like they came out of a DSLR. It's actually more of a testament to the surprisingly good quality of the 22mm kit lens than it is the camera itself given that its sensor is identical to the T4i (and therefore you'd expect high quality given a good lens).

My 270EX II fits the M quite well - it is maybe a little on the large side compared to the tiny 90EX, but it is far more powerful, it can tilt and bounce - and it is the same price. No-brainer for me (plus it's a great pocket flash for the 5DIII as well).

What I like:

- Size & weight:

With the 22mm it's small, JUST shy of being pocket-size.

When the situation matters, it doesn't draw attention/suspicion like a big DSLR would but is still able to deliver on quality.


- Ease of use: The camera is really fun to use. It's straightforward and intuitive - for the most part.

- High image quality: Photos are basically indistinguishable from my 60D shots...and I use L lenses, too.

- AF Points: Plenty of AF points (31) means more freedom of composition, and less cropping afterward (if you can get close enough).

What I don't like:


- AF Speed: The speed of AF seems to depend on what mode the camera is in. While it is adequate in single focus, center point mode, in other modes it will hunt on occasion...and when it hunts, it can sometimes take several seconds. So basically, this is not an action/sports camera at all. It is fine for still subjects and portraits. Having said that, it is not nearly as bad as I thought it would be given how hard many folks on the internet were knocking it. It really is no worse than a Powershot camera if you're using the "FlexiZone-Single" focus mode.

- Lack of customization (compared to Canon's DSLRs): It would be nice to be able to customize the camera a little more- assign more buttons to functions (and not just the trash one). Perhaps change the layout of the touch screen based on how you use the camera.

Bottom Line:

I really like this camera so far. I'm still amazed at how a camera less than half the size of my 60D is able to match it in IQ. Of course, when it comes to photographing anything moving, faraway subjects, or low-light photography the DSLR will win every time. Can't wait to use it in a real-world situation (which will be in a couple of weeks).

172
EOS-M / Re: Hands on with the EOS-M at Photoplus
« on: November 02, 2012, 06:08:50 PM »
I finally got to use it today (with the 22mm "pancake" lens). Outstanding IQ! Can't tell the difference between it and my 60D/40 2.8. Honestly, it's that good...

Such a small, nonthreatening package. I can imagine bringing this to venues that might not allow DSLRs/big lenses and STILL be able to get high-quality shots.

AF seems to be on par with my P&S. Occasionally I notice it has a habit of hunting for several seconds before locking focus but most of the time it's actually reasonable. Even in a pitch black room I was able to focus in a little over a second, which is better than I feared. (My 60D in live view is completely nonfunctional in a similar situation) Where it loses in speed, though, it makes up for in accuracy. No front or back-focus to worry about- it's spot on every time.

For what I'll be using it for, it's good enough. If I need fast I've got the 5DIII anyway.


173
Cameras without a line through them I still own & use
Camera phones not included

1994 - my first camera (as a gift) plastic Kodak fixed-lens film camera
1997 - Olympus P&S film camera - I don't remember the model #, but I just remember shutter lag being tremendously long
2000 - Canon G1 (first digital camera)
2005 - Canon SD550

2008 - Canon SD950IS
2010 - Canon Rebel T2i
2011 - Canon 60D
2012 - Canon 5D Mark III

174
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 24-70 f/4L IS Coming [CR3]
« on: October 31, 2012, 12:01:06 AM »
I think this is an obvious replacement of the relatively old 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM to go along with the 6D.  I think it will definitely be smaller and lighter than the aforementioned lens (as well as the 24-105mm f/4L IS USM), and priced around $600 to compete with the Nikon 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 VR.  It would be the perfect kit lens for a first-FF DSLR buyer.  It would definitely have better IQ and IS than the 1998.

Think about a 6D buyer looking at the currently lineup of FF standard zooms:

28-135mm $450 alone (big, heavy, old, fair IQ)
24-105mm $970 alone $800 kit (big, heavy, very good IQ, somewhat expensive)
24-70mm II $2300 alone (big, heavy, superb IQ, more expensive than the body)

...and that is all your currently-available new (not used) Canon options

Replacing the 28-135 makes total sense with the first entry-level FF coming out in a couple months.  If the only option is 6D+24-105mm ($2900), it is more expensive than a D600+24-85mm ($2600), then Canon WILL lose customers, period.  A more affordable is needed, and the 28-135mm is not the solution.  A red ring and L in the name will elate potential customers (much better branding than Nikon's ED and gold ring designations).

That's a good thought. I never really considered it as a possible kit lens for the 6D, but that's the only way I see this lens making any real sense.

Again, if it's around the size of the old 24-85mm lens (or 28-105) and priced reasonably, we might have a winner, actually. A compact, lightweight EF zoom lens is missing from Canon's current line-up and this might be it. (then again, why not an update to one of those older lenses? More reach would be nice, for sure)

While they're at it, they should also consider putting out a smaller, lighter, non-L version of the 28-300mm lens. The L version (Canon's only FF super-zoom) is WAY too big, heavy and expensive for use as a walkaround...



175
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 24-70 f/4L IS Coming [CR3]
« on: October 30, 2012, 09:49:42 PM »
I find a few things interesting

1.  suddenly the 24-105, which used to be too slow, have too much distortion, and be a 'gimmick L' lens is getting a LOT of respect!  (I read so much crap about this lens that i held off buying it for years, and now that i have one i'm so happy.)

I was about to point this out too.  ;D

Yes...it really is the best compromise (i.e. all-purpose) zoom lens that exists for the Canon system, IMHO. The other zooms in a similar range are variable aperture, lack weather sealing & good build quality, and just plain don't deliver good IQ.

176
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 24-70 f/4L IS Coming [CR3]
« on: October 30, 2012, 04:27:20 PM »
Unless...you know, I've picked up an old, used 24-85. It isn't the sharpest lens but man, the SIZE is wonderful. If this new 24-70 is just as compact, they make the aperture constant, add in IS, and keep the price $800 or below, it could be an attractive option for those wishing to travel light. While the 24-105 is not a HUGE lens, it's definitely substantial on all but the biggest bodies (5D/1D series).

177
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 24-70 f/4L IS Coming [CR3]
« on: October 30, 2012, 04:16:55 PM »
I'm trying to wrap my head around such a lens, but I'm really having trouble doing so.

Is this supposed to replace the 24-105? Is the loss of reach (and no gain in aperture) balanced out by a corresponding increase in IQ?

I guess I would understand if it were a non-L version priced under $1K (a budget version of the $2300 24-70 2.8 ) but otherwise I'm just not too sure.

178
Lenses / Re: Travel lens\es on crop body
« on: October 25, 2012, 06:38:55 PM »
24-105, definitely.

The second lens would depend on if you want more wide-angle or you're a telephoto shooter. If you prefer wide, perhaps a 10-22 (although it is EF-S and not weather sealed, it is the only true UWA Canon lens for 1.6x). If you prefer tele, the 70-300L would be a great choice (or 70-200L f4 non-IS if on a budget).

179
Lenses / Re: looking for equivalent to efs 17-55 f/2.8 in EF line
« on: October 24, 2012, 10:35:02 AM »
It's blowing my mind how much better the 24-105 seems to be when mounted on the 5DIII as opposed to my 60D (or the T2i I had before)...it's like I unleashed its full potential.

I mean, it was still a decent lens on the 60D...but it just seems to come alive on the 5D. such a strange feeling...I've heard people on this forum and elsewhere rave about it and went ??? ...but now I understand...

____________

Anyway, having used the 17-55 pretty extensively on the 60D, I'd say the 5D with 24-105 is definitely a step up in quality, if you're in good light. In low light I'd consider the required raising of ISO to be more or less an equalizer in terms of quality. I find 60D 3200 = 5D 6400 for instance. 5D's 6400 probably still maintains a slight edge in my opinion, but you'd really have to view at 100% to tell a difference.

Most find the 24-105 a bit better on a crop.  Assuming, that is, that its a crop with AFMA fine tuning the autofocus.
I love my 24-105mm L on both my crop and FF bodies, its one of the few FF lenses that are supurb on crop bodies as well as FF.

I agree that it's a great lens on both types of cameras.

I will say that the 60D perhaps can get better all-around performance out of the 24-105 because you don't get the distortion at 24mm nor the soft corners at f4...

on the 5D, to ME at least, it becomes a much more versatile lens because 1) it goes wide, making it usable indoors 2) I find IQ around the center to be much better, 3) its superior high ISO capability makes f4 less of a crutch in low-light situations.

180
Lenses / Re: efs 15-85 or ef 24-105L
« on: October 24, 2012, 10:17:01 AM »
Quote
24-105 is not wide enough for APS-C.

Eh, depends on what you'll be shooting though. I found it was good enough outdoors...only if you do wide landscape shots will it seem inadequate. Indoors, it's a different story though- 24mm will not be wide enough for group shots in small to medium size rooms.

So...my thoughts- I'd say for general walkaround use, the 24-105 would be my choice. For indoor event photography I'd go for the 17-55 (which is what I used to have)...if you want to do both, and never plan to get an FF camera, 15-85 is a good compromise.

Personally, I didn't care for the 15-85 because of the variable aperture and lack of weather sealing for extensive outdoor use.

Pages: 1 ... 10 11 [12] 13 14 ... 22