July 28, 2014, 02:34:29 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 2 [3] 4 5 ... 21
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 16-35 f/4L IS Sample Images
« on: May 21, 2014, 03:50:00 PM »
Interesting, thanks for the samples.

Just wish it was 2.8, that's all. Maybe that's coming later. The existing 16-35 2.8 I find to be just OK, plagued by super-soft corners even stopped down (seems like this phenomenon is worst at infinity focus). In fact, the quality drop-off from center to edges can be striking sometimes...

But...at least it gets to 2.8 for usability indoors. That's enough for me to keep it for now. Although...admittedly I'd sooner grab the 24-70 for events...

I'll wait for reviews first. The thing is though, already having an M/11-22 on top of the 16-35 2.8 wouldn't make this an attractive option for me. But I am curious to see how it performs. The 11-22 is quite good. If this new lens can match that on an FF sensor, that's a good thing.


Don't see it being an upgrade path for 16-35 2.8 owners though. Now, perhaps a 14-24 might be something to look at.

Well, those 2 lenses are targeted at different markets.

The 24-70 f/4 is targeted at the lower end of the market where IS (shooting at slow shutter speeds or have shaky hands) and wants closeup/short 'macro' operation with fairly good image quality, but not top end.

You may be interested to know that I have a friend and colleague who must be one of the most financially successful photographers in recent times - we're talking $400,000 yachts here, all genuinely from photography - and he now uses a 24-70 f4 IS.

It's inaccurate to say it's not aimed at 'top end'.

I'm tempted to say the 24-70 f2.8 II is aimed as much at very wealthy hobbyists as much as professionals who want the best possible IQ straight off the camera but I don't have any hard evidence for this, so I'd better not  ;)
Or it could be that the 24-70F4 and the 70-200F4 are targeted towards outdoors shooters who have to carry their gear a long way. Realistically, there is no IQ difference between the F4s and the F2.8s,  the trade-off is weight for speed.

Sadly, in my experience that's only the case with the 70-200s (the 4 and 2.8 are both spectacular and you just pay for speed) . However, the 24-70 f/4 just isn't on the same level as the 2.8 version...sorry to say. Other than IS, I find it to be optically inferior (at least the ones I've tried) in almost every aspect (except maybe at 24mm). In particular it is quite underwhelming around 50mm. Maybe that's an optical compromise Canon had to make in order to fit the Macro feature in...otherwise I am sure they could have made it every bit as good as the 2.8, perhaps even better. This is not to say it is a bad lens...but I do think it is overpriced (I expect better at $1.5K price point - if it were $800, it would be an excellent alternative to the 24-105) and other lenses offer much better price/performance ratios.

I haven't had this exact experience, but there have been many times where people pick different shots out of a set than I would have. Or, a shot that I find to be just OK ends up being favorited. Sometimes it's fascinating. We all have different tastes ;)

Lenses / Re: 135L v 85 1.8
« on: May 03, 2014, 02:25:03 AM »
I used to have the 85 1.8, but ended up selling it (among other things) to get the 70-200 2.8. Don't regret it, although I did miss the 85 on a couple of occasions. I got a good deal on a 135 about a year ago as well.

Now I have the 100 f2 (great little lens to couple with the SL1 for "discreetness") and I find it to be a hair better than the 85, specifically in handling purple fringing. The 85 at 1.8 I think is the worst case of PF I've ever seen during my DSLR shooting days. However, both the 85 and 100 can't match the performance of the 135 or the 70-200 (can't expect them to). Softness wide open, PF hold the former 2 back. However, I find that all 4 focus VERY quickly - fast enough for sports use.

EOS-M / Re: EOS M Lens survey - your favorites, and your most wanted?
« on: March 25, 2014, 03:18:03 PM »
I have the M and all 3 of the EF-M lenses.

I find I use the 18-55 most with it (mostly work use), but paired with the 22 the M really becomes an excellent pocket companion to a DSLR setup when I'm shooting for fun - and unlike a P&S, actually provides images with comparable quality. So I'd say the 22 is my favorite.

But often times, 18mm is not wide enough for certain landscape shots...this is where the 11-22 comes in. However, I've yet to use it outside a test session I conducted when I first got the lens. I think that may change, though.

I USED to have a list of lenses I wanted, but now I just use my DSLR...picked up an SL1 on the cheap and at least I can count on those needs being fulfilled by existing EF lenses...if/when Canon decides to finally commit to the EF-M line, we'll see what happens. A macro lens should be next...

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS M2 Not Coming to North America
« on: December 03, 2013, 08:09:29 PM »
Sounds like it's only a minor upgrade anyway. It doesn't even have the 70D's dual pixel technology, so no big loss as far as I'm concerned. I do have the original M.

Lenses / Re: 70-200mm F 2.8 IS 2 VS 70-200mm F4 IS
« on: November 19, 2013, 07:49:49 PM »
I used the 4 for a couple of years and it's a great lens. Loved it.

But - there came a point where I needed that extra stop and it was time to step up. Too many events I was shooting called for a telephoto lens indoors. Struggled with ISO at f4 (on 1.6x)...traded up to the 2.8 and don't regret it one bit. In fact, that is one of my most frequently used lenses especially now with an FF camera. Yes, the extra weight can be burdensome (even somewhat painful at times) but when I look at the pics afterward, I know that it was totally worth it!

Lenses / Re: 16-35 2.8L II - Is it really THAT bad ?
« on: November 18, 2013, 10:33:46 AM »
Generally speaking, it's good...not stellar but it works.

Only problem is...FF corners NEVER get sharp - at any aperture.* Center and mid-frame resolution is decent however.

*Seems to depend on the shot, actually. When most of what you're shooting is in the same plane or close enough, it's fine. However, landscapes with both far and near objects...struggles mightily, more so than any other lens I have. 

Lenses / Re: Canon 40mm f/2.8 Lens: Thoughts? Reviews? Is it worth getting?
« on: November 15, 2013, 12:35:54 PM »

It's small! Easy to carry around.
It's very affordable.
For the price it delivers very good IQ, even at 2.8. And since I have experience with some highly regarded L lenses, my standards for IQ are high...


No IS (but that would make it bigger, of course)
Tendency to back-focus slightly at moderate distances (if your body has AFMA, you can correct for this somewhat...or you can use Live View if accurate focus is critical)

Recommended...the price/performance ratio is really hard to beat.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Any reason to choose a 7D over a 70D?
« on: November 14, 2013, 12:33:04 PM »
Sports and fast action shooting...ESPECIALLY if you shoot Raw. Switching from a 60D to a 7D, the biggest difference was the SPEED. While I frequently maxed the 60D's buffer during shooting, I never had to wait for the 7D. In fact, I found that I was taking so many more shots that I had to watch my memory card space!

However, I found high ISO/noise handling to be slightly worse (files required more processing to look good) and therefore a step back. The 60D was already noisy in low light as it is. That was disappointing and I hope for (much) better in the 7D2.

EOS-M / Re: 18-55mm EF-m IS STM experiences
« on: October 30, 2013, 03:15:09 PM »
Know what this system really needs? A fast 50-ish mm lens. Perhaps macro.

A telephoto sounds like a good idea but I wonder how compact they can actually make it. Perhaps if it's like the 11-22 (extends out to use) they might be able to keep the size down, but...

EOS-M / Re: Mount EF, EF-S or L lens on EOS-M --- Your thought???
« on: October 30, 2013, 03:08:21 PM »
I've used it with the 40 2.8 a couple of times. No point in putting anything much larger as I may as well take my DSLR (which is far more responsive, no shutter lag, etc.)

Reviews / Re: Review: EOS M System
« on: October 15, 2013, 11:19:33 PM »
In good light the M produces excellent images.  In mediocre light it does OK.  In poor light, well, let's just say it isn't full frame!

Pretty much all you need to know about the M - in just 3 sentences!  ;D

Although there is a noticeable difference in low-light performance with the 22mm vs. the 18-55mm.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 21