November 24, 2014, 10:41:16 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 - Zv

Pages: 1 ... 15 16 [17] 18 19 ... 88
241

Theoretically, IS should help in those situations.  But, I have done extensive testing with the Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS USM and found otherwise - and the 35 IS USM uses a very recent revision of IS, probably the same revision as the one in the 16-35 iS.

What I found was that though Canon's IS does work great on or above shutter speeds of 1/30 (such as with the 70-200), it is very unreliable below that.  In fact, I found little to no improvement of my handheld "hit" ratio with very slow shutter speeds and the 35mm IS USM; sometimes IS completely failed to stabilize the shots, and often when it did it remained overly soft bordering on blurry - I did not see any real advantage to using it with 35mm and very slow shutter speeds, a monopod/tripod was night and day better and far more reliable for wide focal lengths and very slow shutter speeds.  IS did have use for video and panning shots on the 35mm, though - it worked quite well in these areas.  I assume the same limitations will hold true for the 16-35.

I have no experience with the 35mm f/2 IS but it sounds like the IS system may be faulty if you are not seeing any difference. You should be getting sharp shots at 1/8th at least. How slow did you go with your testing?

What image-stabilized wide angle Canon do you have experience with?

There is nothing wrong with the IS system, I use it for panning shots all the time.

I tested from 1/30 all the way down and in between to 1/2, as Canon claims the IS system had the equivalent of 4 stops stabilization - which would be around 1/2 for a 35mm.  The bottom line was the the IS system was unreliable at 1/15, 1/8, and especially below that while the pics were usable, they were definitely blurry compared to a monopod and not much different than with IS disabled assuming halfway decent technique.  This is different than with the 70-200 where the IS truly works as many stops as advertised.

I also noticed the same behavior with the 28mm IS when I had it, the IS simply is not as effective at very slow shutter speeds.

Yeah I agree that the stabilization effect is more noticeable with a 70-200 than with the wider focal lengths but with my 17-55 @ 17mm I was getting fairly sharp useable shots at 1/8th and that has an older version of IS. The 24-105 has pretty decent IS too. Even the old 18-55 kit lens did alright.

What I find is that while IS cannot truly replace a tripod or monopod it does reduce the amount of camera shake to the point where it is at least acceptable for web use. The shake is still there and likely most of it from the mirror which makes me wonder actually ... I know the 70-200 IS has an anti mirror slap vibration function, maybe the 35 doesn't have that so there is a limit to how effective it can be?

242
I'll assume this is a genuine question and not just trolling. I'll give you a couple of scenarios. First, taking photographs inside a dark cathedral. Few would allow the use of a flash (and flash probably wouldn't light the space attractively or effectively), many would discourage a tripod/monopod, and most are very dark. I was shooting in Southwark Cathedral last year and even at f/1.2 I needed ISO 6400-12800 for some shots. These were static subjects and therefore IS would have helped massively (and allowed a more useful narrower aperture). Second, I often hike for long distances with lots of equipment (for birds mostly), but occasionally I also want to photograph landscapes I see along the way. I rarely want to carry a tripod because it's extra bulk and mostly I don't need it. Stopping down for landscape shots to f/10 say, IS helps with handholding for the longer exposures required. It depends on the light, of course, but this is what I do with the 24-104, and it works for me. So there's two examples.

Theoretically, IS should help in those situations.  But, I have done extensive testing with the Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS USM and found otherwise - and the 35 IS USM uses a very recent revision of IS, probably the same revision as the one in the 16-35 iS.

What I found was that though Canon's IS does work great on or above shutter speeds of 1/30 (such as with the 70-200), it is very unreliable below that.  In fact, I found little to no improvement of my handheld "hit" ratio with very slow shutter speeds and the 35mm IS USM; sometimes IS completely failed to stabilize the shots, and often when it did it remained overly soft bordering on blurry - I did not see any real advantage to using it with 35mm and very slow shutter speeds, a monopod/tripod was night and day better and far more reliable for wide focal lengths and very slow shutter speeds.  IS did have use for video and panning shots on the 35mm, though - it worked quite well in these areas.  I assume the same limitations will hold true for the 16-35.

I have no experience with the 35mm f/2 IS but it sounds like the IS system may be faulty if you are not seeing any difference. You should be getting sharp shots at 1/8th at least. How slow did you go with your testing?

243
with that tag price of 300 usd.. i'd rather spend a little more and get the tokina 11-16 ( $420)

yeah i know the 10-18 comes with IS.. but still, useless for a wide angle

I love this logic - so you want to pay MORE money for LESS range, a bulkier and heavier lens without IS (which is apparently useless anyway)?  :o

Yeah, I mean like who would ever buy a wide angle lens with IS? Deja-vu ... Didn't we do this when the 24mm f/2.8 IS and 28mm f/2.8 IS were announced? Remind me what 18mm is on a crop?  ::)

They scoffed at the notion then but it seems to be selling quite well so it can't be all that useless, can it?

Oh .... and hands up who here would love to have the little EF-M 11-22mm lens? On many peoples wish list, and why is that? Super small compact UWA lens with IS? Oh yes please!  ;D

244
I must say I just love, love the level of knowledge and the eagerness to share.

I'm a little confused about Lee filters though and was wondering if somebody could just educate me please?

1. The vignetting mentioned in earlier posts at longer focal lengths, is it software removable or is it the actual adaptors that enter the frame?

2. Would a current filter system work with a 12-24 or 14-24 or would a new system need to be developed, based on the dimensions of the front element?

3. Can a filter system be 'adapted up'? Say you purchase a 77mm system and your next lens has a 82mm thread, would a step up 82mm adaptor make the 77mm usable?

4. Kinda similar to question 3. So I can buy a 16-35ii now for a good price and I'll then invest in a Lee system. But if Lee had to create an unique system for the 12/14-24, does that mean having to buy a whole new filter system again?

1 = mechanical elements in the FOV.  Not correctable through lens vignetting algorithms -- more like a clone tool fix, but I am a rookie with using these.  Others may have slicker tricks.

2 = the kick in the butt.  Apparently around 15mm (FF) focal length, most manufacturers give up on front-filterability and the Lee system will not work.  So if you are using Lee (there are alternatives), their 100mm system is the one most of us use (for the 16-35 II, 24 primes, 17-40, many Zeiss wides, etc.)  Well, apparently Lee thought the Nikon 14-24 was worth engineering a specialized workaround for, and they made the SW150 system just for that lens: (http://www.leefilters.com/index.php/camera/system-sw150).  As I understand it, it's not as fully functional as the 100 system as it doesn't support something important.. was it a CPL?  It's something non-trivial for landscape folks.

3 = as stated my someone else, you get adaptor rings for the lens' filter diameter.  That's really the only added cost once you've invested into the system.  $50-60 or so if memory serves.

4 = See #2.  The Lee 100mm setup is for front-filtering lenses only.  That generally means you are locked out of the fun on lenses with a wide end under 16mm or so (FF, I mean).  You could hand-hold certain items in front of wider lenses, but depending on the FL, a 4"x6" (i.e. 100mm) filter may not be wide enough to cover the entire FOV.  The next time you have a wide angle lens in your hands, look down over the top of it and imagine the comically wide V of the field-of-view, then imagine how big the flat things in front of it need to be when you get 15, 25, 35mm away from the front element.  So a lot of really wide angle shooters (say, with the 16-35), have to thin up their Lee holder to only allow one creative tool instead of stacking two or three.

- A

I know the 17-40L has this feature but I've never ever heard of anyone using it - gelatin filters that slide in at the rear of the lens. Obviously useless for CPL but could this work as an option for ND filtering? Has anyone had experience with this kind of thing? Seems fiddly.

Could Canon make the 14-24 or whatever with some kind of rear drop in filter option like the super teles? Or is that idea just whack?!

245
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Advice on a upgrade from the Rebel XS
« on: May 14, 2014, 09:48:37 AM »
I think maybe what OP is experiencing is shutter lag. I noticed this on the rebel T2i. I'd see something like a person making a funny expresion and by the time the camera took the picture the moment was gone. I got frustrated and bought a 7D for it's speed but 99% of my shots were in One Shot mode. The 7D has very little shutter lag and as long as you have a decent CF card you'll not be waiting for ages to take your next shot.

I'm not saying buy a 7D but buying anything above the rebel line will show improvements in speed and useablity. With good timing a 6D should suffice. I find the 5D 2 to be just fine for most things. It hasn't let me down yet. I can only imagine the 6D to be even better, especially in low light.

I think investing in a good USM lens will also help you. After that try using back button focus technique to speed things up and to be always ready!

Good luck!

246
I wonder, will they introduce a 16-35mm f/2.8L III  (without IS) in a year or so just to tease (and tempt) us?  ;D

I don't think Canon will bring out another f/2.8 unless it is something amazing, like the 200-400 1.4x to counter the 200-400 Nikkor.
Now what could that awesomeness be?
1. An amazingly sharp lens wide open. (very likely)
2. A very wide FL, at least 14 but maybe even 12. (quite likely, 12mm possible)
3. IS on a fast lens. (unlikely, IMO)
4. A 12/14mm that takes filters. (very unlikely, IMO)
5. Any other suggestions?

I don't know .. i see the 16-35/2.8 II as the only weak link in what is a pretty nice 2.8 and 4.0 three lens set.

you have the 16-35/4, 24-70/4, and the 70-200/4 - all pretty darn good lenses, modern and should scale up well with higher res senors.

the 2.8's are the same . but what this.. oh yeah the ugly duckling .. the 16-35/2.8 II

I wouldn't be surprised to see this updated if/when the hi rez body comes out.

My thinking is that Canon will make something new like a 14-24 or 12-24 f/2.8 instead of just updating the 16-35 II. If you think about it from a marketing point of view making a version 3 of the same lens is like saying "oh man, it took us three attempts to get it right! Doh, but here you are now!" Or they can be like "hey, look here's something completely new that we cooked up" to help you forget about the version 2.

Also, now with this new 16-35mm f/4 IS anyone needing this particular focal range but not the f/2.8 aperture in a way already have an updated option.

247
Smart moves by Canon. As an enthusiast I will speak to the entry level Canon gear. Canon greatest competitor to their entry level gear is not Nikon or Sony, it’s the smartphone. How is Canon responding? Very well in my opinion.

It was just over a year ago that Canon announced the 18-55 IS STM lens. Then came the 55-250 IS STM lens. Now the 10-18 IS STM lens. All entry level, all very affordable, and as for the 18-55 and 55-250, a huge improvement over their predecessor.

All lenses have STM. An improvement over micro-motor for stills and awesome for video.

All lenses are rear focusing with no rotation or extension while focusing. A huge improvement when working with a CP filter. They also have full time manual focus in some form. These focus characteristics where only found in much more expensive lenses.

Assuming the 10-18 is at least as sharp as the 18-55 and 55-250, all these lenses have great IQ for the price.
So in a matter of a year and a half Canon has significantly improved its entry level line up of lenses.

The next move is to put a DPAF sensor in a Rebel. That Rebel kitted with 10-18, 18-55, and 55-250 for about $1200 would be a killer kit.   :D

I agree, with an SL1 and these three EF-S lenses plus maybe one small fast prime like the 35mm f/2 IS it would be an ideal travel around the world kind of kit. You could fit that in one small backpack easily.

I think the EOS M system could use a 55-250mm lens too.

248
Newbie for AWA . I just bought the 17-40 F/4 during the 15% off last week. I am not sure if I need to keep it or return based on this announcement or just buy a lens like Samyang 14mm (with manual focus).
Shoot her in F4 F5.6 F8 and see if the image is good enough for your use. If you want to print large sizes, I imagine it will be a little disappointing in F4, but must be sufficiently sharp in F11.

I have both the Samyang 14mm and 17-40L and after some testing of both I found my copy of the 17-40L to be rather good from f/8 - f/11, which is where I use it most often. At 17mm the image is sharp and even the corners look acceptable to me. I love the Samyang but the bottom left corner of my copy is softer than the others even stopped down. But the overall IQ is great for the price.

I'm gonna wait for the price to drop on the 16-35IS a bit, maybe in about a year once I've saved up and in the meantime shoot with what I have. I think you should just get the Samyang anyway, it's a really fun lens!

Link to some pics taken with the Samyang - http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=20898.msg395994#msg395994

249
Lenses / Re: What about those lens weights?
« on: May 13, 2014, 10:51:04 AM »
It depends what I'm doing and where I'm going. On vacation I take most of my gear but for small trips and just day to day stuff I'm finding the EOS M is handier. There is something refreshing about being at a party and shooting casually with the EOS M and 22/2 lens. It leaves space in a small bag for other things like a flash and some radio triggers!

I have no issues with the weight of my FF lenses though, I actually like them to be a bit sturdy and meaty! All my L lenses seem to be a good size and fit comfortably in the hand. I wouldn't want anything heavier than about 800g though as the combined weight of all the lenses would be annoying when traveling. So yeah I'd say there is a balance between getting good image quality and how big and heavy I'm willing to go.

250
Wow... I really don't get Canon's pricing, especially at today's exchange rates.

The EF 16-35L F4 is $1550 USD here in Japan
and the EF-S is $460

America will remain the cheapest place to get lenses.

Don't worry that price should come down after the initial pre-orders are fulfilled. The 16-35 is on amazon.jp for ¥149,688 right now with the 10-18 for ¥42,228.

Though I agree that it's total BS that it's frickin made here and it costs more than it does to buy it in the U.S!

251
MTF looks nice but when will they update these older L lenses?

1998 - EF 35mm f/1.4L USM
2004 - EF28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM
1996 - EF 135mm f/2L USM
1998 - EF100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM
1995 - EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM   
1996 - EF180mm f/3.5L Macro USM
1997 - EF300mm f/4L IS USM
1993 - EF 400mm f/5.6L USM
1993 - EF 1200mm f/5.6L USM   
1996 - EF200mm f/2.8L II USM
1999 - EF 70-200mm f/4L USM

The EF 16-35 f/4L IS supplants the 2003 - EF17-40mm f/4L USM.

Where is the EF 14-24mm f/2.8L USM that rivals Nikons or an L version of  TS-E45mm f/2.8 & TS-E90mm f/2.8?

In one way they already updated the 70-200s on this list when they added IS to them  ;)

The 1200mm was a one off, highly specialized, rare and expensive beast, you can't really put that one on the list since no one is expecting it to be updated. (Are they??)

The 200mm f/2.8 is rarely talked about, I guess they could stick IS in there and improve the optics but then you might as well just buy the excellent 70-200LII.

I agree with the rest though. That updated 100-400 was promised to us "after the 200-400 starts shipping in decent numbers." So that was just BS?   :o

I think the 28-300L isn't going to be replaced.
Why do you think the 300 f4IS needs replacing?

I also don't see the 35L being replaced soon. Later it will have amazing IQ, nine curved blades, weather sealing, and cost north of $ 2k.

I don't think the 300 f/4 needs replaced right now I was just eliminating the ones that probably won't ever be replaced. Maybe at some point in the future we'll see a refresh to the 35 1.4 too. I don't know much about the 28-300L but you're probably right about that one.

So that long list is really just down to the 100-400, 180 macro and 400 5.6 replacements that are overdue then.

252
I agree with the rest though. That updated 100-400 was promised to us "after the 200-400 starts shipping in decent numbers." So that was just BS?   :o
I'm angling on a revised 135 & 100-400 or 400/5.6.

Gave up on a 35/1.4 as I love my 40/2.8 pancake and and I just do much macro much.
but the 135 will be f2.8 an have IS added... sooooo not much point really since the 70-200 f2.8L IS II exists and you already have one don't you?

If it was f/2 with IS I would consider it but yeah I don't think it would go down too well if it was f/2.8 and IS. What would even be the point of that unless it was a non L dirt cheap STM plastic mount version.

253
You do realize that was a 38lb lens that cost around $120,000 ... right?

I'm sure the list of people that would welcome it would be close to nil.
20+ years of R&D can significantly lessen the weight and what people can and cannot afford really isnt any of our business.

So what? Let's say they shave 5 or even 10lbs from it. My guess is you still wont be handholding it and it will still have a front element the same diameter. That size of front element alone requires huge crystals that take about a year to grow!

Also it would be more economical to stick a 1.4x tele-convertor onto an 800mm super tele instead to give you 1120mm if that's the reach you need.

254
MTF looks nice but when will they update these older L lenses?

1998 - EF 35mm f/1.4L USM
2004 - EF28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM
1996 - EF 135mm f/2L USM
1998 - EF100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM
1995 - EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM   
1996 - EF180mm f/3.5L Macro USM
1997 - EF300mm f/4L IS USM
1993 - EF 400mm f/5.6L USM
1993 - EF 1200mm f/5.6L USM   
1996 - EF200mm f/2.8L II USM
1999 - EF 70-200mm f/4L USM

The EF 16-35 f/4L IS supplants the 2003 - EF17-40mm f/4L USM.

Where is the EF 14-24mm f/2.8L USM that rivals Nikons or an L version of  TS-E45mm f/2.8 & TS-E90mm f/2.8?

In one way they already updated the 70-200s on this list when they added IS to them  ;)

The 1200mm was a one off, highly specialized, rare and expensive beast, you can't really put that one on the list since no one is expecting it to be updated. (Are they??)

The 200mm f/2.8 is rarely talked about, I guess they could stick IS in there and improve the optics but then you might as well just buy the excellent 70-200LII.

I agree with the rest though. That updated 100-400 was promised to us "after the 200-400 starts shipping in decent numbers." So that was just BS?   :o


255
I welcome IS in a UWA. There are loads of advantages that aren't as obvious right away like when you start using filters that eat up one or two stops of light such as a CPL. We've all been there where you go from outdoors to indoors, go to take a shot and realize the polarizer is still on!

Also, I dunno about you guys but I'm shaky even at 1/50s which if we are to rely on the 1/focal length rule should be OK for 35mm shots handheld (using last decades low res camera??). I've found myself shooting at 1/10s @ 17mm and still having to bump up the ISO to get a decent amount of DOF for sunsets and blue hour shots. IS sure woulda been nice there!

There might be some who like to shoot HDR handheld or exposure blending in which case this could be just the ticket?

Second curtain sync flash also comes to mind ...


Pages: 1 ... 15 16 [17] 18 19 ... 88