July 29, 2014, 03:29:51 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 - Zv

Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 ... 78
91
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.

92
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.

93
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

94
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.

95
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!

96
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.

97
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.

98
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.

99
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


100
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 ...


101
Lenses / Re: Before you buy your next prime...
« on: May 08, 2014, 12:03:34 PM »
It was a close call for me yesterday, but I got the TS-E 17 in the house.  I threw it on the camera and told my wife I wanted to take some pictures of the house because she had it decorated so pretty :).  She looked at the lens oddly for a second but I told her that I rarely use this one because, "It's not exactly a portrait lens" and that's why it looked a little strange.  She's not stupid, though, and she probably knows I'm up to something...

I'm sure it's not the first bulbous end she's seen!  :P

102
I like the sound of the 16-35 f/4 with IS. A lot of my wide angle stuff is done while on vacation and without a tripod I'm usually cranking up the ISO quite high to maintain a decent amount of dof. I wouldn't be too bothered by the loss of 5mm on the long end if I did trade up my 17-40L for this anyway. The 24-105 has that covered.

I feel like there have been quite a few wide angle zoom rumors that something is finally going to emerge from it.  :D

The EF-S one doesn't seem all that great an idea, so it has less range than the current 10-22mm plus it's slower with a varying aperture through 8mm of zoom range? That seems stupid. What's the plus here? Just Image stabilization?

APS-C users already have one stabilized lens with a 24mm equivalent fov in the form of the 15-85mm f/3.5 - 5.6 IS USM.

If I really needed an APS-C wide angle with stabilization wider than 24mm, I'd go with the EF-M 11-22 f/4-5.6 because if you don't have a tripod then chances are it's because you're moving around a lot or saving space.

103
Lenses / Re: Before you buy your next prime...
« on: May 07, 2014, 02:31:21 AM »
I have always just bought lenses as I needed them. No strategy, just common frickin sense!

Even with just 6 FF lenses that I have now it feels like I have too much choice and redundancy. I'm always looking for ways to combine and reduce my gear and I could probably survive with just 2 zooms but then again ..... where's the fun in that? Gotta have a couple of fun lenses in the bag I reckon!


104
What's to prevent other companies from patenting their lighting secrets? Pretty soon we'll have no way to legally light a subject!

I mean, does the DMV have a patent for ugly and harsh lighting? If not I'm taking that one. Think of all those on camera pop up flash shots that are taken every day! I could make a fortune!  ;)

What about the sun?  :o

105
Thousand Thanks to all of my dear friends.
Yes, I just get the new/ Awesome/ Cheap Rokinon FE 14 M-C 14 mm. , F/ 2.8 Yesterday, And I Start to use this Baby, and fell in love with her Sharpness at F= 2.8, to F = 11, And just set  Manual focus at 6 Feet( Put the Electrical tape to not let the focus ring move) and get the most awesome Photos for super wide angle.
Yes, I will post and share the photos with you to see with in 2-3 days, Because This week, I am so busy at my work in my office.
Yes, Dear Friend, I will have DIY for filter holder , for this Lens for you to see and laugh at , too.---Yes, It work for me, And I only use the Part/ Equipment that I already have---You will love this DIY.
Have a great work week.
Surapon

Yes! I can't wait, I love this little lens and all it needs is some filters to make it even more awesome (yeah I know Samyang make their own ones but I want a Surapon DIY one!).  :)


Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 ... 78