April 25, 2014, 12:22:45 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 - Radiating

Pages: 1 ... 9 10 [11] 12 13 ... 22
151
Lenses / Resistance to Larger Filter Size, Kills Great Lenses?
« on: February 02, 2013, 02:44:56 PM »
It's well known, based on patents, photographs of prototypes and confirmation by Canon reps themselves that Canon did not release their frontrunning 24-70mm f/2.8 IS prototype because they thought people would resist the 95mm filter size. I really don't understand this at all.

Is filter size really that big a deal to you guys? It seems like many people would trade their left kidney for this lens, but god forbid you have to buy new UV filters and polarizers. The Nikon 14-24mm, Canon 14mm f/2.8 II & the Canon 8-15mm fisheye, and sigma 50-500mm, along with many of the supertelephoto lenses either don't use filters or use huge ones and people love those lenses.

Is Canon right in thinking such a lens was had a front element that was too big, are photographers really that thickle? People complained hugely about the 82mm filter size of the 24-70mm f/2.8 II alone so I wouldn't be surprised.

152
Lenses / Re: 100mm 2.8L Macro IS as a portrait lens
« on: February 01, 2013, 03:02:07 PM »
Quote from: ChilledXpress
I am going to purchase a prime lens in the 85-135mm range, mostly for portraits and indoor shots on my 6D.
I already have a 70-200mm 2.8 II, but I often don't want to lug all that weight around.

I've been leaning towards the 135L, but recently have been thinking about buying a 100L macro for roughly the same cost as the 135 and using it for portraits and tightly framed indoor shots.  The 100L's macro capability would just be a nice plus I probably wouldn't use that much.

My concern with the 100L macro for my intended use is that I've heard it is soft beyond 10-15 feet.  I certainly need a lens that is capable of sharp pictures at longer ranges than that.  Does anyone who has used this lens have any comments or experience to share?

Since portrait and general purpose shooting is my primary need, should I just skip the macro lens for now and pick up the 135L?  I imagine I'll own both lenses eventually, but it might be 6-12 months before my next lens purchase.


The 100mm macro has harsh bokeh past macro distance. It should never be chosen as a portrait lens.


This is the same guy who say this about the 100mmL...
Quote


The 100mm macro has harsh bokeh past macro distance. It should never be chosen as a portrait lens.

I wonder about your "reviews"... so far you couldn't be farther from the truth. I call total BS.


I did extensive and even obsessive testing and sought out multiple sources to confirm my findings for that conclusion. Just because your baseless oppinions conflict with my well researched ones, doesn't make what I say BS. In fact it makes you extremely foolish.

The fact that the 100mm f/2.8 IS Macro has harsh bokeh past macro distances was confirmed by no less than two Canon reps when I was testing this lens as a portrait lens. Canon's stance is that this lens has harsh bokeh as a result of it's tuning for macro purposes. The bokeh is tuned to be the most pleasing as macro distances and becomes harsh past those distances as a tradeoff.

In fact the 100mm macro is tuned in every conceivable dimension from it's most basic design to be very specifically used primarily for macro work, and as a result has tradeoffs.





Here's a comparison at an identical focal length and aperture. Notice how the OOF highlights look like laser beams, and the background is generally the opposite of buttery, but instead very crunchy and contrasty? That crunch is a result of the tuning the lens underwent to maximize macro detail, I'm told, which gives it extremely strange spherical abberations at normal focal lengths that are generally considered unacceptable. I'm not saying that this lens cannot be used to take good portraits, I've seen plenty of good ones taken with it, and I've even taken great portraits with it, I'm just saying that it should not be your first pick. (And might I remind you that that oppinion is echoed by Canon)

153
Lenses / Re: Have you one of the new 24-70 f4 canon lenses, Is it good
« on: February 01, 2013, 02:58:56 PM »
I like the 24-70mm f/4 IS very much.  I originally bought the f/2.8 MkII, it is a fantastic lens, however I need the IS for low light event shooting.  But, back to the subject at hand, while I had the 2.8 MkII I rented the Tamron, in my opinion, not as good as Canon.  When the f/4 came out, I rented it and compared it to the f/2.8 and "for what I need" the f/4 was the winner and I returned the f/2.8 and bought the f/4.  All comparisons done on a 5dMkIII.

Price was not the issue, the new hybrid IS on the f/4 allows me more than enough room to make up for the one stop difference and I get all the benefits of IS (yes, I give up one stop of DOF, but check out the DOF calculator - it is minimal).  Where in the world these folks are coming from saying the 24-105 IQ is better than the 24-70 f/4, either don't own the 24-70 f/4 or they are trolls.  The IS on the 24-105 is old 2nd generation and does not hold a candle to the new 24-70 f/4 and 70-200 f/2.8 MkII.  This hybrid IS is rock solid.

I just wish the naysayers would come out and honestly say whether they have actually shot with the lens or not.  Further, on an actual shoot and not shooting a bunch of test circles.  (I have never been paid a penny for test shots).  Finally, I need IS and it is my money, so don't critisize me for my shortcomings (unless you are willing to pay good money for it).

I love Canon products and applaud them for offering a wide range of great products with a wide range of price points.  Finally, if they introduce a f/2.8 IS, I would strongly consider buying it just because I can!

Every single person who has made a claim that this lens delivers poor results, except for lens rentals, has shot with it AND shot test charts. I think if you get excited about something you can get a sort of placebo effect where you think something is better than it is. My initial impression was that this lens was way better than my old lame outdated 24-105mm, but then I sat down, and shot test charts and was shocked to find out that it was worse, way worse at the focal lengths I use most and then I started to notice all the flaws in my photos from it and I realized I just bought into the hype. I know of at least 3 other reviewers who returned this lens and have similar stories of assuming it's better because it's newer or buying into the hype only to later relealize that the lens wasn't really so great.

Test charts aren't some mythical thing that's far removed from reality, it's just taking a regular photo of a subject that is designed to make it easier to judge the flaws of a lens. You can do both a visual and computer analysis, but the visual analysis doesn't lie. If the lens makes bad photos of a brick wall, or black and white flat pattern, it's going to make bad photos of a building, or the grey and purple sweater your subject is wearing.

Granted in your situation slightly newer IS will be better as you have a second lens I'm assuming you're carrying for the focal range past 70mm, but likley you will experience identical image quality overall, unless you favor the extremes of the zoom range over the middle.

Look I wanted to like this lens, I really did. I love my 24-70mm f/2.8 II and wanted an f/4.0 Hybrid IS version of it, but this lens just doesn't deliver. It's just a different flavor of 24-105mm that has a huge markup.

154
Lenses / Re: Have you one of the new 24-70 f4 canon lenses, Is it good
« on: January 31, 2013, 10:18:20 PM »
I am considering getting a 24-70 f4 to replace my 5 year old 24-105 to use on a 5D3. has any one got one and are you pleased with it.

The 24-70mm f/4.0 IS is a hyped up lens and for most purposes peice of junk if you don't need the macro. Many review sites confirm that it has boarderline image quality in the middle of the zoom range. Both the-digital-picture.com and lensrentals confirm that it is very poor in the middle of the zoom range, and that's after testing just under 30 copies. Lens rentals downplays it's performance in the middle of the zoom range, but it's actually worse at 50mm than the 24-105mm is at 24mm, and most people complain about that lens at 24mm. In fact it has the lowest single average score with multiple copies tested and averaged at 50mm than any other pro normal zoom. It's so bad that no matter how much you stop it down at 50mm, it will never be as sharp as the 24-105mm is at 50mm wide open, because it hits the diffraction limit before the IQ becomes anything less than extremely poor.

This lens is so incredibly bad at 50mm, that the old entry level non-pro 28-135mm IS that has very poor reviews is actually much much better at 50mm f/4.5 than this lens is at 50mm f/4.5. Which is a serious acheivement for a pro lens.


I purchased a copy and did an extensive comparison with over 600 shots of a test target and after doing both visual comparison and computer analysis from 24-70mm the 24-70mm f/4 had EQUAL image quality to the 24-105mm, if not slightly worse on average. It was much better at 24mm, much much worse at 50mm and around equal at 70mm. To say the least it went straight back, I don't need a lens that has worse image quality, costs nearly twice as much and has only 2/3rds the zoom range.

I know of at least 3 people that have purchased this lens on hype and returned it. Besides that it's a terrible investment as Canon is sure to drop the price over 30% in the next 6 months as they have done with every new release in the last year. While the 24-105mm has a virtually fixed price.

This lens WILL be better for you if you want macro, need a slightly smaller and lighter lens (very slight) or shoot at 24mm and 70mm more than 40mm,50mm, & 60mm, but again it's twice as much and slated for a huge price drop.

155
Lenses / Re: Please explain the need for f2.8 zooms
« on: January 30, 2013, 10:03:12 PM »
The standard lens requirement for shooting events/weddings seem to be a combination of 24-70/28 and 70-200/2.8, I read both are nailed to a pro's camera 90% of the time (though I have problems doing the maths :-))

A lens with a larger aperture afaik has three advantages: better af on some bodies, better subject isolation/creativity (just one eye in focus) and last not least a "fast" lens is required for "low light" shots.

My question rose when I read the great book "Captured by the Light" by David Ziser who - believe it or not - writes that f4 to f5.6 (for convenience or added safety) is his bread and butter setting for posed candid wedding flash shots, and he used the 5d2 at that time.

Question: So according to this f2.8 is more important for available light and movement shots, but if that was case with the 5d2, I'm confused why still seems to be still valid with the 6d even though it's about 1 stop better ... either f2.8 was borderline in the past, or f2.8 - 1stop = f4 would be sufficient now - or am I missing something here?

Disclaimer: Please forgive slight traces of irony, this ia a real question because I don't entirely understand the issue, it's great people get whatever gear they like for any purpose they want.

The minimum for capturing action on what I've found to be typical indoor light is:

1Ds Mark III/5D Mark II + f/2.8

OR

5D3/6D/1DX + F/4.0

The thing is that f/2.8 on a 5D Mark 3 gives you more flexibility, you aren't at the limit, so you're more comfortable.

The zoom range let's you frame shots better, and bokeh at f/2.8 is right at the boarderline between overpowering and pleasant.


So in the end f/2.8 on a newer full frame body is the optimum setup for getting a wide range of shots. Now shooting a f/2.8 lens at f/4.0 will often deliver sharper images than going with an f/4.0 lens to begin with so there is a disadvantage  to going f/4.0 to begin with, and you have less flexibility (as you don't have the option of f/2.8).

Going to an a prime that's faster than f/2.8 limits you because there is no zoom, you want SOME zoom if however small it is just so you can get framing right.
F/2.8 tends to be a good "all around" range. You have zoom, bokeh, and a comfortable amount of motion stopping without flash.


Personally I have a collection of the following lenses:

24-70mm f/2.8 II
24-105mm f/4.0 IS (for landscapes, still life and other times where IS helps more than f/2.8 because there is no motion to stop and for when I don't want the onion bokeh or focus shift of the 2.8 II)
70-200mm f/2.8 II

Sigma 35mm 1.4
Canon 50mm 1.4
Sigma 85mm 1.4


24mm TS-E + 1.4x TC & 2x TC  (35mm TS-E & 50mm TS-E)


Ideally I'm looking to pick up a Canon 200mm 2.0 too

156
Seriously, nobody needs that many low quality PS cameras that make no changes to image quality at all. Their pro cameras get 2 body releases per year, and their amateur DSLR gets a yearly refresh.

Can anyone explain this? Is it just a to trick consumers into thinking a  largleystagnant technology is improving with more bloated features that do nothing?

Feel free to discuss.

157
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon's Roadmap for 2013 [CR2]
« on: January 28, 2013, 12:00:17 PM »
Surely they wouldn't price it above the 6D?

Of course they would ...

Of course they wouldn't.

The 7DII will be cheaper than the 6D. That's for sure.

There's a reason the 6D is named '6D': to signify that it is positioned above the 7D.
The marketing message here is that a FF camera is a always a step up from a crop camera, regardless of specs.

This message is needed to assert the premium-ness of FF; without it, it's hard to charge a (hefty) premium for FF.

Canons latest strategy has been to markup all new products 30% for the first 7 months. I predict the 7d will go for $2000, msrp, and sell for a minimum advertised price of $1800 at launch. Making it cost $100 less than the 6D

158
Canon General / Re: Why did you choose Canon?
« on: January 27, 2013, 05:03:15 PM »
Prior to 2005 I owned both Nikon & Canon, whichever seemed to do the job, in 2005 I sold my Company & retired, decided to get seriously interested in Photography, looked at which system offered the best all round benefits, Cameras in 2005 seemed much the same Nikon D70s or Canon 5D, but what directed me towards Canon were the Lenses, I didn't feel at the time Nikon had the same range or quality of Lenses, so I went Canon 5D & later to the 1 Series. Although I now have 1Dx, 1DMKIV, 5DMK3 & 5DMK2, I also recently bought the Nikon D800 to replace my 5DMK2 system for my Underwater Photography, seems to work well, crappy write speed of course, but the 36MP has some advantages, but the Menu system seems to have been put together by a Delusional Monkey on Crack Cocain.

Just waiting for Canon's large MP camera & I can get back to all Canon gear, at the end of the day though they are really just Tools, but you tend to make your bed once you get into the Lens side, not hard to jump ship on a couple of Camera Bodies, but a 100k on Lenses ?? I'm with Canon for the long haul I guess.

I will echo Nikon's terrible menu system designed by a delusional monkey on crack cocain. It's much less user friendly, but both get the job done.

159
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon's Roadmap for 2013 [CR2]
« on: January 27, 2013, 05:00:06 PM »
<div name=\"googleone_share_1\" style=\"position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;\"><g:plusone size=\"tall\" count=\"1\" href=\"http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=12748\"></g:plusone></div><div style=\"float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;\"><a href=\"https://twitter.com/share\" class=\"twitter-share-button\" data-count=\"vertical\" data-url=\"http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=12748\">Tweet</a></div>
<p><strong>What’s coming this year<br />

</strong>A very reliable source has told us what Canon has planned in 2013 as far as product launches go. This is looking to be a slower year for new Canon products, especially when compared to 2012.</p>
<p>None of this includes new Cinema EOS products.</p>
<p><strong>Cameras<br />

</strong>There will be 3 DSLRs launched in 2013, two of them will be “entry level” and one will be “mid level”. The two entry level cameras will probably be a new Rebel and a 70D.</p>
<p>The midlevel camera is probably the EOS 7D Mark II. This camera will get its own launch festivities sometime in the second half of 2013 we’re told.</p>
<p>There will also be one new EOS-M body, which is a pretty logical step forward for the platform.</p>
<p><strong>Lenses<br />

</strong>4 new EF lenses will be launched in 2013, there was no mention of exactly which lenses it would be. We all know the usual suspects, and everything points to a new 100-400L and that would sit nicely next to a new 7D.</p>
<p>We’re hoping to get a more detailed breakdown of the upcoming lenses soon.</p>
<p><strong><span style=\"color: #ff0000;\">c</span>r</strong></p>



Predictions:

100-400mm f/4.0-5/6 IS L - same image quality at f/4.0 as the old 70-200mm f2.8 L  IS Classic (better than the current version but worse than the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS)

50mm f/1.8 IS

35mm 1.4 L II (Sigma beater)

14-24mm f/2.8 L

160
Canon General / Re: Why did you choose Canon?
« on: January 26, 2013, 09:28:56 PM »
It is interesting to hear stories why people choose Canon when there are a lot of other firms? Nikon, Pentax, Sony...

I personally was always interested in photography and was shooting quite a lot when I was young with analog cameras Smena and Zenit- E (Soviet type cameras). My first digital camera was P&S Sony bought in 2004, however, i was not satisfied with its quality (at that time analog cameras quality was much better than digital).

In 2007 I acquired Canon G7 which was able to produce better quality photos comparing to other P&S cameras. Finally in 2012 I decided to buy DSLR and definitely choose Canon as they had more attractive design comparing to Nikon and much bigger variety of lenses (I always admired L class white lenses, which in my mind was always associated with superb quality). I never Pentax, Sony or other firms. Currently I am happy with my EOS 7D, however, have plans to move to FF (of course, that would by 5D Mark III). That's why my almost all lenses (except for EF-S 18-135) are compatible with FF cameras.

It would be interesting to hear your stories why you choose Canon.

I have no qualms about switching brands at any second. My primary reason for sticking with Canon is this:

1. The 5D Mark III has around 1/3rd to 1/2 a stop less noise than the d800, I can use that as noise is a constant battle for me.
2. The colors on the 5D Mark III are nicer in my back to back testing.
3. The 24-70 II and the fact it's an f/2.8 APO lens that's sharper than a prime.


That's all.


161
Lenses / Re: 100mm 2.8L Macro IS as a portrait lens
« on: January 25, 2013, 12:37:21 PM »
I am going to purchase a prime lens in the 85-135mm range, mostly for portraits and indoor shots on my 6D.
I already have a 70-200mm 2.8 II, but I often don't want to lug all that weight around.

I've been leaning towards the 135L, but recently have been thinking about buying a 100L macro for roughly the same cost as the 135 and using it for portraits and tightly framed indoor shots.  The 100L's macro capability would just be a nice plus I probably wouldn't use that much.

My concern with the 100L macro for my intended use is that I've heard it is soft beyond 10-15 feet.  I certainly need a lens that is capable of sharp pictures at longer ranges than that.  Does anyone who has used this lens have any comments or experience to share?

Since portrait and general purpose shooting is my primary need, should I just skip the macro lens for now and pick up the 135L?  I imagine I'll own both lenses eventually, but it might be 6-12 months before my next lens purchase.

The 100mm macro has harsh bokeh past macro distance. It should never be chosen as a portrait lens.

162
Lenses / Re: Canon 50mm 1.4 IS?
« on: January 19, 2013, 04:57:38 PM »
This is definitly fake, thepaint  texture pattern is identical to the 35mm.

If you look at 50mm lenses though they are generally horrible for image quality. Take any 50mm lens from Nikon, Lecia, Zeiss, Sigma, and they perform as well as most primes perform at f/1.4 when they're set to f/2.5-f/2.8.

If this lens was f/2.0 or f/1.8 it wouldn't matter as long as it was as sharp at f/2.0 as current lenses are at f/2.8.

I would really love to see a 50mm IS with round aperture blades and a focus on extreme image quality across the focal range, it would be amazing.

163
Lenses / Re: I want a 135mm 1.8 IS L
« on: January 18, 2013, 04:42:58 PM »


Just as an asside Nikon has a patent on one possible design for this exact lens:

http://nikonrumors.com/2012/03/09/nikon-135mm-f1-8-lens-patent.aspx/

This is actually a very interesting design because it has very high distortion, 2%, yet it is extremely sharp and has no CA whatsoever both in the APO sense and otherwise.

As long as someone is listening at Canon it shouldn't be especially challenging to make this lens.

164
All full frame pro lenses:


16-35mm f/2.8 IS - Based on the specs this should be even sharper than the existing 16-35mm f/2.8, but much more expensive.

http://nikonrumors.com/2013/01/09/nikon-patents-for-16-35mm-f2-8-vr-lens-dual-lens-hood.aspx/

135mm 1.8 IS - This lens would not be especially hard to manufacture and is in bad need of an update.

http://nikonrumors.com/2012/03/09/nikon-135mm-f1-8-lens-patent.aspx/

55-300mm f/2.8-f/4.0 IS  - This particular way of making this lens has f/2.8 until 140mm!!, doubles as a 77-420mm f/4.0-f/5.6 with a 1.4 TC  - 5 ED elements!!! If it were good it would be very exciting.

http://nikonrumors.com/2012/11/13/nikon-patent-for-a-55-300mm-f2-8-4-full-frame-lens.aspx/

50mm 1.2 which isn't soft like the current Canon version:

http://nikonrumors.com/2010/02/07/there-is-a-patent-for-a-new-nikon-af-s-nikkor-50mm-f1-2g-lens.aspx/

Yes I know these are all from Nikon Rumors, but I hope Canon is watching them and responds.

These would be profoundly amazing

165
Lenses / I want a 135mm 1.8 IS L
« on: January 16, 2013, 03:51:47 PM »


Canon needs to make this lens, now.

Pages: 1 ... 9 10 [11] 12 13 ... 22