April 25, 2014, 02:52:53 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 ... 13 14 [15] 16 17 ... 22
211
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 35 f/1.4L II [CR2]
« on: August 08, 2012, 06:49:42 PM »
Considering today's 35 f/1.4 is already superlative...what, aside from the price tag, will be different with the new one?

b&


The 35mm 1.4 was spectacular when it was released, now it's just average. It's so average in fact that a third party 35mm 1.4 Canon EF lens you can buy for $350 brand new is much better than Canon's own $1350 35mm 1.4, which is ridiculous:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=771&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=1&LensComp=121&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2

Just from that comparison I see the following that could be noticably improved:

-Corner sharpness
-Mid frame sharpness
-Severe Color Fringing

Here are some other factors which could be improved:

- Flare resistance (better coatings)
- mid frame and corner sharpness for meridonial detail stopped down
- Color fringing stopped down, it's plainly visible even at f/8.0
- Purple Fringing (I notice this in my copy)

Don't get me wrong even with all these problems the 35mm 1.4L is probably my favorite prime of all time ever, the combination of pleasing quality, focal length and aperture are amazing.

However if it were as good as say this, well... we can only dream.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=121&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=2&LensComp=458&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0


212
If you don't think there is a noticable difference between the 5DII and 5DIII sensor then maybe you could tell me if you notice a difference between these photos:



That's a back to back comparison with the 5D3 resized to 5D2 size. The 5D3 sensor has a significantly better AA filter and so produces sharper images.

Furthermore many of the people saying that the 5D3 isn't that much better in ISO are not comparing the cameras correctly in likely two ways. Camera manufactuers generally make up their cameras ISO ratings out of thin air. There are a few acceptable ways of rating ISO but most manufacturers chose the least regulated ones which so the manufacturer can essentially make up their ISO numbers as they see fit and when the 5D2 was released the ISO ratings were very optimistic to say the least with ISO 12800 being actually around what is commonly accepted as ISO 7000. With the 5D3 Canon has been less optimistic so ISO 12800 is actually a "true" ISO of 10000. The point is that people are comparing cameras using their RATED ISO which are on different scales not ISO measured on the same scale. It's like comparing a car going 0-60 kph vs a car that's going 0-60 mph, which doesn't make sense. The other issue is that after speaking to several Canon Techs and Reps, it seems that Canon specially designed the 5D3 to produce very low noise JPG's for photographers that have to shoot in JPG. Part of the innovation that they introduced was software but they also engineered the hardware to help in the process to make the noise coming from the sensor have far less speckle noise and have a very gausian distribution. This makes computer programs able to distinguish from the noise easier so when you apply noise reduction there is a slight advantage to the 5D3 of around a quarter of a stop more than the RAW data would suggest.


In any case here's a comparison between the 5D3 and the 5D2 rendered at the same resolution with the same ACR settings applied at a true ISO of 10084 for both cameras, this is a combination of a series of exposures using a method developed in consultation with the Cambridge Signal Processing Lab. I do consulting for a few camera review websites to develop testing methods and put this together for a project, with permission from all collaborators.

In any case feel free to spot the difference between the 5D2 and 5D3. :)



The 5D3 sensor is actually very advanced and has 0.55 stop advantage over the D800 in noise at higher ISO. Due to the fundamental technology that Canon uses in it's sensors, they cannot improve the low ISO performance very much.

213
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon's Next Full Frame Camera [CR2]
« on: July 16, 2012, 12:34:27 PM »
How does this make sense? Why would I want a $2000 plastic 5DII equivalent when I can have the real thing for the same money? And I don't believe there is any noticeable difference between the 5DII and 5DIII sensor. So what gives?



If you don't think there is a noticable difference between the 5DII and 5DIII sensor then maybe you could tell me if you notice a difference between these photos:



That's a back to back comparison with the 5D3 resized to 5D2 size. The 5D3 sensor has a significantly better AA filter that is more efficient in terms of preventing lost detail for a given level of moire reduction and so produces sharper images.

Furthermore many of the people saying that the 5D3 isn't that much better in ISO are not comparing the cameras correctly in likely two ways. Camera manufactuers generally make up their cameras ISO ratings out of thin air. There are a few acceptable ways of rating ISO but most manufacturers chose fringe methods which aren't widely respected so the can make up their ISO numbers as they see fit and when the 5D2 was released the ISO ratings were very optimistic to say the least with ISO 12800 being actually around what is commonly accepted as ISO 7000. With the 5D3 Canon has been less optimistic so ISO 12800 is actually a "true" ISO of 10000. The point is that people are comparing cameras using their RATED ISO which are on different scales not ISO measured on the same scale. It's like comparing a car going 0-60 kph vs a car that's going 0-60 mph, which doesn't make sense. The other issue is that after speaking to several Canon Techs and Reps, it seems that Canon specially designed the 5D3 to produce very low noise JPG's for photographers that have to shoot in JPG. Part of the innovation that they introduced was software but they also engineered the hardware to help in the process to make the noise coming from the sensor have far less speckle noise and have a very gausian distribution. This makes computer programs able to distinguish from the noise easier so when you apply noise reduction there is a slight advantage to the 5D3 of around a quarter of a stop more than the RAW data would suggest.


In any case here's a comparison between the 5D3 and the 5D2 rendered at the same resolution with the same ACR settings applied at a true ISO of 10084 for both cameras, this is a combination of a series of exposures using a method developed in consultation with the Cambridge Signal Processing Lab. I do consulting for a few camera review websites to develop testing methods and put this together for a project, with permission from all collaborators.

In any case feel free to spot the difference between the 5D2 and 5D3. :)




214
Lenses / Re: Canon's new 24-70 2.8L II ship date
« on: June 27, 2012, 02:53:32 AM »
Seriously people like you make me furious beyond all reason. If you look at the MTF graph at the tele end this lens has performance that is nearly identical if not better than the 100mm f/2.8 IS Macro, with the wide end only trailing slightly.

The 100mm f/2.8 IS Macro is one of the sharpest lenses ever made. It has around 60% more resolution than the 24-70mm Mark I. SIXTY PERCENT. The Mark II on the telephoto end should be as sharp in the extreme corners as the mark I was at the god damned center.

Can somebody plz point me in the direction of the MTF charts? I saw them a while back, but can't find them again.

Can't wait for this lens!!!

They're on Canon's website, here's a comparison I did of the MTF though between the 24-70mm II at the tele end and the 100mm macro. "better" means that the 24-70mm II is better, and worse means it's worse:

parallel to central axis: (overall: slightly worse center, slightly better corners)

 10 LP/MM:

  Wide Open: 0-15: equal 15-21: 10% better
  Stopped Down: 0-15: equal 15-21: 2% worse

 30 LP/MM:

  Wide Open: 0-12: 10% worse 12-20: 10% better
  Stopped Down: 0-12: equal 15-21: 14% worse


perpendicular to central axis: (overall: slightly better center, slightly worse corners, )

 10 LP/MM:

  Wide Open: 0-5: equal 5-20: 7% worse
  Stopped Down: 0-15: equal 15-21: 2% better

 30 LP/MM:

  Wide Open: equal
  Stopped Down: 0-5: 5% better 5-15: equal 15-21: 5% worse


Overall it seems dead even to the 100mm macro, in some areas it's better in some worse but it evens out.


215
Lenses / Re: Canon's new 24-70 2.8L II ship date
« on: June 27, 2012, 02:10:41 AM »
I am so bummed.  I just read that the lens is 82 mm.  None of my landscape filters will fit.  why did they do that :'(

Your response is the definition of a nitpick. If you look at the MTF graph at the tele end this lens has performance that is nearly identical if not better than the 100mm f/2.8 IS Macro, both wide open and stopped down, with the wide end only trailing slightly.

The 100mm f/2.8 IS Macro is one of the sharpest lenses ever made. It has around 60% more resolution than the 24-70mm Mark I. The Mark II on the telephoto end should be as sharp in the extreme corners as the mark I is at the center.

And you're complaining about a filter size... The lens is an amazing acheivement. If it bothers you so much stick with the mark I version. A fast zoom lens with the image quality of the 24-70mm F/2.8 Mark II is the stuff of myths and legends.

216
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 100-400 f/4-5.6L IS [CR2]
« on: June 26, 2012, 03:06:56 PM »
This had nothing to do with AF, it had to do with IS being pretty darned worthless on this lens, at least compared to more modern lenses.
Hmmm... Again not my experience. My daughter who is 5'3 hand shot the moon a couple of times on my 300D at 400mm and 1/60th. And the shots were sharp. Sorry you are not happy with yours.

I got about 50% at 1/60th and 300mm.  I get 90+% at 1/30th and 300mm on my 70-200 (with TCs).

That coresponds perfectly to the difference in the known abbilities of the IS system.

217
EOS Bodies / Re: NEW FF Body that is able to take EF-S Lens
« on: June 20, 2012, 02:11:44 AM »
When I switched to full frame I ran the calculations and found that for EVERY SINGLE EF-S lens from focal lengths 10mm to 250mm (16mm-400mm equivalent) it's full frame equivalent lens would be always substantially much better, almost always cheaper, could acheive better subject isolation with shallower DOF and be much much sharper. In fact full frame lenses typically have twice the resolution of their crop counterparts.

Example:

10-22mm vs 17-40mm =  lens is cheaper, has 202% the resolution,  has 1-2 stops shallower DOF and has a longer reach on the long end, and is weather sealed.

17-55mm IS vs 24-105mm IS = lens is cheaper, has 205% the resolution, has 0.5 stops shallower DOF, and is both longer and wider, and is weather sealed.

55-250mm IS vs 70-300mm IS = lens is only $150 more, has 186% the resolution, has 1-1.5 stops shallower DOF, is wider, but also only has 300mm vs 400mm of reach, HOWEVER it is so much sharper that cropping it actually results in a 6% sharper image which has shallower DOF.

18-200mm IS vs Tamron 28-300mm XR (full frame superzoom)  = lens is $100 less, has virtually identical resolution, has a 1 stops shallower DOF, is slightly wider but is slightly shorter (29 vs 28mm 320 vs 300mm).

Remember crop lenses need to have their focal length multiplied by 1.6 and 1.5 stops subtracted from their aperture to compare them to full frame lenses. So a 17-55mm f/2.8 lens is the equivalent of a full frame 28-90mm f/4.5.
 
The point is that there is zero image quality benefit and it would cost more to use EF-S lenses on full frame than their EF counterparts. It's pointless and engineering a body with this function would also be pointless.

Nikon's dogma as a company is compatabilty that's why you can use 50 year old lenses on their bodies which still work. Even if that compatability is pointless.

Keep in mind my argument is before you consider that you'd be working with very few megapixels if you were to make EF-S lenses compatible with full frame bodies. That really sinks the whole idea.

The only major argument for being able to use EF-S lenses on full frame is lens sharing. However if you actually study the possibility of lens sharing it's much better to share EF lenses between a crop and full frame than EF-S lenses between a crop and full frame.

EF lenses on crop tend to be about 10% worse in resolution than their EF-S counterparts.

So if you were to share EF-S lenses you'd lose 50% of your resolution just at the lens nevermind the megapixels on one body. If you share EF lenses you only lose 10%. I'm pretty sure most people would much rather have 10% less resolution than 50% so it's much much much better to only have EF lenses and share those with your crop than to have EF-S lenses and share those with your full frame instead of getting the EF counterparts. Enabling people to share EF-S lenses between their full frame and crop cameras would be pointless, as it's just giving them the option to have much worse and more expensive gear.

Hope that clears things up. If anything making EF-S lenses incompatible with full frame motivates people to not use EF-S lenses on full frame which is better and cheaper for them in every way.

Hope that helps.

218
Lenses / Re: Battle of the 50mm's (1.2L , ZE 1.4, ZE 2.0)
« on: June 19, 2012, 01:32:37 AM »
Hi All,
I've recently got my 5D Mark III, and got it with the kit lens, and in a months time I really want to pick up a good 50mm prime (I've come from film, and a good 50mm prime was the lens that stuck to my camera body the most), so I've narrowed it down to these three choices. I'm liking the 1.2L, as I was really quite impressed with the build quality of the 24-105 (I thought I'd hate it coming from all metal film lenses), and the fact that it has a bit of a larger aperture, and let's admit, it looks really nice too.

The other two options are both Zeiss, and I'm considering these due to their build quality (closer to what I was used to) and the fact they're manual focus only is a non issue for me, I'm quite used to it from when I shot film, and the 5D III's focusing screen is super bright, and very easy to MF in (even with the f/4 lens)

So basically, I'm just wondering what people who've maybe tried any of these lenses have thought and which you would reccomend :) I'm sure they're all fine lenses and I'll be just as happy with any, but would love to hear some opinions.

Thanks in advance all! :)




I would recommend getting a brand new Nikon 50mm 1.2 and using a Nikon to Canon AF confirm adapter.

http://www.adorama.com/NK5012.html

The Nikon 50mm 1.2 is the best 50mm lens ever made for image quality stopped down.



It's as sharp as the 50mm 1.4D is at f/2.8 at f/2.0. meaning it's "a stop sharper".

Here's a comparison between the 1.4D at f/2.8 (simulating the Nikon 50mm f/1.2 as it's not been tested by that website) and the Zeiss 50mm f/2.0 Makro which is the sharpest 50mm lens you've posted:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=637&Camera=614&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=3&LensComp=727&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

Simply put the Nikon 50mm 1.2 is equivalent to the following lenses at f/2.0:

Zeiss 50mm f/2.0: Would have to be at f/2.8 to be equally sharp
Zeiss 50mm f/1.4: Would have to be at f/4.0 to be equally sharp
Canon 50mm 1.2: Would have to be at f/4.0 to be equally sharp

It has substantially better image quality than any other 50mm lens out there stopped down.

With that said the Nikon 50mm 1.2 is average at f/1.2 and average at f/1.4 (there are better 1.2 and 1.4 lenses but it's not bad), it's just the best 50mm lens AT or BELOW 50mm f/2.0 and it's nice to have the abbility to go to f/1.2 even if it's second or third best at that.

On top of that the Nikon 50mm f/1.2 is built like a tank, it has better build quality than any of the lenses you listed by a huge margin, yes even the Zeiss lenses which most people can't fanthom being improved upon. It's build quality can be described as how a tank would be built if it were made by a swiss watch maker.

Anyways hope that helps.

219
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 14-24 f/2.8L [CR2]
« on: June 17, 2012, 05:33:30 PM »
This would be a seriously amazing lens to have from Canon.

Combine that with releases of a 35mm 1.4L + 50mm 1.4L & 135mm 1.8 L IS and I would be totally content.
Yes, but 50mm 1.4L?

1.4?

Maybe a 1.3, but no manufacturer has ever been able to create a sharp 50mm lens that's faster than f/ 1.4 for full frame. Canon would be well off to lower the aperture and increase the image quality like they did from the 50mm f/1.0 L.

220
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 14-24 f/2.8L [CR2]
« on: June 17, 2012, 04:09:44 AM »
This would be a seriously amazing lens to have from Canon.

Combine that with releases of a 35mm 1.4L + 50mm 1.4L & 135mm 1.8 L IS and I would be totally content.

221
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: So Nikon D600 is real after all
« on: June 14, 2012, 12:01:13 PM »
This camera looks exactly like a 5D Mark II clone with slightly more MP's and slightly better AF. Every other detail is equivalent.

222
Lenses / Re: He tells me: Compare these lenses and keep any you like!
« on: June 09, 2012, 08:54:29 PM »
I am new to "proper SLR" photography and would be grateful if you excuse my ignorance
I am in the process of complementing my "future" 5d3 with 3 lenses
This dealer is offering to sell me 2 of each lens I want at a reasonable price, try them, then return the one I don't like
Is that usual?
Is it too good to be true?
Hearing stories of Forum members, having to repeatedly exchange a lens they bought until finding a good sharp one, I am worried that I could end up buying a dud, probably without realising
During our face to face discussion, I told (FotoSklep) Polish dealer at downtown Warsaw (Poland) about my intention to buy 3 Canon L lenses. I live in south London (UK) and frequently travel to Poland
He tried to convince me that quality control at Canon would not allow a dud L-lens, and that the difference, if any, would be negligible.
He offered to sell me 2 lenses each (6 in total), allow me to compare, then return the ones that I do not like. He would also accept to refund me on all 6 if so I wished.
His lenses seem to be genuinely sealed Canon stuff
His prices are currently comparable (+/- 1% or 2%) to other local Polish Canon dealers, which are roughly equivalent to the cheapest I could get from a respectable "UK" internet dealer
I have no idea how to properly test lenses, or who could do that for me, and at what cost. Suppose this was sorted somehow, do you think I shall take up his offer?
p.s.:
I will pay by credit card, which offers some protection I suppose. He says that his canon lenses warranty is valid in UK


The stories you've heard of copy variation are exagerated to the point of ridiculousness on the internet. For every copy that someone got that was bad and they posted about there have been 20 others that have had good copies and not said a word.

Here's a list of lenses with major and minor copy variation for image quality:

Major:

- 24-70mm f/2.8 Mark I
- 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6

Minor (you would probably never notice it):

- 24mm f/1.4 L II
- 50mm f/1.2 L
- 400mm DO

All other lenses are incredibly consistent with almost no copy variation whatsoever at all to the point where images look 100% idential with nearly zero difference.

The only other copy variation is with autofocus which can easily be remidied with microadjustment or sending your gear in for calibration.

223
Lenses / Re: Advise please.. lens or body..
« on: June 09, 2012, 08:41:44 PM »
Hi, i am kinda new to photography.. Ive been shooting my 7d for about 2 yrs now.. Now i have been thinking about buying either a 5d mk iii or two lens 24-70 L and a 35 L..  Right now i have a 70-200 2.8 l ii and 85 1.2 ii and a 50 1.2... And my 7d... I ve been meaning to buy some lower(closer) lens because i dont have anything really in that range, but ive been wanting a full frame after using my friends 5d mk ii... What do guys think is best? Mk iii or 2 lens? Thx

Full frame will give you 1.5-2x the lens resolution of crop and 2-4 times less noise at the same DOF ISO and composition.

There is no question that going full frame will be much better than getting new lenses.

224
Lenses / Re: What to look for when buying a used lens in person...?
« on: June 09, 2012, 08:39:37 PM »
Ok, I've decided to go try maybe the 70-40MM f/4 lens I posted about earlier.

I'm supposed to meet him and examine the lens tomorrow (Sunday) and if it looks good....buy it for $500.

As you might guess...I'm a 100% noob. I got my first DSLR (5D3) last month.

I've never bought a used lens before...so, what should I look for when examining the lens? What kinds of questions should I ask?  As I understand it..this person bought the lens from someone else, so it is at least a 3rd party buy here.

I'm guessing to look carefully at the rear element for scratches? How much is too much? Front lens?

I'm bringing my camera to hook it up..and see how it works, but as a noob, aside from taking some shots to see if AF works....what else should I look for? I'm meeting in a public place....I figure smart for a high dollar item and cash transaction....etc.

Anyway...thoughts on buying a used lens from someone in person?

Thanks in advance, I truly appreciate all the input and advice I've gotten here so far...

cayenne

Canon stuff is generally bullet proof until you start doing physical damage to it, except for their micro motor USMs on older lenses (does not apply to the lens you're looking at).

Pretty much the only thing to worry about is physical damage. Check it for physical damage, especially bumps and dings, if that's good then check the glass. If that's good then all you have to worry about is the AF. Get a tripod, mount the lens on a tripod and then have it focus on a brick wall, wait until it locks focus and beeps if you have beep enabled then go into live view and zoom in and then adjust the manual focus ring to see if it's in focus, if you can get it any sharper the lens has focus issues, if not it's good. Do this at various focal lengths. Make sure to switch out of live view when focusing because the camera uses a different system to focus in live view where it just tries to guess and check the focus instead of phase detection.

If the AF and physical condition are good you should have no issues even with a lens 10 years old.

Hope that helps.

225
I noticed that both Canon and nikon do this and it's exclusive to their standard lenses. All the lens hoods are round and not petal shaped. Other manufacturers use petal hoods on their standard lenses so I'm guessing this is just a style choice.

I was wondering if there was any reason behind this choice or if it was just something they've done forever

Pages: 1 ... 13 14 [15] 16 17 ... 22