March 02, 2015, 12:25:20 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 - TWI by Dustin Abbott

Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 ... 119
91
Lenses / Re: Review: Canon EF 24-105 f/3.5-5.6 IS STM
« on: January 09, 2015, 01:05:46 PM »
... Also, Canon may kill off the 24-105L and the STM would be the de facto kit lens...

It actually wouldn't surprise me if Canon did just that. Especially, as jd7 wrote above, " if Canon can find a way to reduce copy variation and get the "average" 24-70 4L performing closer to its best performance."

I neglected to say Thank You to Dustin in my post yesterday for his review of the STM. I watched the video in its entirety, and fully appreciate how much work, time and effort it takes to produce a segment of such length and quality.

That is very kind.  Thank you, Jon

92
Lenses / Re: Review: Canon EF 24-105 f/3.5-5.6 IS STM
« on: January 09, 2015, 09:16:07 AM »
VERY nice review Dustin!  Since this is not a lens I need, it was great to read your thoughts on where this lens fits into Canon's future plans.

Excellent review Dustin.

I concur with your questions regarding why this lens was introduced and how it fits in Canons lineup.  With used and gray market 24-105L lenses selling for around $600 and 24-70/4 IS lenses selling for a few hundred more, this STM lens needs to sell for around $300 to be a value.  Even if it did, I don't see the market for it.  Most full frame buyers are going to invest in better glass.

Edit: OK, I just read the thread about the mystery DSLR (80D/FF Rebel).  If Canon is coming out with a budget FF Rebel or whatever, maybe this lens makes sense as a kit option. 

I'm on the same page with you both.  I don't think this lens makes a lot of sense right now; I am trusting that Canon knows what it is doing and that it WILL make more sense in their big picture.

93
Lenses / Re: Review: Canon EF 24-105 f/3.5-5.6 IS STM
« on: January 08, 2015, 07:43:55 PM »
I appreciate the discussion from everyone.  I think this lens is going to be a little polarizing because Canon is moving the STM technology out of the EF-S/EOS M sphere and into full frame lenses (most will agree that the 40mm Pancake was a different story for a lot of reasons).

I'm actually happy to hear the 24-70 f/4L have some ardent supporters.  Frankly, I hadn't seen evidence of too many of them!  For me, however, this is the biggest reason why the 24-70 f/4L still doesn't make a ton of sense:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=786&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=2&LensComp=823&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

I have to say that the tests (not necessarily his comments or star ratings at the end by any means, but all of the data in his plots) at photozone.de far more often match my own carefully tested findings than what I see at TDP.

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/798-canon2470f4?start=1
http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/420-canon_24105_4_5d?start=1

I've used two copies of 24-70 f/4 IS and about five of 24-105L and the photozone.de results are closer to what I saw. I was never satisfied with the 24-105L near 24mm for finely detailed edge to edge FF landscape work, but I had no issue with the 24-70 f/4 IS (although the 24 1.4 II and 24-70 II were a bit better). And the 24-70 f/4 IS shots of fine branches against clouds and such were so much freer of nasty longitudinal CA (never mind better lateral CA, although this is a bit more easily corrected) than the 24-105 L real world test shots.

I will say that the first 24-70 f/4 IS I tried, while better than the 24-105L, definitely was not as sharp anywhere in the border regions as the second copy, noticeable difference. So lens copy to copy variation is real. The first one also suffered more in the mid-range than the second copy (still not worse than the 24-105L, but maybe not any better at all for the first copy). So some may depend upon whether you get a poor copy or a really nice copy. From what I saw from my own careful tests (25' target, indoors with constant lighting, 6+ manual 10x liveview focused trials at each stage, refocused for mid-frame and edges) and real world snaps of tricky forest scenes my impression was that a good copy of the 24-70 f/4 IS is just simply quite noticeably, considerably, better at 24mm than the 24-105L. (Although I looked at it less, I also felt the same for 70mm, in fact the top 24-70 f/4 IS I tried actually did better FF 70mm edges than any 24-70 II I've tried (And that's a number of copies) although it wasn't quite ever with the biting mico-contrast center frame of teh 24-70 II and it's a bit more like the 24-105L micro-contrast there).

That's solid empirical evidence.  And, you are right, there is variation from one reviewer to another at times.  If you are happy with the 24-70, that's great.  But you are also right that this isn't about 24-105L vs. 24-70L :)

94
Lenses / Re: Review: Canon EF 24-105 f/3.5-5.6 IS STM
« on: January 08, 2015, 03:25:31 PM »
I appreciate the discussion from everyone.  I think this lens is going to be a little polarizing because Canon is moving the STM technology out of the EF-S/EOS M sphere and into full frame lenses (most will agree that the 40mm Pancake was a different story for a lot of reasons).

I'm actually happy to hear the 24-70 f/4L have some ardent supporters.  Frankly, I hadn't seen evidence of too many of them!  For me, however, this is the biggest reason why the 24-70 f/4L still doesn't make a ton of sense:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=786&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=2&LensComp=823&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

95
Lenses / Re: Review: Canon EF 24-105 f/3.5-5.6 IS STM
« on: January 08, 2015, 03:20:14 PM »
WHY WOULD'NT U GUYS BUY THIS LENS??
CAUSE ITS NOT WEATHER SEALED OR CONSIDERED A "PRO" LENS??
THE STM TECH IS VERY GOOD NOT JUST FOR VIDEO's BUT FOR PHOTOS THERE SHARP "NOT L LENS SHARP" BUT THEY ARE SURPRISINGLY CRISP AND GOOD I OWN A 55-250mm STM AND THE PIC QUALITY SHOCKED ME SHOOTING
TRACK & INFIELD THESE LAST SEVERAL WEEKS" GIVE IT A TRY IF NOT RETURN IT
there not weather sealed but there rain & cold proof enough for the job and just remember the only camera that support stm are the t4i,t5i,70D,SL1 and 7D Mark 2 maybe thats why the STM LENS ARENT GETTING SO MUCH LOVE?
Most people that says "STM focus is slow" is making an unfair comparison with much more expensive lenses.

The pancake 40mm STM has slow focus, but this is a compromise, due to the extremely compact mechanical, and is not the fault of STM engine. If you replace the focus motor for USM, the pancake 40mm could not do focus much faster, due to the movement of the front element during focus.

Even so hated 18-55mm STM is very fast focus. This new 24-105 STM can be a decent replacement for the old 28-135mm rest in peace.

STM motors are definitely faster than the old micro-motors that Canon's 18-55, 18-135, 55-250, etc... had.  The challenge for this lens is that it isn't replacing an older EF-S lens with newer and better technology; it is a full frame lens that shares a focal length with the 24-105L.  That is the natural comparison. 

STM focus isn't as fast as a good USM motor; there is a slight bit of lag before focus acquisition begins.  But it is certainly faster than the technology it is replacing and good enough for most consumers.

96
Lenses / Re: Review: Canon EF 24-105 f/3.5-5.6 IS STM
« on: January 08, 2015, 03:12:05 PM »
"Muddying the waters is the fact that Canon released a 24-70 f/4L IS about a year ago. In a confusing move, it was initially priced considerably higher than the 24-105L despite a more limited range and optics that were only marginally better. "

If "marginally" means "very considerably at 24mm or 70mm stopped down for landscapes" then I'd agree.

The 24-70 f/4 IS is lighter, smaller, focuses MUCH more closely, delivers considerably better IQ near 24mm (and at 70mm as well) for landscape shooting since it doesn't turn FF edges and corners to mush and you don't need f/18 to begin to make the edges look like the center, it has a lot less distortion at 24mm, it doesn't suffer from purple fringing nasties much unlike the 24-105L, the IS is better.

It doesn't seem like much of a confusing move to me.

"These lenses each seemed to be answering a question that no one was asking, however."

All I know is I saw comment after comment begging for a lens that could deliver top quality at 24mm for landscapes on FF (especially if it could be a zoom) and for a long time there wasn't anything in the Canon world and then there was the partial answer the 24 1.4 II (but at quite a price premium for those using is mostly just far stopped down and of course it's a prime and not a zoom) or the 24 T&S II (but a bit awkward if you also wanted a general use lens and again it's not a zoom). Then with the 24-70 f/4 IS (and 24-70 II and, if you could live without zoom and wanted the lowest cost option, the 24 2.8 IS) the answer was finally met.

So I don't at all know about a lens that answered a question no one was asking (regarding the 24-70 f/4 IS). I saw a ton of people asking the question.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=355&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=0&LensComp=823&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=0

I think your point at 24mm is valid, but at all other focal lengths the 24-70 is marginally better (and sometimes a bit worse).  There is also a thread here on Canon Rumors that is now 20 pages long of people sharing photos from the 24-105L and dialoguing about it, and the tenor of that discuss is mostly positive.

I would argue that the 24-105L being "good enough" is the reason that A) the price has dropped so quickly on the 24-70 f/4L and B) the Sigma 24-105 OS is currently off the production lines.

That being said, this review isn't about the 24-70 f/4L; it is about the 24-105 STM and where it fits in the Canon...errrr...canon 8)

97
Lenses / Re: Review: Canon EF 24-105 f/3.5-5.6 IS STM
« on: January 08, 2015, 12:38:08 PM »
This is not a lens that I would purchase....but this is a very thrurough review of not only the lens performance itself but also a great perspective of the lens and how the paticular price and technologies integrates (or doesn'!  :-\)into the bigger picture of the Canon Camera System.
Great review... it engaged me intellectually and what a BEAUTIFUL backdrop! Happy New Year!
Nice job Dustin and I am looking forward to the upcoming reviews that you teased us about especially the new 400mm f/4.0 DO IS II...Not that I can afford that lens, but it does appear to be a more affordable beauty of a beast!

Thanks for the feedback, and I think I share your opening sentiment.

I really enjoyed reading this review, esp. the "why" part.
Thanks, Dustin Abott.

Thanks.  I don't think at this stage you can really have a serious conversation about this lens without including that dialogue.

98
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Review: Zeiss Otus 85mm f/1.4 Apo Planar T*
« on: December 16, 2014, 12:54:55 PM »
Great review...wish I hadn't read/watched...LOL!
I am sticking with my 85mm f/1.2L II.   
Dustin...please do not do a comparison...just leave me in ever lasting ignorance!
That way I can still love the lens that I own.

That is pretty much the way I felt about my beloved 135L after doing the Sonnar T 135 review. 

100
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Review: Zeiss Otus 85mm f/1.4 Apo Planar T*
« on: December 16, 2014, 10:48:39 AM »
I don't expect to see one anytime soon. I expect that I will get the Sigma Art 50, which is very sharp wide open, as I don't need the extra 5% of Zeiss goodness.  I am contemplating the Zeiss ApoSonnar 135, which is both sharp and bokehlicious. But really, lens pron is fun but not what I need to be thinking about from a photographic learning standpoint. Gear is good enough, by and large. Yes, if you have a 6D, the S screen is a HUGE help in focusing manual lenses - I have some old soldiers from the 1960s that I am using (with adapters) for interim, until I fill in a few holes in my EF range of lenses (I have EF-S lenses). I need to learn external lighting (Speedliteing), and need eventually to add another speedlite and stand/clamps and decent-sized reflector and grids and a softbox and radio triggers to my basic 580EXII, correction gels, StoFen dome, Rogue Flashbender reflector/flag/add-on diffuser panel, and one nano stand.

I agree that the Sigma is probably an easier choice for many photographers, but believe me when I say that in terms of absolutely image quality it is (while better than other options) not in the same league as the Otus.  The only lens that comes close to the Otus performance is the Sonnar 135.

I would say it is more than an extra 5%, but also agree that it may be more than many photographers need.  Still, it is stunningly good and has (unfortunately) required me to take a step back and recalibrate my mental expectations before reviewing other lenses.

102
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Review: Zeiss Otus 85mm f/1.4 Apo Planar T*
« on: December 13, 2014, 10:00:21 AM »
One other noob'ish question...

The bokeh on this lens seems really smooth and soft.  As opposed to the bokeh I get on my cheaper lenses which is very "computer pixelly"...Is that generally a sign of a quality lens?

The bokeh is exceptionally good from the Otus, yes.  There are some much cheaper lenses that produce very nice bokeh, however.  The most notable is the Canon 135L.

I'm not quite sure what you are describing, but if you are shooting with narrow aperture zoom lenses (f/5.6) you frequently will not have much subject separation and your backgrounds will look more busy.  This is less true with longer telephoto lenses, as f/5.6 can be a very narrow depth of field at longer focal lengths.

103
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Review: Zeiss Otus 85mm f/1.4 Apo Planar T*
« on: December 13, 2014, 08:22:13 AM »
I was on a presentation about the new Zeiss and I can say that this lens is not from my league.

Here is one picture with Otus 85 1.4 on EOS-M :D (1920x1280):
http://www.nonchoiliev.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/IMG_3172_.jpg

That must have been a very interesting balance!  I never put the Otus on my M.  I've got the Zeiss Distagon 15mm right now for review from Zeiss - I'll have to throw it on my M just for the fun of it.

104
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Review: Zeiss Otus 85mm f/1.4 Apo Planar T*
« on: December 13, 2014, 08:19:30 AM »

And! Do not judge your ability to manually focus by trying manual focus on an AF lens. That is a totally different thing.

Worth repeating.

A dedicated MF lens could have ~270* of rotation on the focusing ring while a Canon EOS EF lens will have significantly less.

Makes a big difference.

Exactly.  The worse lenses to manually focus, though, are STM or other focus by wire lenses (Canon 85II is similar).  I hate the disconnected feeling and the lag of focusing with those.

I'm reviewing the 24-105 STM right now, and it is still there.  Of course, I'm also reviewing the Makro-Planar 50mm f/2 at the moment and when you add the macro range onto a manual focus lens it feels like you could focus at day before getting to infinity!  I think I'll keep my 100L Macro!~

105
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Review: Zeiss Otus 85mm f/1.4 Apo Planar T*
« on: December 13, 2014, 08:14:52 AM »
I'm surprised at the Depth of Field in the sample shots.

At F1.4, I would expect there to be *zero* DOF... but the DOF was surprisingly...deep.


Is that a function of the lens?  the full frame camera?  distance to subject?  Or is it my lack of understanding how DOF works?  :\

The further the subject from the camera, the greater the DOF will become - but it's all relative when compared to other apertures.

Is there something that says all sample images were shot at 1.4?

I Was referring to the images in the review video.  Most of them are labeled.

The landscape image at f/1.4 was shot at a distance of 75-80 feet away.  The depth of field of an 85mm lens at f/1.4 at that distance is slightly more than 20 feet.  If you reduce that distance to the subject to 7 feet the depth of field becomes only 2 inches.  With most lenses this doesn't really matter - shooting infinity subjects at wide apertures is a joke, but the microcontrast, resolution, and lack of CA on the Otus line makes shooting wide open infinity subjects a reality.  That was part of what made the lens so unique.

Here's an image I haven't shared before.  Wide Open, medium distance (about 50 feet).  Dead branches against a blown out sky.  This is wide open (f/1.4).  Check out #1)  the great detail in the tree (and contrast in this high contrast setting and B) the utter lack of chromatic aberrations/fringing in a scene that would be full of them with many lenses.  I have not applied any profile to correct anything.  It is a conversion from RAW only (I did remove a distracting power line from the sky)

Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 ... 119