Messages

31

Reviews / Re: Review - EF 24 f/1.4L II

« on: March 22, 2013, 12:07:26 PM »

Justin's reasons for selling his 24 match up well with why I never got one.

Most of the time that I'm looking for 24mm, I'm almost instinctively reaching for the TS-E 24. And I'm not looking for speed at those times.

I think most people would be very happy with either the 24 f/1.4 or the TS-E 24, but I don't think very many would get a lot of use out of both. They're both 24mm L lenses, yes, but they're not at all interchangeable and have no overlap except focal length. One might think that therefore there'd be room in the kit for both...but, as I see it, if you're happy with the one the other isn't going to interest you much except as a very expensive novelty.

And I couldn't be more thrilled with the TS-E 24....

Cheers,

b&

I think the 24L II's utility depends on whether one shoots primes or zooms.  I see it as competition with a 24-70 or a 24-105 (zoom vs. prime).

In this I disagree. I have a multi zoom/prime kit, and the only zoom that I've seen produce a "look" like the 24mm prime is the new 24-70 ƒ/2.8 L II, wide open. It would, I think, complement someone with a 24-105, since that lens isn't particularly sharp at 24mm and starts at f/4... you're missing a lot of bokeh at that aperture.  One of the reasons behind my original purchase of the 24 .14 was that I thought I could use it's shallow depth of field to isolate subjects in busy environments that I couldn't control.

My only fault there was that I didn't account for my own inability to properly focus the damn thing.

32

Reviews / Re: Review - EF 24 f/1.4L II

« on: March 22, 2013, 12:03:50 PM »

How would you compare the 24 against the new Sigma 35 for portraiture?
I'm currently using the Canon 50 f/1.4 on a APS-C body, and while it's great, it is a little too long for indoor work, unless you are doing tight crops.
So, if you wanted a wider lens to complement your 50 (x1.6 = 80) for portrait work, would you go with the Canon 24L (x1.6 = 38.4) or the Sigma 35 (x1.6 = 56)?

If you're sticking with APS-C you might also want to consider Sigma's 30mm f/1.4, it's a solid performer, maybe not "pro" quality, but I owned it for a while and got really good use of it. Or maybe even the 40m f/2.8 (it's sharp and low cost).  The Sigma 35 f/1.4 is pretty remarkable, look for my review very soon.

24mm isn't particularly flattering for portraiture, environmental work, like weddings of photojournalism, where you want to isolate a subject within an "area" are definitely great uses for this lens, and yes, also very good on a crop body, even avoiding a lot of the lens "flaws" like vignetting.

33

Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 85 f/1.2L II

« on: March 17, 2013, 12:59:49 PM »

I love the 85mm focal length.  What this review really needs is an update that includes comparisons with the Canon f/1.8 and the Sigma f/1.4.  Even if only because the review asks the question:

"Practically, how does f/1.2 hold up against 1.4? Is the lenses [sic] $2,000 price tag justified? After all, Canon shooters have the option of a Sigma 1.4 at half that price, and the Canon 85mm f/1.8 for about $500."

...but doesn't actually answer it.  Just some constructive feedback there.

I own the Sigma 85mm lens and it's beautiful.  The thought of buying a non-Canon lens (especially one as expensive as the 85mm f/1.4) made me squirm initially, but my hesitation was unwarranted.  Perhaps I got lucky - I haven't had any focus or quality issues with mine (used on a 5D III and 1V).  Yes the minimum focussing distance isn't great, but none of the 85s do particularly well in this area.  The Sigma also features the very versatile 77mm filter thread, whereas the f/1.2L uses a 72mm thread.

If the Canon were the same price (or thereabouts) as the Sigma, I might have bought it, but at twice the price?  Not a chance.

Questions that I'd love to answer!  Just need to get some of those other lenses.  I've worked briefly with the Canon 1.8 and Sigma 1.4 - not enough to pass judgement on them - I did find the Sigma focus was way off on the copy I tried, and needed major micro-adjustment to "hit." The Canon 1.8 gets it done, but not in any significant or "wowing" way, it's a very compact lens, though, and there's advantages to that as well.

Thanks for bringing your experience into the forum!

34

Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II

« on: March 09, 2013, 06:46:52 AM »

I'm going to order this  lense (70-200) ... show I wait? I see it's almost 2 years old - is Cannon to release a new version?

Thanks!
Mojo

Yah, this *is* the update. Nothing to replace it any time soon.

35

Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 85 f/1.2L II

« on: March 09, 2013, 06:45:37 AM »

The vignetting
I use the 85L on a 1D Mark IV (1.3x) and it's fine. I really think it's not noticeable on a APS-C (1.6x) sensor body. 85mm x 1.3 gives a nice 110mm, almost like old times 105mm portrait lens.

While I'm glad to see you enjoy the lens, and a 1D Mark IV (I like those as well), I do need to point out that indeed there is a lot of vignetting at f/1.2 to f/1.6, even on a 1.6x crop camera.  This can be "corrected" of course, but it's there.

I have no doubt that if there is ever a version 3 of the lens, it will also have noticeable vignetting even on a 1.6x crop camera.

None of that is necessarily unusual for such a lens, or should discourage anyone from owning one.  Vignetting is even something usually preferable for portraiture.  I used it more for landscape, only did a few portraits.

I keep mentioning vignetting in my reviews, but it's almost pointless, same as saying an L lens is expensive, they're practically givens with fast primes.  That said, not everyone knows what we know, so I'll keep saying it.  Thanks for helping fill in the 1.3 & 1.6 crop gap - I sold my 7D so don't have one to test out the lenses with anymore.

No problem.  I agree, although the Rokinon (laugh if you need to) has very little vignetting on my crop camera...and neither does my 58mm Voigtlander f/1.4.  So the reason the strong vignetting might be a concern via the 85mm f/1.2L, is because it starts so early toward the image center.  In portraiture (even on a full frame camera), I could see where it might throw off the composition if you are worried about always getting someone's face in the exact center, for this reason.  Otherwise, the face would not be spotlighted, but rather the chest or something would have the most light on it due to the vignetting.  Meaning you would be forced to remove most or all of the vignetting anyway...which means your exposure gets lifted in post processing...and might introduce more noise than the "noise freaks" are willing to bear.  Then, if you really wanted a vignette in the first place, you would have to put one back into the final image, while avoiding getting the face dark, etc.

Or at least that's how it seems to me...I could be wrong.

Nope, you got it about right. Works better on a telephoto lens than a wide-angle IMHO, look for my 24mm f/1.4 review coming soon to see how it affects the "look" in a less desirable way.

36

Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 40 f/2.8 STM

« on: March 08, 2013, 07:21:47 AM »

or, like me, be confused by it

Why "confused"?

Why it was made. Though this particular forum has made it clear that it's already a beloved lens, that many were waiting for.

37

Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 85 f/1.2L II

« on: March 07, 2013, 08:24:13 AM »

The vignetting
I use the 85L on a 1D Mark IV (1.3x) and it's fine. I really think it's not noticeable on a APS-C (1.6x) sensor body. 85mm x 1.3 gives a nice 110mm, almost like old times 105mm portrait lens.

While I'm glad to see you enjoy the lens, and a 1D Mark IV (I like those as well), I do need to point out that indeed there is a lot of vignetting at f/1.2 to f/1.6, even on a 1.6x crop camera.  This can be "corrected" of course, but it's there.

I have no doubt that if there is ever a version 3 of the lens, it will also have noticeable vignetting even on a 1.6x crop camera.

None of that is necessarily unusual for such a lens, or should discourage anyone from owning one.  Vignetting is even something usually preferable for portraiture.  I used it more for landscape, only did a few portraits.

I keep mentioning vignetting in my reviews, but it's almost pointless, same as saying an L lens is expensive, they're practically givens with fast primes.  That said, not everyone knows what we know, so I'll keep saying it.  Thanks for helping fill in the 1.3 & 1.6 crop gap - I sold my 7D so don't have one to test out the lenses with anymore.

38

Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 85 f/1.2L II

« on: March 06, 2013, 09:24:03 PM »

I think the Canon 85mm 1.2 L II is a magical lense. It just gives you the colours and the bokeh with sharpness, even wide open (in the centre). I luckily shot one for about half the price listed, otherwise I probably would never bought one for 2k€. Now, after experiencing the lense I WOULD pay 2k€ for it. Why? After decades of having a lot of lenses from wide angle to longer zooms I just made a summaryline and asked me... what lense do you use very often and which one is hunting dust?

I got me catched on 85 1.2, 100 2.8 L IS and the Magic Drainpipe. Of course I like my other lenses, but you just can shoot with the Canonball and everything works out to be beautiful. The only thing I would criticise is the lack of wheathersealing and the sometimes annoying 0,95m minimumdistance.

This lense could be the REASON why someone should buy a Canonbody. And as I still use the 5DC, I enjoy the FULL step over the (otherwise fantastic) 85mm 1.8.

P.S. How can I change the camera in my profile? Damn

Hey, vscd...just get a 12mm Canon Ext. Tube for when you want to get close. With the Canon tube I had no focus shift...(Had a Kenko and there was a ton of focus shift).  Ideally if Canon made a 7-10mm tube it would be better...because with the 12mm tube there is a gap from the minimum focus of the lens to the focus of them lens with the 12mm tube...but it isn't too much lost... It is definitely worth checking out.
Hope that helps.

You can also free-lens it, which yields some unique results, if you can get any results at all

39

Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 85 f/1.2L II

« on: March 06, 2013, 11:05:17 AM »

When I used my 70-200 this weekend for some event work... it felt like a feather. Def stands out... I get all sorts of questions and just tell them, as CR guy said, It's the pinnacle of medium telephoto!

"pinnacle of medium telephoto" 

Like a lay person at an event who asks questions of this most obvious zoom knows what telephoto is...much less what a "medium" telephoto is. 

I wish Canon had kept all their 70-200's black and kept the white branding to the true superteles.

My favourite question to get is "How many times zoom is that?" (something that applies mostly to point and shoots that go from 28mm-300mm... so 10x zoom" and my answer is usually "Two, two and half." 

40

Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 85 f/1.2L II

« on: March 06, 2013, 08:58:13 AM »

On the 85 f/1.2L II review, Justin said the following,

"I compare the 85 1.2 to the 200 f/2 at times, that’s because similar framing can be achieved with both lenses, and with both lenses you can dramatically  throw your foreground and background out of focus.  Obvious advantages of the 85 are, of course, size, weight, and cost – all far less.  For portraits, I do like working a bit closer to my subjects, it builds a better level of trust than 200mm sniping from afar can." ...

On the 200mm f/2L review, CR's take is,
"Without a doubt, one of my top 3 favourite lenses in the Canon lineup. It can be a bit cumbersome to use, but the results make it worth it at the end of the day." ...

So, that implies the 85 1.2 shall be another one of the top 3.  Then which lens will take the remaining top spot?  It's no doubt those are all great lenses.  However, what's the relative comparison between the 2 lenses from experts' point of view?  And I'm really curious what's the experts' top 3 lenses, or top 5, top 10?

Not sure if CRguy's got the 85 in his lineup, I just compare the two as lenses that produce similar framing. For example: take a full frame camera and an adult.  Based on the minimum and maximum (infinite) focusing distances of both lenses, you can properly frame someone while still achieving a blurred out background.  Some lenses would hit infinite and everything would be in focus.  The quality and "depth" of blur is also in that "magical" territory.

And unlike CRguy I didn't find the 200 too cumbersome, I was surprised by how much like in weight and size it was compared to my 70-200 ƒ/2.8 L IS II, and I used it in it's place when I had it.  But, yeah, it's heavy and stands out too.

I'm curious about your mention of a "top" list though, my top used lenses aren't necessarily my top favourite lenses - some are better than others for different needs. Like, I use my 24-70 ƒ/2.8 L all the time, almost every day, but it's not my favourite, just super useful - like a hammer, it's a great tool, but not as cool as a power saw

41

Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 85 f/1.2L II

« on: March 05, 2013, 09:30:12 PM »

Have you had the chance to compare the Canon to the Sigma or other 85mm primes?

I have but not at the same time. The Sigma AF was very erratic and distance dependent. It is highly subjective but I liked the bokeh of the Canon better. BTW, I did not buy either one.

Ditto. Also used the Canon 85 1.8 (though not on full frame) and didn't *love it* but got some good shots.  Something tells me 85mm as a focal length is hit or miss almost as much as the focus on the Sigma lens *badump-ching!*

42

Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 85 f/1.2L II

« on: March 05, 2013, 08:52:44 PM »

The problem with this kind of product is always... is it worth the ~2K Canon wants? truthfully, I am really on the fence with that.

Here are a couple of shots from today...that's what reading reviews like this makes one do... play with stuff you rarely use. Sorry, I use low dpi and low 800 pixel for export...not sure what it looks like on good size monitors.

Isn't that how most people view photos anyway? Best part is: even if it's out of focus it look fine compressed

The photos look great - the bottom one shows a lot off.

43

Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 40 f/2.8 STM

« on: March 05, 2013, 07:46:25 PM »

Discuss the review of the Canon EF 40 f/2.8 STM here.

The review is spot on except it forgets to mention one thing; for the target audience it is intended for; the 40mm f/2.8 costs twice as much as the faster, sharper, and far more consistent 50mm f/1.8 II "Nifty Fifty".  I bought the pancake for a light street kid on a 7D or 5D body.  I returned it two days later even though I had another few weeks before the 30 day return policy expired.  I new at onset it was "ok" but that the $99 50 f/1.8 II was far more consistent and lighter.  I just don't get why you'd pay twice as much for the slower 40mm.

Video AF?  Really?  If you want AF in video buy a camcorder, they do a much better job in AF.  The STM only works with the T4i and there is a reason they didn't incorporate that into the 5D3, 6D, etc.

I think you see it from the same perspective that I approached the review from.  I didn't look at it as a compliment to a lens arsenal of a pro or advanced amateur, but a reasonably priced entry level lens for someone contemplating their (likely) second lens after a kit purchase... everyone else will likely know if they want it or not I figure... or, like me, be confused by it

44

Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 85 f/1.2L II

« on: March 05, 2013, 07:42:50 PM »

Just know the AF IS slow. But that´s part of the lens...

True, but with this lens using it on a 1-series body makes a noticeable difference in AF speed.  When I went from the 7D/5DII to the 1D X, I found that my 85L II focuses much faster.

So we're at about $10 grand eh? 5DII should be left out of that equation. WORST. AUTOFOCUS. EVER.

Hey, the center AF point of the 5DII was pretty good for still subjects. 

In the case of the 1-series, it's not the AF system per se - the 1-series bodies use a higher voltage battery that actually drives the lens' AF motor faster than non-1-series bodies.

Touché. I had a pretty good experience with it on the 5DMKIII too actually, since I worked with the lens over a few different periods, including my time with a 1DX.  I'm still very impressed with MF ninja's who seem to consistently nail their shots with this lens... hats off to you magical ninja's! 

45

Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 85 f/1.2L II

« on: March 05, 2013, 07:33:58 PM »

Just know the AF IS slow. But that´s part of the lens...

True, but with this lens using it on a 1-series body makes a noticeable difference in AF speed.  When I went from the 7D/5DII to the 1D X, I found that my 85L II focuses much faster.

So we're at about $10 grand eh? 5DII should be left out of that equation. WORST. AUTOFOCUS. EVER.