April 17, 2014, 10:36:22 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 - JVLphoto

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 15
76
Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L
« on: September 12, 2013, 09:03:16 AM »
Some more 17-40 photos, because that's what lenses are for  8)

(Roller girl was actually shot at f/4, which kind of shows I think).

77
Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L
« on: September 12, 2013, 07:11:34 AM »
Enjoyable and interesting review, Justin. I echo your sentiments and thats the review id have written also.
Too much angst on here sometimes about things just not worth getting angsty about.

Yarp, there's a lot of weirdos who are "into" photography and think they are experts...unfortunatly, they usually are expert forum trolls....which is why photography forums are full of weirdos and weird opinions.

My take on the 17-40L....it's one of the biggest selling lenses of all time. It delivers great results, it's an old design which makes it cheap but with plenty of scope for a mkII improvement.

As to the weird Nikkon f4 lens with VR....so people are using it on a d800 to handhold? Right? Surely that's an oxymoron right there....Tripod it and switch the VR off. Putting a VR unit into a lens doen't make it better or great. A 17mm lens can be hand held down to 1/20th second. If a photographer needs a VR unit becuase their shutter speed is lower and no tripod....then I wonder if any of their photos have any stature due to their lack of preparation and foresite.

Yeah, I kind of agree with the VR thing. Never had a hand-holding vs. shutter speed issue with my wide angles. Haven't really used IS on anything wider than the 24-70 f/4 and even then, not sure if it made much of a difference. A few ideas I have about potentially using WA + IS would be for wedding shooters going for an abstract long exposure, people wanting to take photos where tripods aren't allowed (lots of international landmarks are like this) or just the casual photographer going for a stroll. Or people like me who maybe had a bit too much coffee in the morning.

And yes, the Nikon, as I mentioned, is great on its own merits. VR is just an accessory after the fact.

78
Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L
« on: September 11, 2013, 03:20:48 PM »
Thanks Justin.  Again my choices aren't limited to Canon or Nikon, but thanks for the suggestion.  I'm pretty sure the Nikon is an f/4, not an f/2.8.  Sorry to correct you, though.  Did you mean the 17-35 f/2.8?  It does not have "VR"...and also is only meant for crop format.

As for micro 4/3, I have no personal interest in them.  It's a lot of money for a lot of sensor noise.  The Voigtlander f/.95 lens designed (or modified) for this system make me yearn...but not enough to buy into the system.  I already have the best Voigt for the money I could mount on my 6D, in my opinion anyway...and it cost less than half of that m-4/3 lens.

Ah, you're right, it is an f/4, still a great lens, but I guess f/2.8 (or better) is what you're really after. So does the Voigtlander meet your needs? If so why? If not - why not?

79
Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L
« on: September 11, 2013, 02:58:51 PM »
Let me get this straight.  You have access to a rental house full of lenses, yet you're complaining that "in the real world" you could only compare the 17-40 to a limited few? 

Pretty much.

So again, as someone who is wanting to buy something now...your review didn't help me.  I'm sorry if that flies in the face of the Justin lovers (your last name isn't bieber is it?).  I am truly undecided, but have pretty much ruled out the 17-40L.  But then, I have specific aspects I want for the lens, and it need not even be a zoom (although obviously zooms are incredibly convenient, and my usage will not be "single purpose").

It's "Van Leeuwen." Though someone once tweeted me a message intended for him. We're both Canadian but I'm better looking.

The Nikon 16-35 f/4 VR is a remarkable multi-purpose wide-angle zoom, sharp and able to handle the resolution of the D800, so a 6D is no contest. Don't know how you feel about adapters, I'm afraid to say I'm not crazy about them unless going for something truly unique (like the Nikon 14-24 f/2.8). I think Canon can do better than the current 16-35 too. Their recent upgrade of the 24-70 f/2.8 proves that they're capable of some zoom awesome.

I've yet to spend enough time with the 17mm tilt shift on a full frame body, I've used it on a 7D (kind of a waste, but it's what I had at the time) and my old 1DMKII (RIP). 14mm f/2.8 is a really cool lens, depends on what you need, but if you love wide then that's a choice piece.

I have zero experience with Rokinon, their 16mm f/2.0 sounds neat. Maybe I should contact them and see if they're interested in having us review them here? Would that interest you (or others)?

Been working on getting Sigma stuff, nobody rents them here because you can't get the lenses serviced in a decent amount of time. Past QC issues made that a non-viable business choice, thus the first party offerings, and specifically L series glass. Though I have been borrowing and buying other EF lenses to help round things out.

While we're considering all options: what about micro 4/3rd cameras? An entire line of fast glass across the focal spectrum. I'm wholly unfamiliar with it, though, since I can barely afford one lens system. Don't get me started on medium and large format. My interest there is mostly in portraits.

I'm missing others too, I'm sure, there's just so much out there.

80
Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L
« on: September 11, 2013, 02:29:22 PM »
Let me get this straight.  You have access to a rental house full of lenses, yet you're complaining that "in the real world" you could only compare the 17-40 to a limited few? 

Pretty much.

81
Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L
« on: September 11, 2013, 02:26:00 PM »
Data is lovely, but reviews like Justin's (or those by Bryan Carnathan at TDP) fill in the other end of using gear -- they provide a photographer's perspective and not just data.  How many people buy lenses solely on the data sheets from PhotoZone or DXO?  Hopefully not many.

+1 

I certainly do evaluate MTF charts and data-oriented tests, but that's only one part of the decision process.  There are many facets of lens performance that aren't represented in charts - AF speed/accuracy, handling, etc.

You also have to take into account the potential bias of the reviewer/author. I know that you know that, but it bears mention.

In this case, it is obvious that the reviewer loves this lens, and has for many years. That's not the only piece of relevant information, it's just one.

Please don't take this the wrong way Justin, it's just my opinion, and you know what they say about opinions:

From the review:
Quote
If you need a high quality, full-frame compatible wide-angle zoom lens, but can’t afford the Canon 16-35 f/2.8 L II, the 17-40 f/4 L is a worthy second best.

I might have said something more like:

If you need a high quality, full-frame compatible wide-angle zoom lens, but can’t afford the Canon 16-35 f/2.8 L II, the 17-40 f/4 L is a worthy second choice.

Saying "second best" ignores the Tokina 16-28 which, if one gets a good copy and are willing to deal with the (lack of) filter issue, may be a closer second.

Or something like:

If you need a high quality, full-frame compatible wide-angle zoom lens, but can’t afford the Canon 16-35 f/2.8 L II, the 17-40 f/4 L offers very good value for the money.

In fact, I love my 17-40 and for what I do with it, the 16-35 II is not worth the money. Not today anyway.

Just my $0.02 which, with inflation may be hardly worth the screen real estate.

I love your opinion, mostly because I agree with it ;)

And yes, that one semantically error may haunt me forever! But you're also very right. I haven't considered every variable and in that, my review *is* lacking. Lots of people talking about the Tokina, but not a lot of photos here. I'll have a look on the Flickr to see what the hype is about. Sadly, rentals in Canada are lackluster at best and we rarely get more than first party (the occasional high quality Sigma being the exception) gear.

Canon can do better here, I've used the 14mm f/2.8 and it's a great (if not expensive and specialized) lens. And given the age we can all hope for an upgrade of sorts. Will that upgrade be enough to rip me away from my baby? (Which I almost sold quite a few times... Something I wish I could do for me for-real children too).

82
Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L
« on: September 11, 2013, 02:09:20 PM »
Some more 17-40mm images I've taken over the years...


83
Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L
« on: September 11, 2013, 01:42:51 PM »
Good point.  So again, I think we can agree that the review in discussion was both inadequate and unnecessary.  To give a subjective review (with no detailed measurements, which would have been useful to compare to the many other similar tests done recently or eons ago) of a lens that has been out for over 6 years, seems kind of pointless to me.  Kind of a "johnny come lately"...and not all that congruent with a "gear head" website.

You speak as if people aren't coming into photography every day, and aren't looking at old lenses as if they're new; because they are new to them.  I'm glad I don't provide measurements, they're not something I care to look at in my work, subjectively quantifying a lens on it's own merits and how it works for me and how it can potentially work for others. If it can and does take great images then that's good enough for most people out there.

Thankfully, there are many helpful people who are better at measuring and analyzing charts than they are at getting out at taking photographs. Providing a great critical component to the forums here. And for people that need to add up specs to decide their purchase that information is available all over the place, and since you can't argue MTF charts and data patterns why would I be so redundant as to re-publish them here? As you said, several epochs have passed since this lens was released and tested. But not everyone has spent eight years shooting with it. I have, and no chart is going to tell you how well it handles, over several bodies, in the field, working for clients, in different countries, only "Johnny" has that kind of experience.

Amen to that.  I intend to start reviewing my collection of vintage glass that is, in some cases, close to 50 years old, because there are next to no reviews of them out there.  One advantage to reviewing older lenses like the 17-40L is that you can also compare it to newer offerings.  A lens that was reviewed as being great 10 years ago may not still stand the test of time (and competition) today.

That's awesome, I've often wondered about older lenses. What still work with my system, what I'd need to make them adapt to it and how they work. Maybe they're great for video because they have those manual aperture rings, or maybe it's the sharpest glass ever made, but it lacks AF... I'd read them!

84
Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L
« on: September 11, 2013, 01:41:39 PM »
Good point.  So again, I think we can agree that the review in discussion was both inadequate and unnecessary.  To give a subjective review (with no detailed measurements, which would have been useful to compare to the many other similar tests done recently or eons ago) of a lens that has been out for over 6 years, seems kind of pointless to me.  Kind of a "johnny come lately"...and not all that congruent with a "gear head" website.

You speak as if people aren't coming into photography every day, and aren't looking at old lenses as if they're new; because they are new to them.  I'm glad I don't provide measurements, they're not something I care to look at in my work, subjectively quantifying a lens on it's own merits and how it works for me and how it can potentially work for others. If it can and does take great images then that's good enough for most people out there.

Thankfully, there are many helpful people who are better at measuring and analyzing charts than they are at getting out at taking photographs. Providing a great critical component to the forums here. And for people that need to add up specs to decide their purchase that information is available all over the place, and since you can't argue MTF charts and data patterns why would I be so redundant as to re-publish them here? As you said, several epochs have passed since this lens was released and tested. But not everyone has spent eight years shooting with it. I have, and no chart is going to tell you how well it handles, over several bodies, in the field, working for clients, in different countries, only "Johnny" has that kind of experience.

Justin, I'm sorry if you are offended at my criticism of your review.  As for me "speaking as if people aren't coming into photography every day", that is putting words in my mouth.  Try to avoid doing that again, ok?

You are emotionally attached to your lens, it being your first.  But you should develop a thicker skin.  Not everyone is going to march in lockstep with your approach and your conclusions.  Measuring a copy of a lens is far from a "redundancy".  To be honest your review does indeed read more like Canon ad copy from the outset, rather than a critical review.  Almost as if you were compensated for it by Canon.  I didn't realize a primary purpose of CR was to sell Canon gear by writing glowing reviews of it, but I suppose it could be?  I thought it was more oriented around rumors of future Canon gear, and around people sharing their honest opinions of the rumors, as well as opinions of all gear that is commercially available and in use (even other systems such as Nikon, etc.) 

In this forum, and in the marketplace, there are other lens choices from other manufacturers, to mount on Canon cameras (both primes and zooms)...and they get discussed.  Yet you really only compare the 17-40 to the other Canon wide zoom, the 16-35...and you briefly mention a T/S and the pancake.  So after 8 years you haven't compared your precious 17-40L to anything besides these? 

Despite your pride in the fact that specs don't matter to you, to many of us they do matter.  What matters to me is the best wide zoom (or wide prime) lens for the money, that also suits my desire to shoot in low light with less noise than shooting at f/9 or f/11 can provide...So I hope you'll forgive me if I may not become the 17-40L fanboy that you are.  Stranger things have happened, though!

However, I won't be apologizing for keeping my mind open to ALL LENSES that will mount on my Canon camera.  But thank you for your response.

Condescend much? Try to avoid doing that again okay? That way we can all get back to sharing honest opinions without the fear of being belittled.

To answer your questions my job *isn't* to write glowing reviews for all Canon gear. I received some flack for my lacklustre experience with the 40mm f/2.8 and I wouldn't quantify my experience with the 17-40 as something worthy of fandom. Neither I (nor you) really direct the flow of this site, that's up to the owner (CRGuy) and the thousands of people who come here every day, it's something different to everyone.

I appreciate that specs matter to you, that's why I'm so glad you and others post that stuff in the follow-up forums. I'm not good at it, you are. Congratulations.

And, honestly, no I haven't compared it to much else. When I was working with a crop body I was curious about Sigma's 8-16mm, never considered Tokina (though it seems like I should, again, thanks to the kind people in this forum for pointing it out). If I had access to all lenses other than those I own, or those provided to me, I'd be happy to add my comments to them. But I haven't. This is reality and in reality I'm not sponsored by a lens manufacturer and what I have is what we've rented or purchased; this happens within finite limitations.

Don't apologize for being so open-minded. It's clearly what's made you the tactful and clever person you are today, open to lenses, discourse, opinions etc etc etc... I find it all rather exhausting, which is why I'm content sticking to my previous point: "If it can and does take great images then that's good enough for most people out there". And I'm writing for most people, or at least I think I am, maybe I'm just writing for me, but I never said you were most people.

85
Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L
« on: September 11, 2013, 11:56:05 AM »
Good point.  So again, I think we can agree that the review in discussion was both inadequate and unnecessary.  To give a subjective review (with no detailed measurements, which would have been useful to compare to the many other similar tests done recently or eons ago) of a lens that has been out for over 6 years, seems kind of pointless to me.  Kind of a "johnny come lately"...and not all that congruent with a "gear head" website.

You speak as if people aren't coming into photography every day, and aren't looking at old lenses as if they're new; because they are new to them.  I'm glad I don't provide measurements, they're not something I care to look at in my work, subjectively quantifying a lens on it's own merits and how it works for me and how it can potentially work for others. If it can and does take great images then that's good enough for most people out there.

Thankfully, there are many helpful people who are better at measuring and analyzing charts than they are at getting out at taking photographs. Providing a great critical component to the forums here. And for people that need to add up specs to decide their purchase that information is available all over the place, and since you can't argue MTF charts and data patterns why would I be so redundant as to re-publish them here? As you said, several epochs have passed since this lens was released and tested. But not everyone has spent eight years shooting with it. I have, and no chart is going to tell you how well it handles, over several bodies, in the field, working for clients, in different countries, only "Johnny" has that kind of experience.

86
Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L
« on: September 11, 2013, 11:45:15 AM »
Thank you for the review  ;), but hopefully it will be short-lived and you can review the new rumoured 16-50 f4.0L IS and the 14-24 f2.8L in the very near future.

We can live in hope  ::)

Especially since I've sold my 17-40 f4.0L to purchase one of these  :-[

That's important to consider.  For all the love that L standard zooms, non-L standard primes and long L primes have been getting the last 3-4 years, we forget that the wide zoom is desperately in need of new glass.

Canon hasn't put out an EF mount zoom wider than 24mm since 2007 by my count (no, I don't count the fishbowl). 

So I made the move to FF last year, and I still will save my money for either the mythical 14-24 or perhaps the 'refresh' of the 17-40 F/4 into that rumored 16-50 F/4 IS.

- A

Or that Nikon has a *killer* 16-35mm that's sharp as a knife with IS (or VR) to boot.

87
Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L
« on: September 09, 2013, 02:04:29 PM »
Thanks for another nice review, Justin.  The single biggest factor for regarding these two options is purpose.  If someone wants to do creative wide angle work at maximum aperture, the 17-40L is not your choice.  If you primarily want to do landscapes, though, the 16-35LII and the 17-40L are very similar when stopped down. 

I own a 17-40L, and I don't love it, but I also haven't yet found a replacement that makes a lot of sense.  It does produce really nice images, focuses well, and has good color, but it just isn't amazing.  I like doing LE work sometimes, and the 77mm front element means that I have plenty of filter options, which just isn't true of something like the Tokina 16-28 or even the mighty Nikon.

"I own a 17-40L, and I don't love it." Perfect statement. After working with the 16-35 for quite a while I also concluded that it wasn't "worth it" as a replacement either, at least not for my work.

88
Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L
« on: September 09, 2013, 12:18:02 PM »
The tokina still seems like the best WA out there, half the price of the 16-35 similar price to the 17-40 with a constant 2.8 aperture much sharper than both and nearly as sharp as the Nikon 14-24.

Shame like the Nikon it cannot take any filters which is where the 16-35mm wins. Also the Tokina Nikon and 16-35mm weight a fair amount more than the 17-40. Touch choice but the 16-35mm is a ridiculous price for its performance compared to the rest of the market.

Which tokina are you talking about? I was trying to specifically say "Canon" as in the brand. I've definitely been interested by the third party options but haven't had much chance to use them.

89
Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L
« on: September 09, 2013, 12:16:35 PM »
"Canon’s current and undisputed king of wide-angle zooms is the 16-35 f/2.8 L II"

Canon branded? Yes. For use on Canon DSLR? No, sadly. The Nikon 14-24 f/2.8 on adaptor, maybe.

If I counted every lens and lens adapter out there my head would explode ;)

90
Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L
« on: September 09, 2013, 12:15:59 PM »
Is the 17-40 really a metal body? Mine appears to be engineering plastic as the main body with a metal zoom ring.

I didn't look anything up to make sure, it *feels* metal, like my 24-70, 70-200, 24 tilt shift and not plastic like the 100mm L... I could be wrong and I'd correct it in the review if we find otherwise.

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 15