Gear Talk > Lenses

Reikan FoCal EF 24-70L version comparison

<< < (2/4) > >>

PackLight:

--- Quote from: Random Orbits on November 21, 2012, 11:27:35 AM ---
--- Quote from: Dylan777 on November 21, 2012, 11:14:31 AM ---
This is why I will NOT trade my 24-70 f2.8 II for 35L+50L :P

--- End quote ---

Different horses for different courses:  f/2.8 can not replicate f/1.2 or f/1.4 effects.

--- End quote ---

Which 2.8 effect is that, the terrible IQ that you get at f/1.4 from the 35mm L or the narrow DOF?

Mt Spokane Photography:

--- Quote from: PackLight on November 21, 2012, 11:39:41 AM ---
--- Quote from: Random Orbits on November 21, 2012, 11:27:35 AM ---
--- Quote from: Dylan777 on November 21, 2012, 11:14:31 AM ---
This is why I will NOT trade my 24-70 f2.8 II for 35L+50L :P

--- End quote ---

Different horses for different courses:  f/2.8 can not replicate f/1.2 or f/1.4 effects.

--- End quote ---

Which 2.8 effect is that, the terrible IQ that you get at f/1.4 from the 35mm L or the narrow DOF?

--- End quote ---

I haven't seen any terrible f/1.4 images from my 35mmL.  One of the points made in the article and demonstrated is that lenses can vary, and so can the cameras.  If you get a bad result, get it fixed rather than assuming that everyone has the same result.
Certainly the 35mmL is not as sharp at 1.4 as a new model like the 24-70 is at f/2.8, but thats true for all f/1.4 lenses.  In extreme low light, f/2.8 is just not fast enough to capture some images, but f/1.4 makes the cut.

Random Orbits:

--- Quote from: PackLight on November 21, 2012, 11:39:41 AM ---
--- Quote from: Random Orbits on November 21, 2012, 11:27:35 AM ---
--- Quote from: Dylan777 on November 21, 2012, 11:14:31 AM ---
This is why I will NOT trade my 24-70 f2.8 II for 35L+50L :P

--- End quote ---

Different horses for different courses:  f/2.8 can not replicate f/1.2 or f/1.4 effects.

--- End quote ---

Which 2.8 effect is that, the terrible IQ that you get at f/1.4 from the 35mm L or the narrow DOF?

--- End quote ---

I'll assume that is a rhetorical question, although you can never tell on the internet...

Haven't had problems shooting 24/35/50/85Ls wide open, but then I'm not shooting at brick walls wide open either....

wayno:
"Terrible" IQ at 1.4 for the 35? Have you used it? Mine is sharp at 1.4 where it counts. It allows for gorgeous images at 1.4.

PackLight:

--- Quote from: wayno on November 21, 2012, 03:19:47 PM ---"Terrible" IQ at 1.4 for the 35? Have you used it? Mine is sharp at 1.4 where it counts. It allows for gorgeous images at 1.4.

--- End quote ---


Yes have had one for four years now. Both the 24mm f/1.4L II and 35mm f/1.4 L image quality falls off rapidly below f/2. See TDP ISO charts link.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=121&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=787&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

It doesn't mean its a bad lens, the 35mmL is a great lens. The biggest mistake I see owners of the lens make is that they think that because it can shot at f/1.4 they should be shooting at f/1.4.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page