Posts

mackguyver · Feb 27, 2015

I agree with Private and see them as two very different lenses. One for pretty much everyone, the other for much more specialized use. I think I would only recommend getting the 11-24 if you already have the 16-35 f/4 IS (or similar lens) or know you want/need it.

Also, speaking of filters, the manual is up (link below) and it says that gel filters can't be used in the wide setting, so there are yet more limitations. Hopefully this will be resolved by Wonderpana, but that's months away and another $400+ on top of the $3k.

http://gdlp01.c-wss.com/gds/1/0300018091/01/EF11-24f4lusm-im-eng.pdf

DRR · Feb 27, 2015

There's a possibility it goes up, but I doubt it'll happen. The 5D IV would have to be significantly crippled, or severely overpriced, for that to happen.

However I also don't expect 5D3 prices to drop immediately either. They'll probably make the rebate price the permanent price for the 5D3 (retail around $2700) and then slot the 5D IV around $3400. Then as Canon does in this bracket, let the early adopters generate the initial income at the higher price, and then months later drop the price for both. I wouldn't expect the 5D III to go down in price too much unless Canon has incredibly poor channel management. Or the 5D IV is SO good that no one is buying 5D IIIs anymore.

chromophore · Feb 27, 2015

Schmave said:
chromophore said:

If we take a lens like the 70-200/2.8, then you will see that as you change the focal length, the size of the entrance pupil will change in proportion to the the focal length, even though the front element stays the same. This shows you that for a typical zoom design, it is the desired f-number at the longest focal length that determines the minimum size of the front element.

Click to expand...

I've wondered about this before. For the constant aperture zoom lenses, based on their physical design, could they also be made to be a variable aperture lens with a larger aperture on the short end of the range (or should I say, lower F number)? For example, with the 70-200 f2.8, at 200mm the entrance pupil has to be ~71.4 mm. If you took this same entrance pupil size with the focal length at 70mm, couldn't the lens max aperture be ~f1.0? So does the lens maker limit how much the entrance pupil opens based on the focal length? Or am I missing something (does it also have to do with the front element size?)?

That's a good question.

The thing to remember about lenses is that their optical properties are inseparable from their physical design. You can't take a constant-aperture zoom and somehow convert it into a variable-aperture zoom without having to change the entire lens formula--at which point, it would be a completely different lens.

To put it another way: it is tempting, but incorrect, to think of a constant-aperture zoom as somehow "wasting" some underlying ability of the design to achieve a faster f-number at the short end of the focal length range. Although the front element diameter may be determined by the requirements of entrance pupil size at the longest focal length, this is just one constraint among many when considering the design parameters. Could you make the lens smaller, lighter, or more cheaply if you sacrificed a constant-aperture constraint? Probably. But that's a different consideration. Conversely, if you were to attempt to design a lens that was variable aperture f/?? to f/2.8, that lens would be considerably more expensive than a constant aperture f/2.8. There's no free lunch, sadly.

The primary drivers of cost/difficulty of manufacture in a photographic lens are the fastest f-number of the design, whether the design is varifocal (zoom), the extent of deviation from symmetry (i.e., retrofocus or super-telephoto), correction for higher-order aberrations (in particular wavelength dependent aberrations), and the total number of interfaces (glass-to-air or glass-to-glass). Some of these are correlated factors, and in isolation, may not be too unreasonable to achieve, but various combinations can become extremely difficult to produce.

bholliman · Feb 26, 2015

wickidwombat said:
i dunno about you but at f2 my sigma 85 is noticably sharper than either of my 70-200 mk2 are at f2.8
and in very low light the 1.4 is a god send

I've never used the Sigma 85, but my 70-200/2.8 II is extremely sharp, if the Sigma 85 is noticeably sharper, it must be really, really good. The TDP crops show the 70-200 to be slightly sharper in the corners, but that is comparing 70mm and 100mm to 85mm, so not quite apples to apples. Of course, your 70-200's and S85 are different copies so results will vary.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=687&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=756&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=3

bmwzimmer said:
Lately I've been using my 85 more for environmental portraits. Step back 20' and you have 1.4' of dof at f/1.4 so it's easy to get your subjects in focus. From the distance, the foreground and backgrounds are not that blurry and you can make out what's in the background. Its a very nice look the 70-200 can't match.

It took me some time to lean this lesson with fast primes. When I purchased my first f/1.4 lens, I was often frustrated by the razor thin DOF but finally learned to back up unless I was going for that look.

bholliman · Feb 26, 2015

I own both for use on my 6D and plan to keep both. f/2 vs. f/4 is a huge difference. I use the 16-35 for landscapes, buildings and kids playing outdoors. I use the 35/2 indoors and outdoors as a general purpose lens. I like the primes small size and weight. I often take it paired with my 70-200, 100 macro or 135/2 as a versatile 2-lens combination.

Click · Feb 26, 2015

Very nice video. Well done.

NancyP · Feb 26, 2015

I shoot the Mamiya-Sekor (M42 mount) 55 f/1.4, 60 f/2.8 1:1 macro; Nikkor AIS 50 f/1.2, 55 f/3.5 1:2 micro, and 105 f/2.5. Motley bunch is from my own old film camera (Mamiya-Sekor, back when they did 135 format cameras) and my dad's old camera. Some reviewer wrote of the AIS 50 f/1.2 that at f/1.2 the sizable aberrations can be thought of as features for certain types of shots.

Tugela · Feb 26, 2015

Canon Rumors said:
A rumor showing a Canon Cinema EOS C700x starting popping up around the web and in our inbox yesterday. We have confirmed our initial suspicions that this is a fake.
The camera in the image is the C500 PL mount with some “work” done to fit the larger 34mm sensor and a longer base to fit the “X”, which in itself makes no sense. We’re also told that most PL lenses wouldn’t work with a 34mm wide sensor.
We have confirmed that the EOS C300 Mark II and EOS C500 Mark II will be coming to NAB 2015 in April. We have not heard of any other “Cinema EOS” branded products coming for the show, but that could change.
cr

Of course it was a fake. According to the "specifications" it included a Digic DVIII processor. The problem with that claim is that the DV III was superceded by the DV IV in 2013, and there is NO way that Canon would introduce a new high end product with technology that was already obsolete in their other products for years. It is common sense.

If people are going to make up rumours you would think that they would at least be knowledgeable about exactly what technology Canon currently uses, not what they used 5 years ago. ;D

Mt Spokane Photography · Feb 26, 2015

RGF said:
Mt Spokane Photography said:

There are ships stacked up off shore that cannot unload due to the Longshoreman's strike. A settlement has been reached, and unloading has begun. It will take at least 2 months to clear the backlog.

Click to expand...

Hope only 2 months - I have heard estimates of 3-6 months.

That's entirely possible, and other factors like a possible dockworkers strike are looming. Canon is shipping the 11-24mm lens this week, so its possible to get lenses here by air or a alternate surface route.

FFN · Feb 26, 2015

This is what I have been creating in HDR and PSCC artist filters.

Tonycap · Feb 26, 2015

Great price indeed! Personally, I wouldn't buy any camera till after NAB which is happening soon.
I'm "hoping" for a c300 MKII with 4k. The c500 might be a sweeter deal after NAB.

Don Haines · Feb 26, 2015

Marsu42 said:
Mt Spokane Photography said:

I expect to see licensing and huge penalties for misuse required coming in the next 2 years.

Click to expand...

That's the problem - if I see your drone flying over my garden with my gf sunbathing topless, I can (try to) track you. But how do I know your hud glasses are only showing you the way to the next bus stop, and not recording me?

As far as I remember, Google was forced to remove the silent (or eye-controlled) picture snapping feature from their firmware in Germany. But when there's a demand, there'll be a supply ... unless it's illegal like "concealed carry" in parts of the country of our big brothers (pun intended, sorry, cannot help it ).

Unfortunately, in the paranoid world we live in, you are probably already being recorded... security cameras at the bus stop, in the bus, traffic cameras, security cameras at the front of each business you walk past... and how many governments are recording what we type on this forum????

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/110873-new-spy-drone-has-1-8-gigapixel-camera

Coldhands · Feb 26, 2015

Ebrahim Saadawi said:
Coldhands said:

Ebrahim Saadawi said:

privatebydesign said:

Ebrahim Saadawi said:

Fun fact: If you put Speedbooster optics (focal reducing) in the eos-m adapter, it would turn the EOS-M cameras into a Fullframe mirrorless for 200$ new body.

Click to expand...

No it wouldn't, it would give you lens equivalence but it would do nothing for COC and noise, characteristics inherent in a sensors size.

Click to expand...

Yes it would. Effectively.

...

Click to expand...

The speed-booster is a novel concept and certainly has its uses, but it is far from the panacea you're trying to present it as.

A) It gives a FoV and DoF approximately equal to a full frame lens on a native camera, not exactly. The image angle is still slightly narrower and the effective aperture slightly smaller.

B) The noise equivalence only holds true if the the comparable FF sensor has in ISO advantage of less than or equal to one stop over APS-C (the amount of light added by concentrating the FF area onto APS-C), as you yourself have already pointed out.

C) The resolution achieved by FF lens + SB on APS-C is nowhere near the resolution of the lens on a native FF camera. Although centre sharpness is similar when the lens is stopped down, corner sharpness suffers, as well as overall sharpness at larger apertures. Also chromatic aberrations are much more severe.

D) The dynamic range will not match a FF sensor as the smaller pixels have a smaller electron well. Throwing more photons at them won't help anything.

Even setting aside all if these points, it only takes a few moments of logical reasoning to conclude that if a speed-booster really was a "silver bullet" that gave all the benefits of FF without the actual sensor size, then we would all be using cameras with tiny sensors and optics with this effect built-in. The fact the we don't is testament to the fact that this method has drawbacks that are significant enough to relegate it to a niche product.

Click to expand...

It really us the silver bullet. Just try it. I am shooting 99% A7 quality with an APS-C A6000, it's magical. In fact, the a6000 was a much inferior camera than before I used the SB and effectively turned it into FF. It's exactly the same field of view, the same DOF, and the same aesthetic people love about FF. The fact why we're not all using tiny sensors and SB-like elements is because you still need a large FF lens, and on the engineering side of sensors a very small one cant be made to match a FF one, but with the APS-C vs FF, they're freakishly close. In fact, many APS-C sensors out perform FF ones in many ways and vice versa, for example a D5300 vs 5D mk III, but the 5D givea better images (even though it has
ower DR and resolution) because it has that FF aesthetic.

I have no benefit from marketing focal reducers, I am just someone who used them and saw they gave me a FF sensor with no drawbacks (the well made ones), in fact they even improve lens sharpness a bit and improve the NTF charts performance, so I thought I'd share an idea on the EOS M adapter. I do believe that making such an adapter would be a very good approach even compared to making more expensive FF versions of the EOS M, I saw that with the A6000 + SB vs FF A7. I think if Canon made an EOS-M + SB adapter virtually all users would be stunned by the FF images compared to a normal adapter and that most people would'nt be able to tell 5D vs eos M + SB apart, as I ser with the A6000 vs A7 here.

It's a magical invention and effectively turns an APS-C to a FF. The only downside is AF and lens communication issues that's why it'd be almost perfect if Canon themselves did it instead of Metabones.

All you've done with this statement is regurgitate your previous argument with more hyperbole and the addition of a few more blatant fallacies. Since you fail to provide any factual or compelling responses to my statements, I'm not going to bother to elaborate on them in order to further drive home the point.

Meanwhile, your counter-argument regarding the question of why speed-boosters are not the norm completely misses the point. Since we are referring to "large FF lenses" regardless of whether they are attached to a native FF camera, or an APS-C + SB, the former combination would not be the most common if the latter were just as capable and provided a smaller, lighter, cheaper package.

Etienne · Feb 26, 2015

Viggo said:
grahamsz said:

anthonyd said:

I don't know about your past experiences, but in present day Greece, descent size hotels should have good internet and you can always find an internet cafe with good bandwidth.

Click to expand...

My greek experiences were long enough ago that nobody expected wifi to be fast.

The hotel I stayed at in Milan in November charged a fair bit for internet and even then it barely hit a 512k. When I was out in Brescia it was free and usably fast (maybe 3-4mbit). Still I have 105Mbit internet at home in the US and live in a town where most cafe's have at least 20, so i'm a bit shocked when i'm back in Europe and those speeds just don't seem to exist.

Click to expand...

Most hotels I've been in has free connection with an ethernet cable, and more than fast enough. Might be an alternative.

I've been in Italy for 6 weeks now, and I've found free, fast wifi everywhere. I bought a month to month SIM card from TIM (Italy's biggest wireless provider). The first month is 45 Euro, and subsequent months are 30 Euro. That gives 4G/LTE and a 20GB monthly limit. The coverage is wide, but in dense cities, like Florence, the buildings are tall, solid stone, so the signal is often weak indoors, and sometimes weak in particularly narrow streets with big stone buildings all around (which does a number on GPS too) .
Any way... you should not have a problems finding free wifi in Italy, but for a SIM card service you need an unlocked phone and your passport.

IglooEater · Feb 25, 2015

Mt Spokane Photography said:
LetTheRightLensIn said:

Mt Spokane Photography said:

K-amps said:

IglooEater said:

Does this mean we should be debating the DR of autofocus chips? :O ;D

Click to expand...

They certainly seem to have DR on their minds.... I bet the R & D area has DR on their Coffee mugs

Click to expand...

Where did you see anything discussing DR in the patent? I waded thru most of it and saw no mention of DR.

Click to expand...

It can handle a wide dynamic range of lighting conditions for AF in ideal fashion, being optimized for both blaring sun and dim dungeons.

Click to expand...

I think you are joking, but just in case ...

Here is a copy of the Claims from The Japanese patent website as converted by their translator to English. I see no claim as to improved DR, or even a mention of it.

"CLAIMS

[Claim(s)]
[Claim 1]
It is the photoelectric conversion device formed in a semiconductor substrate,
A first photoelectric conversion part formed with the 1st conductivity type,
A second photoelectric conversion part which was formed in a position deeper than said first photoelectric conversion part to a depth direction of the aforementioned semiconductor substrate, and was formed with the 2nd conductivity type,
A monitor section which monitors a signal of said second photoelectric conversion part during an electric charge storage period of said first photoelectric conversion part
A ****(ing) photoelectric conversion device.
[Claim 2]
The photoelectric conversion device according to claim 1, wherein area of said second photoelectric conversion part is more than area of said first photoelectric conversion part.
[Claim 3]
It has the 3rd photoelectric conversion part that was formed in a position deeper than said second photoelectric conversion part to a depth direction of the aforementioned semiconductor substrate, and was formed with the 1st conductivity type,
The photoelectric conversion device according to claim 1 or 2, wherein the aforementioned monitor section monitors a signal of said second photoelectric conversion part during an electric charge storage period of said first photoelectric conversion part and said 3rd photoelectric conversion part.
[Claim 4]
The photoelectric conversion device according to claim 3 having a switch part which outputs any one signal of said first photoelectric conversion part and said 3rd photoelectric conversion part.
[Claim 5]
The photoelectric conversion device according to claim 3 or 4 having an adder unit for adding a signal of said first photoelectric conversion part and said 3rd photoelectric conversion part.
[Claim 6]
A photoelectric conversion device of a description in any 1 item of Claims 3-5 having an amplifier control part which controls an amplification factor of an output signal of said first photoelectric conversion part and said 3rd photoelectric conversion part based on an output signal of said second photoelectric conversion part.
[Claim 7]
A photoelectric conversion device of a description in any 1 item of Claims 3-6 having a storage time control part which controls charge storage time of said first photoelectric conversion part and said 3rd photoelectric conversion part based on an output signal of said second photoelectric conversion part.
[Claim 8]
A photoelectric conversion device of a description in any 1 item of Claims 1-7 having the amplifier which outputs a signal which carried out time quadrature of the current which fixes electric potential of said second photoelectric conversion part, and is outputted from said second photoelectric conversion part.
[Claim 9]
A focus detecting device carrying out two or more owners of the photoelectric conversion device of a description to any 1 item of Claims 1-8.
[Claim 10]
The focus detecting device according to claim 9,
It has a lens which images an optical image,
An imaging system driving the aforementioned lens according to an output signal of the aforementioned focus detecting device.
[Claim 11]
A first photoelectric conversion part formed with the 1st conductivity type of a semiconductor substrate,
It is a drive method of a photoelectric conversion device which has the second photoelectric conversion part which was formed in a position deeper than said first photoelectric conversion part to a depth direction of the aforementioned semiconductor substrate, and was formed with the 2nd conductivity type,
A drive method of a photoelectric conversion device characterized by controlling charge storage time of another side according to a signal based on either said first photoelectric conversion part or said second photoelectric conversion parts."

For the record, yes we're joking; anything to touch on DR :

Feb 25, 2015

grahamsz said:
neuroanatomist said:

On the side of the RJ aisle with two seats, the underseat area holds a much larger carryon.

Click to expand...

Sure but

a) You can't be sure you'll be on that side
b) Even still you won't be fitting a "maximum size" roller bag under the seat in front of you

Board early and sit there, even if it's across the aisle from your assigned seat. Generally, most people prefer the single seat, and are happy to trade. You're right, it's still not full size. That's why I pack gear in a hard case, sometimes it must be checked.

infared · Feb 25, 2015

Well..the 16-35mm f/4 IS is just a great, great lens..it just hits the sweet spot with price and performance and the IS just makes it a no brainer. Surprised that Canon produced this....I have the Sigma 50mm and the 35mm Arts and I plan on getting the new 24mm Art as well.... I think it will kick the Canon in the buttocks....performance and pricewise....
I would imaging that Canon will replenish Canadian stock on the 16-35mm f/4 IS long before summer...Have you contacted a dealer and inquired about a preorder so that you could reserve one so that it is yours when it arrives.
It they don't come ...I think you can just cancel the order with no penalty if some other opportunity comes your way.

RGF · Feb 25, 2015

What does the box say?

Also look at the Exif data.

If the box does not say Mark II and the exif data is consistent, then you ordered the wrong item (check the page you used to order the item) or then accidentally sent the wrong item.

I don't think either company would pull a bait and switch. Other NYC operators might, but I don't think either of these would. Just my opinion.

lintoni · Feb 25, 2015

Ripley said:
beckstoy said:

Luds34 said:

I too am in the camp where I'd like to see the 135mm prime get some love first.

Click to expand...

I agree that they'd probably make an amazing 135 (I'm a huge ART-Line fan), but I'm pretty sure they can't compete with Canon's Price Point of about $1k for their VERY good 135 f2. If they come out with a lens faster than f2 or with OS, I'd be interested. However, I doubt there's really any money in it for them with Canon's stellar lens.

I'm pretty sure they could really cut into Canon's market share with a good new 85 ART since Canon's equivalent (and amazing) lens is $2K+. I'd been waiting for Sigma's 85, but couldn't wait any longer and pulled the trigger on the Canon. I'll be selling it if Sigma's 85 is as good as their other ART lenses.

I think you've gotta follow the money here, and Sigma's gonna make more with an 85 coming first (imho).

Click to expand...

Sigma Art lenses are sold in multiple mounts, not just Canon.

Which is a fair point, but there are more Canon EF mount cameras sold than any other mount - which may be one reason why Sigma have possibly stopped producing their 24-105 Art...

PhotographyFirst · Feb 25, 2015

I recently wrote a book about touring the PNW for photography, and in the process, am was pretty surprised at how much diversity there is out here. You can find everything from oceans, rainforests, deserts, farmlands, waterfalls, and high alpine photos.

Feel free to check out my website gallery for samples of what we have in the PNW. This area probably produces more landscape photographers than most places in the world.

gqllc007 · Feb 25, 2015

I use it for shooting sports at my sons high school basket ball game works great

Lee Jay · Feb 25, 2015

AvTvM said:
RLPhoto said:

Canon should just put these features in the 5D4. It would sell more 5D4s than splitting the line again for a camera I won't buy solely for 4K but also won't upgrade to a 5D4 because it lacks 4k.

Click to expand...

From a marketing point of view, offering more product variants typically sells more units and brings greater sales revenue than just offering one. I am quite certain that Sony sells more A7 cameras by offering 4 variants for different primary uses compared to offering only one expensive "all in" camera.

Right. That's why mp3 players + cell phones + small tablet computers + poor compact cameras combine to sell way more units than smart phones.

LovePhotography · Feb 25, 2015

THANK YOU.
You know, this forum can be pretty good sometimes.

)

Chaitanya · Feb 24, 2015

Here is the link to pdf which contains all the details including price:

http://www.nissindigital.com/files/nissin_press_release_di700aair1_e.pdf

one great thing is that it will be available as combo and will be priced below $300 for both.

IsaacImage · Feb 24, 2015

Jesse said:
Managed to get the sigma dock to work for this lens, finally. This is bang in focus, AMIRITE

https://www.flickr.com/photos/jesseherzog/16007777194/

Congrats
Once you got great copy or calibrate it … and it's actually works - its amazing lens !

Posts

Posts

Filter

Forum statistics

Gallery statistics