RLPhotos first impressions of the 16-35mm f/4L - Video

[Khalai]

Okay, I know this is going to come off as assholish to sensitive people, but I don't mean it that way, I'm just really curious why some people do reviews like this.

I have a feeling people like to hear themselves talk or see themselves on video. This review could have easily been done as a simple web page or even PDF. We are coming to a time when the bandwidth we use may be regulated or charged per usage, so it only makes sense to do it in web page format to reach the maximal audience. Secondly, a written review could be read quicker, as well as if you were only interested in a certain aspect, you wouldn't have to sit through the whole video, you could just scroll to the appropriate section. With a video, I either have to suffer through the whole thing, or just not watch it and then miss out on important points. If I'm at work, I can't watch thirty minutes of video, but I can sure read a written review.

Could someone enlighten me? To me, I feel as if you're doing a review "for the people", so to speak, then you should do it to "reach the people" as easily as possible. To give an extreme example, if I want to educate people globally about proper hygiene, I'm not going to make a 4K video, because most of the people who need educating about hygiene wouldn't even have television. Again, a bit extreme as an example, but just trying to drive home the point and see if anyone could explain to me why these types of reviews are unfortunately so common.

If the review is narrated, you can just also listen on the background while doing other stuff

 

[Northstar]

if RL is anything like me, one of his reasons for doing this was for the experience and to try something new

isn't that what life is about?

 

[quod]

Okay, I know this is going to come off as assholish to sensitive people, but I don't mean it that way, I'm just really curious why some people do reviews like this.

I have a feeling people like to hear themselves talk or see themselves on video. This review could have easily been done as a simple web page or even PDF. We are coming to a time when the bandwidth we use may be regulated or charged per usage, so it only makes sense to do it in web page format to reach the maximal audience. Secondly, a written review could be read quicker, as well as if you were only interested in a certain aspect, you wouldn't have to sit through the whole video, you could just scroll to the appropriate section. With a video, I either have to suffer through the whole thing, or just not watch it and then miss out on important points. If I'm at work, I can't watch thirty minutes of video, but I can sure read a written review.

Could someone enlighten me? To me, I feel as if you're doing a review "for the people", so to speak, then you should do it to "reach the people" as easily as possible. To give an extreme example, if I want to educate people globally about proper hygiene, I'm not going to make a 4K video, because most of the people who need educating about hygiene wouldn't even have television. Again, a bit extreme as an example, but just trying to drive home the point and see if anyone could explain to me why these types of reviews are unfortunately so common.

You're right...assholish.

I'd love to see one of your reviews. Can you link us to one? Thank you.

You must be a sensitive person. Opinionated too. I couldn't watch it at work, either, but I sure would have enjoyed the brief review in text form.

 

[bdunbar79]

Okay, I know this is going to come off as assholish to sensitive people, but I don't mean it that way, I'm just really curious why some people do reviews like this.

I have a feeling people like to hear themselves talk or see themselves on video. This review could have easily been done as a simple web page or even PDF. We are coming to a time when the bandwidth we use may be regulated or charged per usage, so it only makes sense to do it in web page format to reach the maximal audience. Secondly, a written review could be read quicker, as well as if you were only interested in a certain aspect, you wouldn't have to sit through the whole video, you could just scroll to the appropriate section. With a video, I either have to suffer through the whole thing, or just not watch it and then miss out on important points. If I'm at work, I can't watch thirty minutes of video, but I can sure read a written review.

Could someone enlighten me? To me, I feel as if you're doing a review "for the people", so to speak, then you should do it to "reach the people" as easily as possible. To give an extreme example, if I want to educate people globally about proper hygiene, I'm not going to make a 4K video, because most of the people who need educating about hygiene wouldn't even have television. Again, a bit extreme as an example, but just trying to drive home the point and see if anyone could explain to me why these types of reviews are unfortunately so common.

You're right...assholish.

I'd love to see one of your reviews. Can you link us to one? Thank you.

You must be a sensitive person. Opinionated too. I couldn't watch it at work, either, but I sure would have enjoyed the brief review in text form.

No, I just love the sense of entitlement. If you're not happy with his (free) review you can do your own text review and post it. We'll look forward to it. And when you post it, we'll also bitch about it how it wasn't the way we wanted it.

 

[mackguyver]

I'm planning a 16-35 f/4 IS to 24L II, 24-70 II, TS-E 17, & TS-E 24 II comparison this weekend and since I couldn't do a video review to save my life, it will necessarily be a written comparison. It won't be nearly as detailed as RL's, but I look forward to hearing people complain about my free write up as well

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

I'm planning a 16-35 f/4 IS to 24L II, 24-70 II, TS-E 17, & TS-E 24 II comparison this weekend and since I couldn't do a video review to save my life, it will necessarily be a written comparison. It won't be nearly as detailed as RL's, but I look forward to hearing people complain about my free write up as well

It's the worst! I can't believe you even thought it made sense to bother writing it! Jeez!!!!

 

[mackguyver]

I'm planning a 16-35 f/4 IS to 24L II, 24-70 II, TS-E 17, & TS-E 24 II comparison this weekend and since I couldn't do a video review to save my life, it will necessarily be a written comparison. It won't be nearly as detailed as RL's, but I look forward to hearing people complain about my free write up as well

It's the worst! I can't believe you even thought it made sense to bother writing it! Jeez!!!!

LOL ;D

 

[weixing]

Hi,

Okay, I know this is going to come off as assholish to sensitive people, but I don't mean it that way, I'm just really curious why some people do reviews like this.

I have a feeling people like to hear themselves talk or see themselves on video. This review could have easily been done as a simple web page or even PDF. We are coming to a time when the bandwidth we use may be regulated or charged per usage, so it only makes sense to do it in web page format to reach the maximal audience. Secondly, a written review could be read quicker, as well as if you were only interested in a certain aspect, you wouldn't have to sit through the whole video, you could just scroll to the appropriate section. With a video, I either have to suffer through the whole thing, or just not watch it and then miss out on important points. If I'm at work, I can't watch thirty minutes of video, but I can sure read a written review.

Could someone enlighten me? To me, I feel as if you're doing a review "for the people", so to speak, then you should do it to "reach the people" as easily as possible. To give an extreme example, if I want to educate people globally about proper hygiene, I'm not going to make a 4K video, because most of the people who need educating about hygiene wouldn't even have television. Again, a bit extreme as an example, but just trying to drive home the point and see if anyone could explain to me why these types of reviews are unfortunately so common.

It's about personal preference of the author and what he think his target audience prefer... some like video, some like written review... Or may be doing a video is easier for the author than doing a written review... For example, why making a movie instead of writing a novel?? Because some people prefer reading a novel and some people prefer seeing a movie... best if the author got time, do both.

Anyway, video review got their advantage because you can see the "real" item in the video. For example, when I wrote the the AF speed of the new lens is 0.5s faster than the old lens in a written review, then you might think that 0.5s improvement might not worth the amount of price increment, but when you see the old lens AF speed vs the new lens AF speed in video, you then realised that 0.5s faster is a lot faster than you think.

Have a nice day.

 

[dpclicks]

My First test of time lapse using Canon 16-35 f/4 IS.

Somehow Lightroom is cutting the image from sides. Is there any setting that I am missing in Lightroom?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1Agko15_H4

 

[SoullessPolack]

Thanks to those who replied to my question, it makes more sense to me now, and I appreciate your insight. Sometimes it's hard to understand why people enjoy a certain thing when you much prefer the opposite, and is why I was curious and asked.

To bdunbar79, any sense of entitlement you perceive is your own creation, because there is none. I apologized in advance in case anyone misjudged my tone, and explained why I prefer a text version, and was seeking an explanation "from the other side", so to speak. Apparently you just enjoy causing arguments, of which I will not give you the pleasure of.

No Mayo, where did I ever say I was not trying to draw attention to myself at work? Not being able to watch that long of a video does not equate to trying not to draw attention on myself. I explained numerous times how I wanted to find out the reasons for a video instead of text. Obviously, I prefer text. When did it become wrong to try to see the other side? Where I come from, that's admirable, not arrogant.

 

[verysimplejason]

Thanks to those who replied to my question, it makes more sense to me now, and I appreciate your insight. Sometimes it's hard to understand why people enjoy a certain thing when you much prefer the opposite, and is why I was curious and asked.

To bdunbar79, any sense of entitlement you perceive is your own creation, because there is none. I apologized in advance in case anyone misjudged my tone, and explained why I prefer a text version, and was seeking an explanation "from the other side", so to speak. Apparently you just enjoy causing arguments, of which I will not give you the pleasure of.

No Mayo, where did I ever say I was not trying to draw attention to myself at work? Not being able to watch that long of a video does not equate to trying not to draw attention on myself. I explained numerous times how I wanted to find out the reasons for a video instead of text. Obviously, I prefer text. When did it become wrong to try to see the other side? Where I come from, that's admirable, not arrogant.

Or simply, you can ask RLPhoto for a transcription or text version. Then everybody's happy. Everybody got his own preference. Just my 2 cents, if you don't prefer videos, then just simply don't bother with the post and move on or ask if he's offering the same review in your preferred format. You're clearly inviting arguments when you write your heavily opinionated statements there. :

 

[Zv]

My First test of time lapse using Canon 16-35 f/4 IS.

Somehow Lightroom is cutting the image from sides. Is there any setting that I am missing in Lightroom?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1Agko15_H4

LR could be applying Auto Adjustments at import. You can switch those off under Preferences. Also, check your import settings to ensure no presets are being applied accidentally.

 

[benperrin]

Great review. My 17-40 is being sold tomorrow and I'm just itching to take out my new 16-35 f4. Also thank-you for mentioning that tripods aren't allowed everywhere. Some people just don't seem to understand that point. The 16-35 seems to be better in every scenario so I'm already thinking I made the right choice. Thanks again for the effort you put into making these videos.

 

[bdunbar79]

Thanks to those who replied to my question, it makes more sense to me now, and I appreciate your insight. Sometimes it's hard to understand why people enjoy a certain thing when you much prefer the opposite, and is why I was curious and asked.

To bdunbar79, any sense of entitlement you perceive is your own creation, because there is none. I apologized in advance in case anyone misjudged my tone, and explained why I prefer a text version, and was seeking an explanation "from the other side", so to speak. Apparently you just enjoy causing arguments, of which I will not give you the pleasure of.

No Mayo, where did I ever say I was not trying to draw attention to myself at work? Not being able to watch that long of a video does not equate to trying not to draw attention on myself. I explained numerous times how I wanted to find out the reasons for a video instead of text. Obviously, I prefer text. When did it become wrong to try to see the other side? Where I come from, that's admirable, not arrogant.

Or simply, you can ask RLPhoto for a transcription or text version. Then everybody's happy. Everybody got his own preference. Just my 2 cents, if you don't prefer videos, then just simply don't bother with the post and move on or ask if he's offering the same review in your preferred format. You're clearly inviting arguments when you write your heavily opinionated statements there. :

Exactly! If you are GENUINELY wanting to know why he chose video over text, you would have contacted him directly, asked him, gotten the information, and had been done with it. Instead, you chose the route you did. Or better, you could have read Bryan Carnathan's review (text with pictures) instead. Much easier choices.

 

[RLPhoto]

Ramon, first of all, I think your profile pic is awesome man, great job and cool perspective. What camera did you create this video with? Thanks, Eric.

Thank you. I put some thought into making a neat avatar.

In the video I used a 5d3+24-70 and a galaxy note 3 @ 4k. Audio was taken from a H4n+Rode NTG2. The voice overs were done on a shure SM7b.

@soulesspolack I won't write a written review as bryan at TDP has a better writeup and real test charts if your interested in that. This was simply my impressions on the lens.

 

[RLPhoto]

My last post to wrap up this thread. A final goodbye to the 17-40L for me and looking back at some of my favorite photos it captured before it's sold on evilbay.

Canon EF 17-40 F/4 L USM Review: http://youtu.be/OWK68nuC_hE

 

[RustyTheGeek]

I scanned/skimmed all the responses/comments on this thread about the new 16-35/F4 IS Lens. Unfortunately, instead of discussing the lens, for the most part everyone just discussed RLPhoto's chosen video review method and more comments on each others' posts/personal views or asswholishness.

So to follow the flow of this thread, I guess I should comment on the comments... or wait, maybe not. Who cares? I read the CR Forum because it's NOT like most other threads that degenerate into petty comments about irrelevant things like whether RL should or should not have used video, if other posters are polite enough or whatever else. Aww crap... I just commented on the comments. :

RLPhoto - great job. I viewed the videos from the perspective of joining you at your house for a beer while you share your new lens. The videos came across that way with informed thoughts and information. I can read written reviews in many places and it was nice to put a face/voice with a name after all this time. Next time however, might I suggest at least 2 or 3 hot babes dancing while you do the video review. That might distract anyone that would otherwise notice other problems with your video or methods.

Question: I assume that what you are shooting at F4 with IS allowing you to extend shutter time to almost a second in low light is a still subject, correct? Because if the subject moves, IS is useless. I know you are aware of this but didn't mention it in the video. No big deal but some folks might forget that little fact.

I am impressed with the idea of using IR to expose hot spots of the lens. Great!

 

[RustyTheGeek]

My last post to wrap up this thread. A final goodbye to the 17-40L for me and looking back at some of my favorite photos it captured before it's sold on evilbay.

Very cool little discussion that really makes me want to take some ND filters with me more often. Thanks for the nice walk through some of your fun images and their back story. This helps inspire me to try more stuff, even when I'm tired or not always in the mood while travelling!

 

[RLPhoto]

My last post to wrap up this thread. A final goodbye to the 17-40L for me and looking back at some of my favorite photos it captured before it's sold on evilbay.

Very cool little discussion that really makes me want to take some ND filters with me more often. Thanks for the nice walk through some of your fun images and their back story. This helps inspire me to try more stuff, even when I'm tired or not always in the mood while travelling!

Thank you rusty. I know what it's like to travel around and arrive late at the hotel. You end up wanting to just sleep the night away but we could miss so many opportunities. I can't say how important it is, no matter what lens you got, to stay out a bit later and strive to make some cool photos.

I didn't know at the the time that this photo would make it on the cover of the London Planner, but hey! I'm glad I stayed out longer. I'd highly recommend a set of NDs for your travel photos.

 

[mackguyver]

RL, congrats on the cover shot! Great work and it's always exciting to get published on the cover. I agree with your comments 100% - many of my best shots were taken when I decided to hang around for 10 more minutes or go down one more road, trail, etc.