I love my 16-35 f2.8 II i almost never use it wide open though I typically shoot f8 to f11 with it anyway and it is razor sharp bright clear colours all over even on ff. awesome lens IMO
Upvote
0
- Status
wickidwombat said:
To me a 12-24 f/4 with better sharpness would have much more appeal than an 14-24 2.8. Yes 2.8 on an UWA does have its uses but they seem much more limated to me than on normal or tele lenses and not worth the extra cost, weight and potentially flare. An f/4 lens also seems like it would balance the market better for Canon, the 17-40 as the cheap UWA, the 16-35 2.8 and 14 2.8 as the fast ones and the 12-24 as the widest.
I wonder whethert we'll see Pentax's idea of drop in lens barrel filters from the 25mm 645 feature in any more "bulb" UWA's? obviously it won't give quite the versatility of a filter system but would cut down on the fuss greatly for shots where you only need an ND or a polarizer. Is a zoom lens just going to be too complex for something like that?
Upvote
0
The one thing with any wide angle, zoom or prime, is that the closer you can between the last element and the sensor the better. I'm not sure how the Pentax works (i'll look for images once i've posted this), but if i were a lens designer i'd be putting the filter between the last few elements, whether the distance needed for that makes the design impossible I don't know.
.
But also, what I do know is that using a CPL on 15mm on APS-C (24mm on FF), you really can notice the blue banding in the sky. Using a CPL on 12mm on FF would make a very very uneven sky...
.
But also, what I do know is that using a CPL on 15mm on APS-C (24mm on FF), you really can notice the blue banding in the sky. Using a CPL on 12mm on FF would make a very very uneven sky...
Upvote
0
dr croubie said:
With an UWA I find the main use for a polarizer is taking reflections off of the foreground with little or no sky in the frame.
If they could come up with a drop in system I spose theres no reason they couldnt create grads aswell, they'd be fixed but still useful in many situations.
Really going into fantasy land perhaps some kind of built in shifting grad system you could shift up and down in the barrel? I'm actually supprized that no manifacturer has tried that in a compact body yet ala the built in ND's and marketed it as a "landscape master".
Upvote
0
P
pharp
Guest
EYEONE said:
That might be an interesting poll - how much does size/weight factor into buying decisions [assuming cost doesn't figure into it, e.g. the 2.8 lens is pricier than the 4]? I've read many people say they are put off by the size/weight of this or that lens - like your 24-70 2.8 and 70-200 2.8. Obviously not a problem for you, but for others?
Upvote
0
L
Loswr
Guest
pharp said:
For me, not at all - at least for 'normal' lenses. It is a consideration for me when comparing the 100-400mm with the 500mm f/4L IS, for example - I tend to hike longish distances when shooting wildlife, and carrying the 500/4 is not so easy (in fact, that might make the weight reduction with the MkII worth the $3K price increase). But personally, I have no problem carrying around a gripped body and 70-200/2.8 or 100-400 - I do that routinely for much of the day. Given that, the difference between a 17-40/4 and a hypothetical 14-24/2.8, or between a 24-105/4 and a 24-70/2.8, is not an issue.
Upvote
0
pharp said:
That's true, it would be interesting. And you're right I don't mind the weight, I actually prefer it in some cases. I've gone in shoots with my 7D gripped, 70-200 f2.8 and 430EX for hours, no sweat. It would be a problem if I had to hold it the entire time but I have a BlackRapid so I can essentially put the camera down and rest.
And regarding the 14-24: If Canon made it a f4 lens I would be less interested and probably just go with the 16-35mm F2.8 II. It is a lot more attractive at f2.8 regardless of the weight.
I love the 10-22mm. Fantastic lens. But I feel like it is too light. It felt like it might break and I didn't have a lot of confidence in its constructions.
Upvote
0
UWA's do seem more likely to run into weight problems to me if only because they tend to be used more for landscapes with the possibility of lenghty difficult walks.
I would ask aswell what exactually do people use 2.8 on an UWA for? isolating the subject doesnt really seem like something best suited to UWA and while DOF maybe deeper your also going to have alot of close foreground. Personally I find even with the extra DOF I tend to stop down more with UWA zooms than I do with normal zooms for that reason.
You look at the rest of Canon's range and I think what stands out over Nikon is that they offer quality f/4 zooms like the 24-105 and 70-200's.
I would ask aswell what exactually do people use 2.8 on an UWA for? isolating the subject doesnt really seem like something best suited to UWA and while DOF maybe deeper your also going to have alot of close foreground. Personally I find even with the extra DOF I tend to stop down more with UWA zooms than I do with normal zooms for that reason.
You look at the rest of Canon's range and I think what stands out over Nikon is that they offer quality f/4 zooms like the 24-105 and 70-200's.
Upvote
0
moreorless said:
Special effects in interiors and architectural details in almost complete dark / night.
See here:
http://vatopaidi.wordpress.com/2011/10/26/spod33/
Imho, I think that is worth the effort.
Upvote
0
J
Jettatore
Guest
I'm not sure 14-24 zoom makes too good of sense for Canon. For Nikon, the 14-24 is effectively the replacement for the 14mm prime, and has been said to be of superior image quality to the wide 14mm Nikon Prime. The Canon 14mm prime on the other hand is said to superior to all the aforementioned lenses, including the 16-35 L II, (all third hand information from scouring various reviews, mostly Ken Rockwell). Also the zoom range from 14-24 seem a bit awkward.
Think of what you do with zooms, for me it's to have a bunch of lenses on hand without having to carry/swap them all, and also to be able to get an action shot while it's happening that you would otherwise have missed if you had to move or switch lenses. 14-24 really doesn't seem to fit into that, so what it's utility is, is just going from ultra wide to wide in one lens. I guess that's mildly useful if the 14mm distortion is just too much for your shot, but on the 16 to 35, you go from near ultra-wide, to wide, to near standard and can be used as a walk-around/photo journalism lens. If you stick the 35mm end into your subjects face, you don't get perspective distortion, so it's a nice option to switch to compositionally for many shots, vs. 16mm. 24 on the other hand just doesn't seem to useful because up close, you still get some distortion but it's not exaggerated, and I use my 16-36 normally on the 16 or the 35mm end and 24 is still there if it would prove useful for some situation.
Also, most of the reviews that talk about these various wide-angle lenses, nit-pick minute details to such a major degree, that I barely think it means too much, especially if your handy in post with your digital editing tools. I normally go to here http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=141406 and just see what people are doing with the actual lenses, taking a large sample of the best pictures offered, and usually what I conclude is, that good photographers take the best pictures, not lenses, as the IQ of most all the L lenses are just phenomenal even for poorly composed/poorly lit/boring shots, and all the hype is just pixel peeping. Pick out the lens for what you want to do with it, not for the minute results someone might criticize or praise it for under an electron microscope. And get really good at digital editing for the small stuff when it really does count.
Personally, if it wouldn't degrade IQ, the only thing I could wish for would be perhaps IS, but I fear that would probably bring the lens into the f/4 category and I don't usually like that trade-off.
p.s. IQ on the 16 - 35 is fantastic, and any minor gripe I've heard of in reviews can be easy removed by a competent digital developer in post, if it's even effecting the image before print to begin with, and I don't find that to be the case from my use. I took this shot with the 16-35 on a 7D at ISO 800 out of the window of my car while stopped in traffic, works for me.
http://minus.com/mwi8ith2f
Think of what you do with zooms, for me it's to have a bunch of lenses on hand without having to carry/swap them all, and also to be able to get an action shot while it's happening that you would otherwise have missed if you had to move or switch lenses. 14-24 really doesn't seem to fit into that, so what it's utility is, is just going from ultra wide to wide in one lens. I guess that's mildly useful if the 14mm distortion is just too much for your shot, but on the 16 to 35, you go from near ultra-wide, to wide, to near standard and can be used as a walk-around/photo journalism lens. If you stick the 35mm end into your subjects face, you don't get perspective distortion, so it's a nice option to switch to compositionally for many shots, vs. 16mm. 24 on the other hand just doesn't seem to useful because up close, you still get some distortion but it's not exaggerated, and I use my 16-36 normally on the 16 or the 35mm end and 24 is still there if it would prove useful for some situation.
Also, most of the reviews that talk about these various wide-angle lenses, nit-pick minute details to such a major degree, that I barely think it means too much, especially if your handy in post with your digital editing tools. I normally go to here http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=141406 and just see what people are doing with the actual lenses, taking a large sample of the best pictures offered, and usually what I conclude is, that good photographers take the best pictures, not lenses, as the IQ of most all the L lenses are just phenomenal even for poorly composed/poorly lit/boring shots, and all the hype is just pixel peeping. Pick out the lens for what you want to do with it, not for the minute results someone might criticize or praise it for under an electron microscope. And get really good at digital editing for the small stuff when it really does count.
Personally, if it wouldn't degrade IQ, the only thing I could wish for would be perhaps IS, but I fear that would probably bring the lens into the f/4 category and I don't usually like that trade-off.
p.s. IQ on the 16 - 35 is fantastic, and any minor gripe I've heard of in reviews can be easy removed by a competent digital developer in post, if it's even effecting the image before print to begin with, and I don't find that to be the case from my use. I took this shot with the 16-35 on a 7D at ISO 800 out of the window of my car while stopped in traffic, works for me.
http://minus.com/mwi8ith2f
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
