New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Canon Thread - Page 154

post #2296 of 2631
Quote:
Originally Posted by liamstrain View Post

I'm glad to see they are updating the 35/2 - though I don't think it needs IS (my own personal preference though). 

 

I'll look forward to distortion samples - if it's as clean as I hope it will be, I'll buy one. 

Well, for video (which I don't shoot) there's good reason to have IS.  Also, with 4-stop IS, you're talking 1/2 second exposures.  Add in pretty darn good high ISO capabilities from modern DSLRs and you're talking, what, EV -1 handheld at ISO1600.  Push that to ISO 6400 and you're shooting at night out in the country under moonlight.  Add in an 8-blade rounded aperture diaphragm and I couldn't think of a more perfect lens for my use.

 

On another note, a buddy of mine in a band had a show on Saturday.  Gotta love the 85/1.8:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

All taken @ ISO 3200 anywhere between f/1.8-2.8 with shutter speeds ranging 1/60-1/200

 

EDIT: Hmm..these all look a bit flat to me.  IDK if it's this monitor here at work, the environment, or if the forum software is doing something to the images but, given what I'm seeing now, these should have more contrast; might be time to re-calibrate my monitors at home.  Oh well, you get the idea.


Edited by leftnose - 11/5/12 at 10:46am
post #2297 of 2631

Yah - I don't use my dSLRS for anything low light though - Its all studio or location with tripods and lights. So IS for me is a non-issue. Distortion and sharpness are really my only criteria. 

 

If I want to shoot low light, I'm going to be holding a rangefinder. 

post #2298 of 2631
Quote:
Originally Posted by liamstrain View Post

I'm glad to see they are updating the 35/2 - though I don't think it needs IS (my own personal preference though). 

 

I'll look forward to distortion samples - if it's as clean as I hope it will be, I'll buy one. 

 

My preference would have been a new 35/2 without IS, which would be smaller, lighter, and most importantly cheaper.  Going by Canon's recent IS lens releases, the 35/2 is going to be at least in $800 range, which makes it really not a replacement for the old 35 f/2 which can be picked up for $300 range currently.  

 

Here's hoping Canon doesn't screw up (or screw us over with price) with the rumored new 35L, which is the one I'm waiting for.  I would still prefer no IS, as small as possible, and cheapest possible, but Canon does what it wants to.  Then again, the current 35L really doesn't need to be updated IMO. 


Edited by Jon L - 11/5/12 at 12:43pm
post #2299 of 2631

Speaking of 35L, I just realized something... if you're a 24/50/100 person then all three lenses in this trinity are weather-sealed. If you're a 35/85/135, on the other hand, all three are not weather-sealed.

 

Not suggesting any sort of pattern in Canon or anything, just what I noticed.

post #2300 of 2631

Yeah, I'd say that's just due to the ages of the lenses, though. 35/85/135 are basically 90s era.  The 24/50/100 are basically all from the last 5 years, no?

post #2301 of 2631
Quote:
Originally Posted by leftnose View Post

Yeah, I'd say that's just due to the ages of the lenses, though. 35/85/135 are basically 90s era.  The 24/50/100 are basically all from the last 5 years, no?

no, those focal lengths have been popular with photogs since the dawn of 35mm

post #2302 of 2631
Quote:
Originally Posted by musubi1000 View Post

no, those focal lengths have been popular with photogs since the dawn of 35mm

He's not talking about the popularity, but the age of the most recent L.

 

And yeah, 24/50/100 are quite recent while the 35 and 135 are relatively old designs. The 85L II is relatively new though, but wasn't built with weather-sealing.

post #2303 of 2631

Ha! thats why Canon made the "popular" sizes weather sealed first. They will eventually get to the less common focal lengths and increase the price by about double.

post #2304 of 2631
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadCow View Post

And yeah, 24/50/100 are quite recent while the 35 and 135 are relatively old designs. The 85L II is relatively new though, but wasn't built with weather-sealing.

 

I don't know too much about it as I've never paid a ton of attention to the lens as I'll never buy one but I think the upgrade to the 85L II was much less drastic than some of the other upgrades.  Were there any external changes?  I think it was just new coatings on the optics and a different drive ratio for the AF, no?  Correct me if I'm wrong.  But if I'm right, the 85L is still really a 90s lens.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by musubi1000 View Post

Ha! thats why Canon made the "popular" sizes weather sealed first. They will eventually get to the less common focal lengths and increase the price by about double.

Not sure if I agree with you at all on this (other than doubling the price, that's sure to happen).  Traditionally, I think 35mm is much more common than 24mm and probably second in popularity only to 50mm for prime lenses (possibly even more popular now with crop sensors).  And again, traditionally, 85/90mm and 135mm are both much more common than 100mm.  Actually, to me, 100mm is kind of a weird focal length and it isn't necessarily one that I would think to buy other than the fact that it is available as a macro lens.

 

So, ultimately, I think 50mm is the most popular lens but I think 35/85/135 is a much more common combo than 24/50/100.


Edited by leftnose - 11/6/12 at 8:01am
post #2305 of 2631

while we re at it, do you know why the best lenses (sharpness/aperture/distortion) never use IS? IS must have minor drawbacks when working, but i wonder if there is a reason why the IS lenses don't compete directly with others when IS is OFF?

for a long time now i ve been wondering if that was a marketing decision or if there was some technical reasons.

 

i have wet dreams of my 85LII with IS "the best portrait lens for vampires! soon 135L-IS with wooden stick" and "so heavy no human can steal it from you!" ph34r.gif

that 85 can't be "tropicalised", redesign all the moving parts so the front lens stay fixed would be tremendous work. might as well do a new lens imo.

 

 thx for telling us about the 35IS. it could make wonders in extreme situations. that s one toy i really want to try.

post #2306 of 2631
Quote:
Originally Posted by castleofargh View Post

while we re at it, do you know why the best lenses (sharpness/aperture/distortion) never use IS? IS must have minor drawbacks when working, but i wonder if there is a reason why the IS lenses don't compete directly with others when IS is OFF?

for a long time now i ve been wondering if that was a marketing decision or if there was some technical reasons.

 

Not sure I agree with this either.  The new 100L Macro has IS and is sharp as a tack.  The 70-200L f/2.8 II IS is super sharp.  All the "II" version super-teles have IS and are ridiculously sharp.  I'd say it's more of a developmental issue.  The 135L, for example, was released in the mid-90s and IS just didn't exist then.

 

However, IS lenses invariably add more elements.  In general, more elements = more chance for distortion and flare so it is fundamentally harder to make an IS lens that is as sharp as a non-IS lens.  However, with modern engineering, materials, coatings, and manufacturing techniques it can be done and I wouldn't dismiss any new lens with IS as being "not sharp."

post #2307 of 2631

Well, my $800 guess about the 35 f/2 IS price wasn't far off.  Taking preorders at $850 !  The 24-70 f/4L IS $1500 !!  Canon continues on the price-it-high-and-they-will-come path..

 

http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/11/ef-24-70-f4l-is-ef-35-f2-is-preorders/

post #2308 of 2631
Quote:
Originally Posted by leftnose View Post


Not sure I agree with this either.  The new 100L Macro has IS and is sharp as a tack.  The 70-200L f/2.8 II IS is super sharp.  All the "II" version super-teles have IS and are ridiculously sharp.  I'd say it's more of a developmental issue.  The 135L, for example, was released in the mid-90s and IS just didn't exist then.

 

However, IS lenses invariably add more elements.  In general, more elements = more chance for distortion and flare so it is fundamentally harder to make an IS lens that is as sharp as a non-IS lens.  However, with modern engineering, materials, coatings, and manufacturing techniques it can be done and I wouldn't dismiss any new lens with IS as being "not sharp."

 

ok i answered myself by taking a look at the canon list, in fact canon mainly made IS versions of the zooms. that s why i get in my head that the good rocks don't get IS. 

 

the last 70-200 is amazing it is the one i rent when i need IS. i often wonder if i should sell my 85 135 and 200 to get one. on paper the 70-200 looks even better than my babies but when i use it, i m never in love with the results like i am with my 3 rocks. (not taking IS and all in one aspect of the 70-200 here, just how i see the good shots)

can't say if it is because i know what i can and cannot do on those and lack experience with the 70-200 or if there is more than what the charts are saying.

 

 

 

 

The 24-70 f/4L IS $1500   blink.gif  it better be amazing for that price.


Edited by castleofargh - 11/6/12 at 1:59pm
post #2309 of 2631
Quote:
Originally Posted by leftnose View Post

 

I don't know too much about it as I've never paid a ton of attention to the lens as I'll never buy one but I think the upgrade to the 85L II was much less drastic than some of the other upgrades.  Were there any external changes?  I think it was just new coatings on the optics and a different drive ratio for the AF, no?  Correct me if I'm wrong.  But if I'm right, the 85L is still really a 90s lens.

 

 

IIRC, the main differences between then two 85L versions are just improved lens coatings and faster AF; the optical formula is practically the same. External changes were purely cosmetic, but I don't see why they couldn't add weather sealing to the lens. Perhaps due to the way the front element and focusing group worked?

 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by castleofargh View Post

while we re at it, do you know why the best lenses (sharpness/aperture/distortion) never use IS? IS must have minor drawbacks when working, but i wonder if there is a reason why the IS lenses don't compete directly with others when IS is OFF?

for a long time now i ve been wondering if that was a marketing decision or if there was some technical reasons.

 

In my opinion, the IS mechanism involves a moving/floating glass element. Due to the ultra-high resolution of modern sensors and high quality optics, all it takes is a tiny misalignment in the optical path to introduce abberations to IQ. So an IS mechanism has to be manufactured to very high precision levels, and when IS is turned off it has to "park" these elements in a very precise manner as well. High precision generally means higher costs.

 

So the marketing decisions would mostly be something like this: Is is worth installing an expensive, high precision IS mechanism (sharp lens), a cheaper and less one (not as sharp, but still sharp by modern standards), or none at all?

post #2310 of 2631
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon L View Post

Well, my $800 guess about the 35 f/2 IS price wasn't far off.  Taking preorders at $850 !  The 24-70 f/4L IS $1500 !!  Canon continues on the price-it-high-and-they-will-come path..

 

http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/11/ef-24-70-f4l-is-ef-35-f2-is-preorders/

I hate to admit it but I'm one of those who will pre-order the 35, even at that price.  I'm just waiting for Amazon to list it (Prime, FTW!).

 

The 24-70, OTOH, is crazy at $1500.  I'll hang on to my 24-105, thank you very much.

 

EDIT: Also, center pinch lens caps!  That must have added a bunch to the R&D blink.gif


Edited by leftnose - 11/6/12 at 5:35pm
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home