Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: Josh-H on September 17, 2008, 01:31:30 am
-
I know all the hype is around the new 5D - and thats cool. But as a 1DSMK3 owner I was personally more excited by the new 24mm F1.4L prime. Very glad to see this lens getting an update and very much hoping it finally gives Canon a very sharp wide angle lens.
-
I was dissapointed since I though Canon only announced the 5D mark II today, and skipped the most important bit: the lenses.
I was pleasantly surprised to see they updated their most flawed lens (personal experience), I hope it really is much better than the mark I, as this would put the 5D on my to buy list.
Previously I would have gone for the Nikon D700.
Gotta love competitors....
-
I was dissapointed since I though Canon only announced the 5D mark II today, and skipped the most important bit: the lenses.
I was pleasantly surprised to see they updated their most flawed lens (personal experience), I hope it really is much better than the mark I, as this would put the 5D on my to buy list.
Previously I would have gone for the Nikon D700.
Gotta love competitors....
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=221991\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
well, why not a new 24-70 or a new wide zoom ? why not something like a 12-24 ? why not a 100-400 which REALLY needs to be updated.
Yes it is good if canon finally made a usable wide lens for the 1dsmk3, but I doupt already that this lens will be good compared to a Zeiss 21, leica 19 or Nikon 12-24...
-
Zeiss's Canon mount is uncannily timely.
Canon has a lot of lens work to do to catch up with the cameras.
-
Zeiss's Canon mount is uncannily timely.
Canon has a lot of lens work to do to catch up with the cameras.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=222076\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I'm sure they're fine optics but I wouldn't spend the money for the Zeiss EF mount lenses. Too much $$$ for me for manual focus.
-
I'm sure they're fine optics but I wouldn't spend the money for the Zeiss EF mount lenses. Too much $$$ for me for manual focus.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=222078\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Why do you need AF on a 24 or 21 mm lens ? I certainly don't.
-
Why do you need AF on a 24 or 21 mm lens ? I certainly don't.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=222113\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
For focusing?
-
For focusing?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=222114\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
And you can't do that manually ? ^^
-
And you can't do that manually ? ^^
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=222117\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Sure you can do it manually, but AF can be a great help, and why would you not want AF if it works great?
I for one am glad Canon is updating the 24L. I have this lens (mark I), and it is nothing to brag about, and it ain't no 35L...now the 35L is freakin awesome...razor sharp wide open and everything the mediocre 50L & 24L should've been.
Canon's cr@p---> 24L Mark I, 50L Mark II. Two lenses that are just so-so, even after calibration.
Those two lenses are not in the same IQ category as these awesome pieces of glass:
35L
85L
135L
200L
all the tele-L primes.....
-
I'm sure they're fine optics but I wouldn't spend the money for the Zeiss EF mount lenses. Too much $$$ for me for manual focus.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=222078\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Actually those new Zeiss lenses are cheaper then their Canon L counterparts by loads of dollars. And what good is the $1,400 50L if that prime has boolsheet AF performance? If those Zeiss lenses provide awesome IQ over their Canon L counterparts, but must be focused manually, then they are worth the money, and again less then the corresponding L's too. Having to use manual focus is a small price to pay for stellar IQ.
-
And you can't do that manually ? ^^
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=222117\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Whats the difference between focusing a 24mm and a 50mm or 85 or whatever?
-
I like this quote:
"The new biomimetic coating is inspired by features found within the eyes of moths."
-
And you can't do that manually ? ^^
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=222117\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Not with the focusing screens supplied with my 1D2 or 5D. What focusing screens do you recommend?
-
I was expecting a very good 24mm but TS-E :-(
-
I was expecting a very good 24mm but TS-E :-(
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=222239\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yes something like that
-
Not with the focusing screens supplied with my 1D2 or 5D. What focusing screens do you recommend?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=222222\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Right. Manual focusing with AF cameras is difficult, especially with wide angle lenses at very wide apertures. You can try the high-precision screens, which are somewhat better, but then they have inherent problems (very dark with f/2.8 lenses).
I gave up trying to manually focus my 24 and my 35 -- I sent the bodies and lenses into Canon, had them calibrated, and just trust the AF. It's more accurate (and quicker) than my eyes.
BTW I'm not sure I understand all the hatred for the 24/1.4. Mine does what I want it to do -- shoot under lousy lighting conditions and/or provide extremely shallow DOF -- quite well. Sure, it's not sharp in the corners wide open, but I don't want it to be sharp in the corners wide open.
-
Yes something like that
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=222284\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Actually, the current 24 TS-E is much better than the old 24mm (no TS).
It just doesn't need to be replaced as badly....
-
Whats going to be the best lens.
I need a prime 50mm.
Canon 1.2 L or Zeiss Planar T 1.4
-
Whats going to be the best lens. Canon 1.2 L or Zeiss Planar T 1.4
Do you want auto focus capability?
-
Whats going to be the best lens.
I need a prime 50mm.
Canon 1.2 L or Zeiss Planar T 1.4
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=222491\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I cant speak to the Zeiss - but I regularly use the 50 1.2L on a 1DSMK3 and its VERY sharp with very nice Bokeh.
-
Do you want auto focus capability?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=222495\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Not really.
-
Not really.
Then it's the Zeiss.