skysi: I looked the price and passed out.
the 17 TS-E, 16-35/4L, 11-22 EF-M, 10-18mm and now this have pretty much firmly removed any myth of canon can't do uwa's..
but yes, certainly back 7+ years ago, they weren't doing that well.
jwhig: "Canon's new EF 11-24mm F4 L wideangle zoom lens is Canon's widest ever rectilinear zoom by some margin"
You mean the widest FULL FRAME zoom lens. The 10-22 EF-S is wider.
m43's 7-14mm? canon is wider..
this is the widest rectilinear camera lens created.
whoever complains about the price couldn't have looked at zeiss, leica, or even at nikon or canon super telephoto lenses lately.
mjordan1: Please, please! No more reference to "fluorine" coatings. Fluorine is a gas at room temperature and very reactive. The coatings used are " fluoride" coatings e.g. calcium/magnesium fluoride, both of which are ionic compounds and not elements like fluorine.
well canon specifically calls it fluorine coatings.
and so does Nikon.
AllOtherNamesTaken: According to Lenstip, the Tamron 15-30 is sharper, 1/3 the price, is stabilized, and has 5 times the warranty:
"When it comes to the duel with the Canon EF 16–35 mm f/2.8L USM II the Tamron wins hands down. The Canon was able to compete successfully only in the frame centre, on the edge of the frame it was definitely worse. Still it is possible to use filters with it, a quite important asset in this class of parameters.
To sum up the boasting of Tamron about the superior quality of their new lens proved to be true. The company managed to present a device which compares favourably with its rivals, is cheaper, has optical stabilization and a 5-year warranty period – it would be difficult not to recommend it. Independent producers have been proving for some time that they are no longer specializing in cheap equivalents of brand name lenses. The Tamron 15-30 mm is an excellent example of that strategy."
You give up 4mm, but you gain alot
Curious to see some more reviews down the road.
lmao. what .. so you're talking about comparing the 15-35 tammy against a 8 year old lens .. what the blazes does it have to do with this? really?
god some people shouldn't be let out of the Nikon forums..
what's just amazing is that there is no in camera correction for this lens because the profiles aren't out for it yet.
this is direct OOC - no distortion correction or anything.
In the era where manufactures are getting lazy with designs and leaning on software to correct for CA, and massive amounts of distortion and STILL charging alot for a lens, it's nice to see such a well corrected lens.
especially one that has never ever been done before as far as a ultra-UWA? and a zoom and constant aperture at that.
3K for such a lens? esoteric glass always costs.
Txoni: It looks nice, but how does fringing compare to similar lenses? I see quite a bit of purple fringing on both sides
I don't know where you're seeing this quite a bit of PF..
jrkliny: I have looked at this interview a couple of times. Each time I look at the opening question and response. How is it possible that Maeda does not know that the full frame Canon sensors have had the same resolution for 7 years? How does Canon expect to make sales if they do not improve their cameras? Cameras need good sensors, they need to autofocus and they need to correctly expose. It is pretty hard to sell autofocus and exposure. Those are givens. We expect our cameras to do those tasks. If the sensors are not improved why would anyone upgrade?
"7 years without a major full frame upgrade" .. do you think resolution is the only significant factor of a "full frame upgrade" .. really?
rrccad: .....When it comes to Raw, the E-M5 II appears to give a very similar performance to its predecessor. This means it's still competitive against some Canon APS-C cameras, but lags behind the likes of Sony's a6000 or Nikon's D5500. And, if you compare the E-M5 II's ISO 6400 results to the ISO 6400 and ISO 12,800 output from those camera, (snip)..
is this really the case?
there's caveats there.
For instance in low light high ISO - it's really hard to say the A6000 is that spectacular, and I'd say at ISO 6400, the M5 II is actually better than the A6000.
Also the NX1 looks worse when compared RAW and low light than the M5 II using the same measure, as there's some kind of black clipping happening that complete destroys any sort of detail in the darker regions.
Looking in the area where you have the green fake grass patch in the dark corner doesn't match at all with what you are saying in the view as far as high ISO's.
agreed everyone's so into diminishing returns nowadays.
thermal conditions at the time of testing can make a difference as well.
the only real camera i've seen a difference on is the NX1 - who's ability to rob detail in low light seems to be record holder.
not sure what's going on with dpreview's tests of the NX1 - but something just looks "off" with that data to proclaim it the best out there (without a full review even).
.....When it comes to Raw, the E-M5 II appears to give a very similar performance to its predecessor. This means it's still competitive against some Canon APS-C cameras, but lags behind the likes of Sony's a6000 or Nikon's D5500. And, if you compare the E-M5 II's ISO 6400 results to the ISO 6400 and ISO 12,800 output from those camera, (snip)..
RaghavBaijal: Is that an APSC lens?? It looks Huge! I though it would be much smaller (Diameter) considering Full Frame lenses are about that big...
mosc - you need some basic math training.
f-stsop is a focal ratio between the focal length and the entrance pupil.
a 300/2.8 is going to have a 105mm or so front element and going to be around 300mm in length regardless of what you dream up.
where APS-C etc does make a difference is the inner elements, however the front elements are still going to be large.however on larger super tele's the bulk of the weight is supporting the larger elements.
unless you can explain to me how come a 300/2.8 ED made for 4/3's is the same size as a 300mm 2.8 made for canon EF mount.
lacikuss: Quite a collection, thanks.
Images don't look particularly sharp. It is maybe the lens. How much resolving power has that lens in the camera?
@barney - on image 20 and 21 it's amazing just the difference between the in camera jpg (i presume) and acr tweaked. it's almost difficult to believe they came out of the same camera. i'ts notable on a 6 inch print size even.
smiles.. wasn't samsung stating that their NR engine was the best ever for retention of detail?
Aur: I don't think this looks good at all, the pictures aren't sharp
considering that 300mm 2.8's are generally all sharp across the field (and that's for full frame not just crop) and usually the 300,400,500 telephotos are the best of the bunch from most brands that carry them - this I have to agree with Aur, doesn't exactly look that great. also on that cactus shot, the background just looks .. weird.
the ones people are remarking as good - the lens looks like it's stopped down at least a full stop or more.
the ones that are at 2.8, 3.2 and 3.5 all look rather poor for what is probably not going to be a cheap lens.
DWare: While interesting that Canon is gearing up for a new high resolution sensors ... I wonder if they are still using the 500nm chip process?
@nekrosoft13 please confirm your source that it's on a 500nm geometry.
have you never been told hey it's been ___ years since _____ and gone .. wow has it really been that long?
KingOfAtlantis: This guy seems a bit ignorant and not much passion for making cameras. He has that Samsung feel about him. Mocking others instead of improving their own kind of thing.
why would it "frighten them".
canon's holding onto over 40 marketshare of all ILC's .. MILC's outside the fandom over the past 3+ years that CIPA beens tracking has basically remained a steadystate as far as market shipments.
he's actually being quite truthful - people publize when they "leak" ie: move from canon / nikon and cry rivers of joy over a fuji camera - however for each one of those - 3 other people purchase a canon camera.
Concerned or a bit worried? perhaps - but what frightens canon more I would assume would be smartphones versus anything else.
when 1 billion smartphones are being sold per year - that's what scares and should scare any camera company at this point.
didn't eyefi x2 pro support RAW anyways? is RAW transfers really that new?
however nice to see them upgrade class 10 from class 6.
Baron Sekiya: Canon has bought sensors from Sony in the past, and possibly present, for their compact cameras. My PowerShot had the recalled Sony sensor and had to be sent in to be fixed.
Canon has had a history of not be consistent across their lense line with quality. I've seen kit lenses what output garbage images with how soft they were and I owned their orginal EF 16-35/2.8L that was terrible. If they're going to put their name on a product it should produce quality images.
As for dSLR bodies Canon doesn't do a good job of listening to the American pro photo market and catering to their needs. They may listen to their own countrymen/women photographers in Japan but they are a go super slow company. I'd like to see mirrorless 7DMkII level dSLRs and higher that can shoot with minimal noise and higher flash sync speeds.
They also need to help with the legislation to get the EU to remove the videocamera tariff so dSLRs can shoot longer than 30 minutes continuous video.
@autochrome ... odd, how'd we take pictures the last decade in digital?
I've seen a lot of amazing high dr work - on 8.5 EV sensors. how'd we manage that?
the differences between 11 and 13 (the purported current gap) isn't as vast as some make it out to be.
Great Bustard: Words to live by: "There's nothing in particular that we learned from Nikon or Sony..." Tends to explain a lot.
That wasn't the question asked. And if you can't shoot in 11 ev the problem is you especially for studio
bronxbombers4: "There's nothing in particular that we learned from Nikon or Sony,"
Sadly, truer words have never been spoken!
might want to re-read the actual question.