Constant f/4 Lenses.

Press Correspondent said:

Press Correspondent wrote:

Press Correspondent said:

joger wrote:

Press Correspondent said:

Press Correspondent wrote:

Press Correspondent said:

Hemidart wrote:

Press Correspondent said:

joger wrote:

Press Correspondent said:

Hemidart wrote:

I will never sell my 17-40L :-D

Click to expand...

then don't ever look at the rumored 16-50 f/4.0 IS

Click to expand...

That could change my mind. :-D

Click to expand...

Doubtful. It will be more expensive than 16-35 II and you would not be able to justify the cost difference, because there are other things you would rather spend it on

Seriously, f/4 is never an upgrade of f/2.8.

Click to expand...

who care's on the maximum aperture for a super wide angle lens?

I've had that discussion in the past ;-)

Sure it should not be smaller then f/4.0 - but if a lens is superb at f/5.6 it is fine for me on FF. I never miss f/2.8 on my TS-E 17 - in fact the TS-E 17 on my 5D II easily beats the 14-24 f/2.8 on the D800E - especially from 2/3rds image hight onwards.

A 16-50 f/4.0 L IS USM would be a really nice travel budget lens and it would surely be cheaper then the TS-E 17 - a price point fo 1500 EUR would be nice and I would be interested if the quality is superb.

Canon has amazing lenses that no other brand name manufacturer does - the wide angle zooms are currently not really on par with competition but neither the competition zooms nor their primes are on par with the current TS-E 17 and TS-E 24 II - so if you want to have corner to corner sharpness down to virtual 11 mm the tilt and shift lenses are the best you can get if you need to zoom then wait for the next incarnation of wide angle zooms rather soon

Click to expand...

I consider upgrading my 17-40 to 16-35 II. Are you suggesting against getting the 16-35 II now,

Click to expand...

no - if yo think it is a good decision - go for it!

Press Correspondent said:

but waiting for a better quality zoom instead? Also do you believe the upcoming 16-50 will be better than the 16-35 II?

Click to expand...

not sure - only tests and you (my) own tests will proof that - it is always good to have options and understand the trade offs

Press Correspondent said:

I am in no rush, but I am afraid Canon criples some new lenses on purpose in order to still sell the old versions.

Click to expand...

oh sure - they do - that's one of the reasons for the 5D III - make it a bit better in every way and collect further money and then do another infinitesimal step ahed and sell again - nothing wrong with that - of course!!

Press Correspondent said:

For example, I have upgraded from 24-105 to 24-70 II, but it doesn't have IS, so I kept both. The 24-70/4 does have IS, but lacks the range of 24-105. Why didn't Canon hust replace 24-105 with II instead? Because their priority is to sell more, not always to make better lenses. This is why I doubt that 16-50 will be better than 16-35 II. A 3x zoom is harder to make the same quality as a 2x zoom. Plus an f/2.8 lens at f/4 is usually better rhan an f/4 lens.

Click to expand...

oh really? My 70-200 f/4.0 L IS USM almost rivals my 300 f/2.8 L IS USM II at f/4.0 and 200 mm - don't get me wrong but a prime might be the answer to a quality fetishist rather then a zoom - I'd buy none of the lenses you mentioned - a 16-50 L IS USM f/4.0 would be a maybe expensive gap filler for me - but I own only five lenses - and just one of the is a zoom.

Press Correspondent said:

The maximum aperture is important in wide angle not to shoot wide open, but because of a better quality (and less vignetting) stopped dowm. I just suspect that the 16-50 will be not unlike the 24-70/4.

Click to expand...

my TS-E 17 performs quite well "wide open" ;-)




100 % crop from above image

I have to admit that I only happen to have some 10 or so images at f/4.0 with that lens - because it makes only minor sense IMHO

--
__________________________________
isn’t it funny, a ship that leaks from the top
ISO 9000 definition of quality: 'Degree to which a set of inherent characteristic fulfills requirements'
I am the classic “Windows by Day, Mac by Night user'
“The horizon of many people is a circle with zero radius which they call their point of view.” Albert Einstein
don't feed trolls - ignore them

F/2.8 lenses can give you 2 things, an extra stop of light and shallower DoF. With the 5DIII and 6D you almost gain back the extra light compared to previous models, and with quick software tweaks you can easily shrink DoF to look like an F/2.8 lens. For me (maybe not you), I would rather go with cheaper lighter lenses and not worry about the 2 benefits that.

Like I said I can always remove a stop of DoF.

Here is a an quick example of an image at F/7.1 with some of the DoF in the background removed:

Sounds good. Thanks!

The reason you have only one zoom is quite clear: you've spent all your funds and then some on the 300/2.8 II

Your standard range is underrepresented by a single pancake. I am surprised you don't have 50/1.2 or 24-70 II on your wish lst

on a Tele lens I understand a f/2.8 or faster lens - but not on a wide angle zoom - at f/2.8 the hyperfocal point is at 3.42 m



So everything will be sharp always - the f/2.8 has no effect but more light on the sensor for critical situations where you need light - one stop more light - hm - why does that remind me of the high ISo praisers? - Anyhow ;-) for most things this is negligible at wide angle lenses IMHO- the optical performance counts and if a lens is capable wide open I am fine.

A 24 mm f/1.4 is a different topic though and I saw stunning effects with this lens but on a zoom I would not pay for f/2.8 when I could get a lighter and as good f/4.0



Just post an image with the 16-35 f/2.8 that you could not have done with the 17-40 f/4.0 due to the slower aperture - remember - we have ISO 25 k now ;-)

--
__________________________________
isn’t it funny, a ship that leaks from the top
ISO 9000 definition of quality: 'Degree to which a set of inherent characteristic fulfills requirements'
I am the classic “Windows by Day, Mac by Night user'
“The horizon of many people is a circle with zero radius which they call their point of view.” Albert Einstein
don't feed trolls - ignore them

Press Correspondent said:

Press Correspondent wrote:

Sounds good. Thanks!

The reason you have only one zoom is quite clear: you've spent all your funds and then some on the 300/2.8 II

Your standard range is underrepresented by a single pancake. I am surprised you don't have 50/1.2 or 24-70 II on your wish lst

Click to expand...

I don't need them. And I don't need any other zooms for good images as well. If I want a fast aperture I want it as fast as it gets and no compromise on the optical perfofmance.

If I want flexibility a f/4.0 zoom is a fantastic consensus of weight and size and most of the time optical performance.

the 70-200 f/4.0 l IS USM is a masterpiece in engineering - lightweight and sharp with lots of micro contrast and thus the perfect travel zoom for situation when the selection primes gets too heavy.

A 16-50 L IS USM f/4.0 would be my second travel lens (excluding the STM 40)

The STM 40 is just for fun - on my wishlist is currently no lens - if I had to write one I would include following lenses (in exactly that order)

1.) TS-E 120 f/4.0 macro

2.) 35 f/1.4 L USM II

3.) 135 f/1.8 L IS USM

4.) 16-50 f/4.0 L IS USM

I see no need for a f/2.8 wide angle zoom - simply because everything is sharp always at f/2.8 on ff. On crop it is even worse - you gain no DOF control at all with a rather slow f/2.8 lens.

The TS-E 17 is just so good that no other lens in this focal area comes even close - and I would exclude the Distagon 21 as well due to it's heavy uneven distortion .

The distortion makes the Zeiss (super) wide angle lenses almost unusable for architecture. It is less pronounced then the distortion on all zooms in this area but still too high - when you know how low it can get.

This is an image I posted in a dpreview challenge - fully shifted and fully utilizing the maximum image circle of 68 mm - look at the stairs - no correction of the distortion - I'd say this is amazing.



btw - I don't use my only zoom (70-200) any more since i acquired the 300 f/2.8 II ;-)

Primes are (for me) much more fun to use - this is photography at its best - just me - my camera any my prime and all lenses I own represent the best oprtcial perfomance in their class - just the best you can get with no compromises - zooms seem to have too much compromises - even the new ones - may it be distortion or may it be weight or may it be price. The STM 40 outperforms all 24-70s at 40 mm at almost no cost - but it is a boring focal length for me anyhow - I have to admit

--
__________________________________
isn’t it funny, a ship that leaks from the top
ISO 9000 definition of quality: 'Degree to which a set of inherent characteristic fulfills requirements'
I am the classic “Windows by Day, Mac by Night user'
“The horizon of many people is a circle with zero radius which they call their point of view.” Albert Einstein
don't feed trolls - ignore them

joger said:

joger wrote:

joger said:

The TS-E 17 is just so good that no other lens in this focal area comes even close - and I would exclude the Distagon 21 as well due to it's heavy uneven distortion .

Click to expand...

--

__________________________________

Click to expand...

There's one control that's missing on the TS-E 17 lens, and that's the button that stops the photograph being boring. While photos like the above are technical masterpieces, they have no attraction for most people. There's no "story" in them. I think that you've gone into a photographic side-alley. Get back out and photograph ordinary stuff and make it interesting!

Oh..

joger said:

joger wrote:

on a zoom I would not pay for f/2.8 when I could get a lighter and as good f/4.0

Click to expand...

But you cannot. 16-35 II is better than 17-40 in sharpness, wide angle, contrast, color, vignetting, and distortions while not much heavier or bigger and not dramatically expensive. I agree on DOF and ISO, I just want the best wide zoom regardless of the speed. I have had 17-40 for 10 years (starting with 10D and ending with 5D3) and I love it. It is one of the best Canon values. But everyone I ask says that 16-35 II is better in everything, so why not upgrade. No rush though, it already has been 10 years anyway. The rebates have expired for now and the upcoming 16-50 sounds worth checking. Although I don't think I need 14-24. Heavy, expensive and too specialized as a wide zoom for my unclear general purposes.

Gearóid Ó Laoi Garry Lee said:

Gearóid Ó Laoi, Garry Lee wrote:

Gearóid Ó Laoi Garry Lee said:

joger wrote:

Gearóid Ó Laoi Garry Lee said:

The TS-E 17 is just so good that no other lens in this focal area comes even close - and I would exclude the Distagon 21 as well due to it's heavy uneven distortion .

Click to expand...

--

__________________________________

Click to expand...

There's one control that's missing on the TS-E 17 lens, and that's the button that stops the photograph being boring. While photos like the above are technical masterpieces, they have no attraction for most people. There's no "story" in them. I think that you've gone into a photographic side-alley. Get back out and photograph ordinary stuff and make it interesting!

Oh..

Click to expand...

A "no boring" button? Hmm...

Interesting. Thanks for sharing your perspective!

I have to say I think the 70-200 f/4 is a great lens.

Not crazy about the other two, but they are good lenses for what they cost.

billythek said:

billythek wrote:

I have to say I think the 70-200 f/4 is a great lens.

Not crazy about the other two, but they are good lenses for what they cost.

Click to expand...

fully agree

Had my 17-40 f4 at the dawn of the 10D which was about 10 years ago. It performed as my normal zoom till I got my 5D II in 2010. Now it is the wide angle companion to my other f4, the 24-105. No complaints with this combo.