qianp2k
•
Forum Pro
•
Posts: 10,350
Re: Almost flawless! 35mm f/2 IS USM review
Great Bustard wrote:
qianp2k wrote:
Certainly very useful to me particularly in indoor low-light hand-held
3000-pixel wide. Notre-Dame Basilica of Montréal
Cathedral-Basilica of Notre-Dame de Québec
GB: Do you still remember you sent me a link from someone took the same shot in Basilica of Montréal a while ago from mFT with 20mm/1.7 prime (that photo looks pretty noise) in our discussion/debate of DOF advantage from crop sensor vs FF. My experiences and photos above show,
Unlike the very nice photos you show above, your previous photos had important elements of the scene outside the DOF and were shot with that shallow DOF because the lens used did not have IS.
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/53932364?image=0
You mean this one? It's full size taken at 1/4 sec hand-held. I don't see it's lacking of DOF issue but noise/grain issue as it's actually very dark especially at both side. mFT at such size (22mp) will not be better with 20/1.7.
1) with 'IS' lens, the IBIS advantage in Olympus mFT vapors and 'IS' actually is more effective and I can push to even 1/4 sec with a few tries but 5D3 high ISO is good enough and 1/8 or 1/10 is pretty guaranteed to get pixel-level sharpness.
You'll have to start another thread (preferably in Open Talk or the PST Forum) about in-body IS vs in-lens IS.
No need but it's a mainstream opinion that lens' IS/VR is more effective than IBIS which mainly works in WA/UWA lenses not for tele lenses.
2) No need to shoot at equivalent DOF of crop camera, or theoretical DOF on paper that is the key.
Well, yeah, you really do if you can't get what you want in the DOF when shooting wide open.
What I said by comparing to APS-C, usually you only need to stop down one-aperture stop, only need to stop down 1-1.5 aperture stops when compared to mFT to get similar look DOF, not theoretical calculated DOF. That's the key difference between us. FF is still only better as it has about 1.5 stop ISO advantage over APS-C and about 1.5-2.0 stops ISO advantage over mFT.
My experience tells me usually by just stopping down just one stop in aperture, in most cases, you will not see much difference in looked DOF.
Depends on the scene, of course. I've taken pics where the entire scene would be within the DOF at f/1.2, and I've taken pics of scenes where even f/11 didn't cover it.
So in latter case, how crop is better? And don't forget crop is more subjective to diffraction when stop down. No mention TS-E lenses on FF (crop also can use but with different AOV and usually not wide enough) can achieve truly indefinite deep DOF that normal lenses cannot do. In addition you don't need to have everything appear in focus but main subject and most areas surrounding the main subject. That is another area we seem in different opinion. Out of focus plate edges <> softness but many times only enhance look, more layered and more 3-D look instead of all appear in focus but flat and dull look from crop. Otherwise get 1/2.3" P&S if you really like those look
You see in even such deep churches with even F3.2 and F4.0 the edges are still sharp.
Depends on the lens and focal length, of course. For sure, the 35 / 2 IS will perform wonderfully here.
The same as 24-70L II
No mention at F3.2 or F4.0 FF lenses usually are sharper than crop lenses not only in center but in edges at either the same or eq aperture. In short, FF cameras absolutely enjoy IQ over crop and you don't need to shoot at theoretical DOF. Otherwise APS-C/mFT has to shoot at eq DOF of 1", eq DOF of 1/2.3" ...
In the case of the 35 / 2 IS on FF vs the 17 / 1.8 on mFT, sure. It would even be true for a hypothetical 22 / 1.2 for crop.
That will be only much bigger/heavier is possible to be designed and manufactured, and still likely inferior to lighter/smaller and likely cheaper FF counterpart on FF bodies. We have too many such samples. Crop has no advantage in any circumstance if deliver at similar IQ at the same size in the same AOV.
The Canon 35 / 2 IS is a stellar lens. Here's to hoping that the 50 / 1.8 IS (preferably 50 / 1.4 IS) is every bit as good, if not better, and is closely followed by an 85 / 1.8 IS.
I chose 35/2.0 IS over Sigma 35 Art is mainly for indoor architecture, street and landscape purpose but not really for portraiture where 35/1.4 Art has advantage. 50mm and 85mm will be mainly for portraiture, and therefore personally I'd choose fast-aperture versions and 'IS/VR' is not that important in that field. Still portraiture is not my top priority area therefore I have skipped all 85mm primes and use 70-200L zoom (both F4 IS and F2.8 IS II versions) instead. I did buy FE 55/1.8 for A7R but mainly for its small/light in traveling purpose as potentially I might get FE 16-35/4.0 OS if I moved to all FF ML path by next year so I'd have such in a team - FE 16-35, FE 35/55, FE 70-200 or still 70-200L/4.0 IS.
