Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: A pretty big milestone for Canon and photography

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    1,561
    Blog Entries
    1

    A pretty big milestone for Canon and photography


  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    SE PA - Central Bucks County
    Posts
    51,022
    While I'm totally in the Nikon camp, it's always nice to see these improvements from any of the major manufacturers, especially with camera bodies being so capable these days, especially in low light.
    --

    The most expensive tool is the one you buy "cheaply" and often...

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    Modesto, CA, USA
    Posts
    3,471
    Sorry to read these use. anew mount so they will not fit older cameras. That is one reason I like cannon SLR's the EF lens mount has not changed in decades(1987). You can buy a used lens and a quick look to see if it will fit is all it takes. I doubt I will be alive in 30 years to see if the new style mount lasts that long.
    Bill D

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2019
    Location
    Tucson, Aridzona
    Posts
    195
    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Becker View Post
    While I'm totally in the Nikon camp, it's always nice to see these improvements from any of the major manufacturers, especially with camera bodies being so capable these days, especially in low light.
    a 135 f1.4 is cool.. but agreed, my d850 shoots low light well enough not to really need the extra half stop.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    SE PA - Central Bucks County
    Posts
    51,022
    Quote Originally Posted by mike stenson View Post
    a 135 f1.4 is cool.. but agreed, my d850 shoots low light well enough not to really need the extra half stop.
    Same with my D750. In fact, I kinda embraced the "F4 Trinity" save money as they more than met my needs including for indoor equestrian with Auto-ISO and very minimal noise. Huge surprise compared to earlier bodies I owned which, um...didn't perform well...in low light. My f1.8 primes are outstanding, too...
    --

    The most expensive tool is the one you buy "cheaply" and often...

  6. #6
    Milestone might be a stretch, but this lens would be a big step if it makes it to market.

    But you'd have to be a professional photographer or at least a very advanced amateur to fully use and appreciate a lens like this.
    The low light performance of a camera body has little to do with it. Kind of an apples and oranges thing. The speed of this lens will contribute a certain optical characteristic called "bokeh" that is often sought after by portrait photographers. To have that kind of speed in a long focal length gives the photographer some additional control over parallax and keystoning. Couple a lens like this with HSS flash (yes, flash) and it opens up interesting creative opportunities for a studio or commercial photographer. Simply cranking up the ISO on the camera body will not do the same thing at all.

    Again, a specialized tool. I wouldn't recommend this lens to any camera owner who is mainly taking family photos, vacation snapshots in auto mode, stuff like that.
    Same goes for the phenomenal 85mm f1.2 that has been Canon's flagship for this category of lens (goes for about $2000).
    Last edited by Edwin Santos; 01-20-2020 at 5:31 PM.

  7. #7
    The newest thing in photography, I think, is computational photography. It's used in the newest smartphones and will probably migrate to mirrorless cameras soon (if it hasn't already).

    I always thought the smartphone pictures were very limited, especially for any type of telephoto work, but the new iPhone 11 Pro really does an excellent job. The telephoto is limited to about 250mm equivalent of a 35mm camera but within that range it gives really good images. I went from a camera with a one inch imager to a camera with a 4/3 imager to a Nikon with an APS-C imager, looking for decent low light performance. On my next outing, I'm going to try only using the iPhone 11 Pro.

    The resolution is about 12 megapixels and when you zoom in to the 250mm equivalent, it's still 12 megapixels.

    The quality of the images and the low light performance is amazing.

    Mike

    [I tried the new Google Pixel 4 phone for camera work but I find the iPhone 11 Pro does a better job.]

    [And the editing you can do on the phone is pretty nice. They also have a "portrait mode" that blurs the background (bokeh). If I recall, you can apply it after the fact.]
    Last edited by Mike Henderson; 01-21-2020 at 12:09 AM.
    Go into the world and do well. But more importantly, go into the world and do good.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    SE PA - Central Bucks County
    Posts
    51,022
    Mirrorless is indeed the thing now in "big body" digital cameras. While I don't feel the need to take that leap, if I were buying new right now, no question, I'd buy mirrorless, either a Z6 or a Z7. Both come with adapters so I could continue to use my existing glass. The Z50 is interesting, but I'm not interested in stepping back to an APS-C/crop sensor format.

    Along the lines of what Mike just wrote...I honestly do most of my day to day photography these days with my iPhone. (XS-Max in my case)
    --

    The most expensive tool is the one you buy "cheaply" and often...

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2019
    Location
    Tucson, Aridzona
    Posts
    195
    Quote Originally Posted by Edwin Santos View Post
    Milestone might be a stretch, but this lens would be a big step if it makes it to market.

    But you'd have to be a professional photographer or at least a very advanced amateur to fully use and appreciate a lens like this.
    The low light performance of a camera body has little to do with it. Kind of an apples and oranges thing. The speed of this lens will contribute a certain optical characteristic called "bokeh" that is often sought after by portrait photographers.
    Former pro, who possesses both 135 f2 (hence my half-stop comment) and 85mm f1.4 primes, but to be honest, I find myself using a 70-200 2.8 more often these days. Neither of these are shot wide open, since there are focal errors at the far ends and barrel distortion and let's face it the focal plane is so shallow it's easy to end up with soft focus (this is becoming more of a problem with new bodies in general btw)

    BTW, just because a lens has a wider aperture does not mean it has a good bokeh. I have some wider primes that totally prove that.

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by mike stenson View Post
    Former pro, who possesses both 135 f2 (hence my half-stop comment) and 85mm f1.4 primes, but to be honest, I find myself using a 70-200 2.8 more often these days. Neither of these are shot wide open, since there are focal errors at the far ends and barrel distortion and let's face it the focal plane is so shallow it's easy to end up with soft focus (this is becoming more of a problem with new bodies in general btw)

    BTW, just because a lens has a wider aperture does not mean it has a good bokeh. I have some wider primes that totally prove that.
    Okay fine, I'm not saying this particular lens has good bokeh or good anything else. I'm just saying for certain photographers there is an attraction to certain lenses due to the unique look they might create and that it's more than simply the amount of light the lens is passing to the sensor. This lens may not make it to market and it may or may not have a distinctive look or optical performance, but the specs would point to beaucoup bokeh.

    I own the 135 f2L also. I find it to be a unique tool to have in the arsenal for portraiture. Razor sharp and incredible falloff, enough that pinpoint focus is so critical that I do so manually where possible, further to your point about shallow plane. I also have the 70-200 2.8L and it is a sharp lens but nowhere near as sharp as the 135 f2, though certainly much more versatile. I would say it is more intended for sports. I shot Michael Phelps at the London 2012 Olympics with it and from my vantage point, it was the right tool for that particular job. It's my experience that that lens performs very well wide open, but it is susceptible to diffraction over f16.

    This is no different than woodworking tool discussions; it all depends on the user's skill level and what he/she is trying to accomplish. I stand by my comment that this would not be a lens intended for an average photo enthusiast taking personal photos.

    As a pro, you might be familiar with the major footprint Canon has made in tilt-shift lenses. In that arena they have left Nikon in the dust, and they are amazing lenses, capable of photographs simply not possible with conventional lenses, but again, not aimed at the average consumer.

    I agree with some of the others here, that iPhones are getting so good, that for most users, there may not be enough reason to be carrying a conventional camera let alone an interchangeable lens kit. These phones are very respectable cameras, capable of taking good photos. To take great photos consistently is a much deeper rabbit hole and involves more to the equation than equipment.
    Last edited by Edwin Santos; 01-21-2020 at 2:05 PM.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Lake Gaston, Henrico, NC
    Posts
    4,506
    It's much easier to design lenses these days, with computers, than it used to be with slide rules, and trial and error.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Dec 2019
    Location
    Tucson, Aridzona
    Posts
    195
    Quote Originally Posted by Edwin Santos View Post
    Okay fine, I'm not saying this particular lens has good bokeh or good anything else. I'm just saying for certain photographers there is an attraction to certain lenses due to the unique look they might create and that it's more than simply the amount of light the lens is passing to the sensor. This lens may not make it to market and it may or may not have a distinctive look or optical performance, but the specs would point to beaucoup bokeh.

    I own the 135 f2L also. I find it to be a unique tool to have in the arsenal for portraiture. Razor sharp and incredible falloff, enough that pinpoint focus is so critical that I do so manually where possible, further to your point about shallow plane. I also have the 70-200 2.8L and it is a sharp lens but nowhere near as sharp as the 135 f2, though certainly much more versatile. I would say it is more intended for sports. I shot Michael Phelps at the London 2012 Olympics with it and from my vantage point, it was the right tool for that particular job. It's my experience that that lens performs very well wide open, but it is susceptible to diffraction over f16.

    This is no different than woodworking tool discussions; it all depends on the user's skill level and what he/she is trying to accomplish. I stand by my comment that this would not be a lens intended for an average photo enthusiast taking personal photos.

    As a pro, you might be familiar with the major footprint Canon has made in tilt-shift lenses. In that arena they have left Nikon in the dust, and they are amazing lenses, capable of photographs simply not possible with conventional lenses, but again, not aimed at the average consumer.

    I agree with some of the others here, that iPhones are getting so good, that for most users, there may not be enough reason to be carrying a conventional camera let alone an interchangeable lens kit. These phones are very respectable cameras, capable of taking good photos. To take great photos consistently is a much deeper rabbit hole and involves more to the equation than equipment.
    Yep, agreed on all counts and this is defiantly a professional level lens. And the last point you made was the most salient, compelling images aren't made by equipment.

    I think this is actually somewhat worse that trying to have a woodworking tool discussion. There are simply too many individual preferences involved, and the output varies greatly in comparison (I suppose we could discuss tool marks, but it's less obvious perhaps?).

    I have a friend of mine who is an avid architectural photographer, and yea he's going to Canon lenses adapted to his alpha because of the improvements (he had been Nikkor previously). I'm torn, the D850 may well be my last dSLR, there are too many opportunities gained by going mirrorless and adaptation to use the best lenses is one of those.

    Perhaps we've hit the point where professional or pro-sumer equipment is providing diminishing returns on investment for the majority of users. I wasn't kidding btw, about modern sensors making focus more of an obvious issue. Those 47mp sensors really show every fault you could ever have with holding/release technique. I find myself using supports far more often, cranking the shutter speed waaaay up, or requiring the use of stabilizing lenses.

    Finally, my iPhone prints are, generally, better in definition than say ISO400 prints were 30 years ago.


    btw, I couldn't find any reference to how many blades the diaphragm is. Bummer!
    Last edited by mike stenson; 01-21-2020 at 3:36 PM.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    1,561
    Blog Entries
    1
    I'm reminded of a Goldie Hawn appearance on Latenight with David Letterman.
    Dave asked her if she'd always been Goldie. She became very serious. "Yes, I have always tried to be real", she said.
    Dave says "No, I mean have you always used the name Goldie. It's just me....Dave."

    I'm nothing more than a novice.....with a Vivitar 135mm 2.3 that I bought used nearly 40 years ago shortly after buying my first SLR, a Minolta XG1.
    Although it was burdensome I used it a lot for portraits.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •