Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Canon Lenses

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Sep 2, 2010, 5:59 PM   #21
Senior Member
 
JustinThyme's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Princeton, NJ
Posts: 361
Default

Well you would have to take it all the way down to the old 50 1.0L, rare find these days and fetch a premium...too bad the IQ on them isnt worth a hoot. Thats quite a few in the Canon lineup. As for thin DOF, its all about the subject and your intentions. Some are better with thin DOF, others are horrible. The only reason they dont make IS on shorted FL is its a waste of time IMO. Following the shutter speed/FL rule isnt that 1/24 on a 24mm lens? and 1/50 on a 50mm? Well maybe on the 50 it would help in very poorly lit situations. I was amazed when I snapped a 1/25 on a 200 2.0 with IS handheld! IS technology seems to have gained a stop over previous models like the new 70-200 2.8L IS went from 3 stops to 4 stops and the IS motor is nearly silent, not that my hearing is the best but I can barely hear it when it engages and disengages, cant hear it running like I did on the previous model. Im more curious to see the difference in the new 300 2.8 and 400 2.8
JustinThyme is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 3, 2010, 1:37 AM   #22
Super Moderator
 
peripatetic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599
Default

It's only in the DSLR world that "slow" f2-f4 maximum aperture prime lenses are rare.

In the m-mount world or medium or large format photography they are very common. I agree that the razor thin DOF on the very wide apertures depends on what you are trying to do. I prefer to shoot at f2.8-f8, and so having to lug around a lens that is twice as heavy and large just to get L quality is disappointing.

I don't agree that IS is wasted on shorter focal lengths, as particularly with the new high-resolution sensors I find that 1/FL just isn't cutting it for me. I cannot reliably hand-hold and get sharp results on my 5DMk2 at anything less than 1/125 with my 50mm. And hand held 1/25 second just doesn't cut it for landscape work either IMO, regardless of the focal length. That's why people go to the trouble of using tripods and MLU, etc.
__________________
My gallery
My X100 blog

Last edited by peripatetic; Sep 3, 2010 at 1:40 AM.
peripatetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 3, 2010, 1:42 AM   #23
Senior Member
 
shoturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Frankfurt AM
Posts: 11,348
Default

I think the hand holding with none IS short primes depend mainly on the person. I have allot of non is lenses and have had very good results at night with 1/8 and 1/16.
__________________
Super Frequent Flyer, no joke. Ex Patriot and loving it.
Canon Eos 60D, T1i/500D, Eos1, Eos 630, Olympus EPL-1, and a part time Pentax K-X shooter.
shoturtle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 3, 2010, 1:43 AM   #24
Super Moderator
 
peripatetic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599
Default

It's only in the DSLR world that "slow" f2-f4 maximum aperture prime lenses are rare.

In the m-mount world or medium or large format photography they are very common. I agree that the razor thin DOF on the very wide apertures depends on what you are trying to do. I prefer to shoot at f2.8-f8, and so having to lug around a lens that is twice as heavy and large just to get L quality is disappointing.

For example Leica make four 50mm M lenses: f0.95 Noktilux, f1.4 Summilux, f2 Summicron, f2.5 Summarit. They get progressively smaller and cheaper, but don't suffer any significant drop in quality. At f4-f8 they are effectively impossible to split on performance.

I don't agree that IS is wasted on shorter focal lengths, as particularly with the new high-resolution sensors I find that 1/FL just isn't cutting it for me. I cannot reliably hand-hold and get sharp results on my 5DMk2 at anything less than 1/125 with my 50mm. And hand held 1/25 second just doesn't cut it for landscape work either IMO, regardless of the focal length. That's why people go to the trouble of using tripods and MLU, etc.
__________________
My gallery
My X100 blog
peripatetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 3, 2010, 7:25 AM   #25
Senior Member
 
JustinThyme's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Princeton, NJ
Posts: 361
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by peripatetic View Post
It's only in the DSLR world that "slow" f2-f4 maximum aperture prime lenses are rare.

In the m-mount world or medium or large format photography they are very common. I agree that the razor thin DOF on the very wide apertures depends on what you are trying to do. I prefer to shoot at f2.8-f8, and so having to lug around a lens that is twice as heavy and large just to get L quality is disappointing.

For example Leica make four 50mm M lenses: f0.95 Noktilux, f1.4 Summilux, f2 Summicron, f2.5 Summarit. They get progressively smaller and cheaper, but don't suffer any significant drop in quality. At f4-f8 they are effectively impossible to split on performance.

I don't agree that IS is wasted on shorter focal lengths, as particularly with the new high-resolution sensors I find that 1/FL just isn't cutting it for me. I cannot reliably hand-hold and get sharp results on my 5DMk2 at anything less than 1/125 with my 50mm. And hand held 1/25 second just doesn't cut it for landscape work either IMO, regardless of the focal length. That's why people go to the trouble of using tripods and MLU, etc.
Well sometimes we have to sacrifice the weight added. A few extra pounds when carrying a bag with several shorter FL lenses will build charactor (at least thats what I tell myself). Im just not that concerned about weight a few extra pounds in a bag full of glass. If its too heavy then I am trying to take too much and need to cull the gear down.

When you are doing landscapes the aperture is choked down to at least f8 and preferably f16 or more. This introduces an entirely different challange and personally I would never attempt to shoot landscapes without a tripod. I see your point about IS on wider lenses but it is mooted by the concern for added weight. Im not expecting to see IS on wider glass anytime soon. They just put it on the 100L macro but that reasoning behind that was for macro work at a thin DOF which is far more difficult than landscape IMO.
JustinThyme is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 5:03 AM.