alundeb wrote:
What baffles me the most is not that Canon releases unexpected products, or that people get baffled by such product releases. What baffles me the most is that somebody always seem to know that the product I find to suit me best, should never have existed.
the only thing I can't understand about these releases is that they made two of them soooo close together in focal length.
I think for a new photographer, these lenses offer quite a bit of advantage. When I first started shooting primes, the hardest part of mastering the lens was the shallow depth of field. Not only is it harder to focus, but because most focus screens are optimized for 2.8, it's really hard to see when you were missing focus with the lens. No point of having full time manual if you can't see to do minor adjustments.
I think these will eventually be had for around 500.00. For that price, if you pair one of them with the 15-85, or another walk around type lens (thinking 1.6 crop here) you have a really good set up. Is a 1.8 or 1.4 lens better? Sure, but most of those lenses you really have to stop down quite a bit to get decent sharpness. It looks like these are going to be sharp right from max aperture.
If you want the shallow depth of field, you go to the L. If you want IS, which like it or not is more useful to some, you get this. 28mm is going to equate to almost normal on a crop camera and I'm sure there will be quite a bit of people who step into a lens like this on their way up.
I think they probably should have done this with the 24mm and 50mm, but that's my only complaint. They'll drop in price. Used gear always does.
ragsn_old_iron wrote:
It will be interesting to see how LAN with up to 10 FF cameras tethered all using liveview with auto-focus and image stabilizing will used by commercial production teams,
Large rigs utilizing a ton of SLRs have already been done. Bullet time in the Matrix utilized a bunch of still cameras arranged in a fashion as to simulate a panning camera.
kakomu wrote:
Large rigs utilizing a ton of SLRs have already been done. Bullet time in the Matrix utilized a bunch of still cameras arranged in a fashion as to simulate a panning camera.
Unless you mean something else?
No, that is what I mean exactly, applied to more dynamic shoots at a fraction of the budget. Since the 5D II was introduced many barriers have been removed for access to complex effects. My belief is that these two new IS primes were designed specifically for the video production market, along with the aforementioned all-weather/water housings (for still and video).
I am thinking actual video also, as opposed to the stop motion you refer to whether it be Corpses Bride, Matrix or other films made before HDSLR cameras were shooting 1080P to 4K and all that. I may have been reading the specs wrong with the new face recognition AF in live-view too, but it seem like a no-brainer to have a gang of cameras that did not need steadicam operators/hardware, and that all could be controlled remotely while the body automatically locks on faces and focuses while having 4 stops of stabilising from the lens - all on a full frame sensor.
I must be reading into it too much and Canon spent their R&D money on making something for hobbyists, then accidentally targeted their marketing literature to commercial users (professional) instead.
deepbluejh wrote:
If these lenses were F2.0 at this price, we would have a winner.
OTOH, if they were non-IS at about $250 cheaper, they would be much more attractive as well.
You bring some good points. But mixing wish for a lower price with wish for a different feature set does hide the benefit of this alternative. And we can think this back and forth.
If the lens was f/2.0 with IS I could have said: "If it only was f/2.8, it would have been much cheaper and more attractive as a non-L prime"
If the lens was non-IS, I could have said "IS at this price would have made this lens more useful".
And so it goes. All points are valid, and mine are not any better than yours.
kakomu wrote:
Serious film makers are more interested in how easily you can focus the lens rather than IS. IS is not used in any professional video or film system. Most major films use completely manual, mechanical lenses and none of the ENG lenses that I've found use any sort of IS system.
Amateurs tend to be the ones who use lenses with IS in it.
Did I mention anything about MAJOR films? IS does come in handy when shooting with a DSLR, particularly when shooting from a handheld or shoulder mounted rig.
M Vers wrote:
Did I mention anything about MAJOR films? IS does come in handy when shooting with a DSLR, particularly when shooting from a handheld or shoulder mounted rig.
Hence, Amateurs. Even indie movie makers will rent gear that allows them to move about without shaking the camera around (unless that's the look they want) such as proper tripods, carts, cranes and steadicam devices.
Anyways, IS isn't the most helpful if the camera man is walking around. When walking around, the body moves too much for an IS system to compensate. So, if you're walking around with an IS equipped camcorder, you'll still see a lot of bouncing around. The IS system will smooth out some of the motion, but it will still look like a shaky mess (less so if you practice walking with a camera to minimize shake). IS is most helpful when trying to hold the camera stationary. However, even when holding it stationary, the human body tends to sway around, so you'll get that gradual swaying motion that is very common in shows that have that faux-documentary look (e.g. the Office).
ragsn_old_iron wrote:
No, that is what I mean exactly, applied to more dynamic shoots at a fraction of the budget. Since the 5D II was introduced many barriers have been removed for access to complex effects. My belief is that these two new IS primes were designed specifically for the video production market, along with the aforementioned all-weather/water housings (for still and video).
I am thinking actual video also, as opposed to the stop motion you refer to whether it be Corpses Bride, Matrix or other films made before HDSLR cameras were shooting 1080P to 4K and all that. I may have been reading the specs wrong with the new face recognition AF in live-view too, but it seem like a no-brainer to have a gang of cameras that did not need steadicam operators/hardware, and that all could be controlled remotely while the body automatically locks on faces and focuses while having 4 stops of stabilising from the lens - all on a full frame sensor.
I must be reading into it too much and Canon spent their R&D money on making something for hobbyists, then accidentally targeted their marketing literature to commercial users (professional) instead. ...Show more →
Most professional video/film people don't use any auto features because the auto features tend to interfere with the production. With manual control of exposure and focus, you prevent the camera from accidentally changing focus or exposure if background elements confuse the camera's internal processors.
For instance, consider a scene with a bunch of people and lights in the background. If the camera is constantly trying to lock on to faces in the background, it could conceivably bounce around as new faces appear and disappear in the background. Also if a light manages to shine directly at the camera, AE may darken the scene immediately, or if a light is blocked for a short period, AE may brighten the scene immediately, Both situations would produce amateurish looking video that would not reflect well upon whoever is broadcasting.
kakomu wrote:
Hence, Amateurs. Even indie movie makers will rent gear that allows them to move about without shaking the camera around (unless that's the look they want) such as proper tripods, carts, cranes and steadicam devices.
OK then, what would you say to the large portion of people shooting weddings and events? Still amateurish?
The point is IS will allow a user to shoot without the added weight of a stabilization device like a steadycam OR, if need be, in a pinch. For event photographers who do a lot of fusion IS can be a huge help...and these people, like myself, are not "amateurs".
BrianO wrote:
Lightweight, compact, stabilized primes would work nicely on an as-yet-unannounced MILC camera that would compete with Fujifilm's X-Pro 1.
It will be interesting how these lenses are used, and since I am not able to defend my theory for either video or underwater applications, I truly am at a loss as to what the motive would be for investing in these two particular lenses at this time for Canon given their price point. I have no interest in the 24/28 IS models as tools, nor do I care for the 24-70L in either version, and would have been happy with a USM version of the 35/2 with no IS instead of any of the three models announced.
Pure conjecture, but these lenses, along with the 35 f2 and the 50s have been long in need of update and fill a niche that the L equivalents can't replace. But, Canon required a price point to make updates worthwhile. I think IS is a feature that is relatively cheap in cost and engineering to add now after all the IS kit lenses, so it just helps them justify the cost point. Why they didn't put IS in the 24-70 is beyond me, but thats another thread.
ragsn_old_iron wrote:
It will be interesting how these lenses are used, and since I am not able to defend my theory for either video or underwater applications, I truly am at a loss as to what the motive would be for investing in these two particular lenses at this time for Canon given their price point. I have no interest in the 24/28 IS models as tools, nor do I care for the 24-70L in either version, and would have been happy with a USM version of the 35/2 with no IS instead of any of the three models announced.
These lenses are rather bizarre seen as part of a corporate marketing plan, but I do find myself thinking it would be interesting to try out one of these stabilised slow wide primes. IQ at f/2.8 is bound to be better than f/1.4 on the Ls. And with fewer aberrations at full aperture, plus a greater margin of error, AF should prove more reliable (than the 35L anyway).
IS is an interesting proposition on a short lens, and one worth exploring, I think. Panning IS on wides like these may even create a whole new low-light shooting style.
OK then, what would you say to the large portion of people shooting weddings and events? Still amateurish?