On a 100% crop viewed closely I think the onion bokeh would be very distracting. On a print viewed at a distance, or even viewing a 100% crop a few feet away it's not too visible. I think the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 has the same bokeh "issues".
That onion could just be an anomaly because of a specular highlight or something. I don't know.
If the lens is sharper than, or as sharp as the Canon vs1, I'm sure it will be a hot seller.
Here's my 'I'm a buyer" check list.
Will it focus as fast/faster than MK1?
Will is be as sharp/sharper than MK1?
Will it be as reliable or more reliable than MK1?
If it answers yes to though, and you add in IS, at a little more than 1/2 the cost of the VS2 that doesn't have IS...well, you get the idea. I'm sure there's many people like me, who are just fine with the Mk1 lens, but if they were looking between the 2 lenses, those above questions could be a deciding factor.
slrl0ver wrote:
To my eyes, The only f/2.8 shot posted looks soft *but* I think that's because of front-focus. The jacket on the left of the image and the gentlemen's hat appears sharper than the individual's face / eyes. I would blame the 5D.2 for the FF/BF rather than the lens.
Are you looking at the full resolution image or the resized one? Because the full size one looks good to me, especially if its unsharpened. Maybe I just have lower expectations.
skibum5 wrote:
At the very least this new Tamron will make the 24-105L look silly
Not really. The 24-105 is smaller and lighter, has a wider FL range, smaller filter size, and is $300-400 cheaper. Of course it doesn't do f/2.8. It all depends on your needs.
The "onion" spot looks like a shooting target. The 75-300 DO lens also has a similar bokeh characteristic. It's not showing up consistently across the frame, either.
I would be interested to know if this is a one off or just the way the lens is.
The "onion ring" bokeh is caused by moulded aspherical elements, which are much much cheaper to produce than ground ones. A similar phenomenon can be observed at macro distances when Airy discs can be seen in OoF specular highlights.
Conclusion: If you want cheap aspherical lenses, you get onion bokeh. Either deal with it or stick to spherical designs.
ScooberJake wrote:
Not really. The 24-105 is smaller and lighter, has a wider FL range, smaller filter size, and is $300-400 cheaper. Of course it doesn't do f/2.8. It all depends on your needs.
Yeah no f/2.8 and not nearly as sharp. Is it even much smaller and lighter?
RZetter wrote:
The "onion ring" bokeh is caused by moulded aspherical elements, which are much much cheaper to produce than ground ones. A similar phenomenon can be observed at macro distances when Airy discs can be seen in OoF specular highlights.
Conclusion: If you want cheap aspherical lenses, you get onion bokeh. Either deal with it or stick to spherical designs.
For others it's not a deal breaker. I shoot in studio between f8 and f11. Onion rings are not an issue. I like to use my primes, but there are times when I can lose a little something from the model if I have to stop and change lenses. It all really depends.
For me, this lens is a no-brainer. I had the older iteration (28-75) and sold it a month ago to get ready for the upcoming release. Looking forward to having in this in my bag.
SchnellerGT wrote:
The red-ringed Viagra users are nitpicking all they can to justify their beloved 24-70 2.8L MkII investment.
Wow- that's amazing how much you know just by viewing a "too much onion for me" post.
It looks pretty nice, but it's hard to tell with so few images. In principle it's a dynamite tool, but I'd like to see a lot more at f/2.8 before making a decision.
From my experience with the 50L, this was a bad choice. Unless of course, corner sharpness and focus shift are not important for you.
I would say that the 50L is my go-to lens in most situation. When I first bought it it was backfocusing, so I sent it into Canon for repair. Since it's come back it's been a very able, reliable performer. I tend to get my lenses calibrated every 12 months if they get heavy use. Its preventative maintenence that keeps the lens at a high performance level.
I am curious as to why you would send it to Canon instead of do an AF micro adjustment yourself periodically ... and what does Canon charge to check and recalibrate a lens?
Deezie wrote:
I would say that the 50L is my go-to lens in most situation. When I first bought it it was backfocusing, so I sent it into Canon for repair. Since it's come back it's been a very able, reliable performer. I tend to get my lenses calibrated every 12 months if they get heavy use. Its preventative maintenence that keeps the lens at a high performance level.
