Arigo wrote:
@Jamesf99: Think I used Lighroom 4.1 for conversion from RAW to JPG, then put everything together in Indesign and exported as JPG. I'll check tonight at home (I'm at the office now).
Yep, it was LR 4.1 and indesign.
FYI:
LR setting:
Sharpen for: Screen - Standard amount
InDesign Export setting:
- Quality: High
- Format: Baseline
- Resolution: 300dpi (Canvas: 300mm x 200mm)
- Colour space: RGB
@Garyvot: My favorite Voigtlander shot (so far) can be found here.
I have to ask others that have received their lens (I just got mine).
Is it hard to get on/off? I know it's a tiny lens, but this does not feel good. I just called the store and had one of the guys check more lenses. He tried two and said the same thing... not good, not nice, and the tightest mount he's ever felt. The store is calling Canon tomorrow, but I may need to exchange it..
I thought it might be because it's so small, so I grabbed a larger lens and only used two fingers to mount it and it mounted smoothly.
Is Canon QA already taking a nap, are these "automated build" lenses out of tolerance, or will it just wear in?
skibum5 wrote:
Tested quite well on www.photozone.de
among the best edge to edge at f/2.8-f/4
Yes, though I find it a bit odd that they devote what seems like half of the review to chastising Canon for not having a mirrorless camera, critiquing the new focusing motor (which apparently works best with the EOS 650D and future cameras), and deeming the notion of a pancake lens on a full size DSLR a ridiculous concept. They also fail to factor the attractive price into any of these discussions. (Oh well, everyone's a critic these days.)
Given that there is a bit of focus shift, that may explain Roger's findings that the lens does not seem to get sharper when stopped down. The Photozone tests show that it does (a bit), but this could be masked by focus shift with flat subjects close up (such as test charts).
jamesf99 wrote:
I have to ask others that have received their lens (I just got mine).
Is it hard to get on/off? I know it's a tiny lens, but this does not feel good. I just called the store and had one of the guys check more lenses. He tried two and said the same thing... not good, not nice, and the tightest mount he's ever felt. The store is calling Canon tomorrow, but I may need to exchange it..
I thought it might be because it's so small, so I grabbed a larger lens and only used two fingers to mount it and it mounted smoothly.
Is Canon QA already taking a nap, are these "automated build" lenses out of tolerance, or will it just wear in?
Mine mounts nicely, like other lenses. Didn't notice anything before I read about it here, and then checked. Yes, it mounts smoothly. Maybe not as silk, but no worries.
garyvot wrote:
Yes, though I find it a bit odd that they devote what seems like half of the review to chastising Canon for not having a mirrorless camera,
I'm surprised you feel that way. i found the review to be worthwhile, albeit extremely short.
Do three sentences (see below) constitute chastisement for what everyone knows is an apparent failure by Canon to understand or care about the market? I think it's honest and more than fair.
"Canon is the only major Japanese camera manufacturer who has been shy of entering the mirrorless market (as of the time of this review). So far their reps always argued that it is possible to design smallish APS-C DSLRs that are also able to compete on the size and weight side. Probably also in order to support this (rather desperate marketing-)statement they've just announced a pancake lens - the Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 STM."
With rare exception, Canon is a market follower, except when it comes to price.
critiquing the new focusing motor (which apparently works best with the EOS 650D and future cameras),
I think discussing this (STM vs USM) is a major point since this is Canon's new pet toy for their beloved video customers. it deserves close scrutiny and if it has little to no value for 99.99% of the market, that's a valid criticism.
Another valid issue would be that the 1Dx isn't listed as compatible, the 5d3 may get a firmware update to use it, but if full support is not included, that's another well deserved criticism.
and deeming the notion of a pancake lens on a full size DSLR a ridiculous concept. They also fail to factor the attractive price into any of these discussions. (Oh well, everyone's a critic these days.)
Given that there is a bit of focus shift, that may explain Roger's findings that the lens does not seem to get sharper when stopped down. The Photozone tests show that it does (a bit), but this could be masked by focus shift with flat subjects close up (such as test charts).
Agreed, the size part may be added noise so they have more to say. So far, other than the poor tolerances on the lens mount - and I actually mean very poor testing the fit on two bodies now - the lens is perfect size-wise on my 5d P&S. I like it a lot and the lens will probably be glued to it for a while.
A $200 priced lens beats a $300 price, though the price is not spectacular compared to the 50mm f/1.8; we've just become used to Canon sticking things up our backside for all their gear. I think that's the subtle point when reading between the lines.
I'm still evaluating the optics, but it looks pretty good.
jamesf99 wrote:
Another valid issue would be that the 1Dx isn't listed as compatible, the 5d3 may get a firmware update to use it, but if full support is not included, that's another well deserved criticism.
Canon issues EOS 5D Mark III firmware v1.1.3, adding 40mm F2.8 support:
jamesf99 wrote:
I'm surprised you feel that way. i found the review to be worthwhile, albeit extremely short.
Do three sentences (see below) constitute chastisement for what everyone knows is an apparent failure by Canon to understand or care about the market? I think it's honest and more than fair.
"Canon is the only major Japanese camera manufacturer who has been shy of entering the mirrorless market (as of the time of this review). So far their reps always argued that it is possible to design smallish APS-C DSLRs that are also able to compete on the size and weight side. Probably also in order to support this (rather desperate marketing-)statement they've just announced a pancake lens - the Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 STM."
With rare exception, Canon is a market follower, except when it comes to price. ...Show more →
James, everything in the paragraph you quote is a statement of fact, except for this 3 word phrase: "(rather desperate marketing-)".
Regardless of whether I agree with the author, this is a completely gratuitous insertion of the author's personal opnion, and it in no way helps this review.
Most readers presumably don't go there to read the author's personal blog.
jamesf99 wrote:
I have to ask others that have received their lens (I just got mine).
Is it hard to get on/off? I know it's a tiny lens, but this does not feel good. I just called the store and had one of the guys check more lenses. He tried two and said the same thing... not good, not nice, and the tightest mount he's ever felt. The store is calling Canon tomorrow, but I may need to exchange it..
I thought it might be because it's so small, so I grabbed a larger lens and only used two fingers to mount it and it mounted smoothly.
Is Canon QA already taking a nap, are these "automated build" lenses out of tolerance, or will it just wear in?
Mine's a little tight. Not uncomfortably so, but it's noticeably tighter than other lenses. It doesn't concern me as I figure it will loosen up with time. I'm planning on leaving it on my old 5D so I doubt I'll take it on and off enough to matter.
Yakim Peled wrote:
I fail to see the funny side. How on Earth can this lens be used in video in AF mode?
Happy shooting,
Yakim.
As best I can tell, that video seems to be the auditory equivalent of shooting one's lens cap and brigtening the image to 18% grey and claiming it's got a lot of noise. Mine is undetectable if there's any other noise in the environment (normal room/outdoors etc).
This is much more like my focusing noise experience:
nelsonal wrote:
As best I can tell, that video seems to be the auditory equivalent of shooting one's lens cap and brigtening the image to 18% grey and claiming it's got a lot of noise. Mine is undetectable if there's any other noise in the environment (normal room/outdoors etc).
This is much more like my focusing noise experience:
So the only problem in that video is that there was no ambient noise?
Yakim Peled wrote:
So the only problem in that video is that there was no ambient noise?
Happy shooting,
Yakim.
I agree with nelsonal that the original video seems to amplify its noise. I think this is much closer to what it is in reality:
Canon has already documented that the 40 STM AF motor is kind of a tradeoff made for size. It is NOT silent in any sense, but it is quiet. The 18 135 STM is supposed to much quieter/faster.
