Scrooloose wrote:
Sergio is referring to the current trend in the wedding forum of casual portraits with intentional flair. He's very good at it and it does look good, though given the choice I'd prefer a lens that resists it.
I can understand trying to get some flair, but flare is best obtained in post processing, and very undesired by most.
Scrooloose wrote:
Sergio is referring to the current trend in the wedding forum of casual portraits with intentional flair. He's very good at it and it does look good, though given the choice I'd prefer a lens that resists it.
We all like flair but we don't like to have flare from our lenses
Oct 15, 2008 at 04:33 AM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
Sergio Mottola wrote:
the less flare thing makes me laugh. i LOVE flare
So you like Canon to skip the coating and anti-reflection measures in the lens ? So we will get a lot of flare and ghosting in their new and expensive lenses
I like my flare to have flair, which means ... it has to be done "in lens". I understand that most people don't want flare, so I expect Canon to keep designing it out. Oh well.
RyanFlynn wrote:
I like my flare to have flair, which means ... it has to be done "in lens". I understand that most people don't want flare, so I expect Canon to keep designing it out. Oh well.
It seems like a good opportunity to use a cheap filter, preferably uncoated, maybe even scratched a bit. I know that the flare characteristics of a poorly coated multi-element lens can't be duplicated with a filter, but it can work better than PP software, and you can see the results in the viewfinder.
Because I'd like to have the best, that's why. I love fast lenses generally but, to me, fast w/a lenses are not as important as corner-to-corner sharpness. AF is not a biggie. And price-wise, I believe there is not much between these 2 lenses. I am split between these 2 lenses right now, so what will settle it for me is the sharpness across the entire frame. In this regard, I think the Zeiss lens will edge out the Canon lens.
Good thing that "best" is different for different people. I suspect that most people buying this lens will be buying it for f1.4, and not corner to corner sharpness. That will be a nice add-on, but not required.
bobbytan wrote:
Because I'd like to have the best, that's why. I love fast lenses generally but, to me, fast w/a lenses are not as important as corner-to-corner sharpness. AF is not a biggie. And price-wise, I believe there is not much between these 2 lenses. I am split between these 2 lenses right now, so what will settle it for me is the sharpness across the entire frame. In this regard, I think the Zeiss lens will edge out the Canon lens.
I wonder if there will be so much difference at f/2.8.
stanj wrote:
More importantly, what shootout? At f1.4? Tracking moving subjects? I can tell you who's going to win there, for sure.
So can I.
Even setting the AF and auto aperture control issues aside, if we wanna compare IQ at 21mm and f/2.8 (or stopped down further) , I'd volunteer my 16-35L MkII instead.
However, when it comes to a full EF capability 24mm (or thereabouts) at f/1.4-f/2.8, I know of only one lens that does it, and does it extremely well......the 24L Mk I.
Are you therefore saying that the 16-35L II will be just as good as the 24L II and the Zeiss 21 Distagon at f2.8 .... so anyone not needing an aperture faster than f2.8 should get the 16-35L Mk II instead of the 24L or Zeiss 21? I had the 16-35L II a couple of years ago and I was very unimpressed with the copy that I had.
PetKal wrote:
So can I.
Even setting the AF and auto aperture control issues aside, if we wanna compare IQ at 21mm and f/2.8 (or stopped down further) , I'd volunteer my 16-35L MkII instead.
However, when it comes to a full EF capability 24mm (or thereabouts) at f/1.4-f/2.8, I know of only one lens that does it, and does it extremely well......the 24L Mk I.
bobbytan wrote:
Are you therefore saying that the 16-35L II will be just as good as the 24L II and the Zeiss 21 Distagon at f2.8 .... so anyone not needing an aperture faster than f2.8 should get the 16-35L Mk II instead of the 24L or Zeiss 21? I had the 16-35L II a couple of years ago and I was very unimpressed with the copy that I had.
Maybe because it was a prototype? The 16-35/II wasn't available a couple of years ago.
but we don't like to have flare from our lenses 
