Moderator: E.J. Peiker

All times are UTC-05:00

  
« Previous topic | Next topic »  
Reply to topic  
 First unread post  | 9 posts | 
by Scott Fairbairn on Tue Jul 07, 2020 9:42 am
User avatar
Scott Fairbairn
Forum Contributor
Posts: 5131
Joined: 13 Jan 2005
Member #:00437
https://www.dpreview.com/news/418247270 ... t-for-3000
 

by E.J. Peiker on Tue Jul 07, 2020 11:40 am
User avatar
E.J. Peiker
Senior Technical Editor
Posts: 86761
Joined: 16 Aug 2003
Location: Arizona
Member #:00002
No filters = no sale for me ;)
 

by Rocky Sharwell on Tue Jul 07, 2020 9:01 pm
Rocky Sharwell
Lifetime Member
Posts: 2994
Joined: 21 Aug 2003
Member #:00054
E.J. Peiker wrote:No filters = no sale for me ;)
What are the odds that someone will make something to fit-I could swear Ive seen something for the Canon 11-24
Rocky Sharwell
 

by Markus Jais on Wed Jul 08, 2020 1:04 am
User avatar
Markus Jais
Lifetime Member
Posts: 2888
Joined: 5 Sep 2005
Location: Germany, near Munich
Member #:01791
E.J. Peiker wrote:No filters = no sale for me ;)

According the the press release it does support rear filters:
"The rear filter holder accommodates standard sheet-type ND, color correction and other filters for expanded expressive capability. A cutting tmplate for sheet filters is supplied."

But that's probably not very helpful because the most important filter for such a lens would be a polarizer.

Does this have to do more with the f2.8 or the 12mm?
Nikon managed to make a 4/14-30 witch takes regular filters.
Would this also work with a 2.8/14-24?
Canon has an RF 2.8/15-35 but not a 2.8/14-24

I am just curious about what the technical limitations are to make a wind angle zoom which can take filters at the front.
 

by E.J. Peiker on Wed Jul 08, 2020 9:16 am
User avatar
E.J. Peiker
Senior Technical Editor
Posts: 86761
Joined: 16 Aug 2003
Location: Arizona
Member #:00002
Markus Jais wrote:
E.J. Peiker wrote:No filters = no sale for me ;)

According the the press release it does support rear filters:
"The rear filter holder accommodates standard sheet-type ND, color correction and other filters for expanded expressive capability. A cutting tmplate for sheet filters is supplied."

But that's probably not very helpful because the most important filter for such a lens would be a polarizer.

Does this have to do more with the f2.8 or the 12mm?
Nikon managed to make a 4/14-30 witch takes regular filters.
Would this also work with a 2.8/14-24?
Canon has an RF 2.8/15-35 but not a 2.8/14-24

I am just curious about what the technical limitations are to make a wind angle zoom which can take filters at the front.
Sure, but, as you say, that's pretty useless if the filter you need is a GND or a polarizer...  It has more to do with the 12mm as it requires a bulbous element to take in light at such oblique angles.  The 12-24 f/4 doesn't take filters either.  Of course you can get a large filter holder and 150mm rectangular filters but I find those pretty cumbersome in the field and easy to scratch, drop, crack, chip, etc...  You could of course design a lens lie this to take filters but it would need a really wide front filter ring for 95mm filters.
 

by Markus Jais on Wed Jul 08, 2020 1:59 pm
User avatar
Markus Jais
Lifetime Member
Posts: 2888
Joined: 5 Sep 2005
Location: Germany, near Munich
Member #:01791
E.J. Peiker wrote:
Markus Jais wrote:
E.J. Peiker wrote:No filters = no sale for me ;)

According the the press release it does support rear filters:
"The rear filter holder accommodates standard sheet-type ND, color correction and other filters for expanded expressive capability. A cutting tmplate for sheet filters is supplied."

But that's probably not very helpful because the most important filter for such a lens would be a polarizer.

Does this have to do more with the f2.8 or the 12mm?
Nikon managed to make a 4/14-30 witch takes regular filters.
Would this also work with a 2.8/14-24?
Canon has an RF 2.8/15-35 but not a 2.8/14-24

I am just curious about what the technical limitations are to make a wind angle zoom which can take filters at the front.
Sure, but, as you say, that's pretty useless if the filter you need is a GND or a polarizer...  It has more to do with the 12mm as it requires a bulbous element to take in light at such oblique angles.  The 12-24 f/4 doesn't take filters either.  Of course you can get a large filter holder and 150mm rectangular filters but I find those pretty cumbersome in the field and easy to scratch, drop, crack, chip, etc...  You could of course design a lens lie this to take filters but it would need a really wide front filter ring for 95mm filters.
Thanks for the explanation.
I agree, a wide-angle lens that does not take a polarizer is useless for landscapes in many situations (foliage, water, sky, etc).
I really like small, sharp lenses like the EF 4/16-35L.
I expect Canon to do an RF version of such a lens, maybe even with 15-35.
 

by E.J. Peiker on Wed Jul 08, 2020 3:44 pm
User avatar
E.J. Peiker
Senior Technical Editor
Posts: 86761
Joined: 16 Aug 2003
Location: Arizona
Member #:00002
Not so much sky, a lens this wide will have a dark spot 90 degrees to sun when polarized significantly but more for taking the sheen off rocks or foliage...
If you think the 16-35 f/4 is sharp, you would be absolutely amazed by the 16-35 f/2.8 - it's in a whole different league for sharpness.
 

by Markus Jais on Thu Jul 09, 2020 12:35 am
User avatar
Markus Jais
Lifetime Member
Posts: 2888
Joined: 5 Sep 2005
Location: Germany, near Munich
Member #:01791
E.J. Peiker wrote:Not so much sky, a lens this wide will have a dark spot 90 degrees to sun when polarized significantly but more for taking the sheen off rocks or foliage...
If you think the 16-35 f/4 is sharp, you would be absolutely amazed by the 16-35 f/2.8 - it's in a whole different league for sharpness.

You're talking about the EF 2.8/16-35L III?

Have you been able to test the following RF lenses?
2.8/15-35
2.8/24-70
4/24-105

All seem to be pretty good according to reports but your tests and reviews are often much more interesting and "real-live" than many other reviews out there.
Of course, so far Canon has lacked a really impressive Camera to use these lenses with (which will probably change today).

Markus
 

by E.J. Peiker on Thu Jul 09, 2020 11:09 am
User avatar
E.J. Peiker
Senior Technical Editor
Posts: 86761
Joined: 16 Aug 2003
Location: Arizona
Member #:00002
Markus Jais wrote:
E.J. Peiker wrote:Not so much sky, a lens this wide will have a dark spot 90 degrees to sun when polarized significantly but more for taking the sheen off rocks or foliage...
If you think the 16-35 f/4 is sharp, you would be absolutely amazed by the 16-35 f/2.8 - it's in a whole different league for sharpness.

You're talking about the EF 2.8/16-35L III?

Have you been able to test the following RF lenses?
2.8/15-35
2.8/24-70
4/24-105

All seem to be pretty good according to reports but your tests and reviews are often much more interesting and "real-live" than many other reviews out there.
Of course, so far Canon has lacked a really impressive Camera to use these lenses with (which will probably change today).

Markus
I am talking about the Sony 16-35 f/2.8 GM which is significantly better than the Canon 16-35 f/2.8L III.  Not sure how Canon crept into this but I do now see that you were referring to a Canon lens in your post above when I thought you were referring to the Sony 16-35 f/4 which is in a similar league as the Canon 16-35 f/4 ;)

I have not tested any Canon RF lenses
 

Display posts from previous:  Sort by:  
9 posts | 
  

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group