Are Canon EF lenses still a good investment?

[jonpais]

2 hours ago, Henry Gentles said:

This is common knowledge now actually. If you focus on a large tree from a distance to frame the tree, none of leaves will be in focus and at any aperture. You will think the leaves are moving but even when you increase the shutter speed same result, garbled leaves. It's chromatic aberration, a design flaw due to the 14 elements etc. There's a few videos on this on youtube but I can't find them right now. Plus the 18-35 won't focus using the outer focus points, you have to use centrepoint only. The Lens is complete junk unless  you use centrepoint focus only. The new 50-150 1.8 they just released is even worse, it just doesn't focus every 5 or 6 shots or whatever, which means unusable for a professional stills photographer. Totally unreliable auto focus. The Zeiss and the Fuji are not 3rd Party and are great lenses no doubt and cost a bomb, not sure your point?? The new chinese$2K  Nikon 85mm has a similar issue to the 18 -35 due to all the elements, stick with the old one much better Lens and half the price. 

absolute rubbish

 

12 minutes ago, Arikhan said:

You always have to differ between using a lens for stills or for video. Let me give you an example:

The Samsung 16-50mm 2.0-2.8 is a phantastic native lens for NX1 to make videos. For stills and compared in real world with eg a Canon 24-70 2.8 ii (manual focusing with adapter on a NX1), the Samsung lens is more than poor....And this is noticeable, not a matter of pixel peeping details. In this special case, the optical capabilities of the native lens are far behind the optical quality of the Canon 24-70 ii in stills. In video (even with 4k) the enormous differences aren't noticeable, because of the big difference in resolution (stills resolution vs video resolution). It gets much more noticeable with NX-adapted major Canon prime lenses, where the Canon glasses wish the floor with the Samsung lenses (even with the Samsung 45mm 1.8, considered to be a very good lens). Please consider: in stills.

Again, rubbish! First of all, you need more caps and bold typeface to make your point. Secondly, if you introduce an ADAPTER into the mix, you're introducing another variable. Spellcheck is your friend.

[Arikhan]

@jonpais

LOL. There are credible tests with the Samsung 16-50 (lab tests) claiming the same...Just test it yourself, without blaming people...Spreading theoretical scenarios is not very helpful. Test it in real world and you will see...

Quote

Spellcheck is your friend.

English is not my first language. The day you speak German as good as my bad English is far away... ;-)

[jonpais]

Actually, not that far!

5 minutes ago, Arikhan said:

@jonpais

LOL. There are credible tests with the Samsung 16-50 (lab tests) claiming the same...Just test it yourself, without blaming people...

English is not my first language. The day you speak German as good as my bad English is far away... ;-)

There must be at least twenty different criteria that distinguish a cine lens from a stills lens, but resolution isn't one of them.

[Arikhan]

@jonpais

Jonpais, how can you explain, that the mentioneed Canon lens, adapted to the NX1, delivers better results in stills than using the 16-50mm Samsung native lens? As you state:

Quote

Secondly, if you introduce an ADAPTER into the mix, you're introducing another variable.

WOW. If you were right, adapters would help to improve image quality. I my eyes, this statement is ridiculous...Because we talk here about a massive improvement (IQ) with adapter + third party lens over the native Samsung lens. That shows clearly, how inferior the native lens is, compared with the Canon lens + cheap adapter...As simple as that...

[jonpais]

okay, you win

[Henry Gentles]

2 hours ago, webrunner5 said:

I don't think that is right! Chromatic aberration is Purple fringing, nothing to do with focus. And it is no worse than 90% of the zooms out there for it.

Now you might not get leaves in focus because of the narrow DoF, but you have to re learn how to shoot with a lens with that fast of a Aperture. Try using it with a speed booster even harder to do. That lens is one of the best lens you can buy for any money.  Center point only really. You must have the worst copy ever make, and I doubt that is true with it.

You are the only one I have heard say bad things about it. Is it perfect no, is any lens tons better no. But I don't do much photo work, and I doubt many do on here either with that lens. If that was the case not one frame in Video would be in focus. No nasty thread on here about that problem with that lens that I know of.

Now the 50-100 1.8 is not as good of a lens a the 18-35mm. No way you going to make a lens with that big of zoom work at F1.8. You stated it wrong in you reply. It is NOT 150mm.

Ignorance is bliss....lol

[Arikhan]

@jonpais

Quote

There must be at least twenty different criteria that distinguish a cine lens from a stills lens, but resolution isn't one of them

Samsung never claimed, the 16-50 2.0-2.8 was a cine lens or a stills lens only. They claim, usage of this lens is for stills AND video...So I tested it for stills, as most of people use DSLR to shoot stills...Nothing wrong about that. Again, test it yourself.

[jonpais]

This was shot with both the Samsung S and PZ lenses. Looks pretty good to me.

22 minutes ago, Henry Gentles said:

Ignorance is bliss....lol

I think you'd better chill.

[Arikhan]

@jonpais

Quote

This was shot with both the Samsung S and PZ lenses. Looks pretty good to me.

You have to read my statement first: The test was about stills at 28mp and not for video at a much more inferior resolution....
BTW: I LOVE my NX1 and some of the Samsung native lenses. But inferior quality is inferior quality, specially when proven and noticeable by normal users (not even pixel peepers) like me... ;-)

[IronFilm]

21 hours ago, Arikhan said:

Now (in 2017) we will leave the Canon stills ecosystem and buy a bunch of Nikon cameras.

So will you buy a few dozen Nikon lenses as well??

12 hours ago, Cary Knoop said:

On the wide side what do people think about the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 Pro?

There is the newer Tokina 11-20mm f2.8 as well!

[Arikhan]

@IronFilm

Quote

So will you buy a few dozen Nikon lenses as well??

No. At the first only 4 primes: 20, 35, 50 and 85 1.8. After some weeks/months of familiarization, we will see which lenses we need furthermore. We have to evaluate the quality of some Nikon tele lenses (for our personal way of shooting, needs and IQ requirements) to make a decision and therefore we have to borrow them first.

[webrunner5]

13 hours ago, Arikhan said:

You always have to differ between using a lens for stills or for video. Let me give you an example:

The Samsung 16-50mm 2.0-2.8 is a phantastic native lens for NX1 to make videos. For stills and compared in real world with eg a Canon 24-70 2.8 ii (manual focusing with adapter on a NX1), the Samsung lens is more than poor....And this is noticeable, not a matter of pixel peeping details. In this special case, the optical capabilities of the native lens are far behind the optical quality of the Canon 24-70 ii in stills. In video (even with 4k) the enormous differences aren't noticeable, because of the big difference in resolution (stills resolution vs video resolution). It gets much more noticeable with NX-adapted major Canon prime lenses, where the Canon glasses wish the floor with the Samsung lenses (even with the Samsung 45mm 1.8, considered to be a very good lens). Please consider: in stills.

I would agree when comparing 1080p, hech one of my all time favorite video cameras, the Sony F3, only has a sensor that is 3.4mp (effective) but now we have cameras that do 4k, 5k, up to 8k. That is as high of resolution or more than digital cameras can resolve on average. We are probably going to see even top end PL prime lenses may not be "good enough" for 8k stuff. Most were made for 35 film or maybe even Pana 70mm film, but 8k is way beyond that.

I am not sure what specs modern video lens now are aimed at specs wise?? I guess the 2 FE Sony cine lens can work on a Sony A7rII in 4k ok. But 8k, wow not sure. Beyond my knowledge on optics, or ability to buy one that good LoL.

[Cary Knoop]

9 hours ago, IronFilm said:

There is the newer Tokina 11-20mm f2.8 as well!

Does it work well with the speedbooster on the Panasonics? 

Any vignetting at wide angles?

 

[jonpais]

Let's try to stay on topic.

[jonpais]

On 12/25/2016 at 0:32 PM, Henry Gentles said:

This is common knowledge now actually. If you focus on a large tree from a distance to frame the tree, none of leaves will be in focus and at any aperture. You will think the leaves are moving but even when you increase the shutter speed same result, garbled leaves. It's chromatic aberration, a design flaw due to the 14 elements etc. There's a few videos on this on youtube but I can't find them right now. Plus the 18-35 won't focus using the outer focus points, you have to use centrepoint only. The Lens is complete junk unless  you use centrepoint focus only. The new 50-150 1.8 they just released is even worse, it just doesn't focus every 5 or 6 shots or whatever, which means unusable for a professional stills photographer. Totally unreliable auto focus. The Zeiss and the Fuji are not 3rd Party and are great lenses no doubt and cost a bomb, not sure your point?? The new chinese$2K  Nikon 85mm has a similar issue to the 18 -35 due to all the elements, stick with the old one much better Lens and half the price. 

In this test, the Sigma with MC-11 adapter outperforms both the Canon and Zeiss lenses for continuous autofocus performance on the a6500.

[Cary Knoop]

On 12/25/2016 at 8:32 PM, Henry Gentles said:

The Lens is complete junk unless  you use centrepoint focus only. The new 50-150 1.8 they just released is even worse,

I completely disagree and I am sure many others with me.

 

[Henry Gentles]

5 hours ago, Cary Knoop said:

I completely disagree and I am sure many others with me.

 

If you own a 18 -35mm you would know it doesn't focus well using the outside points, you have to use the centrepoint, it's common knowledge flaw for pro photographers? I guess you guys don't own one or are used to having blurry pictures? Similar problem with the 50 -100mm 1.8, it doesn't focus consistently, it's kinda all over the net, maybe we don't watch the same reviews? It's kinda useless if it keeps randomly missing and your shooting an event? ps. it doesn't matter how many ppl you get to agree with you, facts aren't determined by votes!

[cantsin]

I guess most people shooting video don't care because they never use autofocus. On the upside, the Sigma has a really good focus ring.

[Oliver Daniel]

6 hours ago, jonpais said:

In this test, the Sigma with MC-11 adapter outperforms both the Canon and Zeiss lenses for continuous autofocus performance on the a6500.

I have the A6500 and the Sigma MC-11 and I've used the 18-35mm briefly so far. 

Autofocus is pretty good however I've noticed lock-on AF is greyed out. 

My 18-105mm Sony lens does work much better - The Sigma just has a much nicer rendering of the image. 

Other little issues: 

- The Sigma can hunt a little bit and miss focus.

- It's very front-heavy, much better with the 18-105mm for handling. 

Other comments? 

- The Sony lenses are underwhelming for video, hence why i still have EF lenses. 

- The 5 axis with the 18-105mm is great, good with the Sigma. 

- My wife's stills on the 700d wipes the floor with the A6500, side by side. Canon mojo is special! There's still something about an optical viewfinder I find more enjoyable to use!

- The 4k in the A6500 (when steady) is better than the internal FS5 and A7S II 4k. It's very very nice!

Onto topic, EF lenses are probably the best lens system to be instead in, due to adaptability. I thought of going all E-mount as I only ever use Sony cameras, but I don't like the E-mount lenses for video. Slow apertures and horrible fly-by-wire. GM lenses are very heavy, and make little sense on something like the a6500. 

[Inazuma]

@Henry Gentles Ive owned two Sigma 18-35mm's before and neither of them had the major chroma or AF issues you speak of :/ Are you sure you don't have a bad copy?