« Photography Isn't About Photography | Main | Two Links Concerning Professional Photography »

Thursday, 25 August 2016

Comments

Some also hoped for better weather sealing on the 5D IV, and it seems to have happened....pending user experience.

I hope this hood is part of a trend that continues.

On the advice of a friend, I bought one designed for the Panny 20/1.7. For whatever reason(s), Panny doesn't make hoods for the 20/1.7 and 14/2.5.

The couple of third party conventional hoods I've tried worked OK, but are enormous and obtrusive on these small to tiny lenses. This reverse/snoot style hood works as well, and slips easily into a pocket with camera and lens. A one person effort that was expensive, although very nicely made.

It seems the designer was cautious with opening size (to fit a 30 mm filter thread) and hood depth. As a result, it also works with the 14/2.5, without vignetting.

Taking a couple of $ flier, I found that a generic 37=>30 mm step down ring, while less elegant looking, works well as a hood for the 20/1.7.

Out of curiosity, are there any tradeoffs with this rangefinder-style inwardly-sloping lens design, compared to SLR-style lenses?

Wifi. Wifi on all cameras. I'm confused anytime they announce a camera without a reliable, fast way to transmit my photos wirelessly. It's got gps and wifi plus some other nice things.

Thank you for the pre-order link - done!

This concludes the marketing portion of our show... I jest Mike. Everyone needs clicks. If I buy a Mk IV, the purchase will originate from your site out of loyalty to your gestalt. While we may disagree from time to time, you have added to the things in life I appreciate, and that's worthy of my fidelity. Every day I look for new stuff on your blog, and I am often rewarded. You are a valuable commodity.

Mmm as far as I understand it 'double pixel raw' gives the ability to adjust bokeh, flare and micro focus slightly in post using Canon's own DPP software. It does double the size of the raw file though.

This lens would be the one that could tempt me to buy a Fuji!

Word on the street is that the new Fuji 23 mm f/2 is not as optically spectacular as 23 mm f/1.4 (that would be a tough ask) but it has excellent image quality, very sharp with very fast AF, and nice bokeh qualities. Seems like a steal for $450.

Check out some fine images by medical doctor and Fuji X photographer Jonas Rask:

https://jonasraskphotography.com/2016/08/25/23-and-2-a-small-look-at-the-fujifilm-xf-23mm-f2-wr/

@ Euan Forrester

Inwardly-sloping (snoot) lens shades is a variation of "vented" shades/hoods designed not to block the RF window or finder. The trade-off is vignetting when used with wide to normal lenses. Outward-flaring shades will partially block most built-in pop-up flashes of digital bodies causing shadowing.

Moose wrote:
"Taking a couple of $ flier, I found that a generic 37=>30 mm step down ring, while less elegant looking, works well as a hood for the 20/1.7."

I do a similar thing on my Fuji 35/1.4 with a 52–37mm step-down ring and it works great: keeps stray fingers away from the glass, and adds almost no size to the lens.

Couldn't we call this medium format?

Moose, have a look at the B + W #900 rubber lens hood. In its 46mm version its a perfect fit for the Panasonic 1.7/20mm. Its been on my lens for years without any problem.

So far it appears the new Canon is missing one major thing many of us want. Dynamic Range to match or exceed what Nikon and Sony has.
What is wrong with Canon?

And what's the objective basis for stating that the dynamic range is a "fail"? As far as I'm aware the camera hasn't even shipped yet.

[And who said that? Not I. --Mike]

I'd like Fuji to make a series of slower pancakes. I love the size of the 27mm f2.8 but the focal length is a little too betwixt and between for me. But I probably will spring for the new 23 - the 23 f1.4 is just a monster, defeats the compact size factor of the X cams for me. I already have a D800 for when I want to poke huge lenses in peoples' faces

I have an aging X100s that I've been thinking about updating (it was the camera that got me into Fuji), and now the first shoe has dropped with the 23 f/2 that is small enough on my X-T1 that I maybe don't need the X100s replacement. I'll probably wait for the other shoe to drop and see what the follow on to the X100T is before buying though.

The EVF in the X-T1 is so good that the optical viewfinder in the X100s feels like a step back, something I never would have thought when I first got it. I've been really enjoying the 35 f/2 and now don't bother with the 35 f/1.4 that I also have. If the new 23 is at last as good as the lens on the X100s then I probably won't bother with an X100 replacement either...

Dual-Pixel AF does output a raw file which is twice a large, but it does NOT "double the resolution" !!!

Massive dynamic range has never been a major thing for my photography, nor I suspect for most, as the 5D III is the best selling FF SLR.

The '"must have" element of the Fujinon 23mm f2 is likely to be its focusing speed. The 35mm f2 is as quiet and quick as their excellent zooms, quite unlike any of their f1.4 lenses. The 35mm f2 works well with the XT1 and XT10 CAF focus modes, so here's hoping that the new 23mm is similar.

Euan asks: "Out of curiosity, are there any tradeoffs with this rangefinder-style inwardly-sloping lens design, compared to SLR-style lenses?"

The main constraint it puts on the design is the obvious one: the front element can't be "too big". That constrains maximum aperture (and how much vignetting you'll accept near maximum aperture). So this mechanical design would only work well for "slower" lenses so this lens is an f/2 rather than a sub-f/2 lens. Compare with the 23mm f/1.4 which is a chunky lens at the front.

http://www.fujifilm.com/news/n160825_02.html

In this design the front and rear lens elements are about the same diameter.

The other issue is this is a APS-C lens so if they can keep all the other electromechanical hardware away from the front of the lens they can make the lens narrower at the front.

Similar constraints occur in the design of the X100 series lens (except they can be mounted closer to the sensor as the lens is fixed). The front element is smaller and the element size grows as you move towards the sensor.

http://www.finepix-x100.com/en/story

A similar idea appears in the Olympus XA film compact where lens length was the major constraint. They wanted the camera to be "not much thicker" than the 135 film canister and to avoid using a retracting lens. This resulted in a similarly arranged (but simpler 6-element, 5-group) 35mm f/2.8 lens with a small front element and larger elements inside the camera.

http://www.diaxa.com/xa.htm

"I love the size of the 27mm f2.8 but the focal length is a little too betwixt and between for me."

Both Mike and I vigorously defend that focal length as "Goldilocks!"

The comments to this entry are closed.