New Canon 100mm L IS Lens

[Andrew]

Canon have announced a new 'L' 100mm macro lens

http://www.canon.co.uk/For_Home/Product_Finder/Cameras/EF_Lenses/Macro_Lenses/EF_100mm_f28L_Macro_IS_USM/index.asp

I am a big fan of the L lenses and also a huge fan of the original 100mm macro lens (non L and non IS lens) for bugs etc, however have not yet used it underwater (now plans to in Indonesia in May!!).

Out of water I have always thought it useful to have an image stabilizer... now my question is... how much use would this be in the water?

Andrew

[sorvju-f]

Canon have announced a new 'L' 100mm macro lens

http://www.canon.co.uk/For_Home/Product_Finder/Cameras/EF_Lenses/Macro_Lenses/EF_100mm_f28L_Macro_IS_USM/index.asp

I am a big fan of the L lenses and also a huge fan of the original 100mm macro lens (non L and non IS lens) for bugs etc, however have not yet used it underwater (now plans to in Indonesia in May!!).

Out of water I have always thought it useful to have an image stabilizer... now my question is... how much use would this be in the water?

Andrew

Can you explain little bit more...just interested...what are L lenses, (non L, non IS )?

Jukka

[Jonathan Bird]

Out of water I have always thought it useful to have an image stabilizer... now my question is... how much use would this be in the water?



Worthless. The strobe freezes the action anyway for macro and frankly even above water the image stabilization only buys you 1-2 stops slower shutter speed.

[Andrew]

Jukka,

The 'L' lenses are their professional range of lenses with apparently far better optics that the normal ones, it makes a difference I think on the longer telephoto lenses but not sure with the macro as the current one is so good.

Jonathan, this is exactly what I was thinking but they have put it on there apparently after public requests... Out of water on a bright summers day I do not always use a flash ring and it could be useful (but it is an expensive lens). They have a new Canon IS system that gives between 2 and 4 stops depending on the magnification.

Andrew

[Jonathan Bird]

I bought the fancy "VR" (vibration reduction) 18-200 Nikon and tried their "4 stop" claim. What a load!! MAYBE 2 stops improvement, no more.

[Andrew]

Yeah... but thats Nikon not Canon ;)

[sorvju-f]

Yeah... but thats Nikon not Canon ;)

As always planning upgrade...this Canon EOS 7D looks like better than Nikon D300.

At the moment D300 is moving out of market and this D300s is replacing it...but this video I am not doing anything...maybe to see what D-400 will offer?

Jukka

[Andrew]

The problem with buying a camera is like buying a computer Jukka... you buy one and new one comes out! I bought the 50d and 3 months later the 7d came out! I have tried out the video on the 7d of my son playing on the beach... it's ok but definitely not a selling point for the camera.

IF only Nikon and Canon had the same lens fit, you could chose the body which most suited and use the lenses you already have. Once you have gone with one or the other it is difficult to switch.

I see that the iMac I have has now been upgraded to a quad core!

Andrew

[Jonathan Bird]

Jukka is in a tough position because he isn't locked into one brand or the other because of a lens collection. The choice is much easier for me....I am a Nikon guy and probably always will be!

I would like to hear about the Canon image stabilization. I doubt it's any different from the Nikon in performance.

Jonathan

[tkelly]

The problem with buying a camera is like buying a computer Jukka... you buy one and new one comes out! I bought the 50d and 3 months later the 7d came out! I have tried out the video on the 7d of my son playing on the beach... it's ok but definitely not a selling point for the camera.

IF only Nikon and Canon had the same lens fit, you could chose the body which most suited and use the lenses you already have. Once you have gone with one or the other it is difficult to switch.

I see that the iMac I have has now been upgraded to a quad core!

Andrew

Maybe the best way to think about this is to take the perspective that you are buying into a lens system. The camera bodies are just going to keep getting better. Performance and camera body functions are going to keep improving for some time. But once you buy a lens, you are going to have it for many years and through many camera bodies.

[Jonathan Bird]

Maybe the best way to think about this is to take the perspective that you are buying into a lens system. The camera bodies are just going to keep getting better. Performance and camera body functions are going to keep improving for some time. But once you buy a lens, you are going to have it for many years and through many camera bodies.

Very good way of thinking about it!

[sorvju-f]

The problem with buying a camera is like buying a computer Jukka... you buy one and new one comes out! I bought the 50d and 3 months later the 7d came out! I have tried out the video on the 7d of my son playing on the beach... it's ok but definitely not a selling point for the camera.

IF only Nikon and Canon had the same lens fit, you could chose the body which most suited and use the lenses you already have. Once you have gone with one or the other it is difficult to switch.

I see that the iMac I have has now been upgraded to a quad core!

Andrew

I know what you mean...also price wise the situation is the same...my camera is EUR 1000+ but the lenses are 8000+.

Jukka

[sorvju-f]

Jukka is in a tough position because he isn't locked into one brand or the other because of a lens collection. The choice is much easier for me....I am a Nikon guy and probably always will be!

I would like to hear about the Canon image stabilization. I doubt it's any different from the Nikon in performance.

Jonathan

As you know D-300 was close to my all wishes, but after they upgraded it to D-300s itself the D-300 start to disappear from shops and I try to postpone my action until "D-400" will come ( there will be new processor latest sensor, doupple memory card slot ).

I read somewhere that the name D-400 might be something else as 4 is bad luck number in Japan...same with D4x.

I also have tried to compare full frame against cropped frame...and I feel that if using only topside it would be full frame...due the low light properties. Underwater full frame is actually not giving you back the total price gap FX/DX. With full frame it is even limited some actions underwater which DX cameras are able to do.

I am not sure ( not seen really difference ) if this image stabilization gives you remarkable results. Most of the time I have it off. Do you have it all the time on and how you see the difference?

Jukka

[Jonathan Bird]

I have said it many times before--the "crop" sensors (i.e. DX in Nikon) are far superior for underwater work to the full frame sensors.

Back in the early days, everyone hated the DX sensor because it made your wide angles not wide enough. That has been corrected by a slew of amazing and reasonably priced wide angles for the DX that are better for underwater than their full frame counterparts. A wide angle lens on a DX sensor is MUCH sharper in the corners on the same sized dome than a similarly-angled FX lens on the same dome.

For example: The Nikon 12-24 DX lens is about the same angle of view and zoom range as the Nikon 17-35 FX lens. So if you put the 12-24 on a D300 you get about the same zooming angles and performance as the 17-35 on a D700 full frame camera. The difference is that to get the same sharpness in the corners across the whole zoom range as the 12-24 with an 8" port, you need something like a 12" dome on the 17-35. Even if someone makes a 12" dome, it's going to be expensive as hell, huge to travel with, a nightmare to shoot with and very buoyant.

Back in the film days we had full frame sensors--made of film. Nobody used wide angle zooms. It was all fixed focal length lenses. You had 20 mm for wide, a 16 mm fisheye for really wide, a 24 mm for medium stuff, etc. Remember why? Because you needed a different dome and/or dome extension for each lens to get it sharp. NOBODY used zooms. They weren't sharp enough because as you zoom a wide angle lens, the lens gets longer and shorter. The nodal point moves a tremendous amount. The nodal point must be precisely placed within the dome for optimal sharpness to the edge. With smaller format sensors, you get smaller movement of the focal point as you zoom, to the point where it's possible to get reasonably good results all across the zoom range with a reasonably-sized (8") port.

I do not wish to return to the bad old days where I can't use a wide angle zoom.

There is no full frame version of the awesome Tokina 10-17 fisheye. That lens would be too huge and expensive to be practical to build it for FX sensor use I suspect. (Maybe I'm wrong...but so far, I don't think it exists.)

The only thing a full frame sensor buys you is:

1. Better light sensitivity
2. Potential for more pixels because there is more space for them.

The D300 and all the current cameras have more than enough light sensitivity for underwater photography. When was the last time I used more than 800 ASA for a serious image? Can't remember. The D300 looks very very good at 800. 95% of the images I shoot are at the camera's default 200 ASA. The D700 is better in low light. There are some types of photography where I guess you need 3200 ASA, but mine isn't one of them! (I suppose if you do available light B&W at 400 FSW or something....)

And really, how many pixels do you need?

Jonathan

[sorvju-f]

And really, how many pixels do you need?

Jonathan

This is actually very good question. I have not all the information to answer to that...but more questions:p

What the pixels are more than pixels. In full HD television there are more pixels and and final result is sharper?

What is human eye capable to handle like information?

If there is more pixels...is it storing better the light?

I know that some pixels are technically working different way...what is the best way?

What I know...more pixels...croping and composition is easier:p

USH It is also so that more you know...more you understand that you actually don't know anything:o

Jukka

[Jonathan Bird]

If money, storage space and processor power don't matter, then more pixels is better. But at some point the following happens:

1. You have more pixels than the lens can resolve. Take a cheapo 14 MP compact and blow the image up in photoshop and look at a test pattern. You'll find that the lens can't resolve enough detail to warrant that many pixels. The same camera would produce an equally sharp image with 10 MP. (This is only an example) Same thing happens with any sensor. Once the pixels get small enough, if the lenses don't improve with the sensor resolution, you don't actually gain any additional resolution with more pixels, so you are just wasting storage space and processor power.

2. You have more pixels than you need for any use of the image. For example, billboards are printed at 12 dpi because you view them from hundreds of yards away. A 12 MP camera produces an image more than large enough for a billboard. One of the most demanding uses of an image is the double page spread in a magazine where you need to go around ~11x15 inches and the image will be viewed by holding the magazine in your hands 2 feet from your face. Also, cropping a horizontal to a vertical. (A 12 MP image goes to something around 5 MP when you do this). As long as you can still use that vertical as a full page in a magazine, you have all you need. I think 12 MP is fine for 99% of anything a professional photographer does. Even if you make 24x36" fine art prints for your wall, they do not need more than 200 dpi to look fantastic from any reasonable viewing distance. I honestly can't see what the heck you do with 24 MP cameras.

3. You have files that are just too darned large. They slow down your computer and fill hard drives! If you don't need 24 MP images, why deal with the 40-something MB RAW files?

Just my observations.

Jonathan

[Ken Hawk]

2 very good replys there JB, cropped sensor it is ;)

[tkelly]

I agree with Jonathan in when thinking about pixels. But I would add at least one more use.

Cropping! - The more pixels you have the more you can crop the composition to improve it, and still have enough pixels for that double page spread. You also have more inamge information if you are doing lots of post processing such as multiple layer composites in tools like photoshop.

[Jonathan Bird]

Absolutely!