Old 06-19-2014, 04:17 PM   #26
Carl Becker
Senior Member
 
Carl Becker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,218
Default

I suppose that for Loyd and anyone else shooting full frame, we should also be discussing the new 16-35 IS.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/16-35mm-is.htm

The full review isn't online yet, but the first impressions look very good. It's also selling on Amazon for $500 cheaper that the 16-35 2.8. I can see this becoming the go-to wide-angle for full frame models quickly.

BTW, Loyd, great shot at Leipsic, looks fantastic.
__________________
- My photos at RailPictures.net
- My videos at Rail-Videos.net
Carl Becker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2014, 05:41 PM   #27
bigbassloyd
Senior Member
 
bigbassloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Hilldale, West Virginia
Posts: 3,734
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carl Becker View Post
I suppose that for Loyd and anyone else shooting full frame, we should also be discussing the new 16-35 IS.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/16-35mm-is.htm

The full review isn't online yet, but the first impressions look very good. It's also selling on Amazon for $500 cheaper that the 16-35 2.8. I can see this becoming the go-to wide-angle for full frame models quickly.
The new 16-35 does show promise. Lucky for me, my Tokina 11-16 mounts to my FF and provides complete frame to frame coverage at 15-16mm.

Quote:
BTW, Loyd, great shot at Leipsic, looks fantastic.
Thanks! I appreciate it.

Loyd L.
__________________
Social Media elevates the absurd and mediocre to a point where they aren't anymore, and that is a tragedy.

My personal photography site
bigbassloyd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2014, 07:40 PM   #28
Dennis A. Livesey
Senior Member
 
Dennis A. Livesey's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,985
Smile

Quote:
Originally Posted by JRMDC View Post
Dennis, I am not saying the selfie with Charles is perfect, but boy that shot looks great for what could have been a simple snapshot. Really nice.

Loyd, that's funny!

J (satisfied 10-22 user, apparently not sufficiently concerned with pixel-level detail)
Thanks J!
It was taken by my 40D and the 10-22mm. Of course, the framing is a little off because their ain't no flip screen so it always takes a couple of tries to get an acceptable shot.
Charles is an old pro at selfies as we know so he knows how to turn on the Tom Cruise-like-mega watt smile anytime needed.
If I only could get my wife to do the same...
__________________
Dennis

I Foam Therefore I Am.

My pix on RailPics:

I am on Flickr as well:

"Dennis is such a God, he could do that with a camera obscura and some homemade acetate." Holloran Grade

"To me it looks drawn in in Paintshop. It looks like a puddle of orange on the sky." SFO777
Dennis A. Livesey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2014, 08:00 PM   #29
JRMDC
Senior Member
 
JRMDC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 11,202
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dennis A. Livesey View Post
Charles is an old pro at selfies as we know so he knows how to turn on the Tom Cruise-like-mega watt smile anytime needed.
If I only could get my wife to do the same...
Wow, Dennis complains about his wife's appearance in a public forum!

Brave, brave man.
__________________
My RP pix are here.
My Flickr pix are here.

My commentaries on rail pictures are in my blog.

RP Photo Albums:
Cabooses
Engine Details
Farm and Train
Plumes!
Railroad Details
Signal Details
Switchstand Shots
JRMDC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2014, 02:28 AM   #30
Dennis A. Livesey
Senior Member
 
Dennis A. Livesey's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,985
Default

never mind.
__________________
Dennis

I Foam Therefore I Am.

My pix on RailPics:

I am on Flickr as well:

"Dennis is such a God, he could do that with a camera obscura and some homemade acetate." Holloran Grade

"To me it looks drawn in in Paintshop. It looks like a puddle of orange on the sky." SFO777
Dennis A. Livesey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2014, 02:33 AM   #31
JimThias
Senior Member
 
JimThias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 9,800
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbassloyd View Post
W(T)e've a(O)lready h(K)ad this di(I)scussion in a p(N)revious thr(A)ead.

Loyd L.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, but that loss of 6mm would be huge for me as far as what I use it for.

If only it were possible to have a 10-22 L EF-S lens. Oh well.
__________________
.
Rhymes with slice, rice and mice, and probably should be spelled like "Tice."

This pretty much sums it up: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Thias
JimThias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2014, 02:41 AM   #32
bigbassloyd
Senior Member
 
bigbassloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Hilldale, West Virginia
Posts: 3,734
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimThias View Post
Yeah, yeah, yeah, but that loss of 6mm would be huge for me as far as what I use it for.

If only it were possible to have a 10-22 L EF-S lens. Oh well.
I usually just take a step forward if 16mm isn't long enough

Loyd L.
__________________
Social Media elevates the absurd and mediocre to a point where they aren't anymore, and that is a tragedy.

My personal photography site
bigbassloyd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2014, 02:47 AM   #33
JimThias
Senior Member
 
JimThias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 9,800
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbassloyd View Post
I usually just take a step forward if 16mm isn't long enough

Loyd L.
Much more than one step for the 6mm difference, and a lot of times that isn't possible when I'm shooting a house.
__________________
.
Rhymes with slice, rice and mice, and probably should be spelled like "Tice."

This pretty much sums it up: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Thias
JimThias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2014, 03:52 AM   #34
Dennis A. Livesey
Senior Member
 
Dennis A. Livesey's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,985
Thumbs up

I got to wondering what was available in Full Frame Wide zooms for Canon.

These look intriguing.

http://goo.gl/LfcJ2S

The Tokina 17-35mm f/4 has not been reviewed by DXO yet.

The Tokina 16-28mm f/2.8 has a DXO score of 20.
http://goo.gl/7sWeCt

Sigma 12-24mm F4.5-5.6 EX DG HSM II Canon has a DXO score of 15
http://goo.gl/15orVI

Canon 16-35mm f/4 has a not been reviewed by DXO yet.

B&H only does four in their compare chart so I added this:

Canon 16-35mm F2.8 has a DXO rating of 22.
http://goo.gl/Z5dNkr

The B&H customer reviews were quite positive for all of them.

I would say that in the price no object category the Canon 16-35 f/2.8 wins. In the best bang for the buck category, based on available scores, the winner is the Tokina 16-28mmf/2.8.
__________________
Dennis

I Foam Therefore I Am.

My pix on RailPics:

I am on Flickr as well:

"Dennis is such a God, he could do that with a camera obscura and some homemade acetate." Holloran Grade

"To me it looks drawn in in Paintshop. It looks like a puddle of orange on the sky." SFO777

Last edited by Dennis A. Livesey; 06-20-2014 at 03:55 AM.
Dennis A. Livesey is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 06:57 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.