Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 17 Feb 2015 (Tuesday) 22:29
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Was reading Rockwell's review of the 16-35mm F4

 
Masa ­ Yume
Member
36 posts
Likes: 8
Joined Jun 2012
Post edited over 4 years ago by Masa Yume.
     
Feb 17, 2015 22:29 |  #1

"Moonlight, 08 July 2014. Canon 5D Mk III, 16-35/4 L IS at 16mm, f/4 at 1/3 second hand-held at ISO 12,800.

Hand-held at 1/3 of a second and sharp in the corners wide open! This is shot at LV -1.5, which means super dark.

The old 16-35/2.8 L II isn't this sharp in the corners at f/4, and it has no IS for sharp shots this slow hand-held. With the 16-35/2.8 L II you'd have to use a tripod, with which then you'd shoot at f/2.8 at 30 seconds at ISO 100 — but wait, at f/2.8 the old 16-35/2.8 L II isn't sharp, so to use the exposure you'd really want, f/11 at ISO 100, you'd need a remote release and an 8-minute exposure! "


Regardless of the other differences, is he seriously comparing shutter speeds with one shot at ISO 12,800 and the other at ISO 100? I'm not quite sure the point is. Yes, the 16-35mm is sharper at F4 and has IS, but this seems like exaggeration.

http://kenrockwell.com​/canon/lenses/16-35mm-is.htm (external link)




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
DreDaze
happy with myself for not saying anything stupid
Avatar
18,023 posts
Gallery: 40 photos
Likes: 2185
Joined Mar 2006
Location: S.F. Bay Area
     
Feb 17, 2015 23:19 |  #2

well, he has shown in the past he can be a bit of an idiot...


Andre or Dre
gear list
Instagram (external link)
flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
titi_67207
Senior Member
Avatar
496 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Nov 2008
Location: Strasbourg, France
     
Feb 18, 2015 03:14 |  #3

DreDaze wrote in post #17436931 (external link)
well, he has shown in the past he can be a bit of an idiot...

+1. He often compares apples with oranges... and blames third-party lenses.


Canon 5D MkII + Sony A7 + 24x36 & 6x6 B&W film cameras .
CV 15 4.5 III | TS-E 24L II | FE 28 2 | (50+85) 1.4 | 135 2 | 70-200 4.0L | a collection of old Zuikos + FD + Adaptall + AI-s + M42

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Left ­ Handed ­ Brisket
That's my line!
Avatar
9,476 posts
Gallery: 12 photos
Likes: 2146
Joined Jun 2011
Location: The Uwharrie Mts, NC
Post edited over 4 years ago by Left Handed Brisket.
     
Feb 18, 2015 04:14 |  #4

www.the-digital-picture.com (external link) is a much better option.


PSA: The above post may contain sarcasm, reply at your own risk | Not in gear database: Auto Sears 50mm 2.0 / 3x CL-360, Nikon SB-28, SunPak auto 322 D, Minolta 20

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jmai86
Member
153 posts
Likes: 6
Joined Aug 2014
Post edited over 4 years ago by jmai86.
     
Feb 18, 2015 11:05 |  #5

Rockwell has a nearly full "review" of the 5Ds up, calling it the "best digital camera in the world" and yet in a more recent post, he calls out reviewers that have posted 5Ds samples as Canon shills. Many, many hypocritical things on his site.

That being said though, I still frequent his page as he does provide some things I can't get anywhere else:

- Excellent product photography
- Clear, concise gear specs and details
- Consistent examples of sunstars, bokeh and maybe a few other things

I don't take his reviews seriously though. He loves to use Perfectly Clear plugins on ALL of his photos, even review sample photos, and sometimes the results are really jarring. It seems he caters more towards casual family users, but again, there have been many cases where he contradicts this stance.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ed ­ rader
"I am not the final word"
Avatar
23,038 posts
Gallery: 4 photos
Likes: 399
Joined May 2005
Location: silicon valley
     
Feb 18, 2015 11:34 |  #6

but he got your attention and your help promoting him on the internet. see ya at the bank. mission accomplished :lol:


http://instagram.com/e​draderphotography/ (external link)
5D4, 80d, 16-35L III, 24-70L II, 70-200L F4 IS II, 100-400L II, sigma 15mm FE, 35mm ef-s macro, tc 1.4 III, 430exII, gitzo 3542L, gitzo GM4562, markins Q10, markins Q3, kirk, really right stuff, sirui

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
melcat
Goldmember
1,122 posts
Likes: 5
Joined Nov 2010
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Post edited over 4 years ago by melcat. (3 edits in all)
     
Feb 19, 2015 01:03 |  #7

Masa Yume wrote in post #17436872 (external link)
I'm not quite sure the point is. Yes, the 16-35mm is sharper at F4 and has IS, but this seems like exaggeration.

Seems clear enough to me. He is saying you can get some kind of picture with the f/4 IS but not with the f/2.8. He goes on to specify exactly under what conditions and what the biggest compromise would be. It's up to you to decide its relevance to you. I do actually think it's a useful observation. He doesn't mention the compromise in giving up depth of field, perhaps because he thinks his audience is shooting small for the web.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Masa ­ Yume
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
36 posts
Likes: 8
Joined Jun 2012
     
Feb 19, 2015 02:37 |  #8

melcat wrote in post #17438672 (external link)
Masa Yume wrote in post #17436872 (external link)
I'm not quite sure the point is. Yes, the 16-35mm is sharper at F4 and has IS, but this seems like exaggeration.

Seems clear enough to me. He is saying you can get some kind of picture with the f/4 IS but not with the f/2.8. He goes on to specify exactly under what conditions and what the biggest compromise would be. It's up to you to decide its relevance to you. I do actually think it's a useful observation. He doesn't mention the compromise in giving up depth of field, perhaps because he thinks his audience is shooting small for the web.


But why would he not use ISO 12,800 with the 16-35mm?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
melcat
Goldmember
1,122 posts
Likes: 5
Joined Nov 2010
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Post edited over 4 years ago by melcat. (2 edits in all)
     
Feb 19, 2015 04:47 |  #9

Masa Yume wrote in post #17438719 (external link)
But why would he not use ISO 12,800 with the 16-35mm?

Because it still doesn't get him there - no 4 stops of IS (working from memory here - when I first read it I scratched my head, counted stops and decided he was right). Since he can't hand hold, he then needs a tripod, so then he might as well lower the ISO.

It's another restatement of a theme which runs through his site, that lenses and cameras are tools that are good for different things. Contrast that with the tendency in a lot of forums to try to "rank" equipment.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
MikeWa
Senior Member
Avatar
879 posts
Gallery: 89 photos
Likes: 235
Joined Apr 2012
Location: Seattle Washington
     
Feb 19, 2015 12:03 |  #10

It seems a lot of people on this forum don't care for Ken Rockwell. But I like his reviews. Even when I don't agree with him I find his reviews interesting and informative. So I agree with your statement about his theme.

Mike


Mike...G9; 7D; 7D Mark II; EF-S 10-22mm; EF-S 18-135mm IS STM; EF 28-300mm F3.5-5.6L; EF 70-300mm IS USM; EF 70-200mm F2.8L IS-II; EF 100-400mm f4.5-5.6L IS; EXT 1.4-II & 2.0-III; The more I learn the less I know.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
NG8JGFX
Senior Member
Avatar
732 posts
Gallery: 5 photos
Likes: 283
Joined Mar 2011
Location: Southern CA
     
Feb 19, 2015 14:14 |  #11

I don't mind reading his reviews at all. I rather enjoy them regardless if he's hammering something...Just someone elses point of view thats all...He spends some serious time with the detail he goes into..


MyCanonPhotos (external link) facebook (external link)
Tenba 32L, 5D IV, 5D III, 7D II, 8 Lenses, Three 600 EX-RT's, ST-E3-RT +

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DreDaze
happy with myself for not saying anything stupid
Avatar
18,023 posts
Gallery: 40 photos
Likes: 2185
Joined Mar 2006
Location: S.F. Bay Area
     
Feb 19, 2015 14:33 |  #12

His reviews are pretty bad when he's giving a review on something without actually any hands on experience with it...


Andre or Dre
gear list
Instagram (external link)
flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DGStinner
Goldmember
Avatar
1,027 posts
Gallery: 24 photos
Likes: 191
Joined Jan 2014
Location: Middlesex, New Jersey
     
Feb 19, 2015 14:39 |  #13

Fro Knows Photo (aka Jared Polin) has discussed several times some of the issues with Ken Rockwell's reviews, most recently on episode 82 of RAW Talk.
http://froknowsphoto.c​om/rawtalk-82/ (external link)


Dave Stinner
Gripped 7DII | 6DII
EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM | EF 24-105mm f/4L | EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM | EF 50mm f/1.8 STM | EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM | Rokinon 8mm | Sigma 150-600
Instagram (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jmai86
Member
153 posts
Likes: 6
Joined Aug 2014
     
Feb 19, 2015 15:43 |  #14

DGStinner wrote in post #17439478 (external link)
Fro Knows Photo (aka Jared Polin) has discussed several times some of the issues with Ken Rockwell's reviews, most recently on episode 82 of RAW Talk.
http://froknowsphoto.c​om/rawtalk-82/ (external link)

Jared Polin is insufferable.

Smart guy though. Just really annoying.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
CheshireCat
Goldmember
Avatar
2,303 posts
Likes: 405
Joined Oct 2008
Location: *** vanished ***
     
Feb 19, 2015 18:07 |  #15

ed rader wrote in post #17437548 (external link)
but he got your attention and your help promoting him on the internet. see ya at the bank. mission accomplished :lol:

+1

Sometimes he is just plainly mistaken, sometimes he does it on purpose.

The shot he took with the 16-35 f/4 IS is a technical abomination even at web size, let alone the bigger version of the image. Ken's tendency to oversharpen and oversaturate did backfire in this shot, making things even worse.

"Spray and pray" with proper technique at lower ISO would have probably produced much better results.

The "corner softness" argument is nonsense for this image, as only the lower-right corner has some detail in it.

And finally, there is no need for remote release in a 8 minute exposure.


1Dx, 5D2 and some lenses

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

4,961 views & 6 likes for this thread
Was reading Rockwell's review of the 16-35mm F4
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is championlover1
672 guests, 233 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.