[Review] Canon 28mm 2.8 IS

Color and contrast on this lens are amazing.

Summary: Canon 28mm 2.8 IS is a nice light lens that is very usable and has somewhat a care-free nature. (Tested on the full-frame 5D Mark 3)


Pros:
+ Reasonable sharp open wide @ f/2.8
+ Fast AF
+ IS
+ Small and light
+ No moving front element for focusing
+ Color and Contrast

Cons:
- Cost
- Bad vignetting open wide
- Low-light focusing issues (maybe due to my 5D Mark 3 or the f/2.8)


I needed something small, light, good IQ, and usable. I want to carry a lens that is worry free and take photos at or near magical focal length on a full-framed camera.

Rationale for choosing this lens:

Canon 24mm 2.8 IS - I chose the 28mm instead of the 24mm because of sharpness concerns (not saying the 24mm isn't sharp) and, to my shooting style, 24mm on the full-frame is a bit wide. I also do not like the 24mm wide-angle distortion.

Canon 24-105mm IS - too big and not sharp enough against primes. Distortions, etc. f/4 aperture

Canon 24-70mm I - too big and heavy and no IS. Front elements extend out while zooming.

Canon 24-70mm II - too big and no IS. Front elements extend out while zooming. I'd be a bit scared carrying this 2k+ lens around to adventurous places.

Canon 24mm 1.4L II- 24mm distortion. And also, the 24mm focusing is not quite accurate in my opinion. In a walk-around situation, I would like a care-free point and shoot feeling. The 24mm just doesn't cut it for that in my experience. The 28mm IS also has IS, which helps a bit with camera shake. 28mm IS is also lighter! 24mm costs 50 dollars more.

Canon 35mm 1.4L - 35mm is just not wide enough for certain situations. The 28mm IS actually reminds me of this magical 35mm focal length. I love shooting at 35mm for most walk-around situations. The 28mm IS also has IS, which helps a bit with camera shake. 28mm IS is also lighter!

Therefore, 28mm fits right in the middle! It complements the 24mm 1.4L and the 35mm 1.4L very well. As a travel and walk-around lens, I am enjoying the lens a lot.

The price is ridiculous. Think about this (prices at this moment)-

Lens: 799
Hood: 55
Pouch: 35
= 889

That is a price nearing 17-40, 24-105, 135, and others. If you don't have a 35mm 1.4L, I suggest saving up for it and buy that lens used. 35mm 1.4L really is the partner in crime with this lens in my usage; the 35mm's color, contrast, and f/1.4 are unbeatable.

Has that 35mm 1.4L look with lack of distortion (taken with the Canon 28mm 2.8 IS)

Colors are amazing (taken with the Canon 28mm 2.8 IS)

Sharpness is great; light fall-off is an issue (taken with the Canon 28mm 2.8 IS)

keywords: 28 24 f/2.8 f2.8

[Review] Canon 5D Mark III vs Mark II

Taken with the 5D Mark 3 and 300mm 2.8 IS

Summary: The 5D Mark 3 is to 5D Mark 2 as iPhone 4s is to iPhone 4. But yes. It is worth it.

Pros:
+ Auto-focus. Absolutely amazing AF
+ snappier, faster
+ better build quality (similar to 7D)
+ improved user interface
+ high-ISO capability
+ bigger LCD
+ silent mode

Cons:
- sensor technology absolutely stagnant
- cheap op amp put into camera resulting in shadow noise and high ISO edge bleeding (around 16K+ ISO is noticeable).
- $3500 = pretty expensive

Let me get through the negatives first- briefly. $3500- yes a bit more expensive. But there is a tax to the first adopters- so price should drop slightly soon. If you are looking for sensor technology upgrade- too bad. In my opinion, the sensor is almost the same. You probably get at most 1/3-1/2 stop of improvement. If you are looking for a revolutionary change like the D800- 5D3 is just not it! If you are looking for very high ISO performance- the cheap amplifier that they put in the camera will disappoint you (leakage on the corners). But cropping will solve this problem.

So why is it worth it? In my perspective, it is worth it for people who shoot moving subjects. Since I do quite a bit of sports and animals, I appreciate the fact that 6 FPS is now an option. But most important, the auto-focus is absolutely amazing. 61 points vs the 9 points make a huge difference. On the 5D2, I had to shoot and recompose- I found that very annoying. The number of AF points is sure a plus. What really amazes me is the precision of the AF. Before with the 5D2, lenses such as the 24, 35, 50 had problems. The focus was just off on the 5D2. Even with numerous shots and adjustments made, the lenses still missed. The one shot AF improved. The AI servo AF improved- I was able to track fast moving subjects. The AF is so amazing, I was really impressed. Moreover, the low light AF capabilities is also amazing. I was able to shoot in pretty dark situations and the camera is able to lock on focus. I post some photos here in sports that I really liked. I got to say- just for the AF, the camera is worth the upgrade. Simply because even if you have the best sensor and lenses in the world- if the image is not in focus, the image is hard to post-process to make it look good. Critical sharpness is very important to me.

Then... there are the small things about the camera. Bigger LCD is great, improved user interface is great, you can shoot at higher ISOs is great, and the camera in general is faster and snappier. Silent mode is awesome- I am able to take photos in events and streets without the fear of loud clicks! This camera basically polishes up the 5D Mark 2. This is what the 5D Mark 2 should have been. Not many advances in technology with the 5D Mark 3. The AF and processor make a huge difference. All packaged in a price that is hard to swallow... for now.

Some other early adopter issues (updated 4/30/2012):
1. light leak - not really a problem for me. I personally think this problem is OVER played. I've shot pictures in bright daylight and in dark areas without any problems
2. 200 f/2.0L IS issues - the camera makes weird noises when the IS is turned on. I really want to use this lens on the body but I can't at the moment.

Who should upgrade from the 5D2?
- people who shoot action (animal, sports, wedding, etc.)

Taken with the 5D Mark 3 and 300mm 2.8 IS

Taken with the 5D Mark 3 and 300mm 2.8 IS

keywords: 5D mark 3 5d3

[Review] Fujifilm x100

Bottom-line: One heck of a point and shoot- not quite a DSLR at a mid-level DSLR price with a learning curve

Pros: stylish body, 35mm (equivalent) f/2 lens, sharp, good in low light, large APS-C, all about the image quality, small and light, leaf-shutter (very quiet)

Cons: learning curve to be happy with this camera, stupid AF, long minimum-focus-distance for non-macro, sometimes confusing user-interface, not quite good for 100% on the computer, expensive 

Going on a trip? Hiking? Street-photography? Hate all that DSLR-lugging and insecurities about losing/damaging your DSLR?

Here comes the Fujifilm X100. Why do we care? Fujifilm is known to make very nice films and sensors- excelling in low light performance. We can see that clearly in this camera. I will break this down to a few key points:

Camera Body: Small, light, and retro. This is largely what you are paying for. The stylish look is absolutely great. It is "Leica-like" and is stylish. When people see this camera, they point it out. When I take it to my trips, many have stopped and asked about the camera- much more interesting than that big black DSLR. It is great to carry this around while traveling. The lens is attached to the camera body, so it is easier to bring around and be worry-free.

APS-C Sensor: This camera's 12.3MP sensor isn't about the MP. It is about the quality of the pixels you get on an APS-C sensor. Fujifilm is the expert in making sensors and films for low-light. This camera produces cleaner images than Nikon's or Canon's APS-C DSLRs (maybe due to noise-reduction, but still retains very good detail). 12.3MP is enough mega-pixels for my need.
(see for yourself: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilmx100/page11.asp)

Fuji-lens: Roughly 35mm f/2 equivalent. The lens is sharp, has a large aperture, and is pretty compact. What more could just ask for? Sometimes 35mm is a bit limiting- but it is a very walk-around focal length. To get that creaminess you are looking for, you usually have to go into macro-mode as 35mm at f/2 doesn't really give a the creaminess you need in non-macro-mode unless your background is super far away. The lens is fairly fast, producing outstanding and crisp images.

Hybrid Viewfinder: The viewfinder is simply excellent. I love the range-finder like viewfinder, which enables me to see what is outside of the image I am taking. This is an excellent feature because you learn how to "crop." The downside of the range-finder is the parallax compensation. What this means is that since you are actually looking from the viewfinder, the closer your subject is, the more discrepancy you will face between the image you captured (which is what is seen by the sensor) and what you see (which is seen by your eye through the view-finder). The other mode for the viewfinder is the electronic view finder- what you see is almost what you get! This has been so useful because this instant feedback helps you learn how the processing goes inside the camera to calculate the metering, etc.

Auto-focus: The camera uses contrast-based auto-focus (slower but supposedly more accurate towards what you perceive as in focus). The auto-focus on this camera is what almost made me want to sell this camera. First, is that I like to shoot in silent mode. Unfortunately, at silent mode, the auto-focus assist is turned off. Seriously, why? This is some user-interface issue and without the AF assist, the auto-focus doesn't do so well in lower-light. Another annoyance is that minimum-focus-distance in non-macro mode is pretty far away and you notice that in the range-finder like mode of the view-finder. Your AF will start hunting and you will think it is broken- just step away from your subject. However, that is not enough. The AF box of the viewfinder is pretty large! So when you step away from your subject, there are times that the box is larger than the subject, causing the AF to focus at the back! These are the limitations you need to work around. One way to go about this problem is that I usually focus on something bigger (torso) then recompose to the face. Again, these are limitations of the camera- yes, you can call them flaws. To be happy with this camera, you need to use it for a period of time and learn to work around these limitations. Once you do, you will be hopefully happy with the camera. Don't even bother with the manual-focus (it is very annoying to use because you have to turn the MF-ring multiple times to get the focus-plane where you want).

Fantastic JPEG Processing: You get to imitate three different films: Provia, Velvia, and Astia. These all have different characteristics in regards to responding to colors. This is great because you get what you want out of the box.

Other Quirks: Nested menus are problematic for some useful functions (such as auto-ISO and ND-filter). You should play around with the camera to find out all the goodies it has! The hood requires a hood-adapter. Hood and hood-adapter costs almost $200- I suggest getting third-party parts. Having a UV filter requires the hood-adapter! Putting the hood-adapter on the lens requires you to take out the front cover of the lens. The lens cap doesn't stay on UV filter- I suggest getting a 52mm pinch lens cap to solve this issue. One crazy camera.

Images and Conclusions: The images look amazing. They are clean, good in low-lighting, and sharp. However, the AF is not quite accurate. making them sometimes soft. The clean and good low-light performance come with a cost- you will lose detail. The cons and pros really balance out. Unfortunately, what I can say about this camera is that it produces images much better than your point-and-shoots but your DSLRs will produce higher percentage of good photos. The images you get will be on average smack in the middle between the two mediums- making this camera a very good point-and shoot (but very expensive). Even after the large learning curve, the camera is invaluable for travelling and a joy to use. This cool looking camera just comes with a hefty price tag to own.

(Shot with Fujifilm x100. Fantastic low-light performance and sharpness)

(Shot with Fujifilm x100. Not bad for landscapes- much better than your point-and-shoots)

[Review] Canon 35L vs. Canon 24L II - The Battle of Wide-Angles

 

(Top: taken the 35mm 1.4L, Bottom: taken with the 24mm 1.4L II)
Disclaimer: The body I used in this review is solely on a 5D Mark II (full frame sensor).

Why even consider these two lenses?
- f/1.4 is fast
- Auto-focus
- Wide-angle
= pratical

Who would have known 11mm focal-length difference can make such a huge impact. This post will compare the two fast wide-angle primes from Canon.

Canon 24L II
Bottom-line: Awesome walk-around lens for lanscapes and architecture
Pros:  Better perspective, awesome color, weather sealed, and better perspective (with emphasis)
Cons: Learning curve, heavier wide-angle distortion, people might look small (if you are shy), heavy vignetting, AF quality control issues (one that has no problems is a keeper), metering is difficult!

Canon 35L
Bottom-line: Awesome walk-around lens for people, street photography
Pros: Film-like darker colors (due to tendency to underexpose your images), bokeh, sharper at 1.4, less wide-angle distortion
Cons: build quality (not saying it is bad, just not weather sealed, plasticy compared to the 24mm II), less flexible in perspective

My history with these lenses:
I have been using both these lenses since 2009/2010. These two lenses are the most used lenses in my arsenal. I have been through a buy/sell/buy relationship with both of these lenses. Why did I sell? Because they are expensive to keep. Why did I buy? Because both are that darn good for their purposes.

Canon 24mm 1.4 II Discussion
Bottom-line: Wow in the perspective
Advantages:
* Flexibility in perspective- this is important. It gives you more of the wow photos where the subject is large and the background is small. You see much more of the background and the wide-angle distortion is absolutely fascinating for landscapes and even for people. I found this extremely useful in tight areas. For people photography, it will force you to be creative with the background and reframing (such that the subject is not always in the center). The wider perspectives give more of the "wow."
* Weather sealed and very well built- this is a heavy 24mm lens. It is well build and weather sealed. I've taken this lens to many places- no dust inside (knock on wood).
Disadvantages:
* Subject is tinier- unfortunately, wider focal lengths also means the subject looks "farther" away from you. This causes a larger learning curve for taking photos of people and animals because you have to move closer. Sometimes it is too close for comfort!
* AF is essential- because you have less pixels in the frame of the subject, AF is essential. Unfortunately, making a 24mm 1.4 AF work super precise is an engineering challenge. The AF accuracy is very crucial.
* Bokeh- 24mm also means that the background is smaller. If bokeh is your background, it is also smaller. Therefore, this lens is designed to "show" more of the background without too much bokeh. To achieve high levels of creaminess, you need to be very close to the subject and the background needs to be pretty far. Moreover, the bokeh is harsher. Because of the aspherical element (that controls aberrations on wide-angle lenses), the bokeh is a bit rougher
* Not everyone's cup of tea - I want to emphasize the fact that the 24mm 1.4L is not very easy to use. Many times when you want to take pictures of pets or people- the lens requires you to get very close. That isn't for everybody. Metering is pretty difficult to get it right when you have inconsistent lighting in your frame. At 24mm, lots of different kinds of light will get into your frame, making it difficult to get a rightly exposed image!

Taken with the 24mm 1.4 II - beyond great for landscapes

Canon 35mm 1.4 Discussion
Bottom-line: Wow in the versatility and bokeh
Advantages:
* Versatile and easy to use - This is great for people, walk-around, daily, landscapes, and street photography. 35mm 1.4 is the magical focal length- absolutely magical. It does give you the wide-angle perspective.
* Bokeh - the bokeh is creamy. Not as creamy as the 50mm 1.2, but the perspective/bokeh trade off is placed very balanced at 35mm 1.4.
* Film quality and darker colors- this is simply due to the fact that the 35mm 1.4L tends to under expose a bit. This can easily be compensated by adding a few notches to the exposure. But as default, this makes darks dark- giving a unique feeling to the image.
* Distortionless - it is not super wide such that wide-angle distortions come into the play. Moreover, the pitching is not very noticeable. This lens is optically excellent and sharp.
Disadvantages:
* A bit too tight - many times when I walk around, I find 35mm a bit too tight. Taking photos of buildings, landscapes, and in tight spaces does pose a bit of an annoyance.
* Very old lens- this lens will be replaced soon as we speak.
* Build quality is plasticy- not weather sealed and the plastic does get you worries about rain and sprinkles
* AF is a bit antiquated - makes a good swoosh sound

Conclusion:
These are both very very good lenses. They both have their goods and flaws. With just 11mm focal length difference, these two lenses are two entirely different animals. It is good to start off using a zoom-lens with these focal lengths and find out what best suits your need!

Taken with the 35mm 1.4L - great for people photography

Taken with the 35mm 1.4L - notice the lack of distortions and deep darks

Some alternatives:
Canon 16-35mm 2.8L
+ has both of the focal lengths
- soft on the 35mm side
- 2.8 is slow compared to 1.4

Canon 14mm 2.8 II
+ much wider focal length
- very specialized use (14mm is not used very often)
- protruding front element - ahh!

Canon 50mm 1.2L
+ Creamier Bokeh
+ closer to subject
+ f/1.2
- softer than both 24mm and 35mm
- not a wide angle

Canon 24mm TSE II
+ Tilt Shift
+ Sharper than the 24mm 1.4L II
- no AF
- speciality lens

[Review] Canon 50mm 1.2L

Pros  : superb build and build quality, bokeh, colors, consistent output, excellent weight
Cons : less than "sharp," complaints from others
Bottom-line  : The versatile focal-length lens that I am willing to carry out and actually shoot with
Bodies Used : Canon 5D Mark II, Canon 1D Mark IV

The excellent build and build quality is what makes this lens superb. It marries perfectly with bodies such as the 7D and the 5D Mark II as the weight distribution is one the most desired. It also comes with weather sealing and, with a UV filter, the lens does not protrude in anyway, making the lens seem completely sealed. Even better, the lens weight is light and length is short.

The image quality is superb. The bokeh gives you that rare melting blur, as seen with the Canon's 85mm 1.2L. The color and contrast is just excellent, as seen with the Canon's 35mm 1.2L. The auto-focus is fast, given that the lens does have a large 1.2 aperture. When shooting in photojournalistic or walk around situations, the auto-focus does sufficiently. However, when shooting sports where the subject moves closer and farther inconsistently, the auto-focus might pose a problem. This lens also has a very close focusing, making it comfortable to shoot semi-macro shots.

The lens does have its flaws. The well-known focus shift is definitely present. When shooting with a smaller aperture, the focus does "shift" after apparent focus confirm. This is because focusing is confirmed through aperture f/1.2 and the lens does not have a floating lens element (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camera_lens), which the 35L and 85L have. Therefore, we can see haloing lateral chromatic aberration (http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/Glossary/Optical/chromatic_aberration_01.htm). Moreover, the property might also account for the drop in sharpness. Why did Canon do this? Not having a floating lens element permits a much smaller and light design. The unorthodoxed halos in out-of-focus regions make the lens unique and the bokeh absolutely superb. The focus shift doesn't really bother me because I use this lens to shoot at 1.2 and I don't use this lens for semi-macro photography. The sharpness however is a concern. But due to the auto-focus accuracy and consistent output from the lens, this lens actually produces better quality image ratio than most of its competitors.

As a bottom-line, I absolutely recommend this superb lens. Simply because I do not feel so conscious about dust or water getting into the lens and is very easy to carry. This is now the lens that sits on my camera for photojournalism, event, and everyday photography. The output is very consistent and I am able to shoot very nice shots at f/1.2. The best camera is the camera that is with you- and this lens does exactly that, allowing my creativity to shine.

Canon 50mm 1.2L vs Canon 85mm 1.2L
Canon 85mm 1.2L is the bokeh king. It has less chromatic aberration and is noticeably sharper. However, it's size, weight, and moving front elements make it hard for me to carry it around and enjoy photography. I consider the 85mm 1.2L as a complimentary lens that excels in controlled situations such as portrait and studio photography. 50mm 1.2L is the little brother of 85mm 1.2L. 50mm 1.2L sacrifices the image quality of the 85mm for a wider perspective, faster AF, and much suitable everyday build, which really makes my 85mm 1.2L sit in my bag, but the 85mm still pumps out the best images out there.

Canon 50mm 1.2L vs Canon 35mm 1.4L
The Canon 35mm 1.4L excels in sharpness. However, the out-of-focus chromatic aberration of the lens annoys me. The non-weather sealed and plastic body really make the 35mm 1.4L feel cheap compared to the 50mm 1.2L. However, 35mm is a much better perspective than the 50mm in my shooting situations. I like to include more of the background perspective. The 50mm sacrifices the focal length a bit, but the build quality, again, makes it easier for me to carry it around. In the end, I still regard the 35mm 1.4L to be the compliment of 50mm 1.2L. When I do landscape photography and close photojournalism, I generally prefer the 35mm 1.4L. Otherwise, I use the 50mm 1.2L. Canon, please update the 35mm 1.4L soon =).


Canon 50mm 1.2L vs Canon 50mm 1.4 vs Sigma 50mm 1.4
The comparison is simple. 50mm 1.2L is darn expensive compared to the other two. So much more expensive. Canon 50mm 1.4 really loses on build quality, color, contrast, and bokeh. The Sigma 50mm 1.4 really loses on its AF, color and contrast, and build consistency. If cost is a concern, Sigma 50mm 1.4 is a very good choice- but make sure to test and buy it at a store. The variance among copies is pretty significant. In terms of image quality and output, the Canon 50mm 1.2L is a clear winner, but make sure the cost does not bother you too much.

(shot with Canon 50mm 1.2)

(shot with Canon 50mm 1.2)

(shot with Canon 50mm 1.2 - thanks Anthropologie of San Francisco)

(shot with Canon 50mm 1.2 - thanks Anthropologie of San Francisco)

(shot with Canon 50mm 1.2 - thanks Anthropologie of San Francisco)

keywords: Canon 50 mm f/1.2 1.2 f1.2