September 22, 2014, 08:28:11 PM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Invertalon

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 13
1
Lenses / Re: 300 2.8 non-IS VS either of the IS versions...
« on: Today at 08:11:43 AM »
As far as I know, all of the 300mm f/2.8's are amazing... Non-IS, IS and the 'Mark II'... From what I hear, they are all extremely close IQ wise with weight and TC performance being the only big differences. The Mark II is supposed to be slightly sharper, but I never heard it being anything significant.

In my experience (I currently own the 300 Mark II and have rented the original 300 f/2.8 IS) the rented 300 IS was a dud... It was softer than expected and I was quite unimpressed with it. At the time though, (years ago), perhaps I did not microadjust it or some other factor, so that may have been why. I rented it from Canon CPS and it was a heavily used lens  ;D

But my Mark II is insane... By far the most sharp lens I have ever used. The weight reduction is nice as well.

If you found a great deal on a 300 non-IS, go for it! I am sure it will be great.


2
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 7DII - Did you preorder?
« on: September 18, 2014, 08:26:18 PM »
Not yet...

I am going to wait until Nov/Dec to buy it for a few reasons.

#1 - My Discovercard starts to offer 5% cashback around the Holidays

#2 - The "street price" of the body should discount it even more.

#3 - Having the body in October won't help me much.. My shooting "season" ends around then... So no rush for me until Spring.

3
Wow, this is exciting. I have been interested in a fisheye but don't want to buy the Sigma or Canon (as much as I love the 8-15L).

If this comes in around $400ish or so, perfect. 12mm for full fisheye coverage? Insane... 15mm is hella-wide as is with fisheye.

4
Lenses / Re: 200 f/2.0 vs 70-200 f/2.8 II
« on: August 25, 2014, 01:01:05 PM »
^ I agree... The 300 II has some incredible bokeh!

6M3C8536.jpg by invertalon, on Flickr

6M3C8521.jpg by invertalon, on Flickr

6M3C8575.jpg by invertalon, on Flickr

6M3C8538.jpg by invertalon, on Flickr

6M3C5474.jpg by invertalon, on Flickr

6M3C7728.jpg by invertalon, on Flickr


5
Lenses / Re: Image quality with or without filters
« on: August 20, 2014, 01:10:19 PM »
I have tested this a few times with my Hoya HD filters that I use on all my lenses.

I put the camera on a tripod, live-view focused on something with a lot of detail... A brand new crisp $1 bill for example, or distant foliage (leaves, thin branches) or something of the sort.

I would take a picture with the filter off and gently screw on the filter, not adjusted focus or anything. Re-take the shot.

I did this with various subjects and compared at 100% and up in Lightroom... I never saw any detail loss to be honest. It always looked the exact same.

The only thing I did notice, is that the exposure drops an extremely small amount... You can see the histogram shift ever so slightly between filter vs. not... Hardly any issue... But this makes sense, as the filters generally allow something like 99.6% or 99.8% light transmission or something.

So that is my experience... I have tested personally and never saw any difference. If I did, I wouldn't be using them. I never had an issue with flare, either.

6
Lenses / Re: 24-70 II slight clicking sound when zooming
« on: August 20, 2014, 01:05:40 PM »
I did check and confirm that the lens I have is the right one... Serial numbers match up.

Also, it appears the clicking is already "fading". Its quieting down after just a little use and I think it will likely just go away soon.

Either way, I am not worried about it. Lens works perfectly and the noise is really no harm.

7
Lenses / Re: 24-70 II slight clicking sound when zooming
« on: August 18, 2014, 11:45:09 AM »
I can verify the serial number when I get home, but nothing appeared abnormal and had the UV filter on that I shipped it with. 

I am led to believe they did open the lens though, as internal dust behind the front element had been removed. I did not note this when I sent it in, but in the past they have done more elaborate "cleanings" then they should have for me. They don't always go by the book... If they did open the lens, they may have tightened a few things which started the noise.

For example, my 5D3 was sent in for just a check/clean and they ended up cleaning out the viewfinder pentaprism (requires disassembly), foam pieces, wiring and adjusted CMOS position as well. And again, nothing was ever noted wrong with it... They just did it free (not under warranty and with CMS).

Far from just external checks/cleanings.

8
Lenses / Re: 24-70 II slight clicking sound when zooming
« on: August 18, 2014, 07:23:53 AM »
I have a 24-70 II that was bought new right when the lens was released... Never had any clicking noises.

Until I sent it in to Canon for a check and clean...

When it came back, it now has a clicking sound (two or three clicks when zoomed). I am assuming they tightened some stuff which made the sound appear. I am not worried at all about it, but it is funny that it was silent until Canon had it  :o

9
Lenses / Re: Review: Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS
« on: June 30, 2014, 06:35:41 PM »
Loving this lens... By far the best UWA Canon has (I have owned/used the 14L II, 17-40L and 16-35 II)

Some from me:

5D3_3339.jpg by invertalon, on Flickr

5D3_3474.jpg by invertalon, on Flickr

5D3_3434.jpg by invertalon, on Flickr

5D3_3462.jpg by invertalon, on Flickr

5D3_3456.jpg by invertalon, on Flickr

5D3_3426.jpg by invertalon, on Flickr

5D3_3404.jpg by invertalon, on Flickr

5D3_3395.jpg by invertalon, on Flickr

10
Lenses / Re: EF 16-35 F/4L IS corner samples & comparison
« on: June 23, 2014, 07:42:54 AM »
This lens looks phenomenal... So happy mine arrives tomorrow. I am sure it will easily become my most used lens, no doubt.  I am even debating to sell off my 24-70 II and switch to a 35L and 85L combo instead...  ;D 

11
Lenses / Re: Filter for Tamron 150-600?
« on: June 12, 2014, 12:26:35 PM »
Even though I am a pro-filter user for ease of cleaning and such, I would avoid one on this lens for a few reasons.

1.) Generally, super-telephotos run into issues with filters at times (see 100-400 and even the 400 f/5.6)

2.) Expensive... Expect to pay $100 or more for a good 95mm filter. The lens itself is only $1000, so your paying nearly 10% of the lens for a filter.

3.) Being Tamron and not Canon/Nikon, if you did damage front element and require replacement I am sure it would be about the cost of your 95mm filter. Canon may charge $200-300 for a front element, but I don't see Tamron having such a high markup on a lens.


If you do get a filter, I really like the Hoya HD's if they come in that size... Otherwise, one of the B+W MRC filters.


12
Lenses / Re: Sigma 50mm Art on Canon 50D Focus issues
« on: June 03, 2014, 09:45:39 AM »
Prob the Sigma, not the camera...

13
Lenses / Re: 70-200 f/2.8 IS II - Difference between 2012 and 2014?
« on: June 03, 2014, 09:44:56 AM »
I would not doubt if the IS unit has been updated... There was quite a lot of issues with it. I had three personally that failed near the beginning. Recent units have had no issue.

14
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 16-35 f/4L IS Sample Images
« on: May 20, 2014, 12:52:39 PM »
Vignetting at 16mm looks quite good... Much better than the 17-40, from what I can tell. This is good, as when I use the 17-40 for commercial work I generally work in low light situations and stop down only to reduce vingetting, not really increase sharpness.

This lens is looking so good. I am glad I got my pre-order in very quickly at two different vendors (around 6:45am EST the morning they went up for preorder on B&H). Can't wait!

Plan to sell my 17-40 which is only a few weeks old after this weekend...

15
Reviews / Re: 35/2 IS Review by Dustin Abbott
« on: May 06, 2014, 06:05:18 PM »
I sold my 35L due to lack of use and tried the 35 IS as a cheaper alternative. Only lasted about a week before I decided to sell that off as well.

I find the 35L a better lens overall. The f/1.4 IMO is better than the IS at f/2. IQ is better on the 35L in the center, edges probably similar or better on the f/2 IS stopped down.

Weight is nice on the f/2 IS, but the 35L is really not heavy by any means.

Both are great lenses, but if I got a 35mm again it would be the 35L for sure before the f/2 IS.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 13