April 20, 2014, 09:26:09 AM

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 - mackguyver

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 102
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Birds in Flight tips
« on: April 18, 2014, 03:14:00 PM »
Grant, I love that last shot (and I'm glad I'm not a fish!).

EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L IS
« on: April 18, 2014, 03:09:07 PM »
David, thanks for the reply and I'm sure IS is unbeatable for video.   I've always been a fan of fast lenses for those reasons, too, and with the high ISO bodies, many people seem to think they aren't needed anymore, but as you point out, being able to shoot in nearly total darkness is amazing. 

Lenses / Re: New 50mm Sigma - question re weatherproofing?
« on: April 18, 2014, 03:05:09 PM »
Please forgive me if I am treading on already-discussed ground; but what has experience been so far with regard to the new Sigma 50 1.4 in either dusty environments or damp (like humid or rainy) environments? Reviews  say 'not weatherproofed'-- does this entail some clear-cut difference between their lens and, say, the Canon's 1.2 or 1.8 lenses? The difference in weight is of no consequence to me. Thank you for your advice.
From the reviews I've seen, I don't think any of the "review" lenses have been in any kind of harsh environments.  The Canon 50 f/1.2 is the only Canon that is weather sealed, and the new (not yet released) Sigma 50 Art is not weather sealed.  The Canon 50 f/1.2 has all switches and seams sealed and has a rubber gasket on the mount to seal with Canon's weather sealed bodies (1D, 5D, 7D, 6D, and x0D series).  A UV filter is required for full sealing, but it would survive dusty, rainy, and humid locations.  The Sigma may do okay, but it wouldn't be a good idea to take it out in those environments if they were really harsh.

Photography Technique / Re: technique for hand held larger lens
« on: April 18, 2014, 02:57:25 PM »
I had a hard time framing the bird feeder.  It was so dark, I could barely find it in my viewfinder, let alone make a good composition of it.  I think if I didn't have live view to help with focusing, I wouldn't have been able to get most of these shots to look right.

They were all shot with my Nikon 300mm f/2.8 AIS lens.  I think it's my new favorite night lens :)
Did someone say Nikon :o  Just kidding, and I really like the shots as well.

Lenses / Re: Stacked TCs - 1.4x III + 12mm Extension Tube + 2x III
« on: April 18, 2014, 02:56:23 PM »
A little update - and a warning! I had the 500 f/4 II with 2x III tc attached, with a Kenko 12mm extension tube behind that, and the 2x II and 1.4x III extenders behind that. I stood the camera upright, lens down (as I often do) on a bench while I fiddled with my bag. The camera fell over (which it sometimes does, and comes to no harm), but it hit the back of the bench and the lens combination just clean sheared in half! Thankfully, the strap stopped the camera falling onto the ground. Predictably, it was the extension tube that had failed - the front part had simply detached. Could have been costly! So be extra careful when mounting big lenses on teleconverters with extension tubes :(
Yikes!!!  All I can say is Yikes!!!  I'm glad it didn't turn into a disaster and thanks for the warning.

Well it turns out the screws (that on the outer surfaces are in metal) are only mounted into flimsy plastic sockets. I thought it was fixable, but the sockets had disintegrated. The whole extension tube is a writeoff. I wonder if (hope that!) the Canon extension tubes are more sturdily constructed?
The Canon tubes are constructed similarly to the Mk II Extenders, but don't have the extra screws of the Mk III extenders.  They are all metal from what I can tell, and I guess that's why they cost so much compared to the 3rd party tubes.  All the same, I'm treating your post as a cautionary tale!

I have to think the market for any $4,000.00+ prime lens in the basic 24mm to 135mm range is tiny to begin with. They have to be cutting that market significantly by being too afraid of failure to even try to make a pro quality autofocus mechanism that they are confident enough to put on one of these lenses.  If Sigma can make a lens that is, say, 98% as good for just  under 25% of their price, WITH AUTOFOCUS, they have to be just a little nervous over at Zeiss.
That's like saying that BMW or Mercedes were nervous about their S-class/7-series when the Hyundai Equus came out and has similar or better performance and specs at half the price.  People buy Zeiss (or Leica) for the same reasons as people buy other luxury brands. 

Also, what has happened to Canon's "Year of the lens"?  We are into 2Q of 2014 and not even announcements of future releases, much less actual lenses?  Canon seems to have longer lags between announcements and releases than, say, Sigma, so they'd better get cracking.  Perhaps it will be the Year of Uncharacteristically Abrupt Releases?    It would almost have to be.
I've said it many times and I'll say it again, it's a Photokina year...though September does seem to be taking forever to get here...

Software & Accessories / Re: Chuck a 5dmk iii in a rucksack
« on: April 18, 2014, 01:49:15 PM »
What about the LensCoat BodyBag - it says it fits the 5DIII and they have ones that cover the lens (regular or telephoto, too, and ones that cover the body with any lens.  See here

Those all seem pretty reasonably priced, but I usually just wrap mine in a fleece shirt :)

EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L IS
« on: April 18, 2014, 01:21:26 PM »
FWIW: I have essentially zero interest in a lens without IS, even though I use a tripod and monopod quite a bit.
That's not how I feel for shorter focal lengths but given the 24 IS, 28 IS, and 35 IS plus Nikon's 16-35 stabilized wide angle lens, you're clearly not alone.  Is your interest in IS at these focal lengths for video or some other type of shooting?  I understand the benefits on paper, but would like to know how people are taking advantage of IS when they shoot.

Photography Technique / Re: FoCal – Long / Fast Lens Calibration
« on: April 18, 2014, 12:05:13 PM »
Thanks mackguyver.
Just what I needed after some inconsistent results trying to calibrate my 135L.
I’m also new to focal, so you guide helps a lot  :)
I'm glad it's helpful and I also had trouble calibrating my 135L until I got better about how I set up and used FoCal. 

Canon delivered, even better than expected, with the 5DIII – and charged a premium for it.  But they also delivered the 6D, basically a very modest update to the 5DII (already an excellent camera, AF notwithstanding) with a functionally equivalent AF system, but at a lower price.  That's a win-win.

17 pages of nausea later...  that pretty much sums it up.
+1, though I've only read 2 of the pages.  Neuro did summarize it nicely. 

<p>We’re told that Zeiss will announce the next in the Otus line, an 85mm f/1.4 for Photokina this September. We’re also told that it’s possible an Otus 35mm f/1.4 could also be announced, although that isn’t confirmed. If the 35 isn’t announced at Photokina, expect it some time in 2015.</p>
We knew about the 85 and a "wide angle" a while ago from their rep, but I'm sad to hear about it's likely to be a 35mm.  I was really hoping for something wider :(

Also, I can only imagine the cost of a tilt shift Otus will be extreme.

Canon General / Re: Helen Oster
« on: April 18, 2014, 10:23:26 AM »
Thank you all so much for your good wishes - no, not a rumor. Today's the day - 21 again!
Wow, 21, again?  I'd like to repeat that one over and over!  Happy Birthday and thanks for taking the time to post on the forum!

Canon General / Re: 5 Reasons you Need a 50mm Prime
« on: April 18, 2014, 10:21:20 AM »
started with 50/f1.4, then 50L, recently add FE 55mm f1.8, look forward to try the new Sigma ART...I hate 50mm focal lenght ;)
Your 50 love sounds like my 24 love, though I've resisted the 24 IS so far...  I really like the 50 of course and took the 1.4 to 1.2 path as well.

Canon General / Re: Insurance for Camera gear
« on: April 18, 2014, 10:19:08 AM »
It may be cheaper.  I just scheduled about $14k with them and also added $10k for rental/loaner gear and my premium is $287.  Replacement value and worldwide coverage. It sure doesn't hurt to shop around every couple of years because some companies will try to sneak the rates up on you hoping you won't notice.
That does sound a little cheaper assuming they charge the same rate for rental gear coverage as they do for owned gear.  The NANPA/Rand rates were the same for something like 10+ years and they just raised them slightly a year or two ago via a nice, formal letter explaining the increase.  I wish my auto/homeowners would have that courtesy.  As a Floridian, the insurance here (despite no hurricanes in a decade) goes up 10-50% every year, but that's another subject entirely >:(

Lenses / Re: Sharpest EF Lenses (according to DxO)
« on: April 18, 2014, 10:07:44 AM »
I'm surprised the 135/2L is not on the list.

I think it was #2 at that focal length, but that Zeiss costs over $2,000!

I have followed DXO from the early days, they started off quite hit and miss but over the years have found them to be fairly accurate.

I own the 24 IS and 35 IS primes which are on there and both deservedly so, the 35 can cut a piece of paper at 50 feet . There again the 40mm 2.8 canon is on there too which i find hard to justify as i owned that and sent it back - could have been a dud but was not impressed.

Newcastle Teesside
Durham Darlington Wedding Photographer www.andrew-davies.com

I keep hearing great things about the 24 and 35 IS lenses, so it's not a surprise.  Also, the 40mm has no competition, but it is a sharp lens.  I sold mine after using it for about 5 minutes. I have too much overlap with my other lenses.

Could you post the marketing date of the lens?

That would be a lot of work (this was just a simple copy & paste), but if someone else wants to do it, go right ahead :)

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 102