March 03, 2015, 04:04:20 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 - KimH

Pages: [1] 2
Like others here I am really awaiting Roger Cicala's first review of the new 16-35/4 IS. I personally never really understood why someone needs such a fast f/2.8 ultra wide angle lens, besides some event photographers shooting in dark environments using ambient light. Typical UWA applications are landscapes and cityscapes, am I right? f/2.8 would produce a much too short depth of field for such a purpose (maybe there are a few exceptions) - so mostly the big block of optical glass is not really used. I have e.g. a Zeiss 18/3.5 - and I never go below f/5.6 with that lens. Btw I use this Zeiss sometimes for street photography, because it can produce funny results, but again never completely wide open.

You can see in Roger's review that those big lenses needed for making such UWA zooms create a lot of optical problems, and no lensmaker so far can control this completely. For landscape and cityscape you need a lens that is really tack sharp right from the middle to the edges at medium and far distances. That's crucial, as many of you here in this forum certainly know. So I think it is quite logical that a less fast UWA zoom with a modern optical design should deliver overall superior results, because it is simpler to make it.

He actually already reviewed the 16-35 f4 - it about 6 months ago

Lenses / Re: 11-24 is here, with images of it compared to Nikon 14-24
« on: February 07, 2015, 12:30:21 AM »



Does anybody know where this promo video has been filmed? Looks like somewhere in the U.S.
A national park in Utah or Arizona?


Pretty good guess, you are on the border of those very states near Page.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon had no choice but to specialize the lineup
« on: February 04, 2015, 04:59:02 AM »
I think this is a reasonnable outline of what in Product Marketing is called "Competitive Line Logic" for the 5DIV - considerations Canon would have to make.

Personally I do not care about video at all. The speed of ~5 FPS is enough for me - but a tad more MP (24?) and DR  would be good and not all irrational expectations.

Lenses / Re: New Canon 100-400mm Mk2 lens with 2x extender mk3
« on: January 07, 2015, 12:30:57 PM »
Thanks for the further comments. I'll try weights cos it is a metal tripod (Benro) with an Induro BHD 1 ball head.

I am getting strange results - attached two pics of a stone wall and both are pretty sharp, one using the extender and the other the basic lens. Cropped the 400mm pic to give the same field of view as the 800. Both shot at 1/25sec!!! and no camera shake and my previous moon pics were 1/800sec for the 800mm and 1/250sec for 400mm yet the fast shutter speed for the moon gives a blurred image. So not sure the source of my problem is vibration. Really confused why I can't get a decent focus at infinity (ie the moon) when these two pics indicate the combo is not bad.
I don't think it's motion blur - just softness from the lens+extender combo.  It matches Brian's results from The Digital Picture.  The 2x isn't ideal for most lenses and it looks like the new 100-400 is (sadly) no exception.

I am not sure what the root cause is here.... It's complicated as some would say, it depends!

I have the RRS 3 tripod with the fitting RRS gimbal and when trying the 300-2.8 with 1.4 - well balanced - across the valley where I live, it was VERY sensitive to wind and the platform I was on (a balcony) - then the 100-400 II with and without 1.4... Same experience.

My experience is that when using 10x you get an idea of how the pict will look - watching wind - and leaving time for the IS to engage makes the world of difference. Assuming cable or camRanger or remote is in use.

It honestly felt a bit like a sharpshooter must feel when doing their training.

I purchased the 16-35 f4 L when it first came out.  I've been absolutely blown away by this lens.  It is wicked sharp and the IS works splendidly.  I'm getting blur free images hand-held at 1/40.  For landscape photography I need nothing else.

+1 on the 16-35 f/4L. Best all-around landscape lens I've ever used. I dumped my 2.8 version of this and never looked back.

And another +1 --- I couldn't agree more.

Best Indoor and Outdoor choice in my bag.

Sports / Re: Cars cars cars (and some bikes)
« on: November 02, 2014, 07:11:51 AM »
And this 1937, MB 170H - Designed by Ferdinand Porsche before he moved to... well - you know all of that :)

Sports / Re: Cars cars cars (and some bikes)
« on: November 02, 2014, 06:59:43 AM »
If you like Vintage - The Schlumpf collection in Mulhouse France is really something - here the Bugatti Hall of Fame, I recall they have 130 including 2 Royales, RR, MB, etc etc - all in all 400 cars on permanent display, some of them in the >$20M class

Lenses / Re: Travel gear thoughts...
« on: October 15, 2014, 02:31:35 AM »
Hi Mike,

for what it's worth here's my "travel" bag.

The new 16-35 F4 (that one is clearly a keeper!) - it was the 17-40
The Kit lens 24-105 on my 5DIII
and the 70-300 in the compact L-Version

i have some some great photos with the 70-300 and it performs much better than some forums would suggest.

They all fit in my Tamrac EVOLUTION/Messenger 4 shoulderbag, there's enough space to squeeze a 270-II fill in flash on top of the UWA

Canon General / Re: The end of the 5D line?
« on: March 31, 2014, 10:09:23 AM »
Hi Arctic,

Where can I see the Porsche 918 Spyder shots you refer to? I'd love to take a look.

Best regards from Stuttgart

What do you want for your 5D3?
Could you please post some pictures?
What's the shutter count?

Have fun with your sony!

I have to agree, there's nothing like a picture of a Prius from a 5D.
I mean look at those shots of the 918 spyder, does that thing look awesome or what? - all shot with a 5D!
hybrid and 5D is a match made in heaven.

Software & Accessories / Re: Camera Bag Suggestion Needed
« on: April 11, 2013, 02:06:08 AM »
I have had a Canon standard shoulder bag for YEARS and finally decided to search for the optimal bag (for MY needs  8)

This one had everything i wanted.

Good padding, good storage, access front and top, space for my iPad, My 5DIII with standard 24-105, an additional (or 2) lens(es) for "this trip" and/or a flash when required. It even slides over the suitcase handlebar.

Yes, it's a tamrac ... Evolution Messenger 4 Model 5784

Love it!

Lenses / Re: 17-40mm advice please!
« on: March 01, 2013, 08:36:55 AM »
I have the 17-40 and in spite of what often is said i am happy with it. Decent sharpness, not a brutal pincushion (like 24-105 has at 24..!!) , L-Build, light and ---- affordable.

On a crop camera i default to the 17-55 2.8 - it is a magnificent lens. I would say it's a L-Grade EF-S lens in sharpness, not quite there in build. Not sure what they sell for in Pound-Sterling, might be 100-150 more.

So the real decision paramter is how fast you switch to FF. If you want it NOW and you plan FF, then 17-40 is not a bad choice. IMO

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: 5Dmk3 doesnt play with kenko teleconverters
« on: December 03, 2012, 02:43:04 PM »
For record,

I did try my blue dot on 24-105 and 100 and both worked without issues - back and forth.

Did NOT do MFA.

Animal Kingdom / Re: Some shots from the local Zoo
« on: October 14, 2012, 04:58:18 PM »
VERY nice!

The peacock is for the wall, simply art - nothing less.!.!

Thanks for sharing


Knew the GN part - no questions there, thanks for the estimate on Ws


Speedlites, Printers, Accessories / 600EX-RT and Wattseconds - rating?
« on: October 14, 2012, 06:25:30 AM »
I am the happy owner of a few of the 600Ex-RT and an ST-E3-RT.

My wife keeps buggin me that there is not enough light in these "pocket-flashes" (her term) to do some serious portraits.

I beg to differ that this is of any importance, especially as I/we now use the 5DIII with a 100 Macro 2.8.


When i read that a monolight Elinchrom offers HUNDREDS of Ws when required, i wonder what a similar Ws-rating would be for the 600ex.

It's probably closer to a 60 watt bulb than a supertrooper.

Does anyone know?


Pages: [1] 2