Messages

1

Canon General / Re: Curious Distraction: Explain your username, avatar picture, etc...

« on: January 28, 2013, 11:55:34 AM »

Lots of interesting stories, hence mine would pale in comparison from the first word. But I'll give it a shot anyway.

I chose Telephonic because Tele + holic would sound just horrible. But I love my 200mm, cause it gives space between me and the photographed subject (plus, I suck at wider end). 

2

Lenses / Re: Correction and History Lesson About Built-in Teleconverters in Canon Lenses

« on: December 08, 2012, 11:51:55 AM »

Maybe you meant the first ZOOM lens to employ tele converter... Anyway, thanks for the reminder about the TC in the rare FD 1200. Knew I heard it before, but my memory cheats me from time to time. 

3

Contests / Re: Gura Gear Giveaway!

« on: December 07, 2012, 04:54:26 AM »

I DON'T WANT TO WIN

and that was the biggest lie I think I could type (even larger than the font size) 

4

Software & Accessories / Re: Lens filter question for 24-105 and 17-40 lenses

« on: December 05, 2012, 08:49:34 AM »

I am unaware of the "don't put a CP on a wide-angle" view;

This is because the sky will be polarised in an uneven way. Most apparent in ultra-wides.
About UV filter on digital cameras, I believe it's not a necessity.

5

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x TC Information

« on: December 02, 2012, 04:58:58 AM »

Allow me to fantasize this beast PLUS 1.4X on 1DX. 

6

Macro / Re: macro filters

« on: October 09, 2012, 02:53:03 AM »

Yeah, I love the water droplets, too!

Have you considered using "extension tube" or things like that? I heard that for wider lens, it's better to use the tube rather than the filters (as it doesn't introduce more air-glass interface)

7

Lenses / Re: Canon 200mm 2.8 l ii: what's the deal

« on: October 01, 2012, 07:39:20 PM »

Ive seen lately that this les is one of canons most undersold lenses, why.
The only reason I've heard why people haven't upgraded, is because most people with a 70-300 or 75-300 go to a 70-200 f4. But this lens is even cheaper, and it is 2.8.

You say why, I'll chime in on similar note as many others. The smaller 200 is not a zoom, it's not white (aka. not cool), and probably not many user of the lens you mentioned realise the benefit of AF speed gained by upgrading to f/2.8.

I own this lens for almost 2 years, and this is "my precious" (for its price and its quality). I had the dilemma whether to take this or 70-200/4. Both has no IS, but I jumped on the smaller 200 because:

it's black (inconspicuous; still a head-turner with its hood on, though)
it's lighter (must check the numbers though, but on 20D, its light enough in my feeble hand),
it's prime.

Virtually against most people's logic behind the move to 70-200. But why go mainstream? 

8

Macro / Re: Dandelion DOF

« on: August 20, 2012, 06:29:06 PM »

was it windy? It's normal to have "in focus" plane shift if you refocus, especially if you change settings.

9

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 135 f/1.8L IS

« on: August 02, 2012, 12:44:55 PM »

Why would a portrait lens need a focus limiting switch?  Isn't that a Macro thing?

Not really. 200/2.8 II has it (1.5 - 3.5 m and 3.5 m - infinity IIRC).

Let's say you're using one of the great whites to cover a football, sorry, soccer match. You are positioned on one side of the pitch, the action is on the other side of it. Imagine your lens turning from MFD all the way to infinity, and back again. Many moments would be lost there.

10

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon EOS M & EF 800 f/5.6L IS

« on: July 25, 2012, 07:51:21 AM »

Ha! An answer to a continuous prayer!

Anyone slapped this thing onto the rear of EF 1200/5.6L? Or at least EF 800/5.6L, if 1200 is too difficult.

Now to find anyone with THE 1200mm... 

11

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon EOS M System Announced

« on: July 23, 2012, 01:38:33 AM »

Anyone slapped this thing onto the rear of EF 1200/5.6L? Or at least EF 800/5.6L, if 1200 is too difficult. 

12

EOS Bodies / Re: Patent - EF 135 f/2.8 & 180 f/3.5 with Apodization Filter

« on: July 14, 2012, 09:36:36 AM »

Could either of these lens patents translate into a new 135 f/2L or 180 f/3.5L Macro? Only time will tell.

You mentioned it is going to be f/2.8, so I suppose it should replace 135/2.8 SF, not THE 135/2 L.
And could this be an implementation of electrochromism?

13

EOS Bodies / Re: F1 Silverstone - advice with the 5D MkIII AF

« on: June 22, 2012, 09:19:46 AM »

Hi, you don't mind if I climb aboard, do you?I'm planning to go for a race, too! It will be the late September's Singapore GP (night race).

I'd like to know if F1/FIA/Organizer put limitation on which lens you can carry in.
I heard that the focal length is limited to 200mm (from our local forum, IIRC), but I could not see it in the T&C in regard camera/imaging devices.
I might missed the lines inadvertently, btw.

And a question, if I take my 200/2.8, would it be okay if I pair it with 2X extender? I mean, will the AF suffer terribly in my aged 20D? Thank you all, in advance. 

14

Lenses / Re: Where is the Lens EF40mm F2.8 STM made in?

« on: June 18, 2012, 04:07:44 AM »

Have you checked your iPhone?

I own no iPhone and am not really interested in purchasing one, TBH. Oh, but I have a friend who has one, and  just inspected the phone. Guess what? It's a 3Gs and has "Designed in California Assembled in China" proudly written on the rear cover (not hidden beneath it). I believe his is not the only iPhone assembled (read:made) there.

So much exaggerated fear about "Made in Whereizit". 

15

Lenses / Re: What the 40mm Pancake looks like on a 5D3

« on: June 17, 2012, 04:54:28 AM »

It focuses at 4 inches from the subject.

Can you confirm that it focuses 10cm from the subject?  The specs say 30cm.

30 cm/300 mm is from focal plane. Let's crunch some numbers:

Code: [Select]

EF Flange-back distance: 44 mm
Lens length            : 27 mm
Total                  : 71 mmTake 71 mm from 300 mm and you have 229 mm/~23 cm (approx.) from the end of the lens.
Not too close to 10 cm, but who brings ruler on a photo outing anyway?