Messages

1

Lenses / Re: EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x Announcement Tonight

« on: May 16, 2013, 05:03:28 AM »

Fantastic lens but the cost is a lot. USA £7800, UK£ 12000. Over a third more expensive. Ouch!

See it from the bright side, you can do a weekend trip to New York, live in a swanky hotel and eat nice and on the Saturday pick a lens up from an actual shop stocking it while still saving money overall.

That price differnetial isn't the fault of Canon....they base price to the dealers is pretty much the same. It's juat a bit of blatent profiteering from the UK vendors who are selling at full RRP and think they will sell every copy they can get their grubby hands on.
At the current price differential, get a standby flight to the US and go and get one Stateside. It'll cost you time and energy, but will yeild a serious price saving.

2

Lenses / Re: EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x Announcement Around the Corner? [CR1]

« on: May 16, 2013, 04:48:29 AM »

incredible if this is true.
what are we going to talk about now?

The 100-400.  Again.

Lol....how about the 12-24? 35 f1.4 II? 135 f2 II? Or even the 7DII?
Lots of fat to chew with that lot

3

Lenses / Re: EF 14-24mm and Filters

« on: May 16, 2013, 04:46:05 AM »

I've managed to use filters on my old Sigma 12-24mm and TS-e 17mm full frame lenses. I currently use the PhotoDiox Wonderpaner system. Yes it works, not it's not easy or nice to use 145mm circular filters. But it's great to have a Polariser option which can ben used fill tilt or shift. But, working with such large filters is a serious PITA out in the field. I also have a 3 stop and 5 stop ND (not grads) which are ok, but have a really odd colour cast to them. Functionally they work well, but stacked (ND and polariser) and the lens can't be used with it's fullest range of shift...but it's certainly enough for most situations. Pointing this lens directly into the sun unfortunatly yeilds an increase in internal reflections and flare...which isn't there with the native lens.

I have high hopes for the new ef 14-24mm f2.8 L, I'm sure it'll be stellar. Hey, we all KNOW it's coming at some point....it's just when. Canon are doing some proper developement these days and pro gear is taking a while to hit the shelves...but when it does...it's top gear.

4

Lenses / Re: 400 F2.8 with Externder or 600 F 4.0 ? help need to take a decision....

« on: May 16, 2013, 04:31:20 AM »

I chose a 400mm f2.8 IS L over a 600mm f4 L IS due to the versatility of the big 400 with tele converters. Mine is an immaculate mk I and yes it's a heavy lens to use and operate.
Pop a 1.4x on and it's a 560mm f4 and it's pretty much as sharp as the big 600. No one would notice the difference in real world pictures. Pop a 2x and it's a 800mm f5.6L, a little softer but still very usable. Use it as a 400 f2.8 and it gains an extra stop over the 600/500 lenses. I've had a few situations where this has really helped.
The 600L is an awsome lens too, if you are going to use a 600mm all of the time, then it makes sence to get a native 600mm. It takes a 1.4x to give an 840mm, and a 2x takes it to a dizzy 1200mm f8...which is far longer than the 400L can realistically achieve.
The mkII lenses are lighter, have better coatings but are still very heavy. The old mkI 600L and 400L are really heavy....but can be picked up a lot cheaper S/H than a new mkII.

If I was going to do it all again and I had the funds....I'd get the new 500IIL. It's SO light, the lightest of all the big whites. If you get to play with one, you'll see what I mean.

5

Lenses / Re: New Tilt-Shift Lenses in the Wild [CR2]

« on: May 16, 2013, 04:21:48 AM »

I'm not too fussed with a pair of new longer TS-e lenses. The original TS-e lenses were better, the longer they were. The worse one was the TS-e 24mm L, which optically was the weakest of the bunch. The TS-e 45 and 90 were / are optically very good. When Canon realeased the new TS-e 17L and TS-e 24IIL, they created two stellar lenses and turned the tide of Canon weak wide lenses. Sure, there were a lot of new improvements too, like newer coating and a far better movement system (which allows tilt and shift in every possible combination at a flick of a switch). But the longer lenses don't need the same optical improvement, they are already very good. Sure, they could do with an improvement in their movement mechanism and newer coatings but I question the diffenence that a double in retail price will do to the final images. Sure a newer lens will be better, but probably not observable in the final photographic output. I have a TS-e 45mm and it's a very low use lens for me and not one I use THAT often...in fact I don't know anyone who makes a lot of use for this niche lens.
I just get a feeling that Canon look at their lens portfolio and someone noticed that these two old lenses stick out a bit as old and legacy.

6

Lenses / Re: Andy Rouse Reviews the EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x

« on: May 15, 2013, 11:09:42 AM »

Yes, versatility is nice, but I need to see technical excellence that makes this worth going for over the 400 2.8 or the 500 F4.

Both the 400/2.8 and 500/f4 require a photographer to be in the right place to get a specific shot. This new lens offers more flexibility with composition due to the zoom. A 200mm f4 isn't that great for isolation, it'll be better at the longer end. But background isolation will be easier with the 400/2.8 and 500/4, but it requires the photographer to be at the right distance from the subject. The 400/2.8 and 500/4 are both lighter and are just as versatile with converters...it's just more fiddly and not so good on a windy beach chasing Grey Seals about in a hoewling sandstorm. The truth is that most wolde life photographers will make any of the big white lenses work. Its the more opportunist photographers who tend to require the flexibility of a zoom....I'm generalising here, please don't take offence.

If I wanted to replace my current 400mm f2.8 L IS, I would probably go for the new 500mm f4 L IS II....have you seen how light it is? It's amazing!

7

Canon General / Re: Announcement: Canon EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x

« on: May 15, 2013, 06:31:18 AM »

...25 lens elements!

The effective fstop on this lens won't be f4 for sure - more like closer to f4.5

Probably a t5 lens, like the Nikon version.

8

Canon General / Re: Announcement: Canon EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x

« on: May 15, 2013, 06:19:17 AM »

Curious about the maximum magnification. B&H lists .15x, the same as the 400f2.8, but it has a much shorter minimum focus distance than the 400f2.8.

The 70-300L and 70-200/2.8L IS II both have the same MFD and maximum magnification, despite the former being 100mm longer.  Since focal length is specified at infinity, the 70-300L must have a lot more focus breathing, seems the 200-400L does as well.

It's a common issue with modern tele-zooms. It's one aspect (along with increased flare and bokeh nevousness) where primes tend to excel over zooms.
The same focus breathing also happens with the Sigma 120-300 f2.8 OS to a large amount, about 20% taking it's real focal length down to around 240mm at MFD. The Canon 70-300L looses nearly 1/3 of it's focal length at MFD and is quite astonishly short....but it's IQ at that close focus is extraordinarily good, far better that my 70-200 f2.8 L IS II. I guess every lens is compromised somewhere in the design path.
The new 200-400L has a few design questions, Canon have been very coy about releasing it's MFD / MM specs until now. I'm wondering if someone was to pop this new lens on a test bench and work out it's real focal length at MFD would be shockingly low. It may have the same MM as a 70-200 f2.8 LIS II, but a user would be twice as close to achieve it unless something is really compromised in the design in this particular spec.
I think it's not enough to discount this lens as an admirable optic and one which can offer some serious wildlife and spots photographers a real world advantage, especially in harsh conditions. I just think it's not possible to create a "it has it all" tele lens. Lets face it, it's quite heavy, large and expensive compared to the new 500mm f4 L IS II. But it's a lot more versatile.   
I seriously doubt that this new Canon version isn't very different to the Nikon variation in this respect.

9

Canon General / Re: It annoys me when camera phones try to take credit for professional level gear.

« on: May 15, 2013, 06:02:44 AM »

Amusingly all Canon DSLR product shots (photos of the camera unit) is usually taken on digital medium format.

It annoys me too when phones replicate "Vintage and faded" post prod techniques to pass off as pro shots...yeah right!

That said, Patrick Litchfield used to enjoy his Olympus trip as a social camera back in the 80's

10

Lenses / Re: Canon Tele lenses vs Nikon tele lenses ( both with converters )

« on: May 15, 2013, 05:10:43 AM »

Personally, I think there is as greater difference between photographers than their kit or kit brand.
I have yet to use a pro Canon lens that I wasn't happy with...except maybe the 50mm f1.2 L. Every Nikon Pro lens I've used has been very good too. A poor lens will show in the results, a quality optic will always shine in the results. But poor technique, ability, composition, tallent or skill will always show much more than the other results.
Too much time is spent by photographers analysing lens charts, scrutinsing almost tiny descrepencies between comparative optics. A lens which is slightly sharper will not make slightly better pictures, it's down to the skill of the photographer. Top gear helps a photographer in extream circumstances and helps up their keeper rate.

11

Canon General / Re: Announcement: Canon EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x

« on: May 14, 2013, 05:15:35 AM »

Anyone found out the Min Focus Distance yet? We've had every spec leaked and revealed except this one...lol!
It's kinda important along with it's Max Magnification....

12

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Waiting for a Sigma 50 "A" like their 35 to appear?

« on: May 13, 2013, 02:48:07 PM »

The last time I was at Focus on Imaging in Birmingham, I visited the Sigma stall. They had a new 70-200 2.8 there for playing with. It was very nice but the one on the stand had some pretty awful front focus (not a little) and the big 300-800 f5.6 was a lot of fun....but it was soft wide open over 500mm. Pretty sharp under that focal length....but what's the point in having an 800mm f5.6 if you can't use it wide open? My 400mm f2.8 L IS is sharper with a 2x TC and costs less. I had a go on their 500mmm f4.5, which was nice but again didn't compare to the Canon version. At that point I figured I was done there.
I still own and use a Siggi 12-24mm mkI, which is still a pretty unique lens in the market place. Quality control was awful with this particular lens, but a good one is a good find. I think it's amusing that Sigma have bought out this dock thang....getting us to pay for a device to correct their awful QC and on our time too....come on Sigma. I suspect that Sigma's QC is going to drop even further now...and they will blame their userbase for not stumping up the cash for the USB dock.

for new 70-200 do you mean the lens that won as the best expert lens at tipa awards 2011 or something newer?  had the same lens and i had to adjust focus with a +3....so? i had to adjust a canon 70-200 f/4 with a +7...the canon was ff "badly"...lol!
and could you tell me why canon services provides by payment the adjustment of focus for lenses? i do not believe they fix sigma lenses.

and now the brutal fact...sigma 35 mm destroys canon offering costing significantly less...40% or so

I didn't say when I went to Focus on Imaging, it was just around the time for their Macro HSM mk 1 I think. Again it was so far out of adjustment, I called over the attendant and he confirmed it. And then put the lens under the counter with a post it note on it. It was worse than my old copy.
It's been surprising how many 70-200mm f2.8 lenses Sigma has put out over the years. I'm assuming this is to correct various design faults with each successive model. Other brands like Nikon or Canon tend to get it right first time and let that model run for a good 10 years or so. That said, I took some great pictures with my old copy.

My 70-200 EX HSM f2.8 (new at the time) was so far out of calibration...it had to go to Sigma twice with the Camera. It was bad. I'm not going to re-tell my Sigma woes here again, I did that a few pages back. Hello if you are new to this thread

I've sent only one lenses back to Canon for being out of Calibration, which I did under their 1 year warranty. It didn't cost a thing and came back perfect.

Yep, it true about the new Siggi 35mm, it's a fine lens from Siggi. I don't think it destroys the Canon, but it's a sharper lens. I've had my Canon copy for about 5 years now and I've taken a lot of photos with mine. It's easily paid for itself many times over. The Siggi fisheye's are very good too and I particularly have a soft spot for their 12-24mm, although my copy had been back to Sigma twice.

13

Lenses / Re: EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x Announcement Around the Corner? [CR1]

« on: May 13, 2013, 05:19:59 AM »

Canon have certainly created a lot of anticipation / Hype around this lens. I'm sure it's going to be in demand for a long time after it's final launch due to this. I'm just happy that it's a lens I'm not going to need. I can sit back and watch everyone else scrabbling to get a copy.

14

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Waiting for a Sigma 50 "A" like their 35 to appear?

« on: May 09, 2013, 10:28:35 AM »

Seriously, if you don't like Sigma products for whatever reason that's fine. Everybody has preferences and likings/dislikings. I just don't get your zealous attempt to make it an objective-matter-of-fact point.

I'm just passing on my personal and professional findings from buying and selling lenses over the last 15 years bud. Sorry to hear that you think I'm zealous...and all that other stuff. I'm mostly replying to previous comments. When asked a question, I generally respond...not that I'm too fussed if anyone disagrees with me. This isn't a popularity contest. I don't have an axe to grind, but Sigma lost me years ago as a customer. If people ask me 20 times, they will get the same responce 20 time. As to Canon's QC, I've bought more Canon glass than Sigma over the years and their QC is a lot better than Sigma from my experiance. Not that I haven't had problems, I've had a few lenses which needed to go back to Canon (covered in the 1 year warrenty - CPS platinum cover).

15

Lenses / Re: New Tilt-Shift Lenses in the Wild [CR2]

« on: May 09, 2013, 06:16:04 AM »

I have a feeling by "macro TS" they mean .5x - not 1x.  This is very plausible because the Nikon PC-85 is already .5x.  If this is the case, even though macro is my specialty, I will unlikely bite because I already have the current TS-E 90 and it is not one of my more used lenses.  Of course, if they do manage 1x this lens will be at the top of my list.

The TS-E 45 II is a bit more intriguing.  I already own the TS-E 17 and TS-E 24 II and have considered the TS-E 45, but poor reviews of the current model have dissuaded me.  Schneider makes a very nice 50mm TS lens for the EF mount, but at over $3k I could not justify it.  As I have run across a number of situations where a TS-E 45 would have been useful, I would likely buy a copy.

Personally, I jump TS-e focal lengths and use extenders for the focal gaps. I chose a Ts-e17L and TS-e 45mm and I use a 1.4x or 2x TC if I need longer.
The 45 is a really good lens, it's sharp enough wide open and you shouldn't be put off but any poor reviews....although my TS-e 45mm is probably my least used lens.