Messages

1

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

« on: May 14, 2013, 10:59:14 AM »

It seems like a very nice lens. I have to ask myself though, if his only other choice were using the 100-400 how much different would these shots look? Sure the ISO8000 shots wouldn't have been possible at f/5.6. I guess what I'm saying is that it seems like a lot of money to gain one stop and IQ. This lens is 10x the cost of the 100-400, but is it 10x a better lens? It will be very interesting to see what an updated 100-400 will bring.

It gets more expensive than improvement in IQ all the time.

50 1.8 is 100, the 50mm 1.4 is 400 and the 50mm 1.2 is 1400... is it 14 times better? definetly not.
the 75-300mm is 100, the 70-300mm IS USM is like 500, the 70-300mm L is 1400 bucks... again, 14x better?

I can't, nor will I likely ever, be able to speak to the 200-400 1.4X, but the 70-300L isn't just 14x better than the non-L, it's like 140x better. So it's plausible.

2

Reviews / Re: Review - The Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS

« on: May 05, 2013, 11:10:14 AM »

Haha yeah the noise in the non-L picture is ridiculous, and I ran it through noise ninja 2 or 3 times. The images were taken a year apart, and were never intended to be a comparison. I just knew it could be significantly improved upon, and honestly every picture I took with the non-L at 300mm needed a significant amount of noise reduction and masked-sharpening. And they still look subpar. That lens is for soccer moms and dads only, IMO.

The 70-300mm L on the other hand, is spectacular.

3

Reviews / Re: Review - The Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS

« on: May 05, 2013, 10:20:43 AM »

... me, too, and I bought it back when it had a reputation as being an overpriced version of Canon's non-L lens - but it's interesting to see how it gained much more recognition since then. I esp. like the still handholdable weight for ext. periods of time and walking around vs. the 70-200Lii (ymmv).

Just in case there's anyone still out there wondering if there's a difference between the L and the non-L, here are two similar shots I took of a bee in my backyard with each lens.

4

Lens Gallery / Re: Canon EF 70-300 f/4-5.6L IS USM

« on: April 27, 2013, 07:53:42 PM »

BEE Awesome.

5

Lens Gallery / Re: Canon EF 70-300 f/4-5.6L IS USM

« on: February 17, 2013, 04:28:27 PM »

All of those pictures looks nice, but this lens (from 200mm till 300) produces not very sharp images and the contrast is very low. No concerns from 70 to 200mm.
I have the 70-200L II, but sometimes I use the 70-300 when I do not want to carry a heavy equipment with me or when I am traveling to an insecure country.

Are you talking about the non-L version maybe? That I could agree with

That's what I was thinking. He must have them mixed up. The non-L is very soft from 200-300mm.

6

EOS Bodies / Re: *UPDATE* EOS 70D is Coming, The Future of Pro APS-C Will Change

« on: February 02, 2013, 06:07:17 PM »

Just wondering - what if Canon shocked us all and came out with a new sensor that was a new format - a 1.5 or 1.4 APS-C? I know Nikons are already a 1.5x. Is it possible to make the sensor any bigger and still maintain the necessary mirror distance to keep compatibility with EF-S lenses? That would be interesting.

7

HDR - High Dynamic Range / Re: Post your HDR images:

« on: January 14, 2013, 11:58:40 AM »

Philadelphia.

8

Lenses / Re: Just bought a new Canon EF 70-300L IS USM lens.

« on: January 13, 2013, 11:05:05 AM »

I understand that you CAN mount the 70-300L to the Canon 1.4x III, as long as you have the lens extended past 250mm when you mount it.

9

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Macro pics - FF or APS-C

« on: December 23, 2012, 10:22:05 AM »

An EF-S lens has the equivalent focal length on an APS-C body as an EF lens of that focal length has on a FF body.  Therefore, a theoretical EF-S 50mm on an APS-C body would have the same FOV as an EF 50mm on FF body.  This means that your EF-S 60mm Macro is not like a 96mm lens on FF.

If you are shooting 1:1 macro, the longer the focal length, the further you will be from the subject.

The 100mm f/2.8L IS is a great lens, however the non-L is also quite good, especially since it is about half the price.  So, to answer your question: yes, you are over-thinking it.

This is NOT true. I don't know why some people still confuse this. That would make the 17-55mm an ultra-wide lens. It's not, it's for all intents and purposes the equivalant of the 24-70mm L. The 10-22mm is NOT wider than the 16-35mm L, it's for all intents and purposes it's equivalant. You DO have to take the crop-factor into consideration for EF-S lenses.

10

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon 7D: 'I need a Must Have's List'

« on: December 14, 2012, 03:26:01 PM »

A lot of people are suggesting the 17-55, and it's a great lens. I went the 24-105L route and I'm not disappointed. It can be had for $200 cheaper than the 17-55, is weather sealed and has a slightly better build quality. I find it's still useable indoors despite the f4, thanks to the IS. The biggest knock on the 24-105 is the barrel distortion, but you don't really see any of that on a crop body. Some also say that the 39mm effective focal length isn't wide enough for landscapes, but I have the 10-22mm for that (which is also a must have for 7D owners), so the 24-105 compliments it well. The 70-300L would be the only other missing piece you would need to complete the trifecta and have the 10-300mm focal range covered. And for $350, add the 50mm 1.4 for indoor use and for portraits.