March 04, 2015, 10:08:50 PM

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 - thedman

Pages: [1] 2 3 4
I would consider the new 16-35 f/4 (don't have it). My most used landscape and general-use lens on FF is the Sigma Art 35 f/1.4, a phenomenally good lens.

That's it for me. Took the 16-35 f/4 to Banff last summer. Had the Zeiss 21mm with me too, but the 16-35 was so sharp I never used the Zeiss once.

Lenses / Re: First Image of the EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II Lens
« on: November 06, 2014, 02:56:49 PM »
Can this really be happening?!?!?!?!?! Better not be this again:

Lenses / Re: New Lens Information for Photokina
« on: August 29, 2014, 02:00:19 PM »
The 24-105 could be a cheaper FF option. Some people were banging on about that here so I guess there might be a demand but seriously? So you fork out $1600 on a FF 6D right? Assuming you went body only. And then you go an pair it with, what I assume will be, a cheap kit lens with compromised IQ? Why? Why not just stick with a rebel and a 18-55 kit lens if you're a cheapo? Having a FF camera means you give a s___ about IQ. This rumor makes no sense.

I currently use the discontinued 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 USM II for that purpose.  Surprisingly, this is one of the lenses that the 5d3 and 6d have included for Automatic Lens Optimization.  So Canon is obviously aware that there is a need.  If this new one is small, light, and affordable, it will find its way into many bags.  I'm hoping its street price comes in between the 28-135 (~$300) and the 24-70 f/4 (~$1000).  Great for outdoor, walk-around, f/8-and-be-there kind of shooting.

This already exists - it's called an EF 24-105 f/4L IS and costs around $600 if you shop around.

 I really don't want to waste bag space on a slow midrange zoom.

Isn't that what the 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 is?

Lenses / Re: New Lens Information for Photokina
« on: August 29, 2014, 11:12:27 AM »
But wait! We were told in this CR2 back in May that the next "L" lens announcement would be the 100-400 replacement! Or wait, maybe it was this CR2 from January 2009.

The way this site keeps falling for rumors of a new 100-400 is becoming reminiscent of this:

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 11-24 f/2.8L Coming [CR1]
« on: August 07, 2014, 03:49:21 PM »
If it is as sharp as their recent releases and has IS then I suppose I could sell a kidney...


Ditto that! I don't even care about the IS.

I love mine...
Even put up my 21mm f/2.8 Zeiss on eBay this weekend... Hate to let that go...I needed it when I had the 16-35mm f/2.8L II. The Zeiss just blew that lens away... but not the new UAW zoom.
 I really do not need the f/2.8..and the IS is just what the doctor ordered for most of what I shoot.
I know that is not true for everyone.

That's where mine is heading, and for the same reason.

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 16-35 F/4L IS -- Reviews are trickling in...
« on: July 29, 2014, 03:53:41 PM »
Another one with the 16-35... I was really happy with the corner sharpness on this one. Lots of detail in the trees.

Lovely shot.  Terrific.  Thanks for sharing.

I'm still a rookie on landscape work -- how on earth did you get the trees in the foreground so bright?  It looks like those trees are below the line of the sun, and your skyline is sufficiently uneven to make using an ND grad pretty difficult.  So how did you get that?  What that a composite of a few exposures?  Surely you didn't just push up the shadows in post...

- A

Thanks! You're right about the composite - it's one shot for the ground and one for the sky. The trees in the middle aren't as below the horizon as it looks... they're kind of coming up the hillside at me. The very tops of them were just getting touched by a bit of sun. Add a bit of curves and you have bright trees.  :)

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 16-35 F/4L IS -- Reviews are trickling in...
« on: July 29, 2014, 11:12:25 AM »
I have to say, "never felt a need to take out the Zeiss 21" says a lot about the quality of the zoom. I can't imagine not wanting to take photos with the Zeiss if you have it available at the time. 16-35mm f/4L would have great application as a hking lens to replace a heavier primes kit for landscape. Dragging both the Zeiss and the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 (current landscape and astro-landscape kit, with 6D, tripod, filters, etc - 12 pounds?) up the side of a mountain made me aware that I need to do more conditioning.

Yeah....I have a Zeiss 21mm and the Sigma 35mm Art that I did personal, informal testing against my new Canon 16-35mm  IS.    So...I used to never use my 16-35mm f/2.8 II because the Zeiss and the Sigma blew it away....but damn...these are all very close in sharpness now....hmmmmmmm...the others do offer the faster f/stops though.

Another one with the 16-35... I was really happy with the corner sharpness on this one. Lots of detail in the trees.

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 16-35 F/4L IS -- Reviews are trickling in...
« on: July 09, 2014, 02:01:21 PM »
Just took it for a spin in Glacier and Banff. So sharp I never felt the need to get the Zeiss 21mm out of the bag.

Pricewatch Deals / Re: Canon EF 16-35 f/4L IS in Stock at B&H Photo
« on: June 25, 2014, 01:07:25 PM »
Got mine just in time to take it on a 2 week backpacking trip through the Canadian Rockies. Hope it's as good a landscape lens as it promises!

Lenses / Re: The Next \
« on: May 20, 2014, 12:39:37 PM »

So do we have an approximate date that these will be available? I know "June", but I'm leaving on a trip June 28th and would love to have the 16-35 with me.

Lenses / Re: More Wide Angle Lens Speculation [CR1]
« on: May 06, 2014, 04:13:00 PM »
I would buy two of these three. Which of course means this is a bogus rumor.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Landscape Filters
« on: May 06, 2014, 01:22:17 PM »

and last but not least... most serious landscape photo competitions will disqualify you for doing such editings. for a good reason.

What reason? It's the exact same thing as using a grad ND.

Just google "Lindisfarne Boats".  A great photo, but outside the rules and ultimately disqualified.

That doesn't have anything to do with what we're talking about here. You do realize I'm referring to two exposures at the same time, combined with a gradient mask, right?

Pages: [1] 2 3 4