Messages

1

Canon General / Re: 24-70Mk2 fell off my 5DMk3 and smashed

« on: March 29, 2013, 03:48:54 PM »

Sorry to hear that!

I almost had an accident with my 70-200 II once... Of course, after I mount a lens I always double check that it is locked. Just a habit. One time the 70-200 + extender was loose, and was quite close to letting go. A little heart attack there...

But my stuff is insured, so that is the only benefit if it did happen. Thankfully, it did not. Now I am even more careful. I even check routinely while shooting to make sure it is locked often. Just to be sure.

2

Lenses / Re: Photozone has released their review of the Sigma 35 1.4...

« on: February 21, 2013, 10:42:21 AM »

Amazing lens IQ with the Sigma 35, that is for sure. Miles better than the Canon L.

However, I tried (2) copies and both had focusing issues in artificial light that my 35L's have not. It would front focus significantly when used in some indoor lighting (not all). I was constantly having to switch from 0 MA outdoors to +9 indoors (sometimes) and other times 0MA was fine. Drove me a bit insane.

Other then that quirk, it was incredible. I hope to try again in the future, as I don't want to give up on that amazing lens... I just know others have had the same exact issue happen with them and their 5D3, so it may be with that body only, who knows... Waiting to see more info as time goes on before rebuying, again.

3

Lenses / Re: What are Canon's sharpest lenses?

« on: February 21, 2013, 10:40:05 AM »

I would say the 24-70 II at 24mm stopped down to f/4 or f/5.6 may be the sharpest I have seen. Especially in an wide-angle.

Other notable mentions would be the 135L, 70-200 II and 85L (stopped down of course).

4

Canon General / Re: The tax monster is coming soon. What are you planning on doing with your refund?

« on: January 17, 2013, 03:35:29 PM »

Sadly, this year I will owe! So nothing for me!

5

Lenses / Re: Workaround for Loose Lens Cap on 8-15mm Fisheye

« on: January 15, 2013, 12:10:13 PM »

When I rented this lens I never had an issue with the lens cap. It stayed on until I removed it with the tabs. It never once popped off on me. Maybe they loosen up or something over time?

6

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5d3 and FoCal errors

« on: January 03, 2013, 05:22:56 PM »

Agree'd... Too much too fast. I guess it went from a hobby/interest to all about $$$... Sadly.

Even though they support a ton of cameras now, endless features and "tests", I find the reliability and accuracy have tanked. I have been a user since the beta days with the 5D2 only, and it was VERY accurate. Never had a single problem and saw great results using it. Now, it tends to make my lenses worse. 

Oh well... I am thinking about going back to lens align, honestly. That is how bad the AF calibration feature has gotten for me. Wildly inaccurate regardless of anything I do. And I am testing the best I can seriously do...

I measure center of target and make sure my lens is at exact height... Level tripod, level camera (using in camera level)... Making sure I am square with target. Using (2) 500W halogen lights as recommended. Printed on matte photo paper using a high quality $500 Canon printer... Running the test near MFD, 25x FL, 50x FL and even more... EV is always +10 or more. Tried outdoor shade lighting as well with no artificial lighting...  I don't know what else I could possibly do to get better results. Yet, the MA values it gives me with "excellent" fit continue to just suck. When I first used this program, I would always get great results. Now, I don't trust it at all. Especially fast primes.

7

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sigma 35MM F/1.4 DG HSM Worth the price

« on: January 03, 2013, 05:18:11 PM »

The Sigma is fantastic... Truly "L Glass" without the price...  I really love mine. Build quality is better than the 35L by far, and the IQ is superior as well. For hundreds less.

8

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5d3 and FoCal errors

« on: January 03, 2013, 03:47:39 PM »

Disable under the "Test" tab in settings, the focus peak determination. Make sure it is on "None".

Focus peak causes the program to crash every time.



I am getting kind of tired with FoCal to be honest... It never is accurate for me, regardless of what it tells me... My Canon 85 1.8 I bought, it told me +8 seriously, four or five times are various distances. Was "Excellent" fit and EV of +10... Tripod sturdy, measured and squared up and all that.

Real world shooting? Flat out sucked. Considerable backfocus.

Now I just got my Sigma 35 yesterday.... Do the calibration again, multiple times... +9 or +10 each and every time, near MFD, 25x FL, 50x FL and beyond. Always the same. The images look great on the program, so it should be right... No way. Again, considerable back focus in real-world shooting. Set it back to 0 and much improved. Looks like it only needs 0-5 somewhere, so I put it at +3 until I take enough shooting to pick a direction (or none).

Again, with a 70-200 II as well... Right after it came back from calibration from Canon along with my 5D3, it tells me +4T and +8W or something. Well guess what....  Backfocusing. Put back to 0 and everything looked better.


Not sure why this program is acting the way it does for me... But I can't even trust it anymore. I may seriously go back to lens align, at least I was able to do my lenses accurately each and every time. Not sure what is up with it now. Back when I had the 5D2 and the program just came out it worked fantastic. Once they start adding all these features, the new targets, etc... Went downhill fast for me and how well it works.

9

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: The seemingly amazing Sigma 35

« on: December 20, 2012, 03:35:03 PM »

I am very interested in Sigma 35 after having owned the 35L twice in the past... I am hoping to get my spring sometime, maybe by then some type of price decrease or at least see how the resale is of the Sigma. The Canon holds its value extremely well, especially if you bought it during rebates. The Sigma at $900 is a great deal, but would suck if you could not sell it for over $750 for example. Time will tell... I am hoping for some rebates/discounts before buying though.

10

Lenses / Re: Lens checking methods 24-70II

« on: December 18, 2012, 11:26:10 AM »

Just take pictures with them... Not much else you can do. Honestly, you have a warranty so if something goes wrong you get it fixed.

My first 24-70 II though had a decentering issue going on. Right side was far softer than the left near infinity. Swapped out for a replacement and it was perfect across the frame. Sadly, it is at Canon now for another issue... Discovered hairline scratches INSIDE the front element, along with one on the outside. It was brand new... Definitely look like manufacturing defects though, and Canon must agree... I called the CPS line and they confirmed they have parts on order they are waiting for to repair it.

No harm no foul though... Stuff happens... As long as they fix it I will have no problem with it. I LOVE this lens.

11

Lenses / Re: Vignetting on 24-70 F/2.8L II USM

« on: December 13, 2012, 07:05:25 PM »

It has pretty hefty vignetting wide open, for sure...

I am one that is not bothered by vignetting at all though, in fact, I enjoy it. You can always easily correct it in Lightroom with the lens profile if need be.

12

Contests / Re: Gura Gear Giveaway!

« on: December 06, 2012, 07:12:50 PM »

I want I want I want I want I wanttttt!

13

Lens Gallery / Re: Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM

« on: November 19, 2012, 09:28:30 PM »

Some examples that I have taken with this lens the past few weeks/months. LOVE this lens. Performance is simply amazing.



6M3C5876.jpg by invertalon, on Flickr


6M3C5866.jpg by invertalon, on Flickr


6M3C5860.jpg by invertalon, on Flickr


6M3C5211 by invertalon, on Flickr


6M3C5107 by invertalon, on Flickr


6M3C3264 by invertalon, on Flickr


6M3C5875.jpg by invertalon, on Flickr


6M3C4426 by invertalon, on Flickr


6M3C2105 by invertalon, on Flickr


6M3C1814.jpg by invertalon, on Flickr


6M3C1630.jpg by invertalon, on Flickr


6M3C0672 by invertalon, on Flickr


6M3C0651 by invertalon, on Flickr

14

Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II

« on: November 08, 2012, 08:37:22 PM »

I agree, Photozone definitely had an off copy of the lens. It seems there is some serious variation with many 24-70 type lenses. Must be due to the complexity of the optical design. Tends to be more than any other it seems.

I have tried (2) copies of this lens. The first was excellent all around except for the fact at 24mm the right edge of the frame was soft compared to the left, MOST of the time. It is like the focus plane was very far forward on that edge. Very strange.

I swapped it for another and no longer have that issue. Equally as sharp on both sides of the frame at 24mm... I am guessing a decentered lens element for sure. The lenses were very comparable sharpness wise on both ends wide open, though. I see no real difference besides the softness I had at 24mm on the first.

Amazing lens though... Made that range fun again simply due to the amazing IQ. I rarely ever used my 24-105 for the years I had it. Great lens, but the IQ was decent at best. The 24-70 II has become a staple in my shooting, much like the 70-200 II has. Will be in my bag for a long time, no doubt.

15

Lenses / Re: Can a UV filter affect IQ (sharpness) on a lens?

« on: November 01, 2012, 11:35:04 PM »

I just ran my 70-200 II at 70mm through Focal with and without the Hoya HD filter I use regularly.

I ran it six times total. I used live-view focus before the first shot so AF would have NO factor in these results as it stayed the same between all the tests. Three tests with filter and three without back to back to directly compare.

My three best shot results WITHOUT a filter... 2091, 2092 and 2065.

My three best shot results WITH a filter... 2010, 2045 and 2053.

Filter OFF Average: 2082.66
Filter ON Average: 2036

Difference of around 2.24% using this testing method. Would you see that in real world shooting? Probably not. But if you want to maximize IQ than filter off.

Note, even running the same test back to back shows some difference in final results... Without moving anything at all or letting the camera AF. Most likely a slightly tolerance in the analysis software. However, the results are still consistent between them.

Another side note, there is quite a noticeable reduction in light hitting the sensor with the filter on. Afterward, I did 2 set's of comparison shots with and without a filter, same exposure, WB, etc... The shot with the filter was always a hair more underexposed. I did not expect it to be as noticeable as it was. In Lightroom, both images came out to about a 8% difference in exposure with the filter (.08 slider adjustment to match the exposures).