July 29, 2014, 01:58:28 AM

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 - tron

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 119
1
Lenses / Re: New Canon L Primes, but Not Until 2015 [CR2)
« on: July 28, 2014, 11:28:06 PM »
A new 50 L that's "a lot smaller" ?? Makes no sense whatsoever ..
Maybe it will be a 50mm 1.8L IS with the size of  50mm 1.4 and the price of 50 1.2L  ;D ;D ;D

2
Lenses / Re: Canon 24-70 f/4L IS disappointing?
« on: July 28, 2014, 05:00:43 AM »
Now, If you want to make me spend more money for yet another lens you will not make it ... yet :-)

Earlier this year I got the 24-70 2.8 II and immediately before leaving for vacation I got 16-35 f/4L IS (by giving my EF24 2.8 ) and 100L 2.8 Macro (by giving my old non-usm non-L 100mm 2.8 macro).

Plus, I knew I needed my 2.8 zoom due to an event that takes place at low light.  ;D

So I will think about it next year if I there are no announcements for 5DMkIV, 14-24 2.8, 16-35 2.8 III, so many ifs...  ;D ;D ;D

3
Canon General / Re: When a Woman is Fed Up...
« on: July 28, 2014, 04:49:04 AM »
Hi Folks.
I'd like to ask first "Russian Shot Putter?"
I'd also like to add I've been caught up in one of these rows when I was about 15. Mother was worried about dad's health and he promised, as in swore blind he had quit smoking for the third time.
She caught him again and a row ensued, first thing thrown at him with the words "you keep smoking you won't need this" was his alarm clock, the next thing to hand was the 70-210 FD fit lens, as it came towards me on the back swing "and if you can't walk you won't be able to use this" I removed it from her hand and she threw a handful of air.
He quit smoking and died at 88 earlier this year.  :'( :'( :'(
She loved him to the end and cared for him 'till his dying breath quite literally, holding his hand!  :'(
So not every fit of pique is due to infidelity etc, some are from pure love and the thought of loosing him was breaking her heart!
So I don't necessarily see a divorce in the guys future though I wouldn't rule it out!

Cheers Graham.
I am sorry for your loss, I lost my father at the same age 3 years ago  :(

4
Lenses / Re: Canon 24-70 f/4L IS disappointing?
« on: July 27, 2014, 07:05:10 PM »
I too have both 70-200 f/4 L IS and 70-200 f/2.8L IS II for the mere reason that when I bought the first the second didn't exist yet!

However there are cases where I need the 2.8 and cases where I don't so I can do with a lighter lens.

So I keep them both!

Indeed...  I bought the 70-300L as a travel telezoom, after owning the 70-200/2.8L IS II for a while.


I bought the 7-300L first - as travelzoom (occasionally sports in good daylight) and only after that I bought th 70-200 f/2.8 IS II - what a great zoomlens with wonderful IQ. It came very handy when shooting indoor musicals with limited and changing lights.
I have a few lenses in the same focal length but all for different reasons and pusposes....ok I suffer - a bit - from GAS  ;D

I've got the 70-300L for travel too. It collapses to a very manageable size and has excellent image quality too  :)
Can you please stop mentioning how useful for travel the 70-300L is?  ;D

5
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 16-35 F/4L IS -- Reviews are trickling in...
« on: July 27, 2014, 06:59:56 PM »
I tried it to day. ZERO coma!  But it was dark. I was used to my 14mm 2.8L II even with a little coma. You see I was at my 5D3's limits (ISO 10000, 12800). So I reverted back to it. In fact I have just wondered if 16-35 4L IS why not the TS-E17mm 4L?  It will also be able to fix the converging verticals...
One reason why not is that the TS-E 17 costs about $1k more than the 16-35 f/4 IS :)  I got mine as a refurb on sale, so it wasn't as bad for me, but I don't like in a very "dark" area, so I haven't tried my lenses with the stars yet.
No! I haven't made myself clear. I should have said: I have the TS-E17 so why not use this?
So I used it too and I was able to fix the converging verticals at the expense of a darker photo though (relative to 14mm 2.8 II). The result was very satisfactory.

I am just afraid of the day the new 16-35 2.8 III (or a 14-24) will be announced. I already have 14mm 2.8 II, 16-35 f/4L IS, TS-E17mm f/4L (and a Zeiss 21 2.8 ) and ... I will want/need it since (judging from the 24-70 2.8 II and the 16-35 4 IS ) it is almost certain that it will be coma corrected too.  :-[

6
Lenses / Re: Canon 24-70 f/4L IS disappointing?
« on: July 27, 2014, 07:24:23 AM »
I too have both 70-200 f/4 L IS and 70-200 f/2.8L IS II for the mere reason that when I bought the first the second didn't exist yet!

However there are cases where I need the 2.8 and cases where I don't so I can do with a lighter lens.

So I keep them both!

7
Lenses / Re: Selling my two Zeiss lenses. Your advice?
« on: July 27, 2014, 07:13:59 AM »
You have a very nice collection of Zeiss glass. If I had this I would be reluctant to sell anything.

I would keep the 15mm 2.8 which must be PERFECT for astrophotography (if this is your thing of course).

Canon 135mm 2L must be more versatile and pretty good anyway (I have it and I like it)

As for the 35mm 1.4 I got the Canon 35mm 1.4L which although it is not perfect I find its AF useful for the occasions I use this Focal length (low light shooting)


8
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 16-35 F/4L IS -- Reviews are trickling in...
« on: July 22, 2014, 08:51:32 PM »
I tried it to day. Practically ZERO coma!  But it was dark. I was used to my 14mm 2.8L II even with a little coma. You see I was at my 5D3's limits (ISO 10000, 12800). So I reverted back to it. In fact I have just wondered if 16-35 4L IS why not the TS-E17mm 4L?  It will also be able to fix the converging verticals...

9
Lenses / Re: What would a 16mm or 18mm F2 FF lens look like?
« on: July 22, 2014, 08:37:04 PM »
At the cost for a good lens, the market would be small.  Since most (not all) wide lens usage is for landscapes, where f/16 is often used, it would be a waste.  For real estate interiors, auto interiors, or in tight quarters, it might work, but having proper lighting would be better and cheaper than paying $5,000 for a lens, and then not having the depth of field needed for interior photos.

What kind of use would you have for it?  A wide angle like that is not suitable for portraits.

Astro, I'd presume.  Wide + Fast is just what you need for stars, I'm told.

- A
Or just buy a tracking mount.
A tracking mount is no use for landscape astrophotography...

10
Lenses / Re: What would a 16mm or 18mm F2 FF lens look like?
« on: July 22, 2014, 07:50:53 PM »
At the cost for a good lens, the market would be small.  Since most (not all) wide lens usage is for landscapes, where f/16 is often used, it would be a waste.  For real estate interiors, auto interiors, or in tight quarters, it might work, but having proper lighting would be better and cheaper than paying $5,000 for a lens, and then not having the depth of field needed for interior photos.

What kind of use would you have for it?  A wide angle like that is not suitable for portraits.

Astro, I'd presume.  Wide + Fast is just what you need for stars, I'm told.

- A
+1 I wished today for a 16mm f 2L lens (to tell the truth I wished also for a 14mm f1.4L too but pretend you didn't read that  ;D )

You see to day I was doing astrophotography with the 14mm 2.8L II and at the same time I tested my 16-35 f/4L IS. Wow! This zoom does not have coma (in contrast to my old 16-35 2.8L which has long gone!)

But it is an f/4 which is perfect for landscapes but not astrophotography. So for now,my 14mm 2.8L II remains as my most used lens for that purpose (even with a little coma).

11
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 16-35 F/4L IS -- Reviews are trickling in...
« on: July 22, 2014, 11:15:12 AM »
So, the lens has truly negligible coma! What a dilemma. It is f/4. OK, I knew it when I bought it but now wmy 14mm 2/8 II will fight with the 16-35 for their night use  ;D

12
Lenses / Re: What Lenses are missing from Canon's range
« on: July 20, 2014, 06:30:24 AM »
With regards to the 12/14-24 idea, would people prefer f4 and greater sharpness or f2.8 and take a slight hit on absolute sharpness - I don't believe you can have both - personally, I'm holding out for 12-24 to replace my 16-35II, I'd take a hit on absolute sharpness for a f2.8 aparture.
Can you please elaborate? (about absolute sharpness).  Also I believe we can have both sharpness and 2.8 judging from 24-70 2.8 II lens.

13
Lenses / Re: Canon 24-70 f/4L IS disappointing?
« on: July 19, 2014, 06:02:40 AM »
I would sell both to get the 24-70 2.8 II.

14
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 16-35 F/4L IS -- Reviews are trickling in...
« on: July 17, 2014, 09:54:52 AM »
I got this lens yesterday :)

Now I need to go on vacation to test it (2 birds with one stone  :) )

I just made a few internal test shots and the IS looks promising.
Congrats!  I'm itching to get back out with mine, too...the weekend is getting closer at least.
Thanks  :) I gave my EF24mm 2.8 (non IS) which was not being used and saved 250 Euros of the price (initial 1050) Now I want to see how it performs at the edges since I had sold my 16-35 2.8 version 1 for this very reason (plus the fact that it had coma).

It is interesting that it is as big and as heavy as my 16-35 2.8 was!

15
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 16-35 F/4L IS -- Reviews are trickling in...
« on: July 17, 2014, 09:36:43 AM »
I got this lens yesterday :)

Now I need to go on vacation to test it (2 birds with one stone  :) )

I just made a few internal test shots and the IS looks promising.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 119