March 02, 2015, 06:18:02 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 - Viggo

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 149
1
EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: 5d Mk3 exposure pulsating
« on: March 01, 2015, 07:29:00 AM »
Do you mean when you're looking on the back of the LCD screen during live view AND when using AUTO focusing the exposure flicks under and over as it's trying to find focus? If that's the case it's totally normal.

I have that issue and it's crazy annoying. I use the face AF for the kids, and often tap the AF-on button to refocus, any way to avoid that crazy exposure difference when focusing ?

2
Canon EF Zoom Lenses / Re: Canon EF 11-24mm f/4L USM
« on: February 27, 2015, 02:37:50 AM »
First few shots from this evening. All with 5D3 and at 11mm; way too much fun at 11mm to try anything else just yet. Will provide some writeup and first impressions tomorrow. Let me know if there are any questions I can answer.

http://www.paramsandhu.com/Galleries/Blog/Canon-EF-1124mm-f4L-USM-Review/n-pDLvbK/

That shot of the horse ;D

3
Lenses / Re: 16-35F4 L IS, Any good?
« on: February 26, 2015, 02:44:11 AM »
Can anyone please post sunburst shots of the 16-35 F4 at f16 or f22? I want to see how it stacks up to that of the 2.8 II version  :)
Here is an example at f/16.  I think this will be my go-to lens for car shows.

I find the 16-35mm f/4 to be sharper at the edges than my 17-40mm.  I enjoyed my 17-40mm, but now I have a hard time justifying keeping it.  I thought I would miss the extra 5mm at the long end, but I don't.  Now to sell my 17-40mm.  Too bad it sounds like the prices have taken a hit since people are switching to the 16-35mm f/4.

Thanks for this. I also own the 17-40 right now and planning to get the 16-35 f4. I read somewhere that the build is not as robust as that of the 16-35 f2.8 version. Is this true?

My wife's 100 L, my 2470 and 1635 are all made of the same plastic, and they have seen some pretty bad abuse, see picture on previous page of my son. And none of these lenses are scarred at all.
And Roger at Lens Rentals said the new 16-35 in particular along with the 100-400 II are much better built than the previous 1635/1740 and the old 100-400.

So no, it's not true it's poorer built.

4
Lenses / Re: Gear for upcoming trip to Italy and Greece
« on: February 25, 2015, 05:33:47 PM »
I don't know about your past experiences, but in present day Greece, descent size hotels should have good internet and you can always find an internet cafe with good bandwidth.

My greek experiences were long enough ago that nobody expected wifi to be fast.

The hotel I stayed at in Milan in November charged a fair bit for internet and even then it barely hit a 512k. When I was out in Brescia it was free and usably fast (maybe 3-4mbit). Still I have 105Mbit internet at home in the US and live in a town where most cafe's have at least 20, so i'm a bit shocked when i'm back in Europe and those speeds just don't seem to exist.

Most hotels I've been in has free connection with an ethernet cable, and more than fast enough. Might be an alternative.

5
Lenses / Re: 16-35 f4 IS Lens hood question.
« on: February 24, 2015, 03:24:00 PM »
Thanks guys!

As for shading only at one FL, I must ask, the 2470 v2 shades at the widest better than at the longest, compared to the superb design of the old one. That would not make sense when we know the 1740/1635 2.8 hood is wider than the 1635 IS. If the 1740 had to be that wide, why doesn't the narrower new one cause vignetting at the widest?

6
Lenses / 16-35 f4 IS Lens hood question.
« on: February 24, 2015, 12:47:03 PM »
Hi guys!

Can someone explain why Canon were able to create the much nicer, smaller lens hood for the 1635 f4?
I have always though the super big lens hood of the 1740 and 1635 f2.8 had to be that way because of the focal length?

7
Lenses / Re: Gear for upcoming trip to Italy and Greece
« on: February 24, 2015, 11:45:23 AM »
Take your 35, the 85 and leave the rest at home.

I'm sorry, but 35 is not even close to wide enough for all the fantastic sites, especially in Rome.

8
Lenses / Re: Gear for upcoming trip to Italy and Greece
« on: February 23, 2015, 05:08:07 PM »
When I was in Rome I used the 1740 for 95% of the time. Had the 2470 and 200 with me, but except for a couple of shots with the 2470, I could have just brought the 1740.

9
Lenses / Re: 16-35F4 L IS, Any good?
« on: February 23, 2015, 04:17:48 AM »
I noticed in the manual that the 4 stops of stabilizing is when the lens is at 35mm and mounted to a 1dx. Is that because of the higher battery power that it has a more efficient stabilizer on the 1dx?

10
Lenses / Re: 16-35F4 L IS, Any good?
« on: February 21, 2015, 02:20:07 PM »
Except for specialized shooting situations, I have yet to find anyone who isn't at the very least satisfied with the 16-35 f/4L. Lenses like this don't come along very often.

+1, it's REALLY good. I notice a slightly lower hitrate in my indoor shots when tracking, I guess because of the f4. But I would use the 2470 there anyway. Went out with it for the first time today and it's fantastic!

I was too close and my son kicked the lens/camera and gave me a black eye, but it wasn't even a scratch on the gear.

A split second after the hit, shot at 1/1000s.



11
Canon EF Zoom Lenses / Re: Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM
« on: February 21, 2015, 12:14:00 PM »
Tested the build quality of the 1635 today. I've done this shot a few times at 24mm and 200mm, but it turns out that with 16mm you can be somewhat closer than you might think  ::) This shot is a split second after he kicked the lens and smashed the camera into my eye, lol. It looks like a long shutter, but it's 1/1000. Both the camera an lens are unmarked and works perfect, my face is not okay  ;D


12
Lenses / Re: so, where is the Canon 35 1.4 II??
« on: February 21, 2015, 08:49:53 AM »
I'll be first in line when it does appear, but ten years is a long wait, and I have saved up
For it and spent it on other gear many times. I will NEVER buy another third party lens. The 35 L II can be upgraded in all areas and weather sealing and AF is enough for me to buy it.


13
Lenses / Re: which 200mm lens to get
« on: February 20, 2015, 03:43:25 PM »
I've had them all and really liked all of them, but as special goes, the f2 is just on another level. I bring it everywhere, never used any legs for it except my own. And I have inflamed joints and haven't worked out in 20 years, lol.

80% of my favorite shots are from the 200. The one lens I will never ever sell.

14
Canon EF Zoom Lenses / Re: Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM
« on: February 20, 2015, 03:02:14 PM »
I had a "bring your camera to work"-day, because that's the only way I could try the 1635 in daylight. Only got three four shots walking to and from work. Here's just a first snap. But I am seriously impressed with everything this lens has to offer.


15
Lenses / Re: 16-35F4 L IS, Any good?
« on: February 19, 2015, 08:08:20 AM »
I haven't tested mine extensively yet, but decentering is always one of the first thing a after calibration I check, and it is perfect.

And just as a side note, I thought the TS17 was as good as it gets, but the 1635 is better. I was really surprised to see how little distortion it actually has. And the sharpness is epic across the frame.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 149