March 04, 2015, 07:26:37 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 - bitm2007

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 8
Lenses / Re: I'm Torn Between...
« on: February 27, 2015, 01:16:15 PM »
Hello my fellow canon rumor members. I would like some feedback. I'm torn between the Canon 16-35 f4 and the Tamron 24-70 f2.8. I shoot with a 7d mark ii and the focal lengths I like to use most are 16, 24, 35 and 50. Both lenses have IS and I'll be using which ever lens I get for both photo and video. I'll also be using the lens for general photos and street photography. Can you guys please help me make a choice?! I do plan on going full frame, probably when the 5d Mark 4 come out, so efs lenses are not an option.

Have you considered the Canon 16-35 f4 complimented by the Canon EF 50mm f1.8 II Lens.  Both are EF (crop and full frame) and would cover all your focal lengths you needs.

The Canon 16-35 f4 is the best wide angle zoom lens on the market, bar none.  The EF 50mm f1.8 II Lens is an absolute bargain ($125), that is ideal for street photography.

Adobe Creative Clouds subscription's can now be purchased in 18 countries worldwide using PayPal

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon 5DS April release date ?.
« on: February 25, 2015, 04:26:01 PM »
I suspect it's just the UK stockists trying to encourage preorders.  I've ordered off both WEX and Dale Photographic in the past and would happily do so again, if I genuinely believed that they are going to have it in stock before June.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Canon 5DS April release date ?.
« on: February 25, 2015, 01:52:19 PM »

I've just come across an article on the WEX Photographic website.  In the comments at the bottom of the page it is states "We are expecting stock towards the end of April".  Has anybody else heard anything about the 5DS being available earlier than June ?.


Lenses / Re: 16-35F4 L IS, Any good?
« on: February 21, 2015, 04:15:06 PM »
Well, sure... but if you're really trying to shoot for astro (as we mentioned earlier) 2.8 is still too slow. You can still do it, yes....but I'm reaching for f1.4 if I'm shooting sky.   That new Sig 24mm 1.4 will sell like crazy for it.  I really don't think a major intended purpose of either Canon wide zoom is really astro

True and the 16-35mm f4 complimented by a fast prime is the option I've opted for, but primes aren't to everybody's taste.  If you prefer zooms f2.8 is the fastest option available for full frame camera's.

Lenses / Re: 16-35F4 L IS, Any good?
« on: February 21, 2015, 03:50:10 AM »
Aww, you guys! Just when I was so sure to get the f2.8L everyone on the internet says that the f4L IS absolutely blows it out of the water. :( Back to the drawing board (do I really need IS? is the 1-stop DOF very noticeable?)  :o :'(

One stop on a wide?  No. I know, I know.... there are some people on here who will argue how the extra stop saved this shot and blah blah.  But with IS, your extra 1 stop is largely mitigated ESPECIALLY on a wide. Why? Because the DOF on a wide lens is already comparably huge to say a 50mm or other standard focal length. 2.8 to 4 is not going to be a load of difference on a wide unless you're shooting a lot of things very close up with it.  Most people are looking at this focal length for landscapes where your focus will tend to favor points farther from the sensor plane than they will closer, making DOF even less a problem.  So again, I'll tout the "Get the lens with the BEST edge to edge sharpness when hunting for a wide" opinion.  If you really want shallow DOF for effect, then shooting a wide zoom like these isn't what you want anyway.  a 24mm 1.4 prime would probably  better suit you.

Specking from a pro landscaper's prospective, extreme low lighting situations is where the extra stop of light is most likely to be missed.  Landscape's that include the Milky Way are regularly shot with wide angle lenses, wide open at high ISO's, the extra stop would mean capturing images at say ISO 6400 rather than ISO 3200, which obviously has a knock on effect on noise levels in images where it is already problematic.

Lenses / Re: 16-35F4 L IS, Any good?
« on: February 20, 2015, 07:38:13 AM »
Hi Bitm,

I think I need to rent the 16-35 IS!  Your words are encouraging.


With the exception of one post who got a dud, everyone who replied to this thread has given it a glowing reference.  So I doubt you will be disappointed. 

I read numerous glowing website reviews before purchasing and found sites like lens tips, who test lenses at varying apertures and focal lengths extremely useful.  Links to their resolution charts for both the 16-35mm f4 and 17-40m f4 are below.

Lenses / Re: 16-35F4 L IS, Any good?
« on: February 20, 2015, 05:50:20 AM »
When going wide and not using the 24 1.4, I am on a tripod stopped down and the 17-40 is fine.

I thought the 17-40mm was fine stopped down on a tripod, until I purchased the 16-35mm and released how much sharper it is (especially in the corners). 

I would upgrade the 17-40mm and keep 24 1.4 for event/low-light/art photography.  Then sell the 17-40mm on ebay etc. 

Lenses / Re: 16-35F4 L IS, Any good?
« on: February 20, 2015, 05:35:28 AM »
Will you be keeping the 17-40 or has the 16-35 f/4 made that redundant?

I must say that the 16-35 f/4 is getting a lot of praise, I think I will get one for myself next month.

It's been made redundant.  I'm planning to list the 17-40mm on ebay, but since the release of the 16-35 f/4 theirs site has been awash with them, here in the UK.  So i'm biding my time in the hope that it will make better money in the future.

Lenses / Re: 16-35F4 L IS, Any good?
« on: February 20, 2015, 04:53:41 AM »
The dealer is very well known and respected over here and have been quite accommodating so we will see

Good to hear, sounds like you've just been extremely unlucky.

I want to get the new nifty fifty when its released and I release that for that to make any sense I need the best lenses.

I'm assuming you mean the new 50MP 5DS camera's when they are released (not nifty fifty 50mm lens).  I've got four zoom L lenses the 16-35 f4, 17-40mm f4, 24-105mm f4 and 70-300 f4-5.6.  The 16-35 f4 is the only one that i'm true confidence in, to handle the increased resolution.  It's that good a lens, time will tell.

Lenses / Re: 16-35F4 L IS, Any good?
« on: February 19, 2015, 12:36:55 PM »
hi, I am keen to get the 16-35F4L zoom as a replacement for my 17-40. I have tested two copies from the store and this is what I get.

copy One, distant image of building slight softness at all apertures on left 20% compared to the right side....

Copy Two, distant image of building very definite softness on right side , sharp objects almost have a double image at all apertures , right 20% of image.

I have done numerous tests etc, copy one seems almost fine, especially compared to copy Two.  I am reluctant to take it and then take it to service center and then being told that it is within specs. I have already paid for the lens but don't want to take it out of the shop until I am satisfied.

So my answer is how are owners of this lens finding them? Any other problems. I am talking about critical professional use...

To test two defective lenses with different faults is strange, very strange.  The testament to the quality and consistency of this lens is pretty much unanimous across the web.  I would purchase from a different stockist, it might cost a little more but it's worth it, if it means purchasing from a reputable dealer.  Even if it's just for the piece of mind.


Lenses / Re: 16-35F4 L IS, Any good?
« on: February 19, 2015, 11:48:34 AM »
I've recently upgraded from the 17-40 L to the 16-35mm L and am delighted with the image quality of my new lens, there's an obvious sharpness differential between the two lens especially in the corners.  My only gripe is that it looks cheap compared to the 17-40mm L and my 24-105mm L, due to it's larger rubber focusing and zoom rings, but if lenses visual appearance is the only thing to grumble about i'm onto a winner.

Software & Accessories / Re: Adobe Lightroom 6 Coming Very Soon
« on: February 19, 2015, 10:55:43 AM »
LR upgrades are $79 every 1.5 to 2 years, or about $4.40 a month.  So, yes, $9.99 a month is a ripoff for those, like me, that don't use PS.  Note that I do use PS Elements, but the last upgrade cycle I skipped from version 3 to version 9, and got version 9 at Costco for about $80 or so.  So, that's $80 every 6 years or another $1.11 a month.  Would you pay $9.99 for something you like less than what you were paying $5.50 for?  I'd call that a rip off.

If you purchase the latest full versions of Lightroom or Elements in the Black Friday or Cyber Monday sales, it often possible to sell your older versions on Ebay etc for a net profit after Christmas.

Software & Accessories / Re: Adobe Lightroom 6 Coming Very Soon
« on: February 19, 2015, 08:59:07 AM »
If this can be done accurately all within Lightroom then it might be the best release yet, although not sure how much we could expect the power/quality of these built in tools to be on a first release compared to the more established players out there.

Dedicated software v Jack of all trades.  I hope there's much more under the bonnet (hood) than the headline grabbing HDR and Panoramic stitching features.

EOS Bodies / Re: DR from 5Ds will be 2 stop better then 7D mk II
« on: February 09, 2015, 05:34:36 PM »
What kits lens comes with 5ds/5dsr?

In the UK WEX Photographic are offering the 5DS in six kits

TS-E 24mm f3.5L II
EF 11-24mm f4L USM
EF 85mm f1.2 L II USM
EF 100-400mm f4.5-5.6 L IS II USM
EF 24-70mm f4 L IS USM
EF 16-35mm f4 L IS USM

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 8