February 28, 2015, 12:36:29 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 - davidrf

Pages: [1]
Lenses / Re: Canon 70-200 f4 IS vs Tamron 70-200 f2.8 VC
« on: August 20, 2014, 08:18:25 AM »
2) My Canon 15-85 significantly sharper.

Wow... I had the 15-85, and the 70-200 L is way way sharper and has better colors that that...

By the way I decided to keep my Canon 70-200 L... the IQ is just unparalleled.

Lenses / Canon 70-200 f4 IS vs Tamron 70-200 f2.8 VC
« on: August 07, 2014, 10:25:35 AM »
 I have the opportunity to sell my Canon 70-200 f4 IS L at a fair price. I was thinking about selling it and buy a new  Tamron 70-200 f2.8 VC.

I know the Tamron is bigger and quite heavier, but that wouldn't be a problem. My doubts are:

1) Image quality: I don't think the Tamron is as good as the Canon
2) Colors: I don't know about the 70-200, but I have a Tamron 24-70 f2.8 VC and though it's very sharp and has a great stabilizer, it has bland colors. I also have a Canon 16-35 f2.8 L and the colors, compared to the Tamron 24-70, are immensely better, richer, brighter.

Any advice? Thanks!

Software & Accessories / Re: Screw-on ND filter for 16-35 II
« on: December 09, 2013, 01:38:05 PM »
I'm about to buy a ND filter for Tamron 24-70 and Canon 16-35 L II and I still have to decide between Haida ND Neutro Pro II MC ND1000 and HOYA 82mm HMC Neutral Density ND400 Filter.

Normally I'd prefer to buy Hoya, but the vignetting at 16mm worries me. From the pics is clear that the Haida is much slimmer than the Hoya, and so it should give less vignetting.

Any help? Thaks

Is a 15-30 f2.8 with sharpness like the Nikon 14-24 an impossibile idea? Best of two worlds :) No IS needed. Just saying :P

By the way I just bought a used 16-35 and YES, I'd like a mk3.

Lenses / Re: Review - Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II
« on: June 11, 2013, 02:55:07 PM »
Messus: how much did you pay for the adapter?

Lenses / Re: Is the 16-35 L II worth its price?
« on: June 09, 2013, 04:32:58 PM »

Could someone please download these two raws and thell me what you think about it? They are shot with a 5D mk2. Is it me or there's a bit much softness on the borders, and a strange noise that at 200 ISO should not be there? Thanks a lot!

Lenses / Re: Is the 16-35 L II worth its price?
« on: June 09, 2013, 02:40:44 PM »
I googled but a bunch of pages I found were confusing. On the Digital-Picture page everything is clearer...

thanks a lot, so it's a 2012 :)

Lenses / Re: Is the 16-35 L II worth its price?
« on: June 09, 2013, 01:48:55 PM »
Hey, could someone please help me determine the production date of this lens? It's the 16-35L II I'm about to buy used, but I can't figure how to read the code:

link: http://img811.imageshack.us/img811/697/mg0012w.jpg

Thanks a lot!

Lenses / Re: Is the 16-35 L II worth its price?
« on: June 08, 2013, 08:03:38 AM »
I've found a guy who sells a 16-35L II with residual warranty until next november at 900€. The lowest price for the new is 1250€: I think I'll give this used lens a try and maybe I'll buy it!

Lenses / Re: Is the 16-35 L II worth its price?
« on: June 07, 2013, 08:28:10 AM »
The sunstars with the 16-35 are among the best I've ever seen on any lens.

Lenses / Re: 70-200L f/4 IS vs 70-200L f/4
« on: June 06, 2013, 04:11:45 PM »
I owned a f4 and now I have a f4 IS. In the IS version I noticed a MUCH faster autofocus and a slightly better sharpness :)

Lenses / Re: Is the 16-35 L II worth its price?
« on: June 06, 2013, 03:27:39 PM »
Thanks a lot for all the kind answers... I think I'll try to go for a good used 16-35L II, if I can find one! Right now I'd prefer not to spend over 1000$ (or €, in my case).

But maybe I will give a look to the Tokina 16-28 too... I didn't know anything about this lens, and the reviews seem very favourable.

Lenses / Is the 16-35 L II worth its price?
« on: June 05, 2013, 06:55:11 PM »
 I have a 60D but I'm about to get a 6D, I shoot urbex and landscapes most of the times, so I like wide angle lenses. I've had a good Sigma 10-20 and now I have a great Canon 15-85.

Stepping up to full frame, the natural choice would be a Canon 16-35 L II, because i found the Sigma 12-24 too much soft. But.

But reading several opinions on the forums, I noticed that a lot of people say the 16-35 L II isn't worth that much money, and that it's not as sharp as an L lens should be. I'm sure it's sharper than a Sigma 12-24, but I'd like to have a serious sharpness betterment over the 15-85 I have right now.

What do you think? Thanks a lot!

Pages: [1]