November 25, 2014, 05:27:51 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 - dufflover

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 11
1
The old white on my 100-400 stopped looking so white when I got the 2x TC III (which is the "new" L white). Hey, just got me thinking of a pretty cynical (but corporate smart?) reason for the colour change - makes people who do bother buying the white L paint have to rebuy it in the new shade.

2
I'm in Australia, I'm expecting $2500+ AU$ for this lens ... I'm totally ok with that ... check it out .. it's a great lens, even before the reviews I'm sold.

Pre-order estimate at Digi is $2.7k!

3
Shut up and take my money!!!!

haha lol j/k. Too bad the product pages aren't working yet. Wanna see those theoretical MTF charts!

Edit: I see they've been added here. Good enough! lol

4
Lenses / Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II
« on: November 10, 2014, 05:38:19 AM »
Couldn't it have depended on the optics and/or size though? Like if the focusing group is at the back there?

5
Lenses / Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II
« on: November 10, 2014, 02:55:31 AM »
Front fat ring is the zoom. Can even see half an FL marker in the graphic.

6
Lenses / Re: First Image of the EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II Lens
« on: November 09, 2014, 07:48:58 PM »
Probably will be for us with the Australia-tax lol

7
Lenses / Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II
« on: November 09, 2014, 07:48:15 PM »
Pretty sure this one will include the tripod foot by default.
Unless they really really do suddenly lump it in the same group as the 70-300L and 70-200L/4 (as in the "smaller" whites, but it's not that small).

There is one big indicator I would still upgrade, eventually - I went from a 70-200 mk1 to mk2 LOL
(sadly it gets very very little use considering the price :( )

8
Lenses / Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II
« on: November 09, 2014, 07:23:44 AM »
What are current satisfied 100-400 owners thinking?
I don't really see any faults with mine (not to be confused with knowing there's room to improve) so I'm in two minds lol. I was actually more tempted to get the Siggy 150-600, because my main big gun Sigma 120-300 is a little average on the 2x TC side, but the 100-400 is my trusty workhorse.

Ofcourse the gearhead in me wants it cos I love super sharp lenses (yet to be proven but I have no doubts given recent releases) but I concede I don't think it would really change my gear capability at all, compared to getting say a native 600mm in the Sigma. Again I don't mean to imply the two are really comparable at all, except on price.

9
Lenses / Re: First Image of the EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II Lens
« on: November 08, 2014, 12:44:52 AM »
Have to keep in mind this lens potentially could have serious focus breathing at MFD though, or not. Just have to wait and see ...

10
Lenses / Re: First Image of the EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II Lens
« on: November 07, 2014, 07:18:43 PM »
Nice look specs and size too. Like others I have little doubts the image quality will impress; just comes down to Canon typical pricing and if they think this lens is special (esp with some of these design features) I can imagine them charging beyond the 70-200 II price initially.

The even shorter retracted length is nice. On the flipside all the differences (as in not just IQ like the 70-200 II) mean there is prospect I will upgrade to it in lieu of say that Sigma 150-600 S I was tempted to buy (not saying they are interchangeable, just talking about money wise)

11
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Roger Cicala cracks open 7D II!
« on: November 06, 2014, 05:46:10 AM »
The issue isn't so much more weather sealing (or mag bodies, on the topic) are bad, but that they have become a feature which probably costs very little but charged at a huge premium! Certainly for prices of various rubber seals. In a similar way to how 50 cent GPS or WiFi components are deemed as premium or gimmicky features in model segregation. I would hope not too many put too much monetary value into this feature as the reason for buying it over say a 70D.

Def agree that the toughest and prone forms of weather damage are ones that no sealing can really protect like internal condensation from swinging temps.

12
Lenses / Re: Another EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II Mention
« on: November 05, 2014, 09:47:07 PM »
Smaller/shorter than the current one. Noooiiice.
Though the current version for all purposes was short enough already (the 70-200 that many bags cater for is a touch longer).

Given the track record of Canon's recent zooms, there's no reason to suspect that this new lens' performance will be anything short of excellent.

Definitely agree there. I would be very surprised if it wasn't short of brilliant like the improvement saw in the 70-200 II, even if it isn't exactly as sharp in raw numbers. Unfortunately also in their track record are sky high prices for the new L's that it might be too high I don't bother changing out my current 100-400

13
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Roger Cicala cracks open 7D II!
« on: November 04, 2014, 05:39:54 PM »
Maybe not putting my 7D mk1 away in the bag when it rained last month wasn't such a good idea (now I've seen all the extra places the mk2 has sealing). Rain covers will be on Santas wish list this year I think.

Impressive upgrades and an impressive dissection.

Most people can probably get away with not using rain covers. I mean the 60D has been rubbished so much in build and sealing but despite being dropped and rained on quite a bit it still lives. I mean it's all probabilities, but some people make it sound like it's super fragile if it's not magnesium alloyed and sealed like a 1-series.

14
A native 400mm DO II would very likely outperform a TC combo. There's definitely shooters who will rarely use the f/2.8 capability (and be happy with "just" 300mm).

15
EOS Bodies / Re: DPR Adds Studio Samples for EOS 7D Mark II
« on: October 28, 2014, 04:27:34 AM »
Had a quick play myself just now (with 70D). Going off various spots on the RAWs at 800/1600/3200 the only difference I see is they've further reduced the shadow noise (ever so small though!). Tweaked electronics or circuit tracing to reduce the things which gave the read noise issues originally?

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 11