Messages

1

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 6D with 24-105mm Lens for $2499 (B&H Photo)

« on: January 19, 2013, 12:26:51 AM »

Feb. 2nd ends

For those who might be interested in 6D, B&H Photo are selling the 6D with Kit Lens (24-105mm F4L) with 32GB memory card for $2499. Not sure for how long it'll last.

URL: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/892354-REG/

2

EOS Bodies / Re: Older Canon cameras

« on: January 19, 2013, 12:05:54 AM »

charlesa you don't say what you want to do with these. If you are thinking of shooting film. Why? You have good digital equipment. If you are considering some fun or collecting, then I suggest you offer your friend what they are probably really worth. And I think you asked that to start with?

60 euro for putting on the shelf or admiring.

Take the best camera and the best lens if you buy them. Run a roll of film through it. Only buy one roll. Get the prints back, and I think you'll say, nothing but digital from now on.

There are some exceptions. If you want the softer film look for example. Low light, astronomy. I'm sure there are others. But I think you will see that digital has surpassed film by some far, that you won't want to spend the money on soft, pastel looking images.

3

Lenses / Re: Did you use a UV filter on 70-200 f2.8L IS (I or II) during its last use? (Poll)

« on: January 01, 2013, 12:08:17 AM »

FWIW, the UV filter (I'm on my third one now) has saved the front lens on my 70-200 f2.8L IS twice.

what happened?i have been shooting for years and yet to damage a front element and im pretty hard on my gear.if the uv filter smashes theres a good chance your filter will damage your front element anyway so i guess you mean from scratches

Not really, but if you drive without a seatbelt, because you don't have accidents you're just fine.

I have a collection of scratched and cracked filters and I'm fairly careful. One the wind blew over a tripod (when a freight train came from the opposite direction at about 80MPH) fell on the lens face. Another a car kicked up a small bucket full of gravel and threw it at me. (of course I was standing on the edge of a race track) 

Best reason is, when something gets on the filter, I grab a corner of my shirt and wipe it off, and I'm back working. If I ruin a filter, so what? Also there's rain, dust, bugs, sap, branches, mist, spray, and sticky fingers, unless you only shoot indoors.

And no I've never found that a UV or Haze filter ruins my images. But I have found that it's possible to save my lens from accidents. Every lens I own gets a filter when it's new, and it stays on forever.

4

Lenses / Re: missing 200-400 and 100-400 announcements?

« on: September 19, 2012, 07:18:05 PM »

So Canon changed the MFD from the prototypes?

It is heavier than what I was expecting it to be. I was expecting it to be within 3kg and closer to the 500/4 IS II

$10,000~ price tag wasn't that surprising.

Where did you see a price?

5

Lenses / Re: A New EF 400 f/5.6L Before Photokina? [CR1]

« on: September 10, 2012, 01:07:16 PM »

Not sure how I feel about DO.

There seem to be two DO generations - the old green ring one Canon dumped due to mediocre sharpness and horrible bokeh, and the new one they just patented for lighter tele primes which is supposed a completely other DO tech.

And I shied away and bought the 400mm f/5.6 because I was warned of internal reflections in the DO lenses. Headlights on ALMS cars for example. Could be another case of "what are you shooting"?

I have the 100 - 400 and the 400 5.6 and sold my 400mm f/2.8 (much longer tale) The 2.8 was heavy, blew in the wind and took amazing sharp and clear photos. The 100-400 for my taste is a 100-350, thus I still need a 400mm. Also the 400mm with an extender is pretty reliable, even if manual focus.

But if I'm grabbing one lens, over my shoulder and walking, for long shots, the 400mm f/5.6 is my favorite. Of course, primes are better, why not?

So maybe the DO got a bad rap and maybe they didn't quite cut it? What I really want is the 200-400mm with the 1.4x switch!

6

EOS Bodies / Re: Transition from crop to FF.

« on: September 10, 2012, 05:55:43 AM »

I have to agree, I don't really see a point in this.  We all know that the conversation factor of 1.6 turns a 16mm to a 24mm and a 24 to a 38 or something like that.

Field of view changes the lenses are still the same magnification. FF gives a wider field of view, crop gives the perception of a longer lens. There's no magic magnification conversion.

7

Sports / Re: Post Your Panning Shots!

« on: September 10, 2012, 05:25:56 AM »

I've been reading here for some time, never joined (that I recall) 

I keep reading, waiting for the 200-400 to be officially announced.

Just saw this thread and it's nice to see people into cars and motion. Here's a panning shot, ALMS Road America going a bit over the usual limits, just for fun.


1/30th second

8

Lenses / Re: Canon 70-200 f2.8L (non-IS) vs Canon 70-200 f4L Non-IS

« on: September 10, 2012, 05:17:48 AM »

Excuse me but the IS isn't almost useless for sports it IS useless. If you have IS, turn it off. The IS takes longer to react and focus. It jumps and shifts. Not opinion, just fact.


IS Shift Example

This is what happens as you focus with the IS. Extreme example of the IS jumping at the exact instant that the shutter released. And it does slow down auto-focus.

Opinion: I had the f/2.8 IS USM version and sold it, now carry the f/4 non-IS version (bought used, for sports) Just as clear and sharp. Used the spare money for a 100-400 and a 400mm f/5.6  Cute little lens, just as good image quality. Consider all of the rest about f-stop and features.

Here's a breakdown that I didn't understand at first. f/2.8 comes with a tripod ring, included and a nice white Canon case. F/4 comes with the grey felt pull string bag and no tripod ring. Cost savings are noticeable.

IS models are weather protected, Non-IS aren't. You pay about $1000 more for the IS.

You don't need a tripod ring and can easily hand hold the f/4, but the f/2.8 you may want some support or what I like is a monopod.