Messages

1

Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II

« on: June 12, 2013, 12:25:50 AM »

It is more than a year after the the-digital-picture review for example and says less and gives less detail in more words. As for focal length, it says nothing about the performance with the 1.4x and 2xTCs, and doesn't even mention the latter. It says that one con is the weight, but it weighs far less than the 400, 500 and 600mm f/2.8 - f/4 primes and gives IQs not much worse than them with the TCs. The reviewer just doesn't realise that the high quality 300-600mm range in a relatively light package is what this lens is all about.

I have to say I somewhat agree with this. I was quite excited to see that a new review of this lens had been posted (though let's be honest we all know what the conclusion is going to be), and wow those pictures of the owls - amazing! But it was written (as he readily admits) by someone that does not really need, or use that focal length on a regular basis. This is a very expensive lens, though still much cheaper than 400 f/2.8 II, so really the amount of people who are "wondering" whether a 300 f/2.8 is what they need are going to be few and far between, as it is so specialised.

I think the reviewer would have been much better off writing about the 70-300L f/4.5-5.6 IS, because they are focal lengths where he seems to spend more of his time, and as it is much more affordable and versatile it has a much broader potential market base.

When I read it, I found this last part of the conclusion very interesting:

And while my curiosity was piqued, I think for the more specialized super-telephoto focal lengths, I should step aside and let someone else handle those reviews.

I agree wholeheartedly.

Reviews are tricky things and my favourites are tdp when it comes to lenses. I do think a lens review should only be written by someone that uses the focal length in question frequently rather than someone who is wondering about the extra reach.

I, for example, am saving for the 400 f/2.8 ii but of course have my eyes open for new reviews on the 300 (hey it's a lot cheaper) and the new 200-400 1.4x (but that is not f/2.8 so I doubt it is a realistic option).

Did I say I love the pictures of the owls! Awesome shots.

Yup, you'll find anything in that focal range covered by someone other than me... it took *that* lens to realize it, though, since I had been pretty good with everything up until then (including the Canon 200 f/2.0 L IS).  I'd love to have a look at Sigma's new 120-300 f/2.8 though, since, like I said, having the reach when necessary sure is handy.

Also, putting my money where my mouth is, I ended up buying a 1.4 teleconverter to have with me and stick onto my 70-200 f/2.8 L IS II.

Sorry the article didn't live up to your expectations, I struggled with it as it is, and you'll be in for a treat when the other telephoto reviews come in.

2

Reviews / Re: Can we have a 16-35 2.8L II review next please?

« on: June 12, 2013, 12:20:26 AM »

Umm... That's it really.




Please!! 

Aaaand done http://www.canonrumors.com/reviews/review-canon-ef-16-35mm-f2-8l-ii/

3

Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II

« on: June 12, 2013, 12:18:10 AM »

Thanks for the review. I notice that you use it as I do these days... With flash. It really does create a cool effect when used as fill in with such a wide lens.

You have that almost backwards, I shoot pretty much everything with flash, and figure out a lens to fill in the space 

4

Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II

« on: June 12, 2013, 12:14:43 AM »

So i am looking for a lens to shoot group portraits. I have the canon t4i and will upgrade to full frame in the future. i shoot both indoor and out. so sometimes i have prob in low light. I like bokeh. so should i be getting the 17-40 or a prime lens like a 24mm? or the 16-35? or maybe should i get the 24-105 for handy dandy reasons? i want my first l lens .

Well, my recommendation for group portrait's wouldn't be to shoot them at f/2.8, since you may not get everyone in the shot in focus.  You'll certainly have more control over the depth of field with the 24mm f/1.4 but, again, not great for groups unless they're all lined-up along your focal plane.  You will likely never see a lick of nice bokeh with the 17-40, if you get something close at f/2.8 you will with the 16-35.

The 16-35 is the better of the two, and with higher ISO's being made available to us every day, the level of light a lens lets in is of less concern to me than if I can make the shot - whatever it may be.  Just remember how distorted objects (and people) become at the sides.  I don't think you can really go wrong with the 16-35 in your case, just be aware that just because you can shoot at f/2.8, doesn't mean you should.

5

Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II

« on: June 12, 2013, 12:09:12 AM »

Well-balanced, real review. Thanks Justin. I also like how you throw in you personal biases (your 24 TSE sidebar), it let's us know your approach to shooting and why "you" may or may not like something about a lens.
It's interesting how we photographers all have our own needs, which evolve over time.
I've owned both lenses, 17-40mm & the 16-35mm (which I still own...but would kick to the curb if Canon ever delivers a 14-24mm like the Nikon! LOL!)....I only owned the 17-40mm for about 2 weeks (it was the 1st lens that I had purchased after my kit 24-105 that came on my 5DII).
The one thing that really bothered me immediately about the 17-40mm (something I feel that Justin missed), was the "short throw" on the wide end of the zoom ring..say from 17-24mm. There is almost no throw. It feels truncated and abrupt...so that when zooming to the wide end I had no latitude to adjust my field of view. That REALLY bother "me". The lens did not seem well-balanced because of that factor. Also, I found the softness at f/4 to be disappointing.  I ended up shipping the lens back to the seller for a full return of purchase price (something I have never done since with an L lens), and purchasing the 16-35mm L II. Although I gulped on the price, as Justin reports, I found it to be a better lens in every way and I never looked back, (my retirement fund may have,though  ).

Thanks!  I'll be writing my 17-40 f/4 L review next, and will definitely touch on those points in it.  Obviously, since it was my first lens ever, I definitely have had enough time with it!

6

Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II

« on: May 15, 2013, 11:31:29 PM »

If that was the purpose of your writing, then you should not have called it a review but should have chosen a more appropriate title.  As it was, you led the reader to expect far more than you delivered. If you called it "My first try with a 300mm lens", then I would not have complained. But the simple title "Review - " without any qualification raised anticipation to expect what wasn't there.

Ah Alan, I can't stay mad at you, I'm only arguing because you're right and I'm completely self conscious when I know something isn't great.

I have an extra level of respect for you after reading this: "That last sentence is opinionated twaddle from the Ken Rockwell school of creative writing."

On that too, we see eye-to-eye.

So, can you help out people who come to the forum here? Add your own thoughts and experiences with the 300mm f/2.8 L IS II - as someone who has truly put it through it's paces and have a level of expertise that many don't. Tell us what you think!

7

Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II

« on: May 15, 2013, 11:25:03 PM »

300mm 2.8 is beyond my pocket but am seriously thinking about the new Sigma 120-300 2.8 S. Would love to see a IQ comparison between the two. No doubt the 300 would be superior but for less than half the price of the 300 the zoom with my 2x III is probably the closest I would ever get to a fastish super tele.

I'd love to get my hands on the Sigma too. It presents an exciting value proposition to many of us who don't always need the 300mm length, but would like to have it when possible.

8

Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II

« on: May 15, 2013, 11:22:33 PM »

This review is very much a waste of time.  It is more than a year after the the-digital-picture review for example and says less and gives less detail in more words. As for focal length, it says nothing about the performance with the 1.4x and 2xTCs, and doesn't even mention the latter. It says that one con is the weight, but it weighs far less than the 400, 500 and 600mm f/2.8 - f/4 primes and gives IQs not much worse than them with the TCs. The reviewer just doesn't realise that the high quality 300-600mm range in a relatively light package is what this lens is all about.

But I don't own a TC. I'd like to though 

You can't have wasted *too* much of your time on it, though, since if you did you would have read my statement "That’s why I wrote this piece completely from my perspective, from the curious photographer, wondering if I need just a little more reach. " Which is obviously not your position. I've never used a 300mm lens or a greater focal length, neither have many others, so I wrote it the only way I could, which is from my perspective.

A waste of time for an accomplished, well seasoned photographer whose used every lens ever made? Yeah, absolutely.

Your constructive note about it weighing less than a 400, 500 or 600 is appreciated though.  Unlike your opening statement, I found that point useful.

If that was the purpose of your writing, then you should not have called it a review but should have chosen a more appropriate title.  As it was, you led the reader to expect far more than you delivered. If you called it "My first try with a 300mm lens", then I would not have complained. But the simple title "Review - " without any qualification raised anticipation to expect what wasn't there.

Talk to the boss, it's his shop.

Though, my understanding of the term "review" is that it can vary based on that of the reviewer. While standards are met by individuals, are they not all of varying degrees of of both objectivity and subjectivity by both the reviewer and the discerning reader?  I'm assuming not every review you read previously that you considered a review was identical to one another, words copied verbatim. Perhaps the findings were the same, it's hard to argue math if it's there, which is why I don't even bother including test charts samples, cup size and SAT scores - that's all out there for everyone to see.  I'm not saying my take on the 300 was a particularly good one, just the best that I could produce.  I even differ to this point in my closing sentence "And while my curiosity was piqued, I think for the more specialized super-telephoto focal lengths, I should step aside and let someone else handle those reviews."

Indeed, I won't be writing-opinions-that-pretend-to-be-your-definition-of-a-review because I'm not qualified to.  I'm sorry I didn't live up to your expectations or standards, it's like my relationship with my father all over again.

To make it up to you, here's a photo of a duck I took:

9

Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II

« on: May 15, 2013, 10:22:26 PM »

"Cons

Potential gateway lens leading to even longer lenses that cost even more crazy amounts of money"

Indeed, this gateway drug is about to be the ruin of me, as I spy out the 600 F4...

At least for my needs I've written anything over 200mm off... but that doesn't exclude the 200mm f/2.0 L IS MMMMMMMMMMMM

10

Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II

« on: May 15, 2013, 09:45:59 PM »

It also made my bunny look extra fat at close range.

11

Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II

« on: May 15, 2013, 09:42:12 PM »

I also have this photo of my son, which is from a bit farther back than 2 meters, it's not as bad as my face (after all, it was *my* face), but his ears now have become bigger than they need to be since they're completely flattened to the frame.  Of course it's a bit exaggerated by his head being turned sideways, but my point is that this is NOT a portrait lens, not for the price, not for the weight, with the exception of full-body environmental portraits like I did of the young lady in the Sens jersey.

12

Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II

« on: May 15, 2013, 09:35:50 PM »

i agree with alan.
Also, i take issue with the reviewer's comments about the unflattering nature headshots taken with this lens. either i didn't read it correctly, and i might not of as i started to space out and skip over the boring stuff, or he is saying it's not good for head shots. if that's what he's saying, i really have to call BS. either he doesn't get that perspective isn't based on what lens, but on distances, or ....? or i don't know..... he likes big noses, and little ears. 
but maybe i'm silly, if you've got some examples of how a 300mm lens makes for crappy headshots i'd like to take a look.

Maybe I wrote it wrong, so I present a headshot taken (of me).  See how the compression just flattens my head SO MUCH that it looks wide and distended? I'd be hard pressed to find someone going for *that* look.  While shooting super telephoto may not be my strong suit, I do like to think I know a thing or two about portraits, what my clients like, and what gets published, by now.

And no, I don't like big noses and little ears, but there's a flattering "sweet spot" for head-shots that I hope we can agree is somewhere above 24mm and below 300mm.

Now pulled back a bit the photos make more sense. Maybe a 1/4 profile or "bust" shot works, but at that 2m minimum focusing distance I'll pass.

13

Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II

« on: May 15, 2013, 09:30:37 PM »

This review is very much a waste of time.  It is more than a year after the the-digital-picture review for example and says less and gives less detail in more words. As for focal length, it says nothing about the performance with the 1.4x and 2xTCs, and doesn't even mention the latter. It says that one con is the weight, but it weighs far less than the 400, 500 and 600mm f/2.8 - f/4 primes and gives IQs not much worse than them with the TCs. The reviewer just doesn't realise that the high quality 300-600mm range in a relatively light package is what this lens is all about.

But I don't own a TC. I'd like to though 

You can't have wasted *too* much of your time on it, though, since if you did you would have read my statement "That’s why I wrote this piece completely from my perspective, from the curious photographer, wondering if I need just a little more reach. " Which is obviously not your position. I've never used a 300mm lens or a greater focal length, neither have many others, so I wrote it the only way I could, which is from my perspective.

A waste of time for an accomplished, well seasoned photographer whose used every lens ever made? Yeah, absolutely.

Your constructive note about it weighing less than a 400, 500 or 600 is appreciated though.  Unlike your opening statement, I found that point useful.

14

Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II

« on: May 15, 2013, 04:39:45 PM »

Pfffffft...Ottawa Senators.  Great owl photo!!

Pretty girl and all you see is the Jersey, tsk tsk

15

Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II

« on: May 15, 2013, 03:38:41 PM »

The review states.... "4 stops (IS) brings 1/300th rating down to 1/50 th sec...."

.......1 stop would be 1/150th
.......2 stops would be 1/75th
.......3 stops would be 1/38th
and  4 stops would be 1/20th approx surely!

AH, totally right: 320th - 160th, 1/80th, 1/40th...