Messages

1

Lenses / Re: Can the 70-200 2.8L II IS replace my 100L and 135L?

« on: May 17, 2013, 09:40:38 PM »

Yeah, I also loved my 100L, but only quite until I got the 135L it is simply another tad sharper and of course way faster. I did not pull out that 100L anymore except that one time when it snowed so hard it would've killed my 135.

I guess the 135L isn't weather sealed.  I didn't realize that. 

2

Lenses / Re: Can the 70-200 2.8L II IS replace my 100L and 135L?

« on: May 17, 2013, 09:20:28 AM »

I was absolutely in love with my 100 L  for the past year  and other 70-200  zooms  (f4 L usm, f2.8L usm) couldn't compete,  but the f2.8L is mkii  does.   it is amazing how quickly one lens can go out of favor in my heart.   The wife better recognize.

3

Lenses / Re: +18 AFMA out of the box....return?

« on: May 16, 2013, 11:57:51 PM »

I'm not really an AFMA expert, but the problem is as such.

lens is -15 and the body is +4 making the total adjustment 19 notches till AF is perfect.

Then you get a new body and the same lens.  The lens is still at -15, but the new body is at +9, so now you are at 24 notches till perfect. 

And if I'm wrong, please feel free to correct me out there.

So it is really about the lens, because let's say your body is +15 and your lens is +13, then you only have 2 in total difference.  So when you sell it to someone without AFMA, their body is -10 and the lens is +13 for a total difference of 23... which could be a real problem. 

So my presumption is that you want to make sure that you are identifying whether it is a combination of body + lens which is getting the high number or whether it is the lens itself.

4

Lenses / Re: Can the 70-200 2.8L II IS replace my 100L and 135L?

« on: May 16, 2013, 09:55:18 PM »

 I'd probably keep the 135.    I shoot some indoor sports and I'd want the stop of light.   when I do sell the 100 I will probably get a 35 mmL. 

5

Lenses / Re: Can the 70-200 2.8L II IS replace my 100L and 135L?

« on: May 16, 2013, 09:45:35 PM »

 funny,  I'm in a very similar boat.   I put my 100mmL  up for sale because I am just that impressed with the 70-200mm f2.8L is mkii.

I do not shoot that much in macro & I  know it can't quite replace  that function,  but I'm am sold on the zoom lens.

6

Lenses / Re: +18 AFMA out of the box....return?

« on: May 16, 2013, 07:41:36 PM »

I recently bought a used 16-3L II and it seemed soft at first. After a quick AFMA, Focal suggested +12/13 on both ends. It was tested under very good lighting conditions(+15EV) and on a stable tripod. That AFMA made it a lot better though. But do these extreme values imply something is seriously wrong with the lens and need to be checked/calibrated?

 if I sell a lens, I  don't want someone with an xti  complaining I sold them a bad lens because they can't do afma. 

7

Canon General / Re: It annoys me when camera phones try to take credit for professional level gear.

« on: May 15, 2013, 12:25:31 PM »

 my wife baited and switched me.   and I know the quality of phones won't rival an slr,  but it does bother me when advertisers assume the customer is dumb.  I  object to selling stuff at $99.99  because it seems like a smaller amount than $100. 

8

Canon General / Re: It annoys me when camera phones try to take credit for professional level gear.

« on: May 14, 2013, 10:35:39 PM »

here are two offenders.

9

Canon General / It annoys me when camera phones try to take credit for professional level gear.

« on: May 14, 2013, 10:30:28 PM »

I see these photos on an iphone or windows phone and I KNOW that photo wasn't taken with a camera phone.  The bokeh gives it away.  It was probably a 35mm f/1.4 (or a 135mm f/2) with a 5dmkiii (or whatever the Nikon equivalent is) with wireless umbrella lighting being side lit from both the right and left. 

But no... that was a wide angle camera phone photo which simply looks like a 135mm f/2 was used.  So your gear that costs $5000 is really just overkill, since the camera phone's is MORE than sufficient.  Ughh...

10

Lenses / Re: Who has pre-ordered or will order 200-400

« on: May 14, 2013, 05:54:53 PM »

 stupid  poll.   why isn't there an option that says,  I'd rather buy a used car.

11

Site Information / Re: Forum Down Briefly for Maintenance

« on: May 14, 2013, 06:39:10 AM »

access denied, security block... pops up when I try to make a post.  What's up with that.

12

Lenses / Re: 17-40 f4 L discontinued???????

« on: May 13, 2013, 06:41:32 AM »

  It is possible they will update date it, but NO ONE is clamoring for a better performing 17-40.

you know nothing jon snow....

I hate that line.  I'm reading the books and then watching the show after I'm done with a book and she is the worst character. 

And everyone would want better performance at the same price, but I don't believe someone is looking to have an IS version of the lens for twice the price.  At f/8 it is a nice sharp lens, which is great considering it is more of a landscape lens and you usually use a tripod...

I really should bow out of this conversation... because I dont' care for landscape photography.

13

PowerShot / Re: Two New PowerShot Cameras Leaked

« on: May 12, 2013, 11:09:14 PM »

When I had a Fuji point and shoot... I wanted a Canon point and shoot to upgrade to... but now that I have a Canon SLR... I seriously could care less.  I have my crappy phone camera if I need to take a photo and I forgot my SD card or battery... 

But good for those who still have other brands... I'm sure these will be just fine.

14

Lenses / Re: 17-40 f4 L discontinued???????

« on: May 12, 2013, 08:54:34 PM »

I seriously doubt it.  It's one of Canon's best selling lenses.

I agree.  It is one of their lower performing L lenses and I imagine it is pretty cheap to make.  If they sell 200,000 a year, they will make a a small killing.  It is possible they will update date it, but NO ONE is clamoring for a better performing 17-40.

15

Canon General / Re: I lost $300 in an accounting error.

« on: May 11, 2013, 06:44:43 AM »

Dont take it so hard. Its just some colored paper, its just some digits. If you were a lion for example then it wouldnt matter to you at all even the 300$ are the same. Its just the thought in your head that u can change and then u will feel better. You just made an error. Doesnt mean you are a bad person. Think about city planners who miscalculate by millions.  Its all natural, stay relaxed buddy

Thanks.  In all honesty... it isn't that big of a deal.  I still have enough saved for a 5d mkiii when I find the right price point.  And after that... I almost out of stuff I need.

the 35mm sigma or canon and maybe a 1.4 teleconvertor and then done.  I don't NEED a tilt shift. I don't need an 85mm 1.4 or a 135mm f/2.  So this $300 gives me more time to finish buying stuff I need.  But seeing that finish line just that much further away is a little disheartening.