Show Posts

3106

Lenses / Re: Canon 500 availability ?

« on: September 30, 2012, 07:30:45 PM »

Quote from: Waterloo on September 30, 2012, 06:48:48 PM

It also appears the both Kirk and ReallyRight have copied the Canon design without changes and consideration for the balance of the camera and lens when used on a gimbal or video head.

Not sure I agree. The Kirk foot does mirror the Canon foot's forward-sweeping design. But, the RRS does not - the dovetail actually extends back farther, directly under and even slightly behind the mounting screws:

Granted, it may not be quite far enough back for the 500 II w/ a TC and heavy body. The RRS 300 II foot dovetail extends substantially behind the mounting screws, for example. However, apparently RRS designed the foot for the 400 II (before the 500/600 II's became available), then just declared the same foot was compatible with the longer lenses, and subsequently backpedaled with their note on the website. Perhaps they'll release a new foot designed for the longer lenses - if so, hopefully they'll do right by those who bought the maybe-not-so-compatible current foot (me, included).

3107

1D X Sample Images / Re: 1D X - 1 Thing you would Add or CHANGE? either physically or Firmware

« on: September 30, 2012, 06:30:39 PM »

+1 on the question to Paul - how does the Ec-S affect metering, since that screen is not supported in firmware? Thanks!

3108

Lenses / Re: Canon 500 availability ?

« on: September 30, 2012, 06:28:13 PM »

Quote from: Waterloo on September 30, 2012, 05:38:10 PM

I'm using a Manfrotto 519 video head and one of their standard mounting plates. I've used the Canon supplied "Monopod Foot" mounted in reverse. As you can see the CG is near the center of the tripod collar. Not a big deal. I'm getting used to it and it works very well. Just not what you are used to seeing.

Yes, comparing the 500 MkI to MkII, it looks like they moved the tripod collar forward on the lens, while simultaneously removing the front meniscus lens and thus moving the CG backward. Thus the notation on the RRS foot - I expect with a heavy body, especially with a TC, the CG may end up behind the tripod collar, or at least behind the forward-sweeping Canon foot (surprising they'd do that). Good to know the foot can be reversed.

In my case with the 600 II, the foot mounting point is slightly forward on the 600mm vs. the 500mm, by about half the width of the tripod collar on the lens barrel. But the 600mm is 2.5" longer, has a bigger front element and a bigger, heavier hood - i.e. it's going to be front-heavy compared to the 500mm. So balance should be ok, especially with the RRS replacement foot (attachment for clamp is further back than the Canon foot).

3109

Lenses / Re: New Lenses in January [CR1]

« on: September 30, 2012, 04:09:41 PM »

Quote from: Ellen Schmidtee on September 30, 2012, 03:03:46 PM

...I wonder why is it that Canon is investing so much in upgrading the superteles, rather than ~20 years old primes (e.g. 35mm f/2), in face of competitors like Sigma coming out with competing lenses (e.g. Sigma 30mm f/1.4 for APS-C & 35mm f/1.4 HSM for FF).

One big reason is the 1D X. By eliminating the 1.3x crop sensor from the flagship line, they (intentionally) created demand for longer supertele lenses, and it's no coincidence that they updated those lenses at the same time.

3110

Lenses / Re: Sharpest Ultra-wide Lens for Full Frame

« on: September 30, 2012, 02:24:47 PM »

Sharpest will be the TS-E 24L II, followed by the TS-E 17L, then the 24/1.4L II, then the 14L. The Zeiss 21mm is close to the Canon TS-E lenses. Of the zooms, the 16-35L II beats the 17-40L, especially in the corners (but there's no such thing as a truly sharp UWA zoom).

3111

Lenses / Re: Canon 500 availability ?

« on: September 30, 2012, 01:34:37 PM »

B&H had both the 500/4 II and the 600/4 II listed as in stock for a brief period of time on Friday, 9/28. They went back out of stock very quickly.

I take that to mean they filled all their pre-orders, and had a few left to sell. Unfortunately, they're closed until 10/9. But when they reopen, it means a short queue for their next delivery!

3112

Lenses / Re: Portrait Lens

« on: September 30, 2012, 01:20:07 PM »

Probably not. In a studio setting, where I have control over lighting and background, the 24-105L is a great portrait lens. But when I don't have control over the background, the wider aperture makes a huge difference - the ability to blur out the background to isolate the subject is why the 'classic' portrait lenses are fast primes like the 85/1.2 and 135/2.

3113

Lenses / Re: New Lenses in January [CR1]

« on: September 30, 2012, 12:55:38 PM »

Quote from: Ellen Schmidtee on September 30, 2012, 09:01:24 AM

Does Canon sell enough superteles to make those lenses a cash cow?

Personally, I don't know anyone who owns a supertele, but know two guys who own the new 70-200mm f/2.8 IS mkII. My bet Canon makes more money on the later than on any of the superteles, my point being that Canon might make more money on cheaper 500mm f/5.6 and 600mm f/5.6.

Only a 500/5.6 has even a chance at coming in under $5K, and a 600/5.6 would cost more than the 300/2.8. Are those 'cheaper' enough to matter?

Honestly, Canon's real 'cash cow' lens is the 18-55mm Rebel/xxxD kit lens, followed closely by the 55-250mm. I infer that because Canon released MkII versions of both lenses where the only changes were aimed at a small reduction in the unit production costs, which puts more cash in the cow.

As has been discussed (ad infinitum!), pricing takes expected sales volume into account with an inverse relationship. Also, the superteles, with their stand-out white paint (that Canon just made even whiter) are advertising for Canon at every sporting event.

3114

Lenses / Re: 24-70 MK II or 70-200 MK II?

« on: September 30, 2012, 11:57:24 AM »

Quote from: pierceography on September 30, 2012, 09:56:24 AM

Quote from: neuroanatomist on September 30, 2012, 08:51:46 AM
The equivalents on APS-C are 15-44mm and 44-125mm.

Pretty sure your math is backwards. Crop focal lengths would be 38-112mm, and 112-320mm for the 24-70mm and 70-200mm respectively.

DB is correct. My point was to put the lenses the OP wants in terms of their equivalent focal length on the camera that the OP has, which seems the most useful comparison.

3115

Lenses / Re: 24-70 MK II or 70-200 MK II?

« on: September 30, 2012, 08:51:46 AM »

It's really a focal length decision.

The equivalents on APS-C are 15-44mm and 44-125mm.

You already have two great (if slow) lenses for FF - I'd wait until you get the new body, and see where the f/2.8 would give the most benefit. For me, it's 70-200, but I'll likely get the 24-70 II at some point.

3116

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Hoya Clear filter HD or EVO for 85mm f/1.2

« on: September 30, 2012, 07:05:03 AM »

I've got a B+W MRC UV on mine to protect that big and beautiful front element.

If you plan to shoot outdoors wide open (portraits, etc.), you might also consider a 3-stop ND - sometimes even 1/8000 s isn't enough.

There will likely be no difference in AF speed on the 5DIII vs. 5DII. I do notice it focuses faster on my 1D X, but that's because the 1-series bodies use a higher voltage battery which drives the AF motor faster.

3117

Lenses / Re: Canon 50mm 1.2 vs sigma 50mm 1.4: older expensive l-glass, or newer future tech

« on: September 30, 2012, 06:53:57 AM »

Quote from: Scott_7D on September 29, 2012, 11:17:59 PM

Another thing, the Canon is 1/3 stop faster, not 1/2

Just to pick a nit, the 1/3-stop scale is f/1.0-f/1.1-f/1.2-f/1.4, and the 1/2-stop scale is f/1.0-f/1.2-f/1.4, so by convention, both are correct.

Mathematically, 1/2-stop wider than f/1.4 is f/1.19 and 1/3-stop wider than f/1.4 is f/1.26, so f/1.2 is best approximated as 1/2-stop faster than f/1.4.

3118