November 26, 2014, 05:29:33 AM

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 - neuroanatomist

Pages: 1 ... 435 436 [437] 438 439 ... 987
Canon General / Re: Just Why
« on: May 01, 2013, 06:00:29 PM »
Not without filter threads on the front of the lens...   :P

The 24-70 MkI has one of the highest maximum magnifications available in a non-macro lens - 0.29x. It's great for close-ups.

Canon General / Re: Just Why
« on: May 01, 2013, 04:31:03 PM »
Just why do you think it needs one? 

dSLR sensors are insensitive to UV light. If you really want one (maybe you're shooting film?), there's a drop-in holder for gelatin filters that comes with the lens, and a different one sold separately for screw-in 52mm filters.

If you mean a front filter for protection, the old superteles had a protective meniscus lens (thin, non-refracting, relatively cheap to replace).  They removed it from the new MkII versions to save weight. The hoods for those lenses are very deep and offer substantial protection.

A screw-on filter of that size would be incredibly difficult to produce. Compare 82mm filter costs to 58mm filters - the difference in materials cost is minimal, you're paying for the precision to make the two surfaces perfectly flat (which is harder than making curves surfaces) and parallel - that need for precision goes up exponentially with diameter, and a 600/4 would need a >150mm front filter.

Lenses / Re: New 100-400 to Launch with EOS 7D Mark II [CR2]
« on: May 01, 2013, 03:32:53 PM »
I wonder if there is a design benefit for longer lenses to switching the position of the zoom and focus rings.  The position of the rings on the 70-300L could become the new normal.

I'm not sure.  The zoom ring is also further out on the 200-400, but that might be so the hand on the lens is close to the zoom ring (that hand will be further out on such a heavy lens).

I had assumed it was the target market - Canon's 'lens positioning article' suggested the lens was aimed at APS-C shooters (and 'of course, it also works on FF cameras), and the 70-300L is similar to the high-end EF-S standard zooms. FWIW, the zoom ring is in back (opposite of the 70-300L) on the other 70-300 lenses (non-L and DO).

Lenses / Re: Canon 85L II AF speed on 5D III???
« on: May 01, 2013, 03:16:58 PM »
I accomplish this by ensuring the camera is powered off, then throwing the lens into manual focus and focusing it to MFD, then back to auto focusing, turning the camera off, and detaching the lens (if i'm removing it).  Seems there could be a better way of accomplishing this.

HOWEVER, if that's my only (mechanical) complaint about the lens, then I'd say that's a +1 for purchasing it.

Why do you switch from AF to MF and back?  The 85L has full time manual focus, you just need to spin the focus ring to retract the front element before powering off the camera.

Love my 85L. It does focus faster on my 1D X than on my previous non-1-series bodies.

Lenses / Re: A Walk Around Lens for a Trip
« on: May 01, 2013, 11:07:50 AM »
I keep thinking I'll move into a full frame but, truth be told, it gets more doubtful as I age.  For that reason I haven't spent a lot on EF-S glass but all the praise the 17-55 is getting sure impresses me. 

I may break my prejudice about buying EF-S lenses and pull the trigger on the 17-55 2.8 IS when my photo-fund gets rebuilt.

I've never been an adherent of the 'I'm getting a FF camera someday so I won't but EF-S' school of thought. But the lens(es) you need for the camera you have today.  Particularly if the EF-S lenses are the top ones (17-55, 15-85, 10-22), where resale value is strong.  When I eventually sold my 10-22 and 17-55, I think I lost a combined total of ~$120 from what I paid new for them - pretty cheap 2-3 year rentals.

IMO, the EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS is the best general purpose zoom for APS-C.  However, it is a little short for a travel lens whereas the 15-85 is better suited. If taking the 17-55, I'd be inclined to bring a longer lens, too.  I found the 100L Macro IS to be a great second lens for travel, since it does both tele and macro very well, and gives you f/2.8 across the board (with the 15-85, I'd consider a 430EX II or at minimum a 270EX II).

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon are you listening?
« on: May 01, 2013, 08:42:05 AM »
Oh, they're listening.

Canon announces the 7D Mark II
  • 19 megapixels
  • 21 AF points (all cross type)
  • 8.5 fps
  • Dual Digic 6
  • ISO range 100-25600 (expandable to 51200)
  • Extremely low image noise*

* low noise mode is JPG only and output is a 5 MP image

See, they listen well!

Lenses / Re: EF 800mm f/5.6L IS II [CR2]
« on: May 01, 2013, 08:24:04 AM »
I love IS, but aren't telephotos usually used with some other form of stabilization, e.g. a tripod?

I sometimes handhold my 600 II.  But IS helps even when it's on a rock solid tripod and gimbal head - a little breeze and that big hood acts like a sail!

Lenses / Re: EF 100-400 Replacement in 2013? [CR2]
« on: May 01, 2013, 08:21:31 AM »
However, if recent history is of any value, I think that Canon will do an incremental upgrade - i.e. solving the problems of the current version more than reinventing it. There's a 400/5.6 prime too, and they probably wouldn't cannibalize it.

So sharpness-wise I don't think the new model is going to be a lot better. I think they will keep the best selling points being new IS and smoother bokeh. Maybe weather sealing? The push-pull design is a specific feature of this lens and they might well want to keep it.

Hey, thanks for my morning laugh – it was a good one!! How could a brand-new lens with the latest image stabilization system and the same focal length and max aperture NOT cannibalize sales of a 20 year old lens??   The only possible answer is by the 20-year-old lens being substantially cheaper, and no matter what, the old prime is going to be substantially cheaper.  Besides, there are four 70-200 zooms and a 70-300 zoom in the L-series, along with the 100-400, and you think Canon is worried about cannibalization? For most people, a telezoom is the second Glenn's purchased after a standard zoom - Canon is very wisely offering a great selection for that choice.

As for sharpness, don't worry, the new lens will be significantly sharper than the one it replaces.  Think 70-200/2.8 IS differential. I suspect the only people who believe there won't be a substantial boost in sharpness are Nikon fanboys (in or out the closet) who want Nikon to finally have an xx-400mm zoom with IQ that rivals Canon, which they do...and will continue to for however long it takes Canon to get the new 100-400 to market.

If you get tubes, Kenko is good, even the Opteka one linked is fine - they're all filled with the same air.  Personally, I went with the Canon tubes - for macro work I wouldn't have, but since my main use is between a heavy and expensive body (1D X) and a much heavier and more expensive lens (600 II), I wanted to be sure of the mount strength.

you said your fault and fixing for free... and you still moan?

Did you miss the part where the free repair has taken a month so far, and will take 1-2 more months (at least)?  I'd moan.  Actually, I wouldn't moan...I'd yell.

did you miss the part that said it was his fault...  he has had a result getting it fixed... albeit slowly...

Ok, so you'd be happy being without a key piece of your kit for months.  Not many of us would be...

I never use rechargeable battery's for one reason 1.2 volts vs 1.5 volts, the flash gets more power faster from regular 1.5 volt batteries. Try one then the other and I bet you see a heck of a difference!

Bad advice.

Yes, the 'regular' (alkaline) batteries recycle the flash a heck of a lot SLOWER than NiMH's like eneloops - 40-50% slower, in fact.

It's not just about the voltage. The lower internal resistance of NiMH chemistry means they can deliver power faster in high-drain situations like recharging the capacitor of a flash.

you said your fault and fixing for free... and you still moan?

Did you miss the part where the free repair has taken a month so far, and will take 1-2 more months (at least)?  I'd moan.  Actually, I wouldn't moan...I'd yell.

Lenses / Re: A Walk Around Lens for a Trip
« on: April 30, 2013, 03:57:47 PM »
Otherwise combining the 11-16 with a 24-105 seems a good 2 lens situation for a crop sensor camera.

It seems like it...but theory is likely different than practice.  The 24-105L is a great general purpose FF zoom - by definition, a general purpose zoom covers moderate wide angle through short telephoto in one lens.  In APS-C, that's a 15-85, 17-55, etc.  The 24-105 on APS-C is a normal-to-tele while the 11-16 is ultra wide - and the gap from 16mm to 24mm is significant, almost the whole wide range is missing (the 10-22 would be a better choice for that).  The real problem is that means a lot of lens changes, not a great solution. Having an ultrawide to supplement a true general purpose zoom does make sense.

Lighting / Re: 600ex-rt vs PocketWizard Flex TT5 Setup
« on: April 30, 2013, 03:20:18 PM »
Ah the damn internet! I wasn't clear, I meant trigger a remote control from the PC socket, not run a cable all the way to the Einstein. This leaves the hotshoe free for the ST-E3-RT/600EX-RT and even a Cyber Commander giving full remote control of the Einsteins can be used via the PC socket.

Thanks - makes sense. I agree with your comment about the simplicity of the AC3 (despite the 6-stop range - and for me, that hasn't been an issue as I just have different baseline set points for indoors vs. out, and I haven't needed more range). 

If I interpret the PW documentation correctly, I can mount the MiniTT1 on the hotshoe, mount the ST-E3-RT onto that, and control power on the PW receivers via the ST-E3.  The docs are scanty, assuming the RT still emits, I may be able to control the Einstein via the MiniTT1 with power set by the ST-E3, and the three 600's with the Canon RT.  Else, I'll use a short PC cable to a FlexTT5 with the AC3 to control the Einstein (if possible to use the AC3 for that) with the ST-E3 in the hotshoe.  If that works, I will find a way to attach the FlexTT5 to the side of the L bracket, to keep it from dangling. I'm sure RRS has a solution for that, for a price.

Pages: 1 ... 435 436 [437] 438 439 ... 987