March 07, 2015, 12:00:57 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 - Eagle Eye

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 9
Software & Accessories / Re: Insurance is an accessory right? :P
« on: August 10, 2014, 02:33:34 PM »
I'm insured through USAA, $14,936 in coverage at $242 a year. Covers any loss, including theft. It doesn't cover normal wear and tear, acts of war, nuclear incidents, fungus, or intentional acts by the owner. It also does not cover the equipment at the time the equipment is being used for a paid assignment or going to or from a paid assignment. Insurance is well worth the cost, in my opinion.

Reviews / Re: NIKON Releasing a Medium format DSLR 50MP
« on: August 01, 2014, 07:04:05 AM »
Actually, you're confused. Nikon is going to announce at Photokina that they're releasing a camera with an EF mount, "designed to work with the best lenses in the world," according to my sources at Nikon Djibouti. That's what that picture is showing. Amazingly, the EOS 7D II will also be EF lens compatible.

I've used it. No problems at all. They set me up with their guy at a store that I buy from all the time anyway. It was a smooth transaction. Same guarantee and return policy as with any purchase, they just don't include the "$150 of free extras" advertised on the website, like the cheap tripod and undersized camera bag. I will use CPW every lens and camera purchase from now on. I had no concerns about return policies, and they told me exactly what is was getting before I handed over payment. In my case, completely new in box, US warranty, no lens removed or anything.

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 50 f/1.2L Goes Missing at Canon Germany
« on: July 31, 2014, 08:55:20 AM »
I highly doubt the 50 f/1.8 is going anywhere. It is a top seller, yielding dependable profit margins. I'm confident we'll a 50mm f/1.4 IS this year in the $600 range. Most pros I know love the 50mm f/1.2. It is not designed to be a sharp lens. The copy I sold last month produced gorgeous portraits. If you want a sharp lens, try something designed for sports, not something designed for portraits.

My test setup:
5d Mark II, tripod mounted, 18" away, EF 16-35mm f/4L IS, shooting at f/8, B+W 77mm XS-Pro 007 front filter, Lee wide-angle adaptor, Lee holder with two slots, 105mm ring, and a B+W Extra Wide KSM Circular Polarizer.

My results were the same; it vignettes ever so slightly at 19mm and is completely clear by 20mm. Removing just the 77mm XS-Pro 007, I have the same ever-so-slight vignetting at 17mm and it's clear at 18mm.

If you want the maximum usable range on your 16-35mm with the CPL attached, get the Extra Wide CPL from B+W and remove the protective front filer: vignette-free from 18-35mm. If you insist on keeping the protective front filter on, just understand that you're limiting yourself to 20-35mm.

As has been mentioned, you can always carry a second Lee holder with only one slot. I've got no vignetting at 16mm with B+W 007, wide angle adaptor, Lee holder with one slot, 105mm ring, and the B+W EW CPL. You'll just have to decide between long exposure and balanced lighting.

Software & Accessories / Re: Lee Big Stpper with UV filters
« on: July 17, 2014, 07:52:12 PM »
Not completely relevant to the thread, but I said I'd follow up. Like the 17-40mm f/4L, the 16-35mm f/4L IS has no vignetting at 20mm and above with an B+W XS-Pro clear filter, wide angle Lee adaptor, Lee filter holder with two slots and a 105mm adaptor, and a B+W 105mm extra wide circular polarizer. My 24-70mm f/4L IS is good at 24mm.

Software & Accessories / Re: Camera bag for camping
« on: July 17, 2014, 07:06:06 PM »
I've found that camera bags just don't do backpacking very well. I settled on a Mountainsmith Kit Cube bag, available from B+H. It fits into small backpacks or full backcountry bags and will hold a camera and three lenses (one attached). It is independently water resistant and well padded (not overly padded). My advice is to get the Kit Cube and buy bags that are designed for your outdoor sport.

Software & Accessories / Re: Lee Big Stpper with UV filters
« on: July 17, 2014, 07:02:37 PM »
On my 17-40, I have a B+W xs-pro clear filter on all the time. The Lee wide-angle adaptor is attached to that. On the filter holder itself, I have two slots (big or little stopper and a graduated ND), and the 105mm attachment for a 105 B+W extra wide polarizer. On this setup, I have no vignetting at 20mm and above. Heading outside to test the 16-35mm f/4 with it now.

I would just check for vignetting and decide how wide you need to be able to go with your glass. I'm not at all wedded to front protective filters (don't use them on the lenses that don't require them for weather seal), but I don't like wasting time fiddling with too much stuff to set up my kit, so my lens lives with the Lee adaptor mounted and a 72mm lens cap. If I really need 17mm, I carry a 77mm ND and a 77mm polarizer. Pull the adaptor off, throw those on, and do the grad ND by hand.

Lenses / Re: What Lenses are missing from Canon's range
« on: July 17, 2014, 08:23:38 AM »
Being a landscape guy, I'm loving the 16-35 f/4 right now, but I'd like to see some love for 85mm, my favorite prime focal length, incorporated into the zoom lineup though. For me, the 16-35mm f/4, a 24-85mm f/4, and a 70-200mm f/4 with a focal length marker for 85mm (which I plan to manually add to my existing model), along with an EF 1.5x would be an ideal kit. Full coverage 16-300mm, with two overlapping focal lengths between each zoom. Plus easier math on the tele-extender front; I didn't get into photography to think about numbers, dammit. The 24-85mm would be optional kit for a lot of shoots, particularly with a 50mm f/2.8 pancake in the bag. I imagine they went with 40mm because it makes for a similarly useful lens on full frame and APS-C, at 50mm, APS-C crop pushes it a little too much towards telephoto. I think the the 24-85mm is a possible replacement to the 24-70 f/4 in 5-10 years. I doubt the extenders are going to change and I also doubt we'll see another 50mm added to the lineup. Anyone have insight into why 85mm gets no love in the zooms? I don't have a mark for it on my 24-105 or my 70-200.

Lenses / Re: UV filter on the new 16-35 f/4?
« on: July 12, 2014, 10:06:00 AM »
Guys, remember, when you're ready to shoot a photo, remove the front glass elements from your lens. Actually, just remove the lens. It may be best to take the camera away, too. Guys, when you're ready to take a photo, just look with your eye.

Lenses / Re: EF-S 10-18mm Image Stabilizer System
« on: July 10, 2014, 10:39:52 PM »
That makes sense. If you're at 16mm on a 5D, no image stabilizer in the world will stabilize a one-second shutter speed. Thanks! By the way, 10-18mm is a super fun lens. Highly recommend it for anyone shooting APS-C.

Lenses / Re: EF-S 10-18mm Image Stabilizer System
« on: July 10, 2014, 07:36:53 PM »
Ef 16-35mm f/4 manual notes that the IS achieves 4 stops on a 1DX at 35mm. Maybe it's just saying that this is the body and focal length it's tested at?

Lenses / EF-S 10-18mm Image Stabilizer System
« on: July 10, 2014, 07:32:54 PM »
Just picked up a 10-18mm for my sister-in-law, who is getting ready to head to Europe. I noticed in the instruction manual that it says the image stabilizer only works on the EOS 7D and only at 18mm. I was not able to hear anything kicking in when I tested the lens on my 20D at very low shutter speeds. I haven't seen this limitation mentioned in reviews. Am I misreading this? If not, folks should really know about this before replacing a 10-22 and thinking they're getting image stabilization.

Animal Kingdom / Re: Portrait of your "Best friend"
« on: March 23, 2014, 09:24:08 PM »
Mini. Winter Storm Snochi.

I had the 1.4x II and 2x II. Sold the latter because it degraded the image too much. That said, I'm planning on selling the former and buying a 2x III. Go to and compare the image quality of your lens with the teleconverter to something like the 100-400L. It's really a toss up on the image quality front, in my opinion. For you, the 2-stop penalty may be the deciding factor. I use my 70-200 f/4 IS for landscapes, so I'm shooting at f/16 and down anyway.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 9