« on: October 26, 2013, 07:38:07 PM »
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.
Just got mine today and it has the clicking noise as well. It must be by design.
Since the earlier copies didn't click, you're suggesting that Canon intentionally made a design change during production that resulted in this clicking noise?its not that big of a deal though
Noise results from friction. Friction causes wear. Maybe it's not a big deal today...but since wear is cumulative and lenses have a (potential) lifespan of many years, I wouldn't be so confident that it's not a big deal...
If I bought a lens that clicked like these recent units do, I'd return/exchange it.
Now, maybe it is normal - the 300/4L IS makes a loud 'clunk' when the IS kicks in, and then the operation settles down to a low growl. But the thing I find troublesome about the 24-70/2.8L II clicking issue is that it appears to affect only more recent copies, and not all of them. That suggests a manufacturing problem, not a design change.
I do have what I believe to be a March 2013 copy of this lens that does not have any ticking sounds while zooming in either direction (first 3 digits of my lens are 032). My lens also came with the center-pinch cap and I got it in June from a large local retailer. This was my second copy of the 24-70mm, as the first one had a focus issue (2013 copy to my recollection, but no tick sound either).
Thanks for your feedback. You may have been one of the lucky 2013 owners. It seems like most of the newer units come with the ticking. My guess is that most people aren't looking or listening for the noise. But to be honest, I heard it right away. If this is how they all are, I can either only return mine for a refund or get another one with the same issue and perhaps worse optics due to variation.
I just ordered it from B&H and got the clicking noise. It has a pinch style cap. I have to leave for a trip tomorrow so I'll complain to Canon when I get back.
Is this Toronto?
Yes, both shots. Last summer, the weather was gorgeous, I had a great time (and I had to work there, too).Second you are correct I know nothing about what you know about the 35L because you haven't presented any information in this thread that would tell me you have nothing more than limited hands on knowledge.
I have presented noting to tell you otherwise but you chose to believe what you wanted to believe.
Two more comparisons: against the 85LII (f/5) and against the 50L (f/5.6), good light, handheld, distortion corrections and partial vignetting corrections in LR on, some exposure compensation. If you think that all lenses are the same at f/5 - f/5.6, please move on, nothing to see here.
85mm (this is easy), f/5:
50mm, f/5.6 (not too hard, there are obvious clues)
Alright everyone, I shoot portraits and weddings and here are my current lenses which I use on my 5DM3:
24-105 (great kit lens, but I might sell it)
24-70 f2.8 MK2
(Sigma) 12-24 - some people don't like this, but I think I got a good copy
70-200 f2.8 MK2
I'm trying to find a reason to buy either the 85mm or 135mm. Which should I buy? I know I have that length covered, but they're such celebrated primes that I'd just learn to zoom with my feet more and I know my results would be good.
So, here's my question. Both are very well-loved in the photog world, especially with portrait shooters. Which should I get? Or, should I be considering another prime altogether?
Thanks in advance!
Dear Sir, Mr. beckstoy.
For the Best Wedding/ portrait Lenses, Both of Them 85 1.2 II and 135 L 2.0 are great ---and Best of the Best Too. But So many Lenses that need to consider for perfected Photos, where the space between the model and the photographer are limited, and the Photographers do not have the choice ---Yes that why the Difference Lenses are force to use for the best of that situation.
Here are my Wedding / Portrait Lenses that I use as " One man army" past 5 years, and Its works for me.
Good luck for your selection of the great Lenses.
A= Canon TS-E 24 MM. F 3.5 L MK II for my group Portrait up to 200 People. Yes, I use Horizontal Shift function.
B = EF 24-70 F/ 2.8 L for General Photos, at the Party
C= EF 135 MM F/ 2.0 L, For great Portrait in the long range.
D=EF 70-200 mm F/ 2.8 L IS USM. Shoot far away on the Balcony of the Church, When we can not go to shoot at Altar----Ha, Ha, Ha---Not try to let the FATHER/ Preacher get angry.
E= EF 100 mm F./ 2.8 L IS Macro USM. for the Great Portrait Photos with Some Great Bokeh. Plus the Detail of the Rings, Flowers and The Bride's Beautiful Shoes.
F = Sigma 50 MM F/ 1.4, For Tight Space and Very Blur Background.
G= EF 85 MM. F/ 1.2 L MK II for total Blur of busy back ground, and let the Bride& Groom as the Movie Stars. Plus this Lens is to separate Us/ The Real Pay Photographers and Uncle Bob or aunt Jane who use 41 MP. Nokia Lumia Cell Phone Camera, which can get the better Pictures than Me----Ha, Ha, Ha
NO, NO, NO, I never use any lens that wider than 24 MM. Yes, I have learn from the Hard way, I use 11-17 and 17-40 mm at F = 11 and F = 17 for Group Photos, And I lost my best beautiful Client, who stand at the far Left and Far right of the Group Photos= Yes The Super Wide Angle lens is create the subjects at the far edge of photo so distortion = Her Face form as the Beauty and The Beast = The Beast ( Not the Beauty)----Ha, Ha, Ha
Beside weight and price.This is an amazing lens
Great shot! I really like this close-up, but the subject's skin look kinda "plastic", or unnaturally smooth at best. Did you do some heavy photoshopping on this one? if so, it really shows. Otherwise, the rendering seems to indicate that the protagonists have been dipped in resin just prior to the photo session, which would be fine for a Barbie commercial. (sorry if my comment appears sarcastic, that's not the intention, I think this is a great work apart from the skin rendition)
back to the original post: I went through many user's reviews when I had to pick my next telephoto lens, and so far I haven't read anything negative about the 70-200L/2.8 beside its weight. I ultimately went for the 70-300L because of its lower weight (i.e. portability), longer range and better rendering at the longer end than the 70-200L/2.8 with TC. If you don't mind the weight and shorter range and need a shallower DoF, then the 70-200L/2.8 is definitely the sure thing.
Yes,the skin was heavily smoothen via post(NIK)
Depends on your definition of "local publication" too. If it's just going to get printed on a raggy newspaper, IQ won't matter so go with the flexibility of a zoom. If it's getting printed double-page in a nice glossy mag then you might be better off with the legendary-IQ of the Distagon (although whether the 16-35 is good enough for a magazine print is debatable, depends on your camera, lighting conditions, tripod, etc, it could still be more than adequate)