March 04, 2015, 02:14:58 PM

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 - curby

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6
Thanks for posting your impressions!  I'm hoping it can replace my 70-200/4, but I'm a little surprised that you think it might replace your 2.8.  Do you not miss the extra light of the 2.8, or is the weight and size savings just worth more to you than that stop and a half or so?

Yeah I'd love to get some impressions of the RRS and Kirk options so I know what to get.  :D

Lenses / Re: My "Minimalist" Lens Arsenal on Crop?
« on: February 17, 2015, 11:36:04 AM »
I agree with Marsu that you should look to fill gaps in capability or "pain points."  I got my lenses in a specific order to fit specific needs.

  • 17-55/2.8 - general purpose
  • 70-200/4 - more reach in a compact package
  • 35/2 - fast prime for a compact, single-lens package
  • 10-18 - cheap and decent UWA

Now I'm also looking at the 100-400 II, but only because I want more reach for wildlife shots.  If you don't have such a need, start with a 70-200.

Animal Kingdom / Re: Show your Bird Portraits
« on: February 12, 2015, 07:43:56 PM »
Hi Larry.
I don't know what you are currently using, but I'm not sure the camera matters much

"I heard on the Internet" that a great shot is 5% camera, 15% lens, and 80% photographer.  The specific ratios can be debated until the end of time but it's a good thing for me to remember when I get an acute case of Gear Acquisition Syndrome.  :P

Kirk's got one too!

Cheaper, possibly lower profile (shorter neck, thicker foot), possibly shorter rail length, skeletonized body, same-height orientation nubs around collar-mating screw. Non-tool-less attachment like RRS. Possibly less comfortable to hold due to sharp edges.  More specs but only renders, no product photos.

If anyone jumps on the RRS option, please post your thoughts specifically with how well the foot mates to the collar.  Specifically, does it suffer as much, or more, from issues like these:

What I did notice is that I had to tighten it, wobble it, tighten again, and repeat 2-3 times to get it to the point where I could not detect any play.  I did not like that.  I don't want a lens foot that allows for any play in the lens.  I may keep it tight and never remove it if it ever becomes a issue.

P.S. it seems it attaches via a hex/allen wrench, so it's not exactly a "field-expedient" attachment.  The "keep it tight and never remove it" method might be the default anyway!

Thanks for the update!  Hopefully they post pics and final pricing/shipping date soon.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Rokinon Launches 135mm t/2.2 Cine Lens
« on: January 12, 2015, 02:05:26 PM »
So B&H is just going to carry nothing but shameless clone products now?  First Yongnuo and now this.

(that was a joke)

Pricewatch Deals / Re: B&H Photo Nows Carries Yongnuo Products
« on: January 10, 2015, 01:38:52 PM »
By choosing a generic product, please don't expect new advancements in DSLR technology by Canon, or for new lenses to come out.  R&D budgets come out of sales dollars.

Sure you need capital.  You also need a drive to innovate, and that often comes out of competition.  People are now strongly considering Tamron's and Sigma's supertele zooms over first party options.  They are often choosing Sigma's amazing recent fast primes and fast zooms.  Now Yongnuo's eating them from below with cheaper flashes and lenses.  I'm not trying to be a wet blanket, but this is the reality of the market which illustrates areas where Canon needs to improve to stay relevant.  (They've addressed the first area with their recent 100-400 II.)

I still buy Canon lenses, but only because I see benefits in the specific models that I buy.  If I were considering paying 40% more for my 50mm, there better be a reason other than the Canon badge.  If there is, great!  If there isn't, Canon's got work to do.

Pricewatch Deals / Re: B&H Photo Nows Carries Yongnuo Products
« on: January 09, 2015, 06:53:12 PM »
I do think the fact that they are clearly knocking off these lenses is a knock on their reputation.

Disclaimer: I don't have any Yongnuo stuff and aren't looking at getting any.

If they can make the same product with better optical (if not overall) quality and for less, I'd call that a knock on Canon.  Coming up with new designs is great, but improving upon existing designs also pushes the industry forward. 

Lenses / Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II
« on: January 06, 2015, 11:06:07 AM »
As I keep telling people, the old one was very good optically, but only under ideal conditions (IS off or stopped down a stop).  The new one seems to be massively better under regular high stress conditions (wide oopen with the IS in, and in resisting flare and CA.

I think those ideal conditions must also include using a full frame sensor with relatively large subsensors.  I was reading another thread here yesterday that discussed how high density sensors put more stringent requirements on lenses.  Something tells me that the first version's proponents were more likely using full frame bodies with it than crop bodies.*  If the new version also excels on crop bodies, then that in itself is a big improvement.

* I'm a newbie, so of course there could be another explanation.  But quality reports on the first version are unarguably widely varying.  It's likely that Canon had silently been improving the design and tolerances over the decade+ span of the first version.  It's possible that there was a lot of sample variation.  But it could also be that those factors were at times combined with sensors of varying pickiness.  So ultimately, the optical benefit of the new design might not be that it's improving the best samples, but rather that it's decreasing sample variation (so they're all the "best" ones) and thereby offering more consistently positive performance even on dense sensors. 

@DanoPhoto do you remember the title of the post and/or the subforum it was in?  I wouldn't mind doing some searching but I don't know what to search for.  Thanks!

Lenses / Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II
« on: December 19, 2014, 02:29:43 AM »
I think apart from a rotating zoom (to which people seem to have mixed feelings) the usability with the TCs as confirmed by the MTFs, a reliable and more powerful IS, along with the much improved IQ is a sufficiently good reason for the widespread welcome this lens is getting.

Seems like the only thing missing is the much improved IQ.  Roger's initial, cursory tests over at the rental place indicate it's only around 4% sharper on average.  Of course there are other IQ considerations like flare, CA, distortion, contrast, color reproduction, etc., but 4% better sharpness isn't exactly a slam dunk.   ???

To be clear, I'm looking forward to getting this guy and I want to love the heck out of every aspect of it.  But 4% pales in comparison to the 40% improvement of the 400 DO II over its predecessor.

Thanks for the pics, folks.  Seems like you could even keep the thumbwheel and the piece with all the lugs and four screws ... just undo the screws and put the (anticipated) replacement foot on.  If there's threadlock involved you'd have to be careful not to damage the screws while loosening them.

A bit offtopic, but does anyone know what the maximum diameter of the lens hood is?

All the more reason for someone to step up and actually make an aftermarket replacement.  They can even fix the wobbling of the standard foot mentioned in this thread (and in the lens instruction manual).

East Wind Photography mentioned that you can add a second screw.  If this means that the standard foot actually has two holes for screws, then that's even better than an anti-twist flange, as the plate's bolted to the foot in two locations.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6