September 16, 2014, 11:54:05 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 - pwp

Pages: 1 ... 74 75 [76] 77 78 ... 103
Do you have display brightness up high on the 5D3? This could lead to a false exposure assessment. Did you have display brightness set way down low on your 5D2? What you were accustomed to evaluating on your 5D2 display may not translate to the 5D3. Shoot the same scene with both cameras, with the same lens at the same exposure & iso and see if the image displays differently on the camera display.

Also, this may be a good time to learn to read your histograms...


Lenses / Re: A Brief Hands On: Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II
« on: May 28, 2012, 11:28:24 PM »
Just had another think about that unpretty hood as I looked glumly at the gaffer tape holding the hood onto my 24-70 f/2.8 MkI. If the new hood actually stays put like the one on the 70-200 f/2.8isII I'll be thrilled.

It's hard to tell from the photos, but I hope the larger top & bottom petals are flat enough to be able to put the lens down face first with the hood on without it falling over. This is handy when changing lenses. Lenses that topple over like the 24 f/1.4II are mildly irritating in this regard. But hey, if the new hood will stay on the lens without gaffa tape much will be forgiven.


Lenses / Re: Most requested lenses for replacement?
« on: May 28, 2012, 10:30:36 PM »
Personally I'd like to see the 135mm f/2 L get upgraded AFTER I buy this current version. A new one will undoubtedly be out of my price range.
There would definitely be a price hike, but if/when there is a new 135 f/2 I'd expect large numbers of mint condition pre-owned copies hitting the market as upgraditis kicks in.


Lenses / Re: List of rumored lenses
« on: May 28, 2012, 10:24:59 PM »
i think they should make a 35-85 f2L to fill the gap it would fit in perfectly with the 16-35

Great idea. But think big WW! L28-105 f/2is ? Hang the expense...


Lenses / Re: 24-70 f/2.8L mk 1 or 24-105 f/4L
« on: May 28, 2012, 10:19:32 PM »
I used 24-70 f/2.8L exclusively during a tour of Europe and never once regretted it.  The lens is sharp, colour rendition is superb and AF is fast.  Not even contemplating on replacing it with vII.  I suggest to rent both glasses and check it yourself.
That's great you've got one of the good copies of the 24-70 f/2.8. Stay with it! The good ones are like gold. Rare and desirable.

This is not every photographers experience with this often flawed lens. I'll say it again, buy a new or late build pre-owned 24-70 f/2.8 from an outlet that allows for test & return if it's not up to an adequate standard. Test it carefully being very aware of soft zones in the same plane of focus. This will show up in a group photo for example. Even if you're straight on to the group, one side will be be sharp but the other side may show image killing, client losing soft zones. It can be subtle, but you want expensive L glass to deliver. Your home mortgage may depend on it!

The 24-105 seems to be far more consistent from one copy to the next. A good copy of either lens should be completely satisfactory for a busy pro, an applied, focused hobbyist or even rampant pixel peepers.


Lenses / Re: Recommendation for a small budget?
« on: May 28, 2012, 09:57:22 PM »
The 17-55 really is the most versatile, beautiful quality lens for an APS-C body.

Mt Spokane's advice to get one good lens rather than a bag of rubbish is the best comment on this thread. If you get the 17-55, you'll probably have enough change for a good pre-owned 70-200 f/4 which would be a low cost, very high IQ perfect companion for the 17-55 f/2.8.

Paul Wright

Lenses / Re: 17-40mm and DPP
« on: May 28, 2012, 05:21:46 AM »
Thanks for the info. I am leaning towards the 17-40mm partly as I have a 77mm B&W 10-stop ND filter that I used on my Tokina 11-16mm with a 40D. I guess the f2.8 of the 16-35mm won't be too much of an issue with the 5D mk3 - just crank up the ISO if there isn't enough light!
Good call. And if the 17-40 is not to your taste, you'll find it holds its value very well if you want to trade up to the 16-35 f/2.8. If you buy gray or pre-owned, it probably wouldn't drop a penny provided you don't knock it around. There are plenty of good 17-40 pre-owned lenses out there.


Lenses / Re: Most requested lenses for replacement?
« on: May 28, 2012, 12:06:22 AM »
Folks, they're not going to update the 135mm f/2 SF just so that it can compete with the current 135mm f/2 L.

I assume you're talking about the 135 f/2.8SF, an old design with film era relevance which will probably quietly disappear from Canon's inventory sometime soon. I wonder how many they sell per year? It's the venerable 135 f/2L which also hales from last century, April 1996 to be exact which I'm hoping to see upgraded.


Lenses / Re: Recommendation for a sidekick wildlife lens
« on: May 27, 2012, 11:29:49 PM »
Check out the current thread on the intriguing Sigma AF 120-300mm f/2.8 APO EX HSM DG OS. Talk about value!


Lenses / Re: sigma 120-300 f2.8 OS (The new one)
« on: May 27, 2012, 11:19:53 PM »
both shot handheld with the 120-300 os, minimal processing.
the heron (shot this morning):  300mm f3.5 iso400 1/1600s 50% crop (os wasn't switched to pan, but it didn't appear to affect the outcome significantly).
the squirrel (the first 'real world' test shot when I got the lens):  200mm f2.8 iso200 1/640s
Sheesh you must be Mr Muscles! The Sigma AF 120-300mm f/2.8 APO EX HSM DG OS (isn't that a nice long name for a lens?) weighs in at a beefy 2950g vs 2400g for the Canon 300 f/2.8 vs 1490g for the 70-200 f/2.8isII. Hand-holding the Sigma would deliver the dual advantage of being a great lens and a gym weights workout rolled into one. As an 80Kg weakling, I'd be packing the monopod. The 70-300L is a svelte 1050g.

I was very interested in this lens about a year ago when the new OS model started shipping, but there was so little information about it that I let the whole thing slide. But if it works as advertised, it's a very compelling lens. I have read that the older model Sigma 120-300 actually does not make it all the way to 300mm, it's more like 280 at the long end. Is this also true of the 120-300mm f/2.8 APO EX HSM DG OS?

At just a bit over $2k it's very very tempting.


Lenses / Re: 17-40mm and DPP
« on: May 27, 2012, 10:44:41 PM »
Just ordered my 5D mk3 plus 24-105mm and wanting either a 17-40mm or maybe the 16-35mm if my piggybank can stand it. I know the 17-40mm has more CA and distortion but wondered how well images can be cleaned up using the Lens Optimiser part of DPP - any comments?

If you need to shoot wide open the 16-35 will be a far better option. I have a 17-40 and it's mushy at f/4. But a couple of clicks down it's a match for the 16-35II. I import my RAW files into Lightroom and check the LensCorrection option as a custom default to correct all images on Import into LR. This works fine. Others may comment on DPP's Lens Optimiser.

If you tend to shoot in the mid apertures, save $$ and weight with the highly regarded 17-40. BTW it takes 77mm filters which are the same size as your 24-105. 16-35 is 82mm.


Lenses / Re: 70-300L on 5D Mark III
« on: May 27, 2012, 10:31:03 PM »
The 5D3 and the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 L will be a killer combination for you. The 5D3 gives this slightly slow lens a lot more scope than the 5D2 with increased options for bumping up the iso when the need arises, plus the very powerful AF system which will do a far better job working with those smaller f/4-5.6 apertures than the 5D2.

Just be aware that the 5D3 has the same black AF points in the VF as the 7D. Most people don't care but it can be a disruptive disappointment for some photographers. There is a recent thread on CR which discusses this, and may be worth a browse before dropping your Visa card on a 5D3.


Lenses / Re: 24-70 f/2.8L mk 1 or 24-105 f/4L
« on: May 27, 2012, 10:18:38 PM »
Later builds of the 24-70 f/2.8L have a reasonable chance of being OK. I know there are fabulous copies out there but my own experience with three very disappointing copies, and surprisingly negative experiences from just about every photographer I know would make me urge caution. If you choose the 24-70 be sure to buy where you can test & return if it's not up to your expectations.

Most photographers who use the 24-105 f/4is, myself included find it a useful and adept piece of glass. Most are very sharp wide open. Get a new one. Heavily used copies can experience jammed apertures and/or self-destructing IS. This is confirmed by CPS. But don't let that put you off. It's a great lens for the money and justifies it's L ranking. Mine needed a $250 repair at the 3 year mark but I'm tough on my somewhat abused gear. Don't buy mine!


Lenses / Re: A Brief Hands On: Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II
« on: May 27, 2012, 09:59:26 PM »
That certainly isn't the prettiest hood on the block but who cares? Will your clients even notice? If the IQ is there as expected, I might finally get a 24-70 that is worth keeping. I've been Mr Unlucky with the 24-70 f/2.8 classic, three copies and all huge disappointments. Right now I use an unexpectedly good 24-105 f/4is as a stop-gap until the 24-70II ships. And I'll be keeping the 24-105 when I get the 24-70II, for some jobs I value it's reach and of course the IS.


Pages: 1 ... 74 75 [76] 77 78 ... 103