July 28, 2014, 07:49:44 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 - Normalnorm

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 11
Lenses / Re: What does Blue Dot on a box means?
« on: September 14, 2013, 01:28:42 PM »
Its a vegan lens. Slightly more money but worth it.  ;)

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sigma 24-105 f/4 OS on the Way? [CR1]
« on: September 08, 2013, 08:04:47 PM »
Have to agree with Neuro.
The current prices of the Canon and its real excellence will be a hard act to follow.

My copy needs a CLA buts is still a go-to lens for 80% of my shooting. What I really need is another for backup.
It is a decent lens, but not really an "excellent" one. It could use way more sharpness across the frame, especially in the corners. I wouldn't use the 24-105L for landscapes.

Sharpness is probably one of the things that Sigma is going to bring to the table.. And lots of it.
In my experience the 24-105 is plenty sharp. I rented the 24-70 2.8 L II and found it only a touch sharper than my lens.
For real world work I have found it to be a great step up from the old 28-75 Tamron that was touted as the top "value" lens at the time ~4-5yrs ago.
The real world for me is working with the vagaries of hand held shooting, motion and the use to which the final image is destined. Even the most demanding applications (large prints) are well served by this lens.

Studio shooting with side by side comparison to my Canon 100 macro (on camera stand) show the macro to have the edge in absolute sharpness and better contrast but no client will ever see the difference.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sigma 24-105 f/4 OS on the Way? [CR1]
« on: September 08, 2013, 03:39:09 PM »
Have to agree with Neuro.
The current prices of the Canon and its real excellence will be a hard act to follow.

My copy needs a CLA buts is still a go-to lens for 80% of my shooting. What I really need is another for backup.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DIY filterholder
« on: September 07, 2013, 01:22:42 PM »
Ben Egbert and I discussed doing a DIY filterholder utilizing the 17's front cap in April 2011. I am not handy so I had to wait until Ben actually did the work and produced a tutorial. (See below). Total cost for parts = $80 or so. You will not ba able to buy the Lee version (if real) for 4x this number. In the meantime, a bunch of folks popped on the internet with the same or similiar idea. Except for some vignetting in areas of the frame that appear when the shift is too strong, works like a charm.

Followed his work on another forum and he later said (I think?) that the thing fell of due to the glue not sticking hard enough. He also mentioned that he would not make another one since the front-cap with the standard-holder was better alternative. Smaller and less vinjeting.
If I'm not all wrong.

I saw all the DIY solutions and long ago learned the cost of the materials is nearly irrelevant to the labor and PITA of cutting, gluing and praying it works.

For me the Wonderpana is a very well built solution that really works. Infinitely better than any DIY solution.

BTW @Privatebydesign, I am pleased my 100th post was a helpful one.

Having looked at the WonderPana 145 Essentials Kit I am interested in getting one for the polarizer. Could somebody who owns one post a picture of it mounted on the 17TS-E please? Whilst I can understand how it works on the 14mm and the Nikon 14-24 I don't see how it fits the 17TS-E without mounting on the focus ring. It would be a great help if I could see one before ordering, thanks.

Here you go. As you can see it is mounted via the bayonet of the lens cap. Very secure and does not vignette with movement.
Added Bonus is some protection of the front element.

Here is a sample with the polarizer.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: ...and now Smugmug.
« on: September 05, 2013, 10:26:51 PM »
While I understand the desire to see a wide gamut image doesn't this create a problem for clients who lack the appropriate monitor setting and browser?

I got the Fotodiox Wonderpana filter system for my 17.Very well built.
It accepts a 145mm filters (no Costco does not carry them) and I have a circular polarizer for it that works wonderfully.

They do have grad NDs available but I have not yet upgraded my kit for them.

Lenses / Re: AF questions
« on: August 24, 2013, 12:06:58 AM »
Well, there is either 1) something wrong with the lens, 2) something wrong with the body, or 3) something wrong with the particular combination of body + lens.  Or you are just being punished by camera fairies for some offense you have caused them.

I'm going with the camera fairies. ;)

Thanks for the ideas. I do feel that I can understand some of the issues better now.

Lenses / Re: AF questions
« on: August 23, 2013, 06:50:02 PM »
Thanks but both the lenses are decent performers to the extent that I doubt that an AF module would see such a poor projected image of edges that the AF would be impaired.

I think the transmission of distance info was for the benefit of auto flash exposure.

The other issue is that these were both new lenses and both were sent in and returned without improvement.

I also note that commenters in other areas will note that "this lens focuses well on my xx camera" or "This lens struggles to find focus".

Lenses / AF questions
« on: August 23, 2013, 03:50:56 PM »
I am calling upon the collective wisdom here to help me understand something that has bedeviled me for some time

I generally use Canon lenses though I do own the Sigma 50 1.4 and in the past had an assortment of Tamron and Sigma lenses.
I am puzzled as to why some lenses hunt and others do not. For instance, a Tamron 24-75 and a Canon 28-105 that I used to own would hunt mercilessly.
If the AF module is in the camera and it sends its instructions to the lens why would the lens hunt? It seems to me that if the AF module sees OOF images it sends a correcting command to the lens and the lens should stop. Many comments I have seen seem to imply that the lens is making some calculations of its own but I can hardly imagine that to be the case as the light just passes through the lens.

For CDAF I understand it is an iterative process whereby the lens overshoots perfect focus and then backtracks to eventually settle at correct focus but what is the case for PDAF?


EOS Bodies / Re: More Medium Format Talk
« on: August 19, 2013, 06:03:38 PM »
What is the significance of calling it a larger EF mount? Does that imply electronic compatibility...as-in you can mount one of these lenses to an EOS body with an adapter and maintain full functionality?

It would be neat to see that, but I agree with most of the sentiment in this thread. Going to be crazy expensive.

My opinion for the mention of the larger mount is the need to add credibility to this noise so the life of the rumor is continued.
There is no real business or technical argument that justifies the development or acquisition of MF capability.
As to the comment of introducing a show stopper....that is a "quote" from unattributed sources that, if true, could mean anything from a magical Foveon sensor to a new logo in the fevered imagination of a sled person.

Sorry, but this seems to be the weakest rumor with the weakest "facts" to support it.

Canon General / Re: Canon Camera Sales Down in Q2, Imaging Revenue Up
« on: August 13, 2013, 04:30:51 PM »
The problem with photo enthusiasts analyzing these numbers is that they bring their narrow views about their hobby to the issue.

The reason that compact camera sales have fallen is that phones are the camera of choice for the enormous market that is the casual user.
They do not care about any of the issues that the hobbyist cares about. They want the photo to "come out". And they do on even the most rudimentary phones. The phone is their display and their album. More than that might be nice but not worth spending anything for. Their stuff already looks good on FB so why bother?

The real concern is the evolution of the higher end products that enthusiasts and pros DO buy. Canon has already shown us their pro-active strategy on this front in the form of the higher prices on new lenses and other accessories. They are already pricing for the low volume market they see developing.

That is why their profits are not dropping precipitously while sales of small cameras are.

Canon General / Re: More Medium Format Talk [CR1]
« on: August 13, 2013, 04:21:39 PM »
Sorry, count me as a skeptic.

What seems to be driving this is a wishful thought or utterance by someone that then gets circulated in the net gaining "credibility" by repetition.
Someone at Canon can inadvertently stoke this fire by saying "We have no comment".

This is mother's milk conspiracy theorists that are convinced that this is a peek under the cloak of silence on Canon's MF plans and aspirations.

When they unveil their MF world domination tour I will then have egg on my face. Until then I call baloney.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon is going to add mid format
« on: August 13, 2013, 10:40:54 AM »
Phase One: 300 employees
Canon:  198,000 employees

By any measure the MF market barely moves the needle for them.
For the hobbyist (that wont buy but will talk about them much as the auto enthusiasts declaim loudly about Porsche , Ferrari Lamborghini etc.) the market seems very significant.

Can Canon translate this to meaningful growth for their core brand or will it be a wasteful indulgence on the part of some enthusiasts in the company?

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 11