September 30, 2014, 02:59:07 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 - infared

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 63
1
Lenses / Re: Review: Canon EF 16-35 f/4L IS by Dustin Abbott
« on: September 29, 2014, 11:25:47 PM »
I replied earlier that I reall liked the review, but I did come across a statement that Dustin made that to my knowledge is at the very least an exaggeration:
"figure out now whereas before they were like a mystery.  After being with a BPD, the simple games normal women play just don't work on me now. Get their attention, DENY them narcissistic supply and watch them chase you for it, if you look half decent and have the ability to put on a bit of an act it's easy"

If I am not mistaken the canon 24-70mm  f/2.8 II was introduced at approximately $2499.  I purchased mine not long after release for $2399. Right now B&H Photo is offering the lens at $2099 and do remember seeing it recently around the web perhaps in the $1800  range for very short periods of time...but I definitely have not seen that lens at half it's initial offering price which would be in the $1250 range. Correct? Maybe I missed some super sale or something but I do not think that the lens has sold that low. Maybe the initial selling price upon release was higher than I remember?

At any rate, the price on this new wide angle was a nice surprise compare to the Canon pricing trend beforehand! Definitely.

Also just checked out Dustin's video portion of the review and it was concise and excellent. Good speaking ability there!

2
Lenses / Re: Review: Canon EF 16-35 f/4L IS by Dustin Abbott
« on: September 29, 2014, 12:44:10 PM »
Great review as usual Dustin!

“This lens is good…really, really good. It is so competent that you have to stretch to find criticisms. What is even more true is that this lens is going to serve hundreds of thousands of photographers around the world very, very well.”

It is serving this photographer very, very well.  I sold my 16-35mm f/2.8 II to buy it (even wash financially...the G.A.S attack was not messing with my bank account this time!! LOL! That NEVER happens).
I have to say..when I go out with this lens I KNOW that I will not be serving up any mush in Lightroom when I get home!    ::)

3
Lenses / Re: Shootout: EF 16-35 f/4L IS vs EF 17-40 f/4L
« on: September 28, 2014, 07:52:03 AM »
Graham..thanks for the review..tee shirts aside (sheeeeesh?!)...I think you did a great job at reviewing the lens...and you kept it in the realm of your experiences and use...What you know best.   I actually sold my 16-35mm f/2.8 II and bought the new offering. After owning a 17mm TSE II and a Zeiss 21mm f/2.8 the results from the 16-35mm f/2.8 II can many times look like soggy breakfast cereal. (I know zooms cannot generally compete with primes ..but one would think that a zoom in the price range of the 16-35mm f/2.8 II could at least show up?..good to see that Canon is improving on this with some of their newer offerings!).  I find the 16-35 f/4 IS lens to be sharper, have less CA and the IS helps make up for the lack of f/2.8. I am surprised at your results as many reviews out there show a more dramatic improvement over the 17-40mm in the area of sharpness.  I am thinking that you have an extremely sharp copy of the 17-40mm perhaps.

One thing that many reviewers rarely mention about the 17-40mm is the extremely short "throw" on the zoom range at the wide end...  I ordered 17-40mm lens first, (before I bought my 16-35mm f/2.8 II) and as soon as I put it on my camera and experienced the truncated throw I just return it.   To me there was just not any "room to zoom" at the wide end...it felt like I was at 20mm and then 17mm with no room to explore anything in between. Just did not like that "feel" when using the lens. The 16-35mm f/2.8 II and the 16-35 f/4 IS have a MUCH more pleasing zoom throw through the same focal length range than the 17-40mm.

Thanks for the review. You validate my purchase from my latest G.A.S. attack. LOL! (actually...I was able to purchase this lens & filter for what I sold my 16-35mm f/2.8 II & 82mm B+W filter for. So the new lens did not cost me anything. Canon did a nice job at keeping the price reasonable on the new lens).
I chose the  B+W 77mm XS-Pro CLEAR MRC-Nano 010M Filter...and I am not noticing any increased vignetting.

4
Lenses / Re: Shootout: EF 16-35 f/4L IS vs EF 17-40 f/4L
« on: September 28, 2014, 07:30:28 AM »
Stopped watching after a few seconds. A photographer that uses a white background while wearing a white and blue t-shirt, and is himself very pale white. Weird. All far too bright, I would need sunglasses to watch that.

And not even a few seconds of intro to ease you into the video.

I will stick to TDP for my reviews as Bryan knows what he is doing.

Wasn't focusing on the t-shirt this time around, rather the lens

My comment had nothing to do with your choice of t-shirt. Seriously?! That's what you took from my comment. lol.

Choosing a bright white background like that is not wise. Plus you need a 2 or 3 second intro of something.

Very poor video, and I personally would not take any camera advice from someone that produces someone like that about a camera product.

WOW...after your first comment, I didn't think that you could be any ruder....but guess what, you proved me wrong!

6
5D MK III Sample Images / Re: 5D MK III Images
« on: September 27, 2014, 10:24:01 AM »
I was crawling around on those rotting trains again....

7
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Why haven't you left canon?
« on: September 27, 2014, 09:54:54 AM »
Well...one reason I stay is because of the incredible Camera/Picnic/Lunchbox/Ensembles that Canon keeps offering. Who would ever leave a company who can produce incredible products like this!?!?   8)

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/4473444242/canon-uk-introduces-limited-edition-stella-mccartney-bag-with-white-eos-100d

8
Lenses / Re: HERE COMES THE BRAND NEW EF 50mm f/1.4
« on: September 25, 2014, 07:26:22 AM »
I wonder how much melamine it contains?   8)

9
Third Party Lenses (Sigma, Tamron, etc.) / Re: Sigma 50mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art
« on: September 24, 2014, 09:56:45 AM »
After a few days testing Sigma 50mm Art, I can say that is the only lens (except Zeiss Otus) that is truly sharp at maximum aperture. I hear some people complaining about problems with autofocus, but frankly, any lens from any manufacturer is subject to certain units outside the calibration standard.
aj....I had to send my first lens back to B&H Photo....it focused all over the place...it just could not hit the mark consistently at f/1.4....I attempted to adjust it with my dock...and just said..."screw this, I am doing someone else's work here!"...LOL!  It was totally wacked.  So I did find that there is some legitimacy to the complaints from users, but instead of making 200 posts on 7 different forums ( :o ) I just just called up B&H..told them about the problem, which they were well versed on, (they are the best!) and they sent me another one. This second lens just needed a slight adjustment with my Sigma Lens Dock (fine tuning) and it just seems to hit the mark all the time at any focal distance.   
That's right. Sigma today produces some wonderful lenses, but still problems with autofocus above average. If Sigma resolve this, will bury its bad reputation in the past.

Yeah...I was able to purchase a spectacular lens...and I do mean spectacular...but I had to waste my time and energy doing a little dance.  At $950 for a normal 50mm prime for one of the most popular cameras in the world..it should be coming out of the box with no question marks in everyone's heads 98% of the time. I agree!

10
Canon EF Zoom Lenses / Re: Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM
« on: September 24, 2014, 09:50:41 AM »
The Ferris wheels are fun!

11
Third Party Lenses (Sigma, Tamron, etc.) / Re: Sigma 50mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art
« on: September 23, 2014, 01:37:12 PM »
After a few days testing Sigma 50mm Art, I can say that is the only lens (except Zeiss Otus) that is truly sharp at maximum aperture. I hear some people complaining about problems with autofocus, but frankly, any lens from any manufacturer is subject to certain units outside the calibration standard.

aj....I had to send my first lens back to B&H Photo....it focused all over the place...it just could not hit the mark consistently at f/1.4....I attempted to adjust it with my dock...and just said..."screw this, I am doing someone else's work here!"...LOL!  It was totally wacked.  So I did find that there is some legitimacy to the complaints from users, but instead of making 200 posts on 7 different forums ( :o ) I just just called up B&H..told them about the problem, which they were well versed on, (they are the best!) and they sent me another one. This second lens just needed a slight adjustment with my Sigma Lens Dock (fine tuning) and it just seems to hit the mark all the time at any focal distance. 

Thanks for the compliment Distant Star..... 

12
Third Party Lenses (Sigma, Tamron, etc.) / Re: Sigma 50mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art
« on: September 23, 2014, 11:51:04 AM »
This lens just stuns me!

13
Lenses / Re: Do you keep all your boxes?
« on: September 21, 2014, 05:53:58 AM »
I keep all my boxes packaging, manuals, certificates, etc. for everything. Always. I resell all my equipment eventually for top dollar. The box matters.

14
Just look at the roundness of that aperture and tell me you wouldn't die for one like it in a modern lens.   ;D ;D ;D

Young people?  Learning?  Don't get me started.  LOL!!!


What do the young people learn today? ;)



Back, when I was young...

A brain AND good equipment is a nice combo.

15
EOS Bodies / Re: 5diii to 7dii?
« on: September 18, 2014, 05:07:37 PM »
I would not sell my full frame to step down. You realize that changes the perspective of your lens collection and you would basically have no wide angle coverage.
If you sell the 5D...you "may" have enough money to cover the new 7D II. There will be nothing left to by a prime.
Good primes are not cheap.  You are not going to get most of your money back in the sale.  The price for 5D's has dropped drastically since introduction.
Just my two cents.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 63