October 26, 2014, 03:42:42 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 - infared

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 65
16
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Woe and Pathos in the Sigma 50 Art?
« on: October 16, 2014, 05:56:44 AM »
My first copy was BAD. Totally psycho. All over the place with the auto focus. I spent the better part of a day trying to calibrate it with the the dock, then thought, "why am I doing someone else's job???". LOL!

The lens was so incredible when actually focused, that I HAD to give it another shot. (B&H is very understanding of this issue.) I sent the first one back and tried another. Glad I did. Out of the box it was a completely different experience. Very slight tweaking on the dock.  I left the focus adjustments on my 5DIII on zero.

The whole experience is a bit ridiculous for a $950 lens..but it does WOW me. :-)

17
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 6D Mark II to Move Upmarket? [CR1]
« on: October 14, 2014, 11:55:36 AM »
Bad news for us! I agree...What would be good for me is a lower-priced FF body to have back-up for my 5DIII.
After I saw the price of the new 16-35mm f/4 IS (and purchased one)...I was hopeful that Canon wasn't still involved with the runaway pricing that we have seen ever since the Fukashima disaster.....

18
5D MK III Sample Images / Re: 5D MK III Images
« on: October 13, 2014, 01:31:28 PM »
Thanks Candyman...think I am spending the weekend there next year!!!!!

19
5D MK III Sample Images / Re: 5D MK III Images
« on: October 13, 2014, 08:49:16 AM »
Processed some more of these....What a great event for photos!
(The last one is from my Olympus...sorry!! :P)

20
Canon General / Re: More Canon Lens Mentions [CR2]
« on: October 10, 2014, 09:47:25 PM »
Well...let's see...Nikon has a WELL REVIEWED 14-24mm f/2.8 @ ~$2000...I would consider that if Canon could offer the same...Even if it was somewhat more expensive and had the same quality. ...This rumored lens is just "out of the box" for me ..both the extreme wide angle (which becomes stupid) and the cost......but hey..like I said I am happy with the new 16-35mm f/4 IS is a nice sweet spot for me...
I bet a LOT of people feel this way...but lets see if this rumored lens materializes, no?

21
Canon General / Re: More Canon Lens Mentions [CR2]
« on: October 10, 2014, 03:55:22 PM »
$3000!!!! @f/4????????? :o :o :o
...so glad that I sold my 16-35mm f/2.8II and bought the new 16-35mm f/4 IS!!!!
Great deal (even cash-out for me)...  The new 16-35mm f/4 IS seems like a GREAT deal for a great lens if this new lens is going to be 3$$grand...whoa! I guess it makes sense though...lot of glass there...and more of an extreme specialty lens...I have a 17mm TSE and that or 16mm or my fisheye...is plenty for me!

22
Sports / Re: Your favourite motorsports events
« on: October 09, 2014, 04:53:52 AM »
Incredible shots fellas!
I like my motorsport events to be of the retro-grunge variety...(at the beach..when possible!  :P)
Second shot was my Olympus...sorry!  LOL!

23
Lenses / Re: I'm terrified of my EF 70-200 f/2.8 IS II
« on: October 08, 2014, 04:05:00 AM »
Just put it on the camera and go out and shoot.  Look at the results...
You will forget about anything you posted here and will just want to shoot MORE!  ::)

24
5D MK III Sample Images / Re: 5D MK III Images
« on: October 07, 2014, 09:50:35 PM »
Thanks guys...it was a great day for photos last Sunday!

25
5D MK III Sample Images / Re: 5D MK III Images
« on: October 07, 2014, 06:34:08 AM »
A day at the races.

26
Am I alone in thinking it looks ok?
Off with his/her HEAD!   :P

27
Lenses / Re: Shootout: EF 16-35 f/4L IS vs EF 17-40 f/4L
« on: October 01, 2014, 04:17:07 AM »
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.

Thanks! Glad you could find it useful.

How do you find the sharpness between the 16-35 F4 and the 16-35 2.8?

Graham

I find the sharpness much better across the whole image...and further the contrast is greatly improved which ads to the overall better IQ. I just go out with more coincidence when using this lens...That means a lot to my enjoyment of the image-making process!  ;D

28
Lenses / Re: Shootout: EF 16-35 f/4L IS vs EF 17-40 f/4L
« on: October 01, 2014, 04:04:34 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.

Oh no... I'm heartbroken  ;D

Graham

You seem to have a problem taking constructive criticism.

Please stop.

29
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!

30
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!    ::)

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 65