July 23, 2014, 06:30:05 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 - rs

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 39
Lenses / Re: 70-200 f2.8ii or i
« on: July 03, 2014, 03:00:14 AM »
..Neither have direct equals in other bands which says a lot about the quality of these lenses.

uhmmm..  the Nikon 70-200 f/4 VR may not be pro quality build but it's optically quite a good performer and is, for example, one of the better lenses to use on a D800e for maximum resolution.

So there's one.

And the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 VC is no slouch either, turning in a similarly good performance.
That's 2 other options or at least one if you want an EF mount.

Current generation FF bodies are unable to differentiate the Canon 70-200 II and Tamron 70-200 VC lenses by much of a margin. But if you compare these lenses with TC's fitted, that small gap in performance opens up to a huge void.


I have actually thought about getting a 400 mm f/4 prime (big white that unfortunately does not exist)


EOS-M / Re: Cheap 400mm advice
« on: July 02, 2014, 07:25:28 AM »
How do you get the TC function to come up.  I didn't know that was possible... and even now that I see it... I don't know how to replicate it.

Only some lenses have it. It's hidden away in the focal length drop down box. For almost every zoom lens tested with TC's, they're only tested at the long end of the zoom with a TC, so for example the 70-200 II is tested at various native lengths from 70 to 200, and then again at 280 and 400, which are the the lens at 200 and a 1.4x mk II and then 2x mk II. And then again at 280 and 400 for the mk III extenders.

Things get odd with the 200-400 due to its built in extender. Full explanation here, and when you get your head around it, you'll see there's no other way of presenting it with this tool without adding additional drop downs for TC's:

Quote from: The Digital Picture
There are some things you need to know about the Canon EF 200-400mm f/4 L IS USM Ext 1.4x Lens image quality test results. The built-in extender with external extender compatibility complicates complete image quality presentation of this lens in our tool. So, here is what I am showing:

The first tested copy of this lens is presented as two lens samples – sample "1" and "2". Sample "1" is tested at all focal lengths (including those with extenders) with the built-in extender switch set to 1.0x (not being used) with the only exception being the first of the two 560mm focal length tests – the one that indicates "1.4x Extender Int". Sample "2" results were all captured with the built-in extender in place – the switch was set to 1.4x with no exceptions. Sample "2" results showing one of the "III" extenders in use also had the built-in 1.4x in use. You will notice the ultra-high focal lengths in these results.

The second tested lens is presented identically as sample "3" and "4".


EOS-M / Re: Cheap 400mm advice
« on: July 02, 2014, 06:17:24 AM »
Why do you want to take photos of the moon, especially low resolution ones? If all you want is the moon,
here are some images from when I was comparing lenses on the 5DIII and the SX50. You would do much better with the SX50 than a moderate 400mm on the 5DIII. The 600 (300mm/2.8 II + 2xTC) was the best for me. From top to bottom 100-400mm, SX50 at nominal 1200mm, 600mm, and Tamron 150-600 at 600mm. (The Tamron was taken, obviously, at a different time, and under more hazy conditions and at a poorer phase for seeing detail).

Thanks for posting the images for comparison. Yeah I see your point but I just want to give it a bash. Not entering any competition or anything. Just practicing for the sake of it. I do want to try capturing the moon in different phases like you've demonstrated here. Like I said I don't want to spend a ton of cash on a 300 f/2.8 but rather wanted to just use what I have. Guess 400mm ish is not enough then. So you think the 2x extender then?

If you're going to get a TC, only the 1.4x will have a genuine use with your lenses and bodies for day to day use. And the 2x won't be everything you need for the moon - to fill the frame you need somewhere in the region of 2000mm (FF). The 2x with a 70-200 on crop is only 640mm equivalent.

Here's what a cheap (even including the mount it's cheaper than a mk III TC) one metre telescope can do with a 40D, some cropping and PP:

The rumor says:

"new telephoto lens"

which could easily mean a telephoto lens design that currently doesn't exist as well as an update of one that does.

Why not announce a new APS-C telephoto lens with a new APS-C camera?

because there is no point in an aps-c telephoto

If there is no point in an APS-C telephoto then why does the EF-S 55-250 exist?

Because going as wide as 70mm on a crop camera is still quite tele, putting the lens out of general use for many people. 55mm at the wide end makes it more of an all round tele zoom for crop users.

Once you drop much below around 70mm in focal length, there are packaging and cost advantages to a smaller imaging circle than FF.

A 70-xxx, 100-xxx or 200-xxx has somewhere in the region of a 1% weight and size saving with the reduced rear element size required for the EF-S imaging circle - the lens elements further forwards are all identical in size. So why not just make such a lens FF compatible, and therefore sell it for less due to increased sales?

Pricewatch Deals / Re: Canon EF 1200mm f/5.6L USM For Sale
« on: July 02, 2014, 05:06:48 AM »
I'm quite content using the 600mm II + 2x III.  Sure it is f/8, but I bet the image quality is better than the bare 1200mm.

I'd guess you're right. The 600 II is a very capable lens, and IS, even when tripod mounted is very useful with lenses this long.

What we need is Bryan over at TDP to get a 1200/5.6 in for review, then we can all learn from his test chart shots :)

EOS-M / Re: Cheap 400mm advice
« on: July 02, 2014, 04:59:10 AM »
- For best moon pics, you would need much more focal lenght than 400mm eqiv

Yes, in all fairness, the longest lens you can get is the best for the moon - unless it's just going to be part of the frame. I've shot the moon with the 40D and a 1000mm telescope. The telescope came with an M42 mount which replaces the eyepiece, so a simple M42 to EOS adapter was the final piece of the jigsaw.

However, even with a 1600mm equivalent focal length, it still took a bit of cropping to get it tight. A 1.4x TC might have done the job. There were no end of issues though - street lights, the moon racing across the frame (a fast shutter speed is a must), and the equatorial mount wobbling all over the place when walking nearby. I found tethered shooting through the USB cable from the laptop with EOS utility to be about the best - it allowed me to avoid shaking the setup and get the focus right at 100% on a big screen. And then I was left with horrendous CA, but it was nothing that only using the green channel and turning it into a B&W image can't fix.

Either stick with the TC option as while it's compromised for shooting the moon, it gives you plenty of other genuine shooting options, use a telescope (if you know someone with one, even better), or to get the best optical quality, simply buy that 1200/5.6 that's appeared on ebay.

EOS-M / Re: Cheap 400mm advice
« on: July 02, 2014, 04:24:45 AM »
So you don't recommend the Kenko adaptor? Any reason for that? I feel like the Canon is over priced a bit. And for my purposes v2 should suffice right?

I have no experience with the Kenco adaptor, but from what I understand, the Canon is optically better and likely to carry on working well with all future (TC compatible) lenses, bodies and firmware updates that you might find yourself using in the future. That certainly can't be said of third party products, although due to the Kencos compromised optical design it doesn't have an element which pokes inside the rear of the lens, allowing it to physically mount to many Canon lenses which aren't designed to work with TC's.

Here's a comparison of the mk II and the mk III 1.4x TC with a 70-200/4 IS on FF:


The corners are improved with the mk III, everything else looks quite similar to me. As for the performance on the EOS M, unfortunately this tool doesn't have the mk II TC samples on crop. The extreme FF corners are a non-issue with the crop sensor, but the higher pixel density might reveal some differences not visible in this comparison.

Lenses / Re: Review: Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS
« on: July 02, 2014, 03:05:45 AM »
The IS will be nice for anyone using this lens without a tripod and the video crowd will dig it, and it's the only Canon UWA zoom that's ready for a higher resolution camera. It's reasonably priced. What's not to love?

What's not to love?

The price of course! It should be cheaper by $200 - $300 :)

Will the street price drop over time? Hard to say but for a lens that is reviewing so well, why would anyone feel the need to drop the price? People want it already at the current price!

It already has! Canon (apparently accidentally) marked it as valid for the 20% off discount thing they held some weeks ago. So a few of us did get it for $200 cheaper  ;D.

Try the UK then. It's still sold everywhere for £1199, which is $2056!

EOS-M / Re: Cheap 400mm advice
« on: July 02, 2014, 02:57:12 AM »
I'd suggest a Canon TC. As you rightfully pointed out, this means your new purchase is also good to go with your other Canon kit.

There doesn't appear to be much in it between the two when it comes to resolving detail:


But of course the 70-200 and 1.4 combo has more reach, and it gives you options with your 5D2 - 70-200/TC and 135/TC, whereas for you, buying the EF-S lens is a one horse trick.

The 2x TC will potentially resolve more detail than the 1.4x and cropping, but the lack of AF on either of your bodies with the 70-200 and the images the 135 would produce make it largely worth ignoring for any purposes other than shooting distance objects using the M with manual focusing.

It's more than just the colour gamut. The non-retina MacBooks have TN displays (high quality ones, unlike those found in cheap windows laptops), so the colours and white point vary quite a lot with changes in viewing angle. All the retina models have IPS, so they should be much more consistent.

Ok... while I'm walking down this road... 400mm or 300mm f2.8L?  I have the 70-200 f2.8L is mkii at present.  I would need to upgrade my 1.4x mkii to the mkiii and get a 2x mkiii. 

That would give me the following:

70-200mm. @f2.8.
400mm @ f2.8
90-280mm @ f4
560mm @ f4
140-400mm @ f5.6
800mm @ f5.6

Mmmm... that sounds delicious.

Which lens to go for really depends on budget, long term plans, and shooting style.

The 70-200 II works so well with 1.4x TC's that it can almost render the bare 300/2.8 II pointless for anything but wider than f4 shots. Obviously the sharpness, bokeh and AF speed take a step up, but it's not like they're lacking on the 70-200 II. However, once the 300 II is combined with a TC, the 300 gains a very real advantage.

Therefore, if you go by the adage that you should buy the lens whose native length is what you primarily intend to shoot with, you could argue that the 400 II makes more sense to pair with a 70-200 II as the only big white in your kit.

The 200-400 on the other hand buys you flexibility. It does next to nothing the 70-200 and 300 together with a selection of TC's does, other than allow you to go from 200 to 560 without any messing about with lens changes and adding/removing TC's, and save you a little bit of bulk to lug around. Looking at it the other way, the 70-200, 300 and TC combo does give you an extra stop at 200mm and 300mm, options wider than 200mm, and slightly more reach at f5.6, together of course with a lot of spare change.

Compare the 200-400 to the 400 II, and the cost gap narrows while the prime advantage widens (f4 at 280mm with both, but one stop faster at 200, 400 and all subsequent telephoto lengths).

If I was somehow in your financial position, I'd be torn between the 200-400 and the 400 II.

EOS-M / Re: EOS-M with Rokinon 300mm EF-M lens
« on: July 01, 2014, 02:37:30 AM »
The bokeh in that first shot is fairly typical for a mirror lens, but it is largely or completely a non issue in your other shots. It seems like avoiding high contrast detail not too far away from the plane of focus is the key to pulling off those great images with that lens.

Nice work!

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 16-35 F/4L IS -- Reviews are trickling in...
« on: June 30, 2014, 05:41:03 PM »
Also see the review on the Photography Blog website. http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/canon_ef_16_35mm_f4_l_is_usm_review/
They come to the same conclusions. Enjoy

I'm confused. I thought it was an EF mount lens:

Quote from: photographyblog.com
It has no aperture ring, which is no big deal unless you wanted to use it on a very old film body.


Lenses / Re: Quality lens system for lightweight travel
« on: June 29, 2014, 02:06:25 AM »
Someone will give me crap for saying this AGAIN and AGAIN. The Sony a7 series fits best in this situation, much smaller and lighter.

Once again Mr. Sony/Zeiss, where is FE UWA for landscape?

Its a appropriate response, the OP asked for other brands.  What generates complaints is where a different question was asked.
If you want telephoto, the A7 cameras don't make much sense. Take the Sony 70-200/4 OSS, and compare it to the Canon 70-200/4 IS. The Canon is shorter, narrower, lighter, and under half the price!

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 39