Messages

211

Lenses / Re: Extention tube ?'s

« on: December 04, 2011, 07:46:56 PM »

The following blog may help that I wrote for a friend of mine - http://www.ronmartblog.com/2011/11/today-im-happy-to-have-blog-reader.html

In terms of the difference between the Kenko and Canon extension tubes, for most practical purposes there is none.  The only time the Canon ones are recommended over Kenko is if you're putting them on a large lens such as a 500/4.  Otherwise the Kenko ones will work just fine.  I have the Kenko tubes and use them often.

I have the 100/2.8 IS and must admit I have never really desired to put extension tubes on it.  I typically use my extension tubes with my TS-E 90 and 300/4 to get that extra bit of magnification.  The 100/2.8 generally has enough magnification itself.  When it doesn't I use my MP-E 65 but then either need an MT-24EX or a macro rail + tripod.

In terms of my 100/2.8 IS I use it most often hand held - far easier with its hybrid IS.  One main reason for this is flash tends to look awful on flowers and other larger (macro-wise) subjects.  Another problem is for the 100/2.8 neither a hot shoe flash nor an MT-24 EX is really the ideal way to go.  You need light approaching at a much softer angle than either can provide.  When I used to have my 180L I attached two Wimberley macro brackets to the foot and that allowed a lot more creativity with the heads of the MT-24EX.  With the 100/2.8 I haven't bothered to buy the collar with foot.

Note that supposedly the hybrid IS of the 100/2.8 IS works better on the 7D than on the 5D2.  The 7D is newer and is designed to work better with that IS.  I have both and I haven't bothered to measure it.  I still almost always favor the 5D2 simply due to image quality.  Diffraction and poor performance at high ISO's are always in favor of the 5D2.

212

Lenses / Re: Help! 70/200mm f/4 IS OR 70/200mm f/2.8 IS II

« on: November 28, 2011, 02:09:37 AM »

I used to own the 70-200/4 IS and sold it to buy the 70-200/2.8 II. I briefly had both of them and did a few comparisons.  The 2.8 II is a bit sharper but both are very sharp lenses.  The main difference is the 2.8.  Given that you are a wedding photographer, however, I would think the 2.8 would be worth it.  The bokeh on his lens is wonderful and there is a big difference between 2.8 and F4.

213

Lenses / Re: 300mm F4L IS

« on: November 18, 2011, 12:10:57 PM »

I have the 300/4 IS and do like it a lot.  I use it most often for sports and dragonflies.  I actually purchased it specifically for dragonflies as they tend to be a bit skittish.  The following are some shots I have taken with it

http://www.flickr.com/photos/calevphoto/4574322409/in/photostream
http://www.flickr.com/photos/calevphoto/6092850943/in/photostream

I find my copy to be very sharp.  For sports I almost always use it at F4.  It does not take extenders well so I never use them with this lens.  Recently for sports it has been receiving competition from my 70-200/2.8 II with a 1.4 extender.  The 300/4 has slightly better image quality but it is close enough to not matter much.  During the last season I used the 300/4 when my sons were up to bat and the 70-200/2.8 + 1.4 when they were fielding.

The AF is quite good on the 300/4 and though I do hear the IS it isn't too bad.  One thing I have noticed is when shooting action shots (fielding) at high shutter speeds the IS in the 70-200/2.8 II noticeably hurts the shot.  I therefore need to always remember to turn it off for sports.  I do not have this issue with the 300/4.  Note that for static scenarios where IS is meant for, the 70-200/2.8 II obviously blows away the 300/4 in terms of IS.

The macro ability is the main reason I am keeping this lens for now.  The 70-200/2.8 II + 1.4 also has decent macro abilities though so I am becoming less inclined to keep it.  I was planning to sell it when the 200-400 came out but since I blew all that I had saved on the 1D-X that isn't in the plans any longer...

The 70-300 is a curious competitor I never really considered.  It has .21x magnification compared to .24x of the 300/4 so it isn't that far off.  It is also a good deal smaller and more flexible with zoom.  I have heard that it is very sharp.  It of course is a stop slower.  The main reason I doubt I would pick up the 70-300 though is a similar reason I may sell my 300/4 at some point though - with the 70-200/2.8 II + extenders it is less likely to make my bag.

214

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 100-400 f/4-5.6L IS "Soonish" [CR2]

« on: November 14, 2011, 12:44:24 AM »

The big question I have about this lens is if it starts at F4 instead of F4.5, does that mean AF will still work with a 1.4 extender on the 5D2, 1D-X, etc. - even at 400mm?

I owned the current 100-400 and sold it awhile back.  It wasn't a bad lens.  It was of decent sharpness, though the AF was on the slow side.  The main reason I sold it is I didn't see the sense in carrying it around any longer once I bought the 70-200 2.8 II + 2x III.  That combination is much more versatile so I sold the 100-400.

However if the newer lens has the following I would certainly consider picking it up given that the 200-400 and other bigger primes will be out of my price range.
- Not only can have AF will a 1.4 extender, but still has decent image quality and AF.
- Improved image quality from current model
- Significantly improved AF

If it does have these things, then IMHO it is worth a look.  Otherwise I will not bother with it.

215

EOS Bodies / Re: New 1DX review with AF info

« on: October 31, 2011, 01:23:35 PM »

I believe his issue with the 14 fps mode isn't really that it only works in jpg - but that you must lock focus and can't see through the viewfinder.  This makes the mode a lot less useful.  Personally, I can see this being useful in sports like baseball, but I suspect I will rarely use it.

216

EOS Bodies / New 1DX review with AF info

« on: October 31, 2011, 11:21:58 AM »

Thought I would post this - http://www.ronmartblog.com/2011/10/hands-on-canon-eos-1d-x-lots-of-photos.html

Not a huge amount new here but there are some details on the RAW buffer that I haven't seen elsewhere and some thoughts on the high ISO capabilities.

217

Lens Gallery / Re: Canon EF 180mm f/3.5 L Macro USM

« on: October 24, 2011, 11:28:36 AM »

It depends.  Are the above two pics 100% crops? If they are not crops then it isn't really possible to tell from the shots.  Keep in mind Ron wrote this blog before the 100mm IS was released.  I never owned the non-IS version, but from what I have read they are basically the same IQ-wise.  Where the IS version really excels is in the specialized image stabilization - which significantly expands the usefulness of the lens.

218

Lens Gallery / Re: Canon EF 180mm f/3.5 L Macro USM

« on: October 23, 2011, 12:11:03 PM »

In the case of the 180L, I wasn't the only one who thought it wasn't sharp.  I also loaned it to a friend who wrote a blog post on it with basically the same conclusion - http://www.ronmartblog.com/2008/10/comparing-macro-lenses-aka-why-i-suck.html

In retrospect I suspect I may have had a bad copy.  That was part of an ill fated order I had with Canoga Camera - at a time when I was trying to find a decent camera store on the West coast. Everything that could have gone wrong with my order did and that was the last time I dealt with them.  I now rigorously test each lens I buy but I didn't back then.

Still, I do know others who have had similar issues and am in no rush to pick up a new copy.  When I owned one I found it to be more of a niche lens.  It is quite long which made it difficult for some flowers.  My TS-E 90 is a much better length and the tilt provides more flexibility.  I really only found it useful for lizards - which are quite rare where I live.

219

Lens Gallery / Re: Canon EF 180mm f/3.5 L Macro USM

« on: October 22, 2011, 08:54:46 PM »

I used to own the 180L macro some time ago and found it to be too soft.  After owning it for about a year and a half I wound up selling it.  I am not sure if I just had a bad copy but I do know others who have had similar issues.  I also own the 100L IS macro and the MP-E 65. All three are completely different macro lenses, but in terms of pure sharpness the 180 was easily in last place.

The 180 is a useful lens and I used it quite often when I traveled to Mexico for photographing lizards.  It also does a good job for butterflies.  For dragonflies I find my 300/4 a bit more useful because they can be a bit skittish.  For flowers I tend to prefer the flexibility of the TS-E 90 + extenders.

I absolutely love my 100 IS macro.  It is a sharp lens but the main drawing point is the macro.  I use this lens quite often when traveling in markets and shops to photograph small things and I almost always do this hand held.  Without the IS it simply wouldn't be possible.

If Canon were to come out with a new version of the lens I would probably pick it up once reviews confirm that it fixes the sharpness problems of the original.

220

EOS Bodies / Re: The New EOS [CR3]

« on: October 17, 2011, 08:59:33 PM »

BTW, for those interested in when this announcement will actually be, I could not find any references online to a time but in the past almost all of Canon's major DSLR announcements have come at 04:00 GMT.  The only exception was the 1D4 which came at 08:30 GMT - at least according to DPReview.

221

EOS Bodies / Re: The New EOS [CR3]

« on: October 17, 2011, 04:39:08 PM »

I wouldn't be surprised if Canon someday enters MF, but I seriously doubt it would factor into their 35mm SLR plans.  The problem with a medium format camera isn't just that an "affordable" one would run about $10k right now.  The problem is buying those lenses.  Each lens will likely run $2k - $5k (assuming no big telephotos) and only high end studio/fashion photographers will realistically be able to make the jump.  This would be well out of the reach of most landscape photographers not named Peter Lik.

Most of the landscape photographers I know would be perfectly happy with a 35mm camera with a high MP count.  Many of them shoot on a tripod at ISO 100 so the image quality losses at higher ISO's wouldn't bother them as much.

I do not see a merging of the 1D + 1Ds lines in the near future in terms of having one camera that has both high MP and a high frame rate.  The processing power for these large photos just isn't there yet.  Of course, I could see Canon release a FF 1D5 with specs similar to those expected, but not release a 1Ds model.  Canon may choose to keep the 5D as their high MP camera as many of the 1 series features aren't really needed by landscape photographers.  I suspect they would be very happy with a 36 MP 5D3 that has weather sealing and 7 shot bracketing.

I also agree that the next 5D will not change significantly.  It will be around the same price and will have more evolutionary changes in terms of more MP and the AF of the 7D.  If Canon does add weather sealing and bracketing though, it may be a sign that the 1Ds line is history.

222

EOS Bodies / Re: The irony in it all

« on: October 16, 2011, 11:54:34 PM »

There are a number of things rather fishy with this announcement.

• Why would they replace the 1D4 so soon?
• Why would they combine the 1D + 1Ds lines with an 18 MP camera?
• If they are slowing production of the 1D4 to produce 1D5s, then why do we have to wait until March to get one?
• Why do we not have any more concrete specs just a day before launch?

Personally I would prefer no new camera to be released as I have been saving earnestly for the 200-400/1.4x.  If this camera does come out though, it would be too tempting to pick one up.  Given the choice between taking awesome pictures of birds and taking awesome pictures of my kids playing in low light, the decision has to be in favor of my kids.  If no camera is announced, however, I will happily put in a preorder for the 200-400 and pick up the 5D3 whenever it finally comes out.

One prediction I do believe though is that late Monday night/Tuesday morning one of two things will happen.  Either a camera will come out with the specs CR mentions or no DSLR will be announced at all.  I do not believe we will see some camera with different specs.

223

EOS Bodies / Re: The irony in it all

« on: October 16, 2011, 09:38:43 PM »

If this camera is really a FF 1D5 (successor to 1D4) then I would agree.  However if it truly combines the 1D + 1Ds lines then IMHO it is missing something (a more MP/slower frame rate mode).

If this camera comes out, I will likely put a preorder in the first day. I currently own a 5D2 + 7D and have always longed for something with the low light capabilities of the 5D2 with the frame rate and fps of the 7D.  This camera would basically give me that and more.  I would probably keep my 7D around though for situations where I really need the crop.

However, IMHO given these specs the camera should not list for more than $6k. If they ship an 18 MP camera for $8k then there is no way I'll buy it unless there is something else.

Personally, I have my doubts whether this rumor is true at all.  CR is the only one out there right now saying this camera is coming out. For such a big camera release it is quite shocking that no detailed specs have been released yet.

224

EOS Bodies / The irony in it all

« on: October 16, 2011, 05:46:37 PM »

Just thought I would share a rather humorous thought.

For the last several years, Canon users have been lamenting Canon’s pursuit of more MP.  While Canon users have been grudgingly happy with their cameras + lenses, there has always been a bit of yearning when confronted with the high ISO capabilities of cameras like the D3s – why can’t Canon come out with a camera like that?

Meanwhile, Nikon users have been generally happy with their cameras but I have heard a bit of grumbling that it’s about time Nikon come out with a camera with more than 12 MP that costs less than $8,000.

So Nikon is now rumored to come out with a 36 MP D800.  From what I have seen, many Nikon users are furious – that this camera simply has too many MP and low light performance and disk storage space will suffer.

In turn, Canon is now rumored to come out with an 18 MP camera that exceeds the D3s in most ways everyone cares – better high ISO, more fps, 50% more MP, and better AF.  The general feedback from the Canon crowd is this is the worst decision Canon has ever made.  18 MP is simply too few for a next generation sports camera.

Of course, these are just rumors and neither camera is guaranteed to actually surface (though in Canon’s case we’ll know soon).  It just really seems like camera manufacturers can’t win…

225

Lens Giveaway Contest / Re: *Contest* Creative Lighting - Post Your Images in This Thread.

« on: October 04, 2011, 02:00:32 AM »

Canon 5D + 16-35/2.8 II