April 20, 2014, 06:39:57 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 - NWPhil

Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10 11
Lenses / Re: Bower 14mm weird behavior
« on: April 19, 2012, 10:09:06 AM »
I guess you mean Tv? the manual aperture ring controls the aperture, and is not registered by the camera sensor.
Truelly, you can shoot in manual or shutter speed only.
Thru the viewfinder, does the brightness changes, as you turn the aperture ring in the lens?


Lenses / Bower 14mm weird behavior ---SOLVED !!!!
« on: April 19, 2012, 01:14:09 AM »
So finally I got my hands on a bower 14mm,  in preparation to a Canon ef 14mmL II loaner trial.

Sure I was aware that focus and aperture are manual, BUT as I switched the aperture ring back and forth,from 2.8 to 22, no light change did happen.
I tried a few times, and nothing, till I gave the lens a light tap on the side, when the value was at f/22.
The viewfinder did become darker as it should be. I turn the ring to 2.8, and it did become lighter, but as I turn it back to 22, again no light change on the viewfinder
The light tap solved the problem.

No, I am not kidding, but has annyone ever experienced similar situation with this lens ( knock-offs included)?
It seems that the lens has some issues...

Thanks for your feedback

Lenses / Re: What is the most EXOTIC Canon lens?
« on: April 16, 2012, 10:03:44 AM »
The Canon 8-15 F4L is pretty unique.  If I'm not mistaken, I don't think there has ever been another fisheye zoom lens on the market.



no, not really - look at the 8-15mm sample shots. Nowhere I saw the 10-17mm getting close to 180 degrees.
It's a crop lens - the range corresponds to a ( with a pinch of salt) 16-25mm on FF, or slightly shorter than Canon EF-s 10-22

Lenses / Re: Is This Normal?
« on: April 16, 2012, 09:56:07 AM »
well, at 6.3 should be sharper, but I could not see exactly where the focus point went. I see a lot of CA too, and with some hazee in the sky, you shot this at 16mm,it won't look too pretty in gloomy days.
I think you need to test it in a few more scenes, with different light conditions, and that you might need a focus calibration.
Can you test test in another body? Did you perform any PP? and btw, what iso were you using on this shot?
If nothing yelds better results, it might be that indeed you need to return this one or send it to Canon

Lenses / Re: Why is Canon so slow updating (legacy) lenses?
« on: April 13, 2012, 11:54:26 AM »
I think the reason they haven't updated the 50mm 1.8, is because it is so cheap and cheerful and sells by the bucketload just as it is.
If they did update it, it's cost would go up by at least a factor of 2, and then the sales would plummet.

Updating lenses means new tooling and new systems to manufacture it, and with the older lenses, you are paying for yesterdays tooling costs, and not today's, which would be significantly higher.

Canon need some low-cost lenses in its line up as not all DSLR users are prepared to pay for L lenses and I would say that the greater majority of their lens sales are the cheap, kit lenses anyway.
Ask any camera retailer which lens sells in the highest volume, and they will tell you that the cheaper lenses outsell the L glass by 3 or 4 times, both in volume and $$$ sales.
It's a bit like cars.
We all want a super high performance, gorgeous looking car, but most of us drive smaller, cheaper cars.

Don't forget, we are on this forum because we are real enthusiasts, and enthusiasts who are prepared to spend big money on stuff are only a small part of any consumer market.


if is not broken, don't fix it.

Yet, a large percentage of enthusiasts still are driven by the mega-pixel race, and pixel-peep of every shot they take.
Some of my friends have no problem spending $200 on a new phone that will be outdated in a few months, and then will be looking to replace with a new one at great loss.
With lenses, once you buy quality - that you need and use - it's a keeper. You don't really need to update just because a new version is out.
If indeed a lens is an underperformer,, then most likely you already got ride of, or you never got it.
The average Joe, considers a lens above $500 already very expensive...yet, has no problems in paying over twice that in G4 phone/ wireless internet access charges
Priorities...that's a bitch

Canon's prioities: stay alive and make money, whitout loosing position in the market/ratings
For me, a product that needs constant update, just means was not done right to start with...

Lenses / Re: Why is Canon so slow updating (legacy) lenses?
« on: April 12, 2012, 12:25:40 PM »
I have to ask: what's CAD Canon camera?


Go to Portfoilio, then you'll see the Canon AE-D CAD drawings.  If you don't know, CAD is Computer Assisted Drwaing.

Thanks - actually I do work with CADD software every day, that's why when you said "CAD Canon camera",it did get my attention.
However is not really a CAD file, but a rendition image that come out from a cad software program - I could throw a few names, but for sure is not Autodesk or Bentley  :o - would be nice indeed to see the 3D model of it, as Inventor or SoildWorks can do
Cool stuff that  DR has on his website btw


Lenses / Re: Thoughts on some classics
« on: April 11, 2012, 10:32:37 AM »
I have the 80-200 2.8L.
It's sharp, fast enough for me, discreet in black - but heavy.
Also, does not take Canon's ef extenders, but will work with aftermarket one's
Another minus, is servicing and parts.
However, I will not part with mine :) ...same goes to the 15mm fisheye

Good copies of the 80-200 go close to $800.
At that price, you might as well consider a used 70-200 with no IS, if white is  problem, a cheap solution are sleeves - permanent, a professional paint job, which may take lens resale value

Lenses / Re: Why is Canon so slow updating (legacy) lenses?
« on: April 11, 2012, 10:23:54 AM »
- anything below 50mm as a prime: skip the IS and drop the USM - yes MF only - upgrade lens coating, seals and shellcase, and ofcourse any real technical optical improvement is welcome( less flare, CA)

If Canon would actually dare to release a MF prime they will probably charge extra for it. They'll sell it as some super duper mad-skillz-pro-photographer must have lens. :)

I'd like to see your CAD Canon camera come to life.  FF 50 fast prime, no mirror.

I have to ask: what's CAD Canon camera?

Lenses / Re: Why is Canon so slow updating (legacy) lenses?
« on: April 10, 2012, 02:43:51 PM »
did not vote
yes, it's all about business - mainstream zooms do sell and make bodies sell as kits.
the USM and Is technology - yes graet, but do add cost and lens life expectancy - classic case with wth 50mm 1.4
So, my take would be:
 - zooms do benefit of IS and USM - updates on them are priority
 - long focal primes do need IS and USM - pro's and pro-hiring companies can absorb the cost that will give them an edge/better IQ
 - anything below 50mm as a prime: skip the IS and drop the USM - yes MF only - upgrade lens coating, seals and shellcase, and ofcourse any real technical optical improvement is welcome( less flare, CA)

Canon EF Prime Lenses / Re: Canon EF 14mm f/2.8L II USM
« on: April 01, 2012, 12:43:35 AM »
Still don't understand why Photozone gives thsi lens a low(er) rating....

Lenses / Re: Ultra Wide Angle with Full Frame
« on: March 21, 2012, 10:53:17 AM »

I am an amateur hobbyist and love landscape photography. I love really wide angle shots and I liked Sigma 10-20 on my 7D. Now I am getting a 5DMIII and was looking for an ultra wide angle for full frame. The way I see my choices:

1. Canon 17-40 or 16-35 (17-40 is pretty wide but not "super wide"; 16-35 is somewhat expensive)
2. Nikon 14-24 with adapter --> expensive + no auto focus
3. Sigma 12-24 mark II (about $1000)--> Interesting - don't seem to have too much of information about it. Saw a couple of reviews but not that many people seem to have it.

So, my questions:
1. Am I missing any other option
2. What would the recommendation be


you hit the wall @14mm as far as rectilinear - Zeiss, canon . sigma and Samyang have it in 14-15mm versions
Canon 8-15mm if you want a zoom on the UWA side
For landscape: you might want to consider the TSE 24 II or 17, with a nodal point or panorama tripod bracket  with the added shift and tlit focusing abilities, your landscape framing setup is expanded imensly

rent them first...

I would like to buy a nifty-fifty (most likely the 50mm 1.4). I'd like it for portraits but want it for music/concert photography (right between the stage and the crowd, where the security personnel stand...if I can figure out a way to get a media pass without paying extra to the tour organisers :().

But while some people say everyone should have a 50mm in their lens collections, one of my teachers (I'm a photography student) have said that some people find 50mm lenses boring, etc. So what's the next best kind of lens? I guess my (stretched) budget wpuld be up to $1500 including the B+W filter I would buy. What does everyone think of these 'kits' and which one is better? http://www.amazon.com/Canon-Filter-Accessory-Digital-Cameras/dp/B002PX21JS/ref=sr_1_7?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1331887805&sr=1-7 or http://www.adorama.com/CA5014AFUA.html

I don't need this lens (canon branded or otherwise) but I would like it. I guess the alternatives would be a prime such as the 24mm/35mm or the 17-40mmL. Any suggestions/advice is appreciated.

what about a 24-70 I? or indeed the 17-40 as zoom, if you want to stay on WA
as primes, I would say that the least boring, would be the ef 1002.8 usm macro, and either the canon 15mm or a rokinon\samyang\bower 14mm
bonus: you don't need a CPL in neither one - just two good clear uv for protection
ps: my 50mm 1.8 has a reverse ring attached - always

now for your specific needs - I think the 35mm 1.4L would be a good choice, but not for portraits - you can add the 50 f1.8 for that and remain in budget.

Lenses / Re: Lens Issue: 10-22 vs 16-35 vs 17-40
« on: March 20, 2012, 11:30:02 AM »
I have to (hate to) sell my 10-22 since I'm graduating from a Rebel XT to the 5D3.  It's practically untouched since I did more closeup/candid work, so if anyone wants it, just let me know. :)

there is an ap for that!! ..errr.... I meant a sub-forum for that(selling it)

Lenses / Re: 24mm f/1.4 II or 24mm TS 3.5 II
« on: March 19, 2012, 05:15:16 PM »
are you sure you want to loose the 16mm focal?
I would look first at which focal you use the most on this 16-35 - if indeed it's 80% above 24, you are in the right path.
Otherwise... maybe not, and you may want to consider the TS-e 17 instead.
there is this new 15mm zeiss, the canon 14mm both rectilinear...and expensive
On the less expensive side canon FI 15mm and rokinon 14mm
For landscapes, you will not miss the AF
Rent the TSE first - has better IQ than the ef II - an the tilt is very usefull in landscaping too, and supersharp
Nothing I can tell you abouth the ef 24 - don't have it, and I use my 17-40 @17 mostly

+1 to neuro above too

Lenses / Re: Ultra-Wide-Angle (UWA) wishlist
« on: March 18, 2012, 01:22:14 PM »
Canon lens range is covered from 8mm on
8-15mm ; 16-35,...
but I agreee and wish too for an overlap fixed focal lens - like a 14-21 or so, or even a prime in the mid of that range with AF and at least 2.8
Hi Phil, thanks for your thoughts.

Agree that the 8-15mm may be an option if I was after a fisheye.  Unfortunately, I'm chasing something rectilinear, but forgot to mention that in the post.  Isn't the 8-15mm also bulbous?

Many owners have mentioned that the 16-35 suffers badly from hotspot in near-IR, which is why I did not look at it.

not as much as the TS-E 17mm ...
at 14mm fixed, you have the rokinon and their knock-offs (samyang and bower) and the canon ef 14mm,
I think sigma has a decent 15mm
My hopes are in a new mid-range UWA-WA or a 17-18 prime for canon.
Zeiss has a good 18mm and outstanding 21, but they are not wide enough for me

Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10 11