February 27, 2015, 09:24:29 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 [2] 3 4 ... 15
Canon EF Zoom Lenses / Re: Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM
« on: February 09, 2015, 10:43:35 AM »
not just for landscapes :)

it always upsets me a bit seeing how little love this lens get....

Third Party Lenses (Sigma, Tamron, etc.) / Re: Zeiss Distagon 15mm f2.8
« on: February 09, 2015, 10:38:19 AM »
color or B&W works too

a few more

one more recently @12mm f4.5 on a 1DsmkIII

very interesting indeed
I have the trioplan 100mm 2.8 and orestor 135mm 2.8, both with chipd adapters for canon, and bothe produce a very unique bokeh wide open. Not too bad at closing down either.

Aside of looks, and integrated interface for other cameras, hopefully they will keep the number of blades.
Now about the price....

Lenses / Re: Who is going to buy the 11-24 f/4L?
« on: February 05, 2015, 07:08:51 PM »
It's on a Watch list for sure, so probably yes, but not right away.

- priority will be the 100-400mk2, but just got the Otus 85mm and a RRS tripod, so I have to relax and recover for a while

will rent it when becomes available, so I can compare it with my other UWA lenses...and then wait for a refurb

Lenses / Re: EF 11-24 f/4L USM Specifications
« on: January 31, 2015, 03:00:12 AM »
As for CPL's, here is my 145mm CPL on the 17TS-E, which I often shift stitch to an 11mm fov.

The CPL, as NWPhil says, can be used very effectively for water and shinny services, I use mine for controlling glare and reflections on swimming pools, granite worktops and bathrooms.

I strongly suspect Fotodiox will have an 11-24 version of the Wonderpana out pretty quickly.

Darn, and I believed my 95mm filter was big....

Seems that the new 11-24 has an integrated hood, similar to other newer UWA lenses.
That alone is going to create issues adapting a filer system to it.
For sure I will wait to hear and see test results on this new lens - hopefully, it will at least be equal to Nikon's 14-24 f2.8.
I would not be surprised with the rumored price if the lens was a f2.8 - @ f/4 seems bit too much, but again, maybe it's really even better than Nikon's offering, and sharp right from f/4

The overall size and exterior looks seem fine for me, and if indeed supports a internal focusing design, then even better.
Maybe f/4 is the new f2.8, now that Canon is coming with higher MP cameras and what seems to be a more robust iso - time will tell.
Meanwhile, is very entertaining reading about all this in the main forums   ;D

Lenses / Re: EF 11-24 f/4L USM Specifications
« on: January 31, 2015, 12:00:20 AM »
ok, just a quicky with a  P&S - It seems to me that the 11-24 is a little smaller than the 16-35 f/4
Not a precise/scientific comparison, but I think it might close enough

Lenses / Re: EF 11-24 f/4L USM Specifications
« on: January 30, 2015, 04:48:57 PM »
wider than 16mm due to the way CPL's work.

CPLs don't work with skies only... nor this lens.

if you need darker skies a gradient ND filter might do the trick - sort of same thing with CPL's, as they can'r be used ALLL the time for everything with all focal lengths.
Very usefull to remove glare in water, shinny surfaces, slow down shutter in some situations, and many other that don't have any or some blue sky

sometimes works fine just rotating a little bit...

Actually that side effect can even show at 35mm but more likely below 24mm

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Review: Zeiss 15mm f/2.8 Distagon
« on: January 27, 2015, 03:22:08 PM »
LOL!!! (Once again....What kind of hood do you have on that $3000 lens?). Funny post!

The attached is the "Dumb assed end"

I must admit I didn't research enough before I purchased, the Images from this Lens are 2nd to none among my ultra WA lenses, of which I own several, Canon 14f/2.8L II, Canon 8-15f/4, canon 17TSE, 14-24f/2.8 Nikon, Canon 15f/2.8.

With the exception of the 17TSE, all my WA lenses are purchased first for Underwater WA, secondary function, Landscape, but I sort of suck at Landscape.

I just couldn't imagine anyone handicapping a Lens by having a fixed Lens Hood like the Zeiss 15, in my view, "Dumb Assed".

And, after trying several Circular Polariser Filters it wasn't until I found the Heliopan Slim that I found a Polariser that didn't cause Vignetting, but that Heliopan cost $500 bucks.

So, amazingly sharp, beautiful contrast, smoothest Manual Focussing system I've experienced, but a dumb assed Lens Hood system.

Yes, as has been shown by others you can remove it, but after laying out 3k for a Lens anyone that brings a spanner or a screwdriver within 3 metres of this Lens while on my Camera, is a dead man, or women.

Marumi filters - there is an old test on the web placing a Marumi filter on the top 3 or 5
Not all are good, but neither are the B+H

Indeed - there is more than small distortion, less flare, more contrast and richer rendition, smoother bokeh, and flawless construction .... the major flaw is indeed the price,
Cought it up or take some cough medicine :)
Is not for everyone, regarding needs or wallet. Surely is for anyone taking no compromises and wanting the best available.
People complain so much about super UWA and WA prices, but I see way far less complaints with fast super-teles pricing  (other than not being able to afford them, as indeed they are at least twice the zeiss 15 price).
Extreme lenses are difficult to build and take a lot of R&D money

(Yes, I have a super-sharp Samyang, TS-e 17 and even tried the 14mm II and Nikon 12-24)

Lenses / Re: I'm conflicted please help
« on: January 26, 2015, 06:23:51 PM »
Personally, I'd start over with the 16-35 f4, a nifty fifty, the 100-400 ii, and a 600 ii.
If you're gonna keep what you've got, get the 500.
Just my $0.02

+1 on a UWA/WA lens - there is a lot of floor space out there :)

A zoom would be a great choice, and often you will get pretty close to some animals, but if birds are your main goal, then go indeed go with a 500mm at least.
Mind also, that if you will be taking local flights, there are  quite a lot of weight restrictions/caps.
Hopefully, you are in with a private guide/tour, as I strongly advise to carry two bodies, and avoid changing lenses while out and about riding - you will be repositioning yourself quite often.
I would slap the bigger telephoto on the 7D and keep the WA on the full frame - better yet, if you have a good quality P&S with WA, carry bit too. That way you can then have the keep two long focals all the time, snap a couple shots at stops with the P&S, and change to the UWA zoom, when shooting the birds is done for the day or area. Often you will have a chance to stop in some viewpoints, where the WA can be usefull, and then there are some amazing bugs crawling around. Minimize lens changing, but be over zealous doing it; plan to carry a cleaning kits for lens and sensor(if you are confortable doing it),to use it back at your hotel/lodge

 nightscapes: by all means, bring a rokinon 14mm if you can. The night skies are just amazing

Reviews / Re: Impressions from 7DMkII and Comparison to 7D
« on: January 26, 2015, 03:51:58 PM »
I added the 7DkII recently and found the increase in performance amazing. More in my Blog entry:


What do You think?
Soory for the not working link...
<link removed by mod>
Is there an actual reason, other than shameless self promotion, that you are going round posting all these direct links to your blog?

You are making no further comment in the threads, you are inking to badly written misleading posts that you could just as easily leave here directly.


I think it's about time the moderators straight the whole thing out - Any blog plagued with commercial/click for profit links should not be allowed, or better yet, create a paying sub-forum for them, and let forum users decide and be upfront aware that they are contributing for someone's site traffic ratings - that simple

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Opinions on Sigma 85/1.4?
« on: January 26, 2015, 11:37:14 AM »
Never used the sigma, but what will be your main subjects or type of shooting you aiming for?

There are a few alternatives to the Sigma if you can live with manual focus (with AF confirm thru adapter in some cases)

The Nikon AF85mm f1.4D is a good alternative, with some compromises....
Then you have the Canon TS-e-90mm, Rokinon 85mm ...and ofcourse the Otus 85mm

For truelly unique looks:
Helios 40-2
Meyer-Optik Gorlitz Trioplan 100mm f2.8 (15 blades)

Lenses / Re: Inconsistent reviewing of lenses
« on: January 21, 2015, 03:12:19 PM »
Ok, I do think we need a policy that requires reviewers to be certified and licensed in the state or province where they reside.  Furthermore, such a license should not be issued to anybody who does not have at least an MA and an inspected, state-of-the-art lab.

Facetiousness aside, we get what we pay for in reviews.

And worse, paid influencers are all over the place, even on this website, alas.

To quote Mr. Monk, "It's a jungle out there."

Thankfully, AlanF and others are sharp enough and concerned enough to spot and report poorly executed tests and reviews.

Haven't you heard? if it is on the web, it's true....  :P  ;D

It's good to hear about other people experiences and feedback, but as mt Spokane is saying not everyone is qualifyed to perform reliable tests - there are only a few

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 15