Messages

256

Lenses / Re: 70-200 2.8 L IS II + Extender III vs. 100 - 400 L // Comparison?

« on: August 10, 2011, 03:46:22 PM »

Here is the TDP link to 70-200 IS II + 2x III:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=687&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=7&API=2&LensComp=113&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=7&APIComp=0

And here is 2x II vs. 2x III
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=687&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=2&LensComp=687&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=7&APIComp=0

Looks like the 100-400mm is slightly sharper, but the TDP test is very harsh, and I believe the differences between the two are pretty negligible.  Your opinion may differ.  The price, weight and size would be a determining factor if it was my choice (again, your priorities may be different).  And remember you're looking at 100% crops of the center, mid-frame, and corner at TDP in a side-by-side fashion, and with similar focal lengths and f-stops I think you'd have a hard time telling the difference between the two in real-world shots.

257

Canon General / Re: What?? A SCAM INVOLVING A CANON T3i??

« on: July 25, 2011, 02:45:18 PM »

I've tried to jump on deals on eBay recently, but haven't landed any because of conservative bidding.  A pawn shop in Florida listed a XSi, and I recognized a TS-E 24mm I (and a couple others) also in the pictures.  I wasn't the only one to notice it, because it ended up going for $1800.  Easily $2000-2200 in used equipment, I think it was around $4000 MSRP, but the age of the XSi, and the release of the 24mm II definitely have brought the used prices down.

Also saw a nearly NIB 60D (and kit lens) listed as a D60, I bid with 2 seconds left, and the winner got it for $405.  Wish I would have put it in 20 seconds earlier and had time to react, even at $800 it would have been a steal.

258

Contests / Re: Holga Giveaway

« on: July 19, 2011, 08:36:41 AM »

This would be fun to play with.  Hope I win.

259

Lenses / Re: Why in the hell did Canon make EF-S lenses

« on: June 08, 2011, 12:33:28 AM »

Newer lenses use internal zooming so they have to FAKE the focal distance - which is why you see a lens that is easily 200mm long having a 17mm (equivalent) size as the 17 - 85 does - the lens can not get near to 17mm so it has to FAKE this and the easiest way involves moving the rear elements closer than 42mm, if you limit yourself to cheaper cameras with smaller, cheaper sensors you can do this

It is not FAKE. It is one of many lens design technique called retrofocus which was first introduced by P. Angenieux. It is also called reverse telephoto and has nothing to do with moving the rear element closer than 42mm, mate.

He is correct in that the EF-S mount was designed with the ability to move the rear element of the lens closer to the sensor thanks to the reduced mirror size (the reason that EF-S lenses cannot be mounted on FF cameras - they will impede the movement of the mirror during exposure unless you mirror-up before mounting).  Third party lenses (as far as I know) do not design lenses to take advantage of the extra distance provided by the alternate mount design.  Nikon, OTOH, kept the mount identical and does not produce lenses that protrude further into the body than the original F design (therefore 'DX' lenses can be mounted on FF bodies with no trouble, but will strongly vignette due to the smaller image circle produced by that series of lenses).

260

Lenses / Re: Why in the hell did Canon make EF-S lenses

« on: June 07, 2011, 01:11:31 PM »

A 10-20mm non-distorting lens for a FF sensor would be technically very difficult, and would be very exotic and expensive (look at the price of the Nikkor 14-24mm and add a bit more for the even more over-the-top design).

And to answer your more general question posed in the title of your post:
Smaller image circle == smaller elements == smaller & lighter lens == cheaper lenses == higher margins & more sales == profit
(these are just some of the reasons Canon makes EF-S lenses)

The question you would like to pose is: why Canon doesn't make a set of lenses for the APS-H format.  I'll let the rumors of the APS-H format discontinuation, and the sales numbers of APS-H cameras answer that question for me (especially in relation to all APS-C and FF cameras).  (And no, I'm not saying the 1D-line of cameras are bad)

261

Lenses / Re: buying the 5DII and need two amazing primes to cover my range??

« on: May 19, 2011, 01:51:59 PM »

  24-28mm is what most point & shoots do

I suspect s/he means most P&S cameras start at 24-28mm on the wide end.

The majority of P&S cameras have 30-35mm (equ) lenses.  Only recently have makers started doing 28mm or 24mm (past 2-3 years).  A quick dpreview feature search yielded only 46 fixed-lens cameras with 24mm or wider.  221 cameras are 28mm or wider, and they list 348 cameras total that are 'current'.

262

Sports / Re: 60D Sports Photography Help

« on: May 03, 2011, 01:47:23 PM »

Some information that would be helpful:

Focal length (and lens model)?
Shutter speed?
AF setting (One Shot, AI Servo, AI Focus)?
AF point (one point, zone, auto)?

The 60D is (from what I have read) a very capable camera both in terms of image quality, and AF accuracy and speed.  The lens is definitely important too, in terms of focusing speed and accuracy.  With more information we should be able to help you achieve better action shots.

263

Lenses / Re: 16-35mm f/2.8L v. 14mm f/2.8L

« on: April 27, 2011, 04:53:37 PM »

I think either lens on a crop body is wasteful (with a few very specific exceptions).  If you need a f2.8 lens, then buy the 17-55mm f2.8 IS USM.  It is much more affordable, and while the wide end falls short by 1mm it offers a much more useful range for an APS-C sensor.  If you need wider than that you could always go for the 15-85mm f3.5-5.6 or 10-22mm f3.5-4.5 (albeit not as fast) or the Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 (albeit with drawbacks it has a 2.8 aperture).  Unless you're sporting a crop and a FF body, or intend to purchase a FF body soon, your money would be better spent on lenses intended for the crop form factor.  All of these lenses retain their value well too, so you should not be afraid of losing money on resale if or when you move to a full frame camera.  Another option for ultra-wide is the Sigma 8-16mm, which has no equal on the wide end.

These are just my opinions.

264

Software & Accessories / Re: Neck strap alternatives

« on: April 25, 2011, 10:01:59 AM »

The BlackRapid RS-7 and RS-4 seem to be popular choices.  Many good reviews online.  Not sure how well it will work for hiking, but since they are so popular the resale value on eBay or whatever would likely mean very little financial loss if it doesn't work for your needs.

265

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon vs Nikon in terms of Lens, Equipement, UI, Support

« on: April 19, 2011, 02:22:54 PM »

...silly autofocus compatibility issues that the Nikons do with their lower level bodies
...Unless you're planning to go with *at least* a Nikon D90 or a D7000 which gives you full AF compatibility with all of their lenses, I say don't even bother with Nikon...

I totally agree with SP's points.  The ability to use Nikon's good MF lenses from decades ago is nice, but it also means the older AF lenses are MF as well.  I prefer Canon's all-electronic EOS system over the F mount since I can get on eBay and pick up a mid-level 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 USM for <$200 (instead of the modern equivalent - either the $400 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 USM or $1000 24-105mm f/4L USM).  There are several older zoom lenses that are steals on the used market: 70-210mm f/3.5-4.5 USM, 24-85mm, 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 USM, and 20-35mm f/3.5-4.5 USM.  Let alone the numerous affordable primes Canon offers over the Nikon lenses that are only MF lenses on the lower-end Nikon bodies.

I don't have a lot of money to spend on my hobby, but the ability to pick up a 50mm f/1.8 II cheaply and a 100-300mm f/4.5-5.6 on the used market is definitely a perk to me.  With Nikon, I would have been forced to either MF or spend hundreds more.  I could even pick up an older 80-200mm f/2.8 or 28-70mm f/2.8 and have it be a fully-functioning 2.8 zoom for about half the price of the current 2.8's.

266

Canon General / Re: Ultrafast wide angles

« on: April 16, 2011, 01:51:41 PM »

The DOF is determined by aperture, focal length, and focal distance.

...and circle of confusion, which is why sensor size has an effect on DoF.  At the same aperture, focal length, and focal distance, a FF sensor will have deeper DoF than a 1.6x crop sensor.

Yes, but the same aperture, focal distance, and equivalent focal length will yield a shallower DOP with a FF sensor.  Big distinction, since in your example would yield two different pictures in composition.

267

PowerShot Cameras / Re: Canon Patents 42x Zoom Lens!

« on: March 16, 2011, 03:52:12 PM »

Safely assuming that Canon will use the 1/2.3" format sensor that has been standard in almost all P&S cameras they've produced in the past few years, and with it's 5.62 (!) crop factor that would make it a 24-1012mm f/2.6-5.7.

Mega-ultra-uber-turbo zooms FTW.  I just hope it has a threaded filter so I can add my 4.5x HD Supertelephoto lens http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/749507-REG/Polaroid_PL4558T_Studio_Series_52_58mm_4_5x.html to it

And CR guy:

The number of shots I’ve missed because I only have 35x zoom is staggering.

Pure genius.  You certainly have a way with words.

268

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon T3/1100D Announced

« on: March 14, 2011, 11:46:14 AM »

Looks like the status as B&H has gone from 'Expected March delivery' (or April, I forget what it said previously) to 'Temporarily out of stock' so it should be shipping now, or very soon.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/753766-REG/Canon_5757B002_EOS_Rebel_T3_Digital.html

269

Canon General / Re: Photographer Profile: Drew "Rukes" Ressler

« on: February 18, 2011, 05:51:25 PM »

Drew, sorry the crowd here at CR is not welcoming you, whether they appreciate your work or not.  I for one appreciate your work and I wish you the best.  Thanks for the interesting read on your work and experience.  I hope others can find the maturity to stop attacking you and your work.

270

EOS Bodies / Re: canon 600d or 60d?

« on: February 16, 2011, 01:48:28 PM »

Ergonomics are better on the 60D, but only if you're looking for a mid-sized camera.  The big difference in my mind is the pentaprism viewfinder in the 60D that is not only bigger, but brighter as well.  The dual control dials on the 60D are also a good reason to upgrade.  The higher burst FPS is also a benefit, but not everyone is looking for how fast the continuous is.