October 21, 2014, 04:38:22 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 - pj1974

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 26
16
Lenses / Re: This thing's gotta go!
« on: June 11, 2014, 10:09:28 PM »
I had a Canon EF 28-135mm USM IS, that I bought with my first DSLR. I had a good copy, and mine was better than the 18-55mm kit lens (ie the 28-135mm was sharper wide open, more contrast, had USM focus, and IS).

It was my favourite lens for large flowers, and I kept it until about a year after I bought my 7D and Canon EF-S 15-85mm (which was a few years ago now).  Since using the superior 15-85mm, I didn’t find much use for the 28-135mm any more.  I decided to sell it… got a decent price for it, and am happy for the years of use I had out of it.

Along similar lines, I sold my Canon 100-300mm USM, when I upgraded to the Canon 70-300mm L USM IS.  This lens is a great telephone, especially on APS-C bodies.

I also sold my Sigma 10-20mm EX after I bought the superior Sigma 8-16mm (love this lens, with its extreme field of view!) 

The only other lens that I’ve sold is the Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II.  I never really loved it – AF is between terrible and unacceptable (on all Canon DSLRs I’ve had), bokeh is harsh, and its quality wide open not good enough for my needs.

There you go!

Paul

17
EOS Bodies / Re: A Few EOS 7D Mark II Specs [CR1]
« on: June 11, 2014, 08:19:13 PM »
I am looking forward to see what any 7D mkII has to offer (as I have a 7D and was a relatively early adopter of this great camera).

My main hopes / criteria include:
-   It definitely has to remain APS-C  / 1.6x crop sensor (I have lenses, both EF-S and EF that I love on APS-C bodies).* 
-   Better IQ (both at low and high ISO, in terms of lower noise, no banding – and good per pixel sharpness)
-   Improved AF (stronger, more consistent auto-focussing – especially in poor light, but I find the 7D does quite a good job if one knows how!)
-   Phase Detect DPAF (Dual Pixel Auto Focus) on sensor, like the 70D (or even better)
-   Body size / weight / shape – I love it as it is, and yes, I’ve use many other bodies – smaller, larger, Canon & other brands. 7D is just right for me! I’d prefer not to have an integrated grip.
-   Keep the pop up flash, it’s definitely convenient to have it there, and not need to always take an external flash
-   FPS is fine, but I’d like a 5 frame EV-exposure bracket possibility (not just the 3).
-   Intervalometer (not a huge deal breaker, I have the very good Hahnel remote, which can do those features, and has some other useful functionality)
-   WiFi & GPS – handy, but want to have the option to switch them on & off easily. Not essential or that important for me.

* APS-H is dead, and didn’t give the best of both worlds, it gave the worst of both worlds – though I can understand for some people it ‘worked’ as a handy compromise.

I don’t mind the mode dial – I really like that it has hard stops (I place ‘sports / quick action’ photography on C3).  But I only use these 3 modes Av (85% of the time), M (10%) and Tv (5%).  I certainly don’t want the P mode, or ‘Creative Auto’, etc.  I would be happy with 5 x Custom modes, either accessible via a mode dial, button/s or a well-implemented touchscreen system.

Having seen what Canon has brought out with the 70D (for a xxD body - a fine camera: good image quality, rich feature list & great value) – I have positive (and hopefully not unrealistic) expectations of a good 7DmkII… it’s certainly been a long time in the coming!

Paul

18
Lenses / Re: Photozone review of EF-S 10-18mm is online
« on: June 08, 2014, 08:10:23 AM »
Thanks Traveller for starting this thread.  Well done to Klaus @ Photozone for a speedy review.. I love his analysis and descriptions... good to read & follow.

I saw the review a day and a half ago, and it confirmed what I thought - another very 'attractive' Canon STM IS lens.  When I write 'attractive' - I mean, fantastic value for money, and very decent good image quality (IQ) and few other weaknesses.

Canon have been doing well with all their STM lenses in terms of IQ, general functionality, etc.  So it's great to see this being a 'budget' yet good IQ, that complements the 18-55mm STM IS and the 55-250 STM IS.

I can imagine many people going for this lens who want a Canon EF-S UWA on the Canon DSLRs like xxxxD, xxxD, xxD and maybe even the 7D's. It's very competitive against other UWAs out there... and beats a handy few.

I used to have a good copy of the Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6, but upgraded to the Sigma 8-16mm, which has even better IQ than either of the Sigma 10-20mm's.  Plus it's an extra 2mm wider, which at that width is really noticeable!  Here is photozone's review of the Sigma 8-16mm - which interestingly is very similar in sharpness and general other IQ characteristics (eg vignetting and CA's) to the Canon 10-18mm.
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/515-sigma816f4556apsc?start=1

I hope many Canon APS-C camera owners will be happy owners and enjoy the fun of UWAs with the EF-S 10-18mm STM IS!  Looking forward to seeing beautiful images from it.  :)

Regards

Paul

19
Lenses / Re: What was your first L lens?
« on: June 06, 2014, 05:48:45 PM »
My first L lens was the 70-300mm L USM IS.  I bought it a few years ago to replace my 'quite average' 100-300mm USM, mainly for much improved IQ @ the tele end, and of course the IS.  (I must say the 100-300mm's USM was very good!) :)

I didn't actually expect to get the 70-300mm L, it was recently released in shops - and I was looking between the Tamron 70-300mm and the Canon nonL 70-300mm, leaning toward the Tamron. Then I saw it on the shelf in the shop - and asked to try it on my 7D.

Took a few shots inside and more outside the store.  I was surprised at how well balanced it was on my 7D, AND how compact it was. (I wanted a very portable lens to fit in my shoulder LowePro bag, to complement my Canon 15-85mm). I went home, looked at the photos on my PC and was sold - particularly at the great sharpness, contrast and general great IQ at 300mm f/5.6. 

I went back to the store, and they offered me a great deal (really good price on a new lens, and gave me a pro 67mm multicoated Hoya UV filter).  :)  So I was 'sold' and bought it and have enjoyed using it lots since. My 7D's AF is good, and I have photographed much wildlife, including hundreds of birds, also BIF. 

Cheers..... Paul

20
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 16-35 f/4L IS Real World Sample Images
« on: June 04, 2014, 09:23:30 AM »
Yes, I've looked at the samples... definitely hints that this EF 16-35mm f/4 L IS USM will be a great lens.
I've also seem some of the new EF-S 10-18mm IS STM will be a decent budget for APS-C cameras too!

Well done CANON!  :)

Paul

21
Lenses / Re: Canon 10-22 vs 10-18
« on: June 03, 2014, 07:56:22 PM »


2) Whom they are going to sell EF-S 10-22 to now? (To the guys who crave for 7DII? No chance! Since all of them are bird-shooters who do not care about UW.)



Hey I have a 7D and crave the 7DII, shoot birds and have the 10-22. ;D

+1 *(well almost)

(I have a 7D and crave the 7DII, shoot birds (lots of them!)- and landscapes (lots of this) - in my case many with my Sigma 8-16mm!

Thanks 2n10 for sharing *almost my thoughts exactly - before I did! ;)

I'm sticking with an APS-C for all my photography at this stage... I love the lenses I have, covering 8mm to 300mm with quality glass!  :)

22
Lenses / Re: Review: Canon EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM
« on: June 03, 2014, 07:47:26 PM »

It's truly bizarre to me that almost 20 years after Canon's first IS lens people still insist on staying ignorant about the benefits of IS. IS is not just about counteracting shaky hands, IS allows you to shoot at lower shutter speeds than you normally would. f/4.5 with 3-4 stops optical stabilization on this lens will be able to handle lower shutter speeds than f/3.5 without on the 10-22mm. Can you use your imagination to think of any scenarios where lower shutter speeds are indispensable?

I can successively shoot an EF 85mm f/1.8 at 1/4 second on a crop-camera. Therefore the EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 is not a problem, for me. YMMV. I can also drive a stick-shift (manual) transmission car. YMMV.

There are many times an IS system is handy -- Long Whites comes to mind. But a 10-18mm you've to to be kidding!

But not-to-worry, your side has won  ::) Canon has also added Image Stabilization to the EF 16-35mmf/4L IS USM. When will Canon add IS to the EF 14mm f/2.8L and EF 15mm f/2.8L ??? I'm sure that Zeiss will soon add IS to their Wide Angle Prime lenses :)

I have been shooting photos for years, and was very happy when image stabilisation / optical stabilisation came out.  It definitely benefit many of my photo opportunities (both in lenses, and in digital P&S’s).

Some people definitely have steadier hands than others (and some people are better practised at this). However to suggest that most people could consistently achieve sharp hand held photos with exposure of 1/4 second at 85mm (on an APS-C body) is a fallacy.   I would suggest that even the steadiest percentile of photographers can not achieve this consistently!

Much of my photography requires small apertures… eg f/8 to f/16 (yes, I know… diffraction starts to set in… but this overall very minor decrease in sharpness (ie at small apertures like f/16) is offset by having a photo with a sufficiently sharp (close) foreground to (distant) background.

There is definitely a place for IS, also in UWAs. In fact for several years, I have been hoping that Canon might even come out with an in-body IS system. Yes, I’ll admit it – I’m jealous of that possibility offered by some other manufacturers.

On the whole I prefer the overall Canon system (features and quality of DSLR bodies, lenses and accessories).  Even if in body IS offered 2 to 3 stops of IS (rather than the 4 in most new lenses) that would be welcome… I fully realise I’m being quite hopeful and optimistic in this, but an extra 2 to 3 stops stabilisation for my Sigma 8-16 would be AWESOME.  (It’s such a good lens!)  I’m thrilled with my Canon 15-85mm as my walk around, it’s 4 stop effective IS proves so useful – also at 15mm.

Sure I find most use for IS on my fantastic 70-300mm L, where that lens' 4 stop IS is really helpful, and in some ways a 'photo saver'.

But even then, for many of my photos, a steady tripod is required. There is nothing like having a good sturdy tripod from which to take photos with any duration of shutter speed. Just IS is helpful for when I don’t want to lug around a tripod (or when they are not allowed in certain environments).

Professional photographers and videographers alike use IS extensively – AND use tripods too. That’s not to say that in all situations tripods are required, or that photographers who don’t have or use a tripod – are ‘unprofessional’ or ‘limited’.  They might just not do that type of photography that requires it… OR they might be happy with ‘blurry photos’ (and I’m not talking about pixel peeping… I’m not a pixel peeper!) To suggest that either IS and/or tripods are not needed shows an ignorance about the breadth and requirements within certain genres of photography.

Well done Canon for introducing IS into your first UWA – in the EF-M 11-22mm. And thanks now for adding IS to the EF 16-35mm L F/4 and the EF-S 10-18mm. It’s a good thing!

23
Lenses / Re: UWA for a lady - crop user, EOS 700D
« on: June 01, 2014, 07:19:45 PM »
Just wanting to understand your post a bit more, to help out with your question.

You wrote that you’ve been looking at:
- EF-S 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 IS STM
- Tokina 11-16 (I dont really get all the different versions...)
- Sigma 10-20 4,5-5,6
- Canon 10-22

- but that you got the old sigma 4,5-5,6 and am not too happy with it....

Firstly, what do you mean by the Sigma lens/es you list? Do you mean the same lens – you maybe want a different copy?
Or do you mean you hope to get the Sigma 10-20 f/3.5?

What was/is it exactly / particularly about the ‘old Sigma f/4.5-5.6’ that you didn’t/don’t like?

I have owned 2 copies of the Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 HSM EX lens – bought when there was not the variety of choice there is today. (There were only 3 UWA lenses for Canon APS-C back then): Canon 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM which was just released and expensive, Tokina AF 12-24mm f/4 AT-X Pro DX (not as wide as I wanted) & Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 (less expensive, better build quality and initial tests showed about just as sharp as the Canon).  The Canon’s lens hood really turned me off too (very wide / protruding).

However the first copy of my Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 HSM EX had a decentring issue, so I returned it at the shop for another lens. The 2nd copy was good. It was sharp – at nearly all settings, and was a solid performer.  The AF on the Sigma was not quite as good as Canon USM’s (I have a number of Canon USM lenses) – ie the Canon was slightly more consistent & a touch faster, but AF for an UWA is not that critical – actually much of the time I used it as a MF lens, as I prefer most of my UWA photos to have lots of depth of field (I mainly shoot landscape with it).  It was sharp and contrasty. So overall I was happy with it- great lens for the price (and my results were consistent with a lot of reviews of it, eg at Photozone).

However some time ago I upgraded to the Sigma 8-16mm, for a number of reasons: The first & main reason is that I wanted a few extra mm on the wide end… and 8mm vs 10mm is quite a difference!  The other reason is that the newer lens has slightly better sharpness, noticeable less CA (especially at the edges & corners). Don’t get me wrong, the Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 wasn’t ‘bad’ in these respects– not at all, in fact it’s received lots of happy users.  Just the Sigma 8-16mm is a bit superior IQ (and it’s wider). I had both for a while, and am happier with the Sigma 8-16mm overall, hence I sold my Sigma 10-20mm.  Only lost about AUD $200 for about 5 years of use – which to me is great value for the many many hours & thousands of ‘keeper photos’ I had from it (I sold it for about $400, bought it for just over $600 back in 2008).

The Sigma 8-16mm won’t allow filter (which is a bit of a shame – but as I don’t do many UWA photos requiring filters, I don’t mind that much)… I use filters on my Canon 15-85mm, Canon 70-300mm L and other prime lenses, which is a different story.

Hope this is helpful.  :)

Paul

24
Lenses / Re: EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM Image Samples
« on: May 15, 2014, 07:34:32 PM »
Very interesting....

I can do ultra-wide with the 16-35 II on the 5D3 and it's great. But, the best I can do on the Rebel is the manual-focus 14 mm Bower. And manually focusing on the Rebel isn't really easy for my old eyes through the viewfinder.

I'd chalk this lens up to a great performer at a reasonable price, kind of like the 40/2.8. Which I bought. Didn't need a 40, I have several ways to get a similar focal length, but I bought it anyway. It now sits happily on the 10D that I bought back from the person to whom I sold it several years ago. My first DSLR.

As for those images from the 16-35/4, holy carp on a cracker. Very interesting also!


Hi Tom

I’m curious what you mean, so I’ll ask (neutrally) – when you wrote ‘can do ultra-wide with 16-35mm on 5D3’ but ‘best .. on Rebel is the man focus 14 Bower’… do you mean, these are your current lenses?  Or lenses that meet a certain criteria for you?  Have you tried other UWA lenses on your cameras?

I have used the 17-40mm L on FF (borrowing a FF), and quite liked it – but the corner sharpness (even when stopped down) did not match what lenses designed for APS-C could achieve in the corners.  The 16-35mm L was too big and expensive for my liking. I don’t need or use f/2.8 for UWA anyway.  F/5.6 is plenty for what I use and need.

On my 7D I have used a Canon 10-22mm (borrowed) and owned a decent copy of the Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6, which was ‘reasonably’ sharp –at the corners.  I now own the notably better Sigma 8-16mm, which is definitely sharper – even at 8mm in the corners, and has much lower CA than either the Canon 10-22mm or the Sigma 10-20mm versions.  Plus that extra 2mm makes a real distance… I love ultra wide landscapes in particular!

I am impressed by the MTF charts for both Canon’s new UWA lenses – well done Canon, and at decent prices (esp the 10-18mm STM’s price).  I don’t plan on replacing my Sigma 8-16mm even though I’d love it to have IS/OS (it’s just that good optically… plus still the widest zoom UWA lens available).  But I’m glad for others… and particularly can imagine many landscape photographers will be very happy with the EF 16-35mm f/4 L IS (and it will probably also be very good for many others eg architecture, etc).

Happy shooting everyone!

Paul

25
low light stuff, bands weddings, events that kind of stuff f2.8 is  worth alot more than sharp corners
and yes when a 16-35 f2.8 (hopefully with IS) comes out i don't expect it to be any less than the 24-70 mk11

personally i'd love someone to do a 16-35 f2 with IS i'd pay $4000 for that... don't care how big it is
just the same as i'd love a 35-85 f2 IS to go with it then i'd need 2 lenses and 2 bodies and almost never need to change  :D

I'd be very surprised if they brought out a fast UWA with IS before they launch a fast standard zoom with IS, but I think both will be well-received.
A 16-35 f/2IS? That would be a noctilux zoom!

On another note, I think there 3 parallel threads on the same topic. Maybe the moderators can combine them all in one?

Yes, I agree with you sagitariansrock, it seems more likely a 24-70mm f/2.8 L USM IS will come out before a 16-35mm f/2.8 L USM IS… but hey, who knows, we could be surprised!

There may be 3 threads on the same topic… this does happen often with ‘big news items’.  I did start my thread on the CR forum before the CR Canon Announcement one…  I’m glad to be ‘in early’    And I’ve been following the other thread too….   

Cheers… Paul

26
low light stuff, bands weddings, events that kind of stuff f2.8 is  worth alot more than sharp corners
and yes when a 16-35 f2.8 (hopefully with IS) comes out i don't expect it to be any less than the 24-70 mk11

personally i'd love someone to do a 16-35 f2 with IS i'd pay $4000 for that... don't care how big it is
just the same as i'd love a 35-85 f2 IS to go with it then i'd need 2 lenses and 2 bodies and almost never need to change  :D

Thanks for the explanation, Wickidwombat… while I do quite a bit of low light stuff, it’s rarely in the UWA range (but more around 50mm). And when I do UWA long exposures, I’m using a tripod anyway – eg nature, or night street settings.

I hear you regarding the ‘extra attraction’ of a f/2 UWA with IS…. That would be great… but yes, a Canon equivalent would also huge and hugely expensive. The Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 is meeting most criteria there (although without IS/OS..) but I’m concerned reading about that lens’ inconsistent / sometimes inaccurate AF at times… I need AF to be spot on…

A 35-85mm f/2 IS would also be great…. Again, it would be huge and expensive… but a great focal range to cover at f/2 with IS.  My current ‘2 lens’ travel solution is usually the EF-S 15-85mm USM IS and EF 70-300mm L USM IS.  On other occasions I take along my 8-16mm Sigma instead of the 70-300mm L. Though not ‘fast’ lenses, they do very well and I can fit in my shoulder LowePro bag.  I’m waiting for Canon to release a fast 50mm prime, hopefully USM IS – like the 35mm.  That would complete my lens set!

Regards

Paul

27
i think the 16-35 f4 IS is fine if all you shoot is stuff that doesn't move and don't need the faster aperture. Thats not for me

I shoot my 16-35 at f2.8 as often as i do stopped down. here hoping they do a new 16-35 f2.8 with IS and corner to corner sharp but god knows how expensive it will be if they are gonna charge $1200 for this dinky F4...

Yes, horses for courses, wickidwombat.  What do you usually shoot at f/2.8 with (low light? Sports, eg I've seen skateboarding with the 16-35mm f/2.8 - or are you trying to get shallow depth of field, though at wide focal lengths, f/2.8 doesn't do much here...)?

For your sake I do hope they'll come out with a new 16-35mm f/2.8 with IS - and good corner sharpness. I expect it will definitely be the high side of $2k.  That's a fair premium to pay for 1 fstop at wide angle...

Regards.... Paul  8)

28
The new 16-35L is an interesting option for me. I'm in the market for a UWA but I don't use tripods enough to justify a 17 TSE. 14L is a no go.

If performance follows I might be in for a trip to the shop. Getting used back to f4 as max aperture will be awkward tho...

Waiting on reviews.

PS: extra points for the non extending design. it's kinda OCD but this is a real turn off for me. The only thing I'd change in the 24-70.

Yes, I do think the new 16-35mm L will be interesting for many people.  The MTF chart http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ef_16_35mm_f_4l_is_usm
 indicates that it’s definitely a sharp corner to corner UWA, yes - also at the wide end - wide open still really quite good. 

Indeed - I understand what you mean about being unable to justify a 17 TSE.   I initially bought a Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 back when there were only a few options for APS-C UWAs.  It served me well for some years - and I bought it new, at a good price (half the price of the Canon 10-22mm).  However last year when I tried the Sigma 8-16mm I was sold (and the price of this ultra UWA was lower than when it initially came out).  The 8-16mm is definitely sharper, has noticeably less CA - and importantly translates to about 3.5 mm wider (in 35mm / FF format), which is very noticeable.

I expect the 16-35mm f/4 L will have some of the same benefits - sharper (esp in the corners), possibly less CA and has IS (which while not the absolute most necessary feature of a UWA, is certainly useful and even at times highly desirable).

While f/4 is not fast, I don't have a need for a fast UWA.  When I want fast, I want really 'fast' (I don't consider f/2.8 'fast') - so I want primes between f/1.4 and f/2.  I expect that for many photos that FF shooters will use the 16-35mm f/4 L for, it will be between f/8 and f/11 anyway. And the same for the EF-S 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 STM too.   (I am still very impressed by the price of the 10-18mm lens... just $299 new... incredible!)

I also prefer lenses that don't extend, but it's not the most important criteria for me (I have some good lenses that do extend, eg the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 L IS USM, and the Canon EF-S 15-85mm IS USM. 

Paul

29
So… it appears the recent threads / rumours / images are true!

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2014/05/13/canon-announces-16-35mm-f4l-and-10-18mm-f4-5-5-6-lenses

Looks like Canon *IS* doing some good work with lenses (do you see what I did there?).  AND the price seems very reasonable @ $1199 and $299 respectively!  (PS.. I’ve heard and seen very good things about the EF-M 11-22mm STM IS.)

I, for one, am not particularly interested in buying either of these lenses at this stage as I have my UWA covered with my very good Sigma 8-16mm on my Canon 7D.  But should I ever move up to FF in the future (I might not, I’m very happy with my Canon APS-C bodies), I might be interested in the 16-35mm f/4 IS (I don’t need f/2.8 for UWA).

For me, corner sharpness is very important on my UWA lenses… and my Sigma fits the bill here very well.  IS can be handy for low light situations, and yes eg when taking photos without a tripod.

New product announcements always make me happy / excited. I enjoy seeing technology being applied, new innovations, high quality lenses.

So, what do you all think of these actual / real lens specs?  Looking forward to seeing this thread grow! :)
Regards all

Paul

30
Canon General / Re: Helen Oster
« on: April 18, 2014, 05:43:53 AM »
Best wishes for today Helen!!  From all of your contributions I've seen here you are a great ambassador for Adorama.


Happy Birthday Helen!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a96RZURNtII

+1

Yes, this!  :) 

PS, Great Aussie music!

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 26