September 22, 2014, 06:35:55 AM

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
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

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!  :)


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!  :)

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!

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.  :)


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!


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

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!



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)

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
 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. 


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

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


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!


Yes, this!  :) 

PS, Great Aussie music!

Lenses / Re: Thinking about this but wanting your thoughts....
« on: March 17, 2014, 10:43:30 PM »
You might also want to consider Canon's 70-300 L. Mine worked beautifully on my crop body camera on my trip to Tanzania last year. Although you cannot use Canon extenders (at least not throughout the entire focal length range), I understand that you can use Kenko extenders on this lens. I should note that I have not used extenders on this lens.

+1 on the 70-300L. While the 70-200 & the (current) 100-400L are great lenses, they are considerably larger and heavier than your previous tele. The 70-300L will greatly improve your IQ and marginally improve your reach, all in a compact and easy to carry package with the latest image stabilization. If you can wait for a 20% off refurb sale from Canon, they can be had for around $1100.


I love my 70-300mm L.  It's a great portable lens, with fantastic IQ at any setting. 70-300mm  range on my crop really works well for me.

Sure it's not f/2.8, but in low light I use primes anyway - usually faster than f/2.8 (eg f/1.4 - f/2).
(Note the recently released EF-S 55-250 mm STM is a great bang for the buck lens, better than any other 55-200 / 55-250 lenses before it).

Can you please outline some more details of what you'll be photographing with a tele/telezoom lens?


Photography Technique / Re: What could I do better?
« on: March 17, 2014, 08:15:04 AM »
It’s good to read the helpful feedback, advice and thoughts in this thread.  I’ll keep my input quite brief – though I could easily write pages about tele lenses, and my experiences.
At times there simply is no opportunity for a ‘Wow!’ or powerful photo, even with the best gear around.  That’s when I aim to be satisfied with a photo as a ‘memory snap’.  I think you had one of those opportunities… and interestingly I’ve had the same scenario with deer a few times when I lived in Europe (ie “cool some deer” – and taken a few photos before they ran off)– though never in my backyard!
My first telezoom lens with the Canon 100-300mm USM. No IS, soft and low contrast above about 180mm. Stopped down at 300mm with some careful post-processing I could coax decent image outcomes… but most time the lack of IQ (and lack of IS) was a real disadvantage.  (Though to be fair I bought the lens new, on a good deal, and it is sharp & contrasty between 100mm – 180mm – and the USM motor was very quick and reliable). The 70-300mm IS nonL had just been released, but many copies were having the ‘portrait orientation issue’). Plus it was over double the cost, and I was on a limited budget back then (being an international charity worker).
Some years later (back in Australia) – I was looking at the Tamron 70-300mm VC USM or the Canon 70-300mm IS nonL to replace my Canon 100-300mm. I was leaning to the Tamron- though even its IQ is ‘decent’ (but not stellar) at 300mm from all the tests I show and reviews I’ve researched, IQ quite similar to the 70-300mm nonL’s. Right at that time, the 70-300mm L then was released – and I thought to myself ‘nah… too big, heavy & expensive’ – but I went into 2 shops with my 7D to try it anyway… and I was ‘sold’! The size / weight was a big consideration – it’s a very portable lens, with outstanding IQ – even at 300mm f/5.6. So I bought it – received a very good deal and a decent 67mm Hoya CPL to boot (every lens I have ever bought I have received some sort of discount / good deal).
If the 70-300mm L wouldn’t suit me, I would have bought either the Tamron 70-300mm or the Canon 70-300mm nonL. As I result of buying the L version, I sold my Canon 100-300mm (only lost about $150 for several years use) – and am very happy with my 70-300mm L. I like getting as close to wildlife as I can, and expect to keep using my 70-300mm L on high-end APS-C bodies for such sort of photography  eg 7D and future 7Dmk__‘s   It’s IQ, matched in a very portable body with USM and 4-stop IS make it a great set up for me.. which I can keep in my Lowepro shoulder bag – where it fits suitably with my 7D with 15-85mm USM IS.
Here is an example photo of a kookaburra taken a week ago, in the wild.  At a photo outing that I organised for a group of about 8 friends. (which I do a few times a year – mainly as an encouragement to get involved in photography, and learn their cameras, learn new skills and socialise). The photo is slightly cropped (though note, this is definitely not at 100% yet). I have received lots of views of this photo, many friends are impressed. Others took photos with their gear (including 4xNikons DSLRs, another Canon, Sony RX-100, even an iPhone) and lenses ranging from various Nikon 18-55mm and 55-200mm, to Canon 100-400mm L IS USM.  I certainly don’t mean to be proud – but this photo was by far the best of the ones taken by the group on that day, probably because I have most experience, and the 70-300mm L was the best lens (though I expect the 100-400mm L could have produced a close image, but the person who had / used that lens was new to photography – it was on his Canon 700D body).
Perhaps the best ‘bang for the buck’ lens of today is Canon’s recently released EF-S 55-250mm STM IS.  It is a great lens for the price, producing very good images (though note- it won’t work on FF).  It might lack the build quality, full USM, bokeh quality, micro-contrast and speed of some higher lenses, but for it's price - it's image quality is more than great: particularly raw sharpness.  The 18-135mm STM IS is also a great all purpose lens I often recommend.  Actually Canon haven’t produced a bad STM lens yet, eg the 40mm STM, 22mm STM and 18-55mm STM!  Good on Canon for setting the bar high with STM lenses thus far.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Tokina 24-70 f/2.8 Pro FX Spotted
« on: February 17, 2014, 08:11:55 AM »
Well... that's an interesting move from Tokina.  The Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 has been received quite well.

Tokina has a number of very good PRO lenses... looking forward to seeing what they can offer here...

Competition is good (for us consumers!)


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