February 28, 2015, 02:19:07 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 5 ... 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!



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 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. 


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!)


Lenses / Re: Where do you sell used lenses
« on: February 13, 2014, 09:55:15 PM »
I sell mine on gumtree (the Australia equivalent of Craigslist).

Yep another strong vote for Gumtree if you are in Australia. eBay is officially on the nose now for private sellers.

Paul Wright

Just had a look at Gumtree for the first time in years and was surprised by the amount of camera gear there.  What's the drama with eBay?  Is it the fees?  I rarely sell things, but eBay has been my way of doing it in the past.

Gumtree is quite a good resource if you live in a city in Australia. I live in Adelaide, which has a population of about 1.2 million (so medium size city) and it has enough 'buying-selling or to-trade business / traffic' that it's worthwhile.

I have sold a few of my previous lenses on it - which were in good condition - and at a very competitive (ie fair) price. I wanted a no-fuss sale (my time is worth money too).  Over the years I have bought items on it - eg 2nd hand ball-head (but not lenses or bodies).  Just my personal preference, I prefer these items new - even if I have to import from USA & SE Asia (when I come across a good deal from those places).

There are also a few facebook pages, Australia cameras buy sell and trade (something like that) and 'Australia Canon buy and sell'.  These are good, have decent moderators (eg price needs to be mentioned, and photos attached, otherwise they are removed.

On both these mediums - some people try to sell items at ridiculously overpriced amounts (eg more than I can get new imports, including shipping).  They often say 'Best camera'  'Amazing' 'Quick sell' (eg when it's a 5 year old body with 80k clicks on it!) :)  But most people take a more reasonable approach...

I know the market well enough so I speak with authority and if people try to bargain me down, I indicate (truthfully) the number of other people who have contacted me about the lens, and I'm willing to wait for a 'reasonable price' not eg if I listed my lens at $400 and they offer me $250, I say... "No, $380 is the lowest I'm prepared to go. I'm expecting someone might also pay me $400 for it too"  :)  All has worked good so far.


PowerShot / Re: More Images of the PowerShot G1 X Mark II
« on: February 11, 2014, 06:55:48 AM »
While I'm not particularly interested in this camera, I check the specs of new cameras (particularly from Canon) - to obtain an idea of the routes of certain technology / innovations.

Hopefully it will have a great sensor in it. I bought a Sony RX-100 last year, as an engagement present (I gave it to my fiancee - because of it's IQ and mainly the size, but I was also considering the G1 X).  Must say the RX-100 does a great job - but it took a bit of getting used to the menu (as I am just so used to Canon these days!)

The lens on this camera should hopefully be a decent one ... though I don't particularly like the fact it has so many 'protective blades' at the front of the lens... looks too busy (as does most of the body for that matter) - and surely more blades means more potential for issues....

Looking forward to reviews about it but more importantly seeing photos from it!

PJ   8)

EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: Canon EF 24-85 f/3.5-5.6 IS
« on: February 10, 2014, 12:42:16 AM »

The idea of a Canon EF 24-85 f/3.5-5.6 IS lens is nothing very fascinating.  (Unlike Canon’s EF 200-400mm 1.4x f/4 L USM IS which I believe is a phenomenal lens!)
However I do see it might have merit if Canon can produce it at a price at least a couple hundred dollars lower than the 24-70mm L IS (which I believe is its current closest ‘competition’).

Canon already have produced a 24-85mm f/3.5-5.6 USM but without IS.   See some reviews / user reports here:
It does ok, but doesn’t performing that well wide open and while it has USM, it doesn’t have IS. So, to me, it’s a new 24-85mm might be close to the same size (or even slightly smaller) than the current 24-70mm L IS, it could win if it’s a  ‘budget’ option.  I agree with some other posts, that the 24-105mm is still a compelling budget option too (it’s L and weather sealed, but not optically the most brilliant across the board, but it’s got decent bang for the buck).

I used to have the 28-135mm USM IS (and a decent copy of that), however I sold it after I bought an EF-S 15-85mm (much more practical zoom range for an APS-C).
I could see some people pairing a decent (new) EF 24-85mm with a 6D, if it was priced right –and had at least decent (if not stellar) optics, especially ‘wide open’.

Let’s see what eventuates!

Lenses / Re: Patent: Canon EF 70-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS
« on: February 04, 2014, 06:26:53 AM »
Hmmm "2014 WILL see the replacement of the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS"

Well, that's interesting!!! Not 'may'!

I love my 70-300mm (great IQ, and still so portable). I expect any 70-400mm will be significantly larger (& more expensive) - but would be a great 'zoom' birding lens.

Then there's the 200-400mm 1.4x... *sigh*

The Tamron 150-600mm looks like a decent budget birding zoom... reviews showing it's decent at 600mm at between f/8 and f/11.

But still... we're talking about a potential Canon 70-400mm... yes, I expect it will be EF too.

:)  Paul

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Review: Sony A7R With Canon Glass
« on: January 28, 2014, 06:30:22 PM »
Those are very compelling images.  It doesn't sound like dealing with adapters is ideal, yet, but the A7R sounds like a great platform for using vintage glass! 

I have to say again, though - those are some great looking landscapes, and the shadow recovery section is also very impressive.


Dustin, your words sum up my thoughts precisely. There are some quirks with adapters, particularly obtaining a perfectly centred one as well as the 'reflection' issue (with some work arounds noted).

As AF is not its strong point, it sounds not an ideal combination for moving subjects (understandably, where current DSLRs still rule the roost).

However, the definition (36MP) and ability to lift shadows with little negative impact on noise & detail is great. Hoping for a similar Canon offering in the future.  But at this stage I'm still thankful with my Canon 7D! :)


When I got my first Canon DSLR (about a decade ago) - I shot in JPEG, tried a few RAW - but as my standard software (ACDSee) didn't read RAW directly AND my PC was so slow in processing RAW, I stuck with JPEG.

Then a bit later I shot some more in RAW - and stayed with JPEG for most, but RAW for 'critical shots', eg tricky lighting, or to pull as my dynamic range from landscapes as possible, etc.

Later again, I decided I would shoot in RAW + JPEG, and discard all the RAWS that were not 'keepers' - so I viewed / kept most of the JPEGs, but each month I had a 'favourite subfolder' where I moved my 'favourite' RAWs to.

Nowadays I just shoot in RAW because:
a) the software I have used for the last number of years - DxO Optics Pro) - converts RAWs to JPEG (and at different resolution / qualities, as I set) and
b) my latest PC & Windows 8 is much quicker at displaying RAW photos.

I think RAW is the best format to 'keep' - as any enhancements in JPEG (or similar) will still rely on the RAW camera file.  I am glad that Canon raw files don't apply image compression, noise reduction, white balance, etc, so I have total control of this post shot.


Canon General / Re: Review: Canon EOS 17-40 f/4L by DxO Mark
« on: January 23, 2014, 10:40:09 PM »
If you buy a 17-40L as a standard zoom for a crop camera now that plenty of EF-s and other crop options are available, well, you're doing it wrong.  It's an ultrawide zoom for full-frame.

+1 - and that's the point of comparing it to the 18-55/3.5-5.6 IS kit lens or even the 17-55/2.8 IS.  Compared to the 17-40L on APS-C, the former delivers not-too-different IQ and the latter delivering better IQ (and an extra stop of light, a broader range, and IS).  Yet, many people recommend getting the 17-40L 'in case you go FF maybe someday,' which I think is pretty foolish unless 'someday' is next month.

Well, it worked for me, but that was when I bought my 10D, which was before the advent of EF-s.  A year and a half later, I bought a 5D so it worked.  However, if I had to start over again with crop cameras, I'd do exactly what I did at work and buy a 15-85IS instead.


That's why when I entered the DSLR world, there were fewer options out there for APS-C.

I think Canon (& other manufacturers) are dedicated to 'crop sensors' - there are still plenty of good to great lenses being produced exclusively for APS-C DSLRs (ie won't work on FF).

Hence a number of my lenses I chose specifically as EF-S mounts:
 the versatile  15-85mm, superb walk-around / 1 lens-solution, with great quality and
 the outstanding Sigma 8-16mm - ultra ultra wide sharp & contrasty too

I frequently advise people to get the lens they need, not 'what they might find useful on a FF'.  It might happen to be an EF/ FF lens... but quite often the 'best lens for the current solution' might be an EF-S lens too!

Ok, I also have a 70-300mm L - but that's another story, as none of the other telezooms met my criteria (high optical performance, size/weight to still be portable, full USM, 4 stop IS, and zoom range).    :p


Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 26