September 01, 2014, 08:22:52 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 - tron

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 122
31
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon to Make a Big Splash at Photokina? [CR2]
« on: July 30, 2014, 12:20:37 PM »
Two years ago, I was salivating for a new 100-400L.  Now, I'm not sure I'll buy one even if it comes out. I recently sold my 100-400 due to lack of use.  The 70-300L delivers excellent IQ and is a very convenient size for travel.  When I need a longer focal length, I use the 600/4L IS II. 

But, I hope Canon releases a new 100-400L - when the current was my primary birding lens, I was very happy with it.

The more "1DX" they put into the 7D Mark II, the more I will like it!   8)

What if most of what the 1D X they put in the 7DII is retail cost?   :o  ;)
;D ;D ;D Now, I believe they can also increase the fps a little (say 9 or 10) and use a similar to 1Dx AF system. I believe they will use dual digic just like in their 7D so this is doable.
If the 7D2 will indeed include a revolutionary sensor then I guess it will be a very high quality ... teleconverter itself :)

32
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 16-35 F/4L IS -- Reviews are trickling in...
« on: July 30, 2014, 11:58:45 AM »
I'm looking forward to the 16-35 f/2.8 III and/or the 1x-24. 

The reasonably high probability of a Canon 12/14-24L in the relatively near future is yet another reason I'll likely put the proceeds of selling my 16-35/2.8 II toward the TS-E 17/4L, rather than getting the 16-35/4L IS.

I forgot how useful it was to have AF in the ultrawide range for a walk-around lens until I swapped the 16-35 f/2.8 II for the f/4 IS.  Now, I look for reasons to use it.  I use the 24-35mm range on it for about 1/3 of the shots I keep.  It may not be as good as the 24-70 II, but it is still excellent and saves on a lot of lens changes and renders in a similarly pleasing way.  I'd rather have the f/2.8 over the IS, but for now, I like the 16-35 f/4 IS a lot.

The 12/14-24 will likely not accept screw in filters, but the thing I'd miss most from it is the range up to 35mm for shots with people in them.  Given the life stage (young kids), I'm more likely to use a 16-35 than a 12/14-24, although I'd look at the 12/14-24 as a replacement for my 14.

+1 on 16-35 over 14-24 for the ability to front filter.  2mm wider is admittedly non-trivial on the UWA end of things, but bulbous front elements are a non-starter for me.

(And yes: that's a +1 for the 16-35 vs. something that we have no credible evidence that it exists.  Such is the allure of the mythical 14-24, sheesh.)

- A
+1 too. A 16-35 2.8 with sharp corners and no coma would be even more useful than my 14 2.8 II for astrophotography since there are cases where I could do with the more protective hood of 16-35 vs the small built in hood in 14 2.8 II combined with a bulbuous front element which makes it prone to flare from sideways light.

33
EOS Bodies / Re: One other hoped-for feature on the 7D2
« on: July 30, 2014, 11:51:36 AM »
This is kinda schisophrenic, to put some of settings in manual mode to auto mode, and then still with manual mode wanting other settings to compensate for this mixture. You really donĀ“t know what you want, right?
You can do what you want in AV or TV modes. With manual, you are in charge, you have nothing to compensate, and if they allowed some glitch or stupid customers request of auto ISO at manual mode, than it will be everything messed up.

Couldn't disagree more.  M mode with Auto ISO is like aperture and shutter priority.  I select the DoF I need and the necessary shutter speed to stop (or show) motion, and I get a metered exposure in rapidly changing light.  Being able to apply EC to bias the metering is plus.

Exactly! I don't understand not having EC when one is still relying on the camera to calculate exposure. Especially since Canon tends to underexpose in my experience, this would be quite useful. I'm almost always in one of two modes: Av, or M with auto ISO. It's that latter one I'm in a lot and wish I could often bias the exposure a bit brighter.
Exactly, this feature is maybe the only one missing from 5D3. Since it can be done in firmware it is a pity that it is missing  :(

34
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 16-35 F/4L IS -- Reviews are trickling in...
« on: July 30, 2014, 11:36:41 AM »
I am just afraid of the day the new 16-35 2.8 III (or a 14-24) will be announced. I already have 14mm 2.8 II, 16-35 f/4L IS, TS-E17mm f/4L (and a Zeiss 21 2.8 ) and ... I will want/need it since (judging from the 24-70 2.8 II and the 16-35 4 IS ) it is almost certain that it will be coma corrected too.  :-[
I'm looking forward to the 16-35 f/2.8 III and/or the 1x-24. 

The reasonably high probability of a Canon 12/14-24L in the relatively near future is yet another reason I'll likely put the proceeds of selling my 16-35/2.8 II toward the TS-E 17/4L, rather than getting the 16-35/4L IS.
They'll probably announce it at Photokina, just to be cruel...
Very cruel considering I have just bought the f/4 IS version. Add to that the fact that  bought 16-35 2.8L a few months/one year before the 16-35 2.8L II and you have the complete picture!  ;D

35
Lenses / Re: New Canon L Primes, but Not Until 2015 [CR2)
« on: July 28, 2014, 11:28:06 PM »
A new 50 L that's "a lot smaller" ?? Makes no sense whatsoever ..
Maybe it will be a 50mm 1.8L IS with the size of  50mm 1.4 and the price of 50 1.2L  ;D ;D ;D

36
Lenses / Re: Canon 24-70 f/4L IS disappointing?
« on: July 28, 2014, 05:00:43 AM »
Now, If you want to make me spend more money for yet another lens you will not make it ... yet :-)

Earlier this year I got the 24-70 2.8 II and immediately before leaving for vacation I got 16-35 f/4L IS (by giving my EF24 2.8 ) and 100L 2.8 Macro (by giving my old non-usm non-L 100mm 2.8 macro).

Plus, I knew I needed my 2.8 zoom due to an event that takes place at low light.  ;D

So I will think about it next year if I there are no announcements for 5DMkIV, 14-24 2.8, 16-35 2.8 III, so many ifs...  ;D ;D ;D

37
Canon General / Re: When a Woman is Fed Up...
« on: July 28, 2014, 04:49:04 AM »
Hi Folks.
I'd like to ask first "Russian Shot Putter?"
I'd also like to add I've been caught up in one of these rows when I was about 15. Mother was worried about dad's health and he promised, as in swore blind he had quit smoking for the third time.
She caught him again and a row ensued, first thing thrown at him with the words "you keep smoking you won't need this" was his alarm clock, the next thing to hand was the 70-210 FD fit lens, as it came towards me on the back swing "and if you can't walk you won't be able to use this" I removed it from her hand and she threw a handful of air.
He quit smoking and died at 88 earlier this year.  :'( :'( :'(
She loved him to the end and cared for him 'till his dying breath quite literally, holding his hand!  :'(
So not every fit of pique is due to infidelity etc, some are from pure love and the thought of loosing him was breaking her heart!
So I don't necessarily see a divorce in the guys future though I wouldn't rule it out!

Cheers Graham.
I am sorry for your loss, I lost my father at the same age 3 years ago  :(

38
Lenses / Re: Canon 24-70 f/4L IS disappointing?
« on: July 27, 2014, 07:05:10 PM »
I too have both 70-200 f/4 L IS and 70-200 f/2.8L IS II for the mere reason that when I bought the first the second didn't exist yet!

However there are cases where I need the 2.8 and cases where I don't so I can do with a lighter lens.

So I keep them both!

Indeed...  I bought the 70-300L as a travel telezoom, after owning the 70-200/2.8L IS II for a while.


I bought the 7-300L first - as travelzoom (occasionally sports in good daylight) and only after that I bought th 70-200 f/2.8 IS II - what a great zoomlens with wonderful IQ. It came very handy when shooting indoor musicals with limited and changing lights.
I have a few lenses in the same focal length but all for different reasons and pusposes....ok I suffer - a bit - from GAS  ;D

I've got the 70-300L for travel too. It collapses to a very manageable size and has excellent image quality too  :)
Can you please stop mentioning how useful for travel the 70-300L is?  ;D

39
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 16-35 F/4L IS -- Reviews are trickling in...
« on: July 27, 2014, 06:59:56 PM »
I tried it to day. ZERO coma!  But it was dark. I was used to my 14mm 2.8L II even with a little coma. You see I was at my 5D3's limits (ISO 10000, 12800). So I reverted back to it. In fact I have just wondered if 16-35 4L IS why not the TS-E17mm 4L?  It will also be able to fix the converging verticals...
One reason why not is that the TS-E 17 costs about $1k more than the 16-35 f/4 IS :)  I got mine as a refurb on sale, so it wasn't as bad for me, but I don't like in a very "dark" area, so I haven't tried my lenses with the stars yet.
No! I haven't made myself clear. I should have said: I have the TS-E17 so why not use this?
So I used it too and I was able to fix the converging verticals at the expense of a darker photo though (relative to 14mm 2.8 II). The result was very satisfactory.

I am just afraid of the day the new 16-35 2.8 III (or a 14-24) will be announced. I already have 14mm 2.8 II, 16-35 f/4L IS, TS-E17mm f/4L (and a Zeiss 21 2.8 ) and ... I will want/need it since (judging from the 24-70 2.8 II and the 16-35 4 IS ) it is almost certain that it will be coma corrected too.  :-[

40
Lenses / Re: Canon 24-70 f/4L IS disappointing?
« on: July 27, 2014, 07:24:23 AM »
I too have both 70-200 f/4 L IS and 70-200 f/2.8L IS II for the mere reason that when I bought the first the second didn't exist yet!

However there are cases where I need the 2.8 and cases where I don't so I can do with a lighter lens.

So I keep them both!

41
Lenses / Re: Selling my two Zeiss lenses. Your advice?
« on: July 27, 2014, 07:13:59 AM »
You have a very nice collection of Zeiss glass. If I had this I would be reluctant to sell anything.

I would keep the 15mm 2.8 which must be PERFECT for astrophotography (if this is your thing of course).

Canon 135mm 2L must be more versatile and pretty good anyway (I have it and I like it)

As for the 35mm 1.4 I got the Canon 35mm 1.4L which although it is not perfect I find its AF useful for the occasions I use this Focal length (low light shooting)


42
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 16-35 F/4L IS -- Reviews are trickling in...
« on: July 22, 2014, 08:51:32 PM »
I tried it to day. Practically ZERO coma!  But it was dark. I was used to my 14mm 2.8L II even with a little coma. You see I was at my 5D3's limits (ISO 10000, 12800). So I reverted back to it. In fact I have just wondered if 16-35 4L IS why not the TS-E17mm 4L?  It will also be able to fix the converging verticals...

43
Lenses / Re: What would a 16mm or 18mm F2 FF lens look like?
« on: July 22, 2014, 08:37:04 PM »
At the cost for a good lens, the market would be small.  Since most (not all) wide lens usage is for landscapes, where f/16 is often used, it would be a waste.  For real estate interiors, auto interiors, or in tight quarters, it might work, but having proper lighting would be better and cheaper than paying $5,000 for a lens, and then not having the depth of field needed for interior photos.

What kind of use would you have for it?  A wide angle like that is not suitable for portraits.

Astro, I'd presume.  Wide + Fast is just what you need for stars, I'm told.

- A
Or just buy a tracking mount.
A tracking mount is no use for landscape astrophotography...

44
Lenses / Re: What would a 16mm or 18mm F2 FF lens look like?
« on: July 22, 2014, 07:50:53 PM »
At the cost for a good lens, the market would be small.  Since most (not all) wide lens usage is for landscapes, where f/16 is often used, it would be a waste.  For real estate interiors, auto interiors, or in tight quarters, it might work, but having proper lighting would be better and cheaper than paying $5,000 for a lens, and then not having the depth of field needed for interior photos.

What kind of use would you have for it?  A wide angle like that is not suitable for portraits.

Astro, I'd presume.  Wide + Fast is just what you need for stars, I'm told.

- A
+1 I wished today for a 16mm f 2L lens (to tell the truth I wished also for a 14mm f1.4L too but pretend you didn't read that  ;D )

You see to day I was doing astrophotography with the 14mm 2.8L II and at the same time I tested my 16-35 f/4L IS. Wow! This zoom does not have coma (in contrast to my old 16-35 2.8L which has long gone!)

But it is an f/4 which is perfect for landscapes but not astrophotography. So for now,my 14mm 2.8L II remains as my most used lens for that purpose (even with a little coma).

45
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 16-35 F/4L IS -- Reviews are trickling in...
« on: July 22, 2014, 11:15:12 AM »
So, the lens has truly negligible coma! What a dilemma. It is f/4. OK, I knew it when I bought it but now wmy 14mm 2/8 II will fight with the 16-35 for their night use  ;D

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 122