September 17, 2014, 12:02:22 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 - tron

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 122
46
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.  :-[

47
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!

48
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)


49
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...

50
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...

51
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).

52
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

53
Lenses / Re: What Lenses are missing from Canon's range
« on: July 20, 2014, 06:30:24 AM »
With regards to the 12/14-24 idea, would people prefer f4 and greater sharpness or f2.8 and take a slight hit on absolute sharpness - I don't believe you can have both - personally, I'm holding out for 12-24 to replace my 16-35II, I'd take a hit on absolute sharpness for a f2.8 aparture.
Can you please elaborate? (about absolute sharpness).  Also I believe we can have both sharpness and 2.8 judging from 24-70 2.8 II lens.

54
Lenses / Re: Canon 24-70 f/4L IS disappointing?
« on: July 19, 2014, 06:02:40 AM »
I would sell both to get the 24-70 2.8 II.

55
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 16-35 F/4L IS -- Reviews are trickling in...
« on: July 17, 2014, 09:54:52 AM »
I got this lens yesterday :)

Now I need to go on vacation to test it (2 birds with one stone  :) )

I just made a few internal test shots and the IS looks promising.
Congrats!  I'm itching to get back out with mine, too...the weekend is getting closer at least.
Thanks  :) I gave my EF24mm 2.8 (non IS) which was not being used and saved 250 Euros of the price (initial 1050) Now I want to see how it performs at the edges since I had sold my 16-35 2.8 version 1 for this very reason (plus the fact that it had coma).

It is interesting that it is as big and as heavy as my 16-35 2.8 was!

56
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 16-35 F/4L IS -- Reviews are trickling in...
« on: July 17, 2014, 09:36:43 AM »
I got this lens yesterday :)

Now I need to go on vacation to test it (2 birds with one stone  :) )

I just made a few internal test shots and the IS looks promising.

57
Lenses / Re: Safari 300 2.8 Mkii or 200-400 1.4x
« on: July 17, 2014, 08:28:15 AM »
If I had the 300 2.8 IS II and a 1.4XIII I would put the 1.4 permanently for the safari. It would be an excellent 420 4L IS. This and the 70-200 would be enough. Plus the 300 2.8 + 1.4 combination would be lighter than the 200-400. Just my opinion. However, keep in mind that I did not and I will not have experience with a safari so take all this with a grain of salt.

58
Lenses / Re: Year of the lens....a joke....?
« on: July 16, 2014, 02:59:20 PM »
So next are coming: 400 5.6L IS, 100-400 4.5 5.6 L IS II, 35mm 1.4L II, 16-35 2.8L III, 14-24 2.8L, 135 2L IS, Unicorn L IS, ...

59
Lenses / Re: Year of the lens....a joke....?
« on: July 16, 2014, 01:45:03 PM »
For me it was the year of the lens (well actually all years from 2009 up to 2014 were the years of the lens).

I mean judging from the lenses I bought ...  ;D

60
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II [CR1]
« on: July 15, 2014, 09:26:03 PM »
Yet another 100-400 L II rumor. And it is a CR1! Quite reassuring  ;D

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 122