July 25, 2014, 07:37:55 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 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 119
16-35 f4 IS?.. this lens IMO is useless.. WTF!!!

and who uses IS on wide angle lens?.. where's the 14-24 2.8?... we need something good, not stupid!
16-35 f4 IS is not stupid! I would like a 2.8 version but that does not mean that the specific lens is not
useful. In fact if it sharp up to the corners then it is the ideal landscape zoom (small, sharp, taking filters)...

Lenses / Re: Canon Working on Faster f/2.8 Ultra Wide Zoom [CR2]
« on: May 16, 2014, 01:16:18 PM »
Thinking mainly aboit landscape on tripod I don't need much aperture or even IS. Just wondering, under which use cases would you need f2.8 wide angles? Events/weddings?

For night sky, f/2.8 is nice to have.
+1, plus it has to be coma free  :)

I must say I just love, love the level of knowledge and the eagerness to share.

I'm a little confused about Lee filters though and was wondering if somebody could just educate me please?

1. The vignetting mentioned in earlier posts at longer focal lengths, is it software removable or is it the actual adaptors that enter the frame?

2. Would a current filter system work with a 12-24 or 14-24 or would a new system need to be developed, based on the dimensions of the front element?

3. Can a filter system be 'adapted up'? Say you purchase a 77mm system and your next lens has a 82mm thread, would a step up 82mm adaptor make the 77mm usable?

4. Kinda similar to question 3. So I can buy a 16-35ii now for a good price and I'll then invest in a Lee system. But if Lee had to create an unique system for the 12/14-24, does that mean having to buy a whole new filter system again?

3. You don't get a 77mm system, you get a system with a 77mm ring adapter. Then you just have to get the 82mm adapter.

2 and 4. Probably unfortunately, either a custom solution or a solution like wonderpana, etc, (when and if it is introduced)

My 50mm f/1.8 has IQ equal to the 70-200II at f/8. So what? How about at f/5.6 or f/4? That's different totally.

You still lose some edges and most importantly, you can't see your composition while you compose. It doesn't work for me but if it works for you, good for you. I won't buy a fish eye anytime soon.

I meant at f/2.8.  And I certainly can see my composition while I compose.  It's in the viewfinder.

Great work! These four images and the accompanying explanation completely rationalize the statement "no one asked for the 16-35 f/4 IS".
Look at the number of people within this forum itself who have countered your statement. That is a testament to how many did ask for it.

Show me.  I saw lots of people looking for a 14-24/2.8.  I didn't see anyone looking for a 16-35 or a 10-18.
You didn't really search, did you?  ;)

I wonder, will they introduce a 16-35mm f/2.8L III  (without IS) in a year or so just to tease (and tempt) us?  ;D

A 14mm prime and a 16-35 are very different tools. Even the difference between 14 and 16 is marked, I can't see how a 16-35 would replace that.
+1 especially since the zoom is an f/4 lens making it less suitable for landscape astrophotography.

That's the reason it looks fake to me..

The barrel looks less fat than the 24-70II, the depth of the zoom/focus are different but the real clincher that this is real is the forward facing lens surround which doesn't look like the 24-70II to me...   77mm ? I hope not, I'm invested in 82mm now
82mm filter thread for an f/4 lens?  :o :o :o

Lenses / Re: What would you do, if you have...
« on: May 11, 2014, 09:39:20 PM »
Both 600 F4 MkII and 200-400F4 are too much (but then I am not a pro).

Anyway I would sell the 200-400 and get the "lowly" 100-400L.

Still you have the 600mm which I understand is the best for birding but still on the heavy/very big side.

I bought the 500mm as a compromise (focal length/big white/size/weight) which is already too much for me (as an amateur). It weighs 3.2 Kg vs. the 3.9 of the 600 (still heavy) and is a few cm shorter.

But then I do not shoot small birds (at least until today) so I cannot really advise on the 600.

But anyway I think 2 big white teles are too much so  If I were you I would keep just the 600.
(Sorry that I cannot advise on 600's use)

EOS Bodies / Re: upgrade from t2i to 1dm4 or 1dx??
« on: May 09, 2014, 11:46:55 AM »

I can't tell you which camera body to get but I can ask a couple of questions that may help you in making your decision.

Several other posters have suggested you consider the 5D Mark III and I too think that is a worthy option to consider. So here are my questions:

What exactly would the 1dx and 1d4 do for your particular photography that a 5D Mark III won't?

And is that difference worth the extra money you would be spending?

Or would that extra money be better spent on higher-end glass or something else like a nice trip?

Hope these questions help.


PS: you may already have thought of this but be sure to set aside enough money to get your new equipment properly insured. Many homeowner policies will not cover the dollar value of camera equipment you are considering without a specific rider or option. And you may want to get a separate policy and not mingle it with your homeowners insurance.

well that is the thing. The guy I work with has a 5dm3 and does studio work with peeps and he recommends the 1dm4 over the 5dm3
Then why didn't he get it himself?  :o

EOS Bodies / Re: upgrade from t2i to 1dm4 or 1dx??
« on: May 08, 2014, 09:06:47 PM »
I cannot advise on 1Dx vs 1DMkIV since I have 2 5DMkIII cameras.

But I comment on lenses:

Keep these:

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM
Canon EF 24-105mm L
50mm 1.8 II

Sell the rest and the Rebel (generally everything APS-C) to get some extra money.

Get  Canon 70-200 2.8L IS II instead of the Tamron. It seems that you will keep it for long so get the best.
Now I do not know Sigma 50-500 but I would not have high expectations.

There are shorter Canon lenses like 300mm f/4L, 100-400mm 4.5-5.6L, etc....

Or you could find a used 300mm 2.8L IS (version 1) but in that case I would suggest to save on camera
and get a 5DMkIII instead of 1Dx.

Coma isn't really covered here, but this guy's calculations would suggest wide FL + wide max aperture are king.
- A
True but: The 35mm 1.4L and 24 1.4L II are coma kings too! In addition there are no UWA lenses faster than 2.8 (14, 16mm, etc) anyway.

Lenses / Re: More Wide Angle Lens Speculation [CR1]
« on: May 08, 2014, 11:02:52 AM »
I'm having a hard time mustering up any excitement for a 16-35mm f4. I was hoping for the rumored 14-24mm.  :-[
No excitement at all either. I was hoping for a 16-35 2.8 L III  :(

I would love to see an optically outstanding 16-35mm update, and if the coma is well controlled at f/4, wouldn't mind it being only f/4 aperture.  As with everyone else, I am really most anxious to see a 12-24mm lens of at least the same image quality as the Nikon offering. Image stabilization on WA lens - nice, but not a necessity for me, I use a tripod or steady the camera against a ledge or tree limb or knee or..
Since you referenced coma I believe that you are interested in Astrophotography. In that case a f/2.8 lens is much more useful. Also even the current 16-35 2.8 II lens will have less coma at f/4... But, for Astrophotography the faster lens the better (I have used up to 10000 to 12800 ISO and I wouldn't want to have to use 25600)

By the way I am interested in Astrophotography. I sold my 16-35 2.8 L (version I) and I use a Zeiss 21mm 2.8 and a Canon 14mm 2.8 L II (not perfect but much better than my 16-35...)

Lenses / Re: More Mentions of 2014 Being the Year of the Lens [CR1]
« on: May 08, 2014, 10:43:34 AM »
Wow....year of the lens....a pair of wides no one wanted and a set of TS-e lenses that certainly no one wanted....
Meanwhile, the 35mm f1.4 II L and 100-400 II L unicorns stay in their stable....
plus the 16-35mm 2.8L III  :(

Lenses / Re: More Wide Angle Lens Speculation [CR1]
« on: May 06, 2014, 10:46:18 AM »
I believe Canon should introduce a 16-35 f/2.8L III, a 16-35 f/4L IS and a 14-24 f/2.8L. Then we would be OK as far as UWA FF zooms are concerned (before asking for an IS version of 16-35 2.8L with IS that is)  ;D ;D ;D

Is that too much to ask ?  8) 8)

P.S OK feel free to add other variations, price ranges, APS-C UWA zoom ranges, etc... After all it is a rumor site  :)


And what would be the speculated prices for:
- 16-35 f/2.8 MKIII = ?
- 16-35 f/4 IS = ?
- 14-24 f/2.8 = ?

Who give up the 16-35 f/2.8 MKII for a 16-35 f/4 IS?

- 16-35 f/2.8 MKIII = 2300
- 16-35 f/4 IS         = 1500
- 14-24 f/2.8          = 2300

Prices randomly speculated of course. I based them somehow on 24-70 2.8 II to 24-70 4L IS price comparisons and I wanted to create confusion between the  16-35 f/2.8 MKIII and 14-24 f/2.8  models  ;D ;D ;D

P.S I do not say I would like these prices, it is just a speculation which is different...

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 119