July 29, 2014, 07:01:21 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 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 119
Lenses / Re: EF 50 f/1.2L II Gets a Mention by Canon
« on: May 20, 2014, 05:09:15 AM »
Why has the video & link disappeared?  :o
To fix the typo probably  ;D  (it served its purpose  ;D ;D )

Lenses / Re: The Next \
« on: May 20, 2014, 04:51:05 AM »
I will believe it when I see it ...

Still, what is the attraction of releasing it at Photokina? A lot of tech releases have moved away from the show schedule. I would think that June would be the optimal date to release a 7D2+100-400, and sell it to every single summer-holiday-safari goer in the world.
+1 on both. We read about the 100-400 replacement for years. And indeed it would be better if it was released before the summer. But it is a mythical lens  ;D (and it will be released before ... some summer anyway, we just don't know which summer)

Lenses / Re: Old lenses - really so bad?
« on: May 19, 2014, 10:31:38 AM »
I was not satisfied with my 28-70 2.8 so I sold it back in 2009 when I moved into FF. However my 70-200 2.8L was very good!
(Unfortunately it was stolen  >:( )

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 16-35 f/4L IS Sample Images
« on: May 19, 2014, 10:29:04 AM »
I sold my 16-35mm 2.8L (version 1) so I will think about it. I believe though that a 2.8 version III would be the best (if it is coma free) since I would like to use it for both landscape and Astrophotography ...

Lenses / Re: Canon Working on Faster f/2.8 Ultra Wide Zoom [CR2]
« on: May 17, 2014, 05:01:18 PM »
I realise f2.8 means faster shutter speeds, was just wondering where you need it in real-world situations with such a wide angle. Astrophotography makes sense but ... sports? What sport gets shot at 16mm, chess? ;-) Just curious, does one normally go wider than 24mm for events/weddings of photojournalism? Maybe travel photography? (artisan in small dark workshop)

Lots of dramatic sports shots are taken with Wide and UW lenses. The first three olympic shots at telegraph here are ultrawide http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/olympics/picturegalleries/9461272/London-2012-Olympics-Photographers-tricks.html?frame=2302709
More on that http://magicvalley.com/blogs/between-the-frames/wide-angle-sports-shooting/article_d875ca72-43ed-11e2-8493-0019bb2963f4.html

Google will get you tons of examples wide shots. And a huge proportion of winning journalism shots are captured at wide - ultrawide.
From the article: Tech Specs: Canon EOS 1D Mark II 1/400sec f/2.8 ISO 1250 @16mm

This means 16*1.3 = 20.8 ~ 21mm. OK very wide and out of 24-70 range but not that Ultra wide. In addition a 1DMkII at 1250 ISO must be equivalent or worse than a 1DX or a 5DMkIII at ISO 2500. So the f/4 lens would do. I acknowledge however that in cases like that a f/2.8 lens with worse corners is more useful than an f/4 with excellent corners.
Until Canon makes the ultimate UWA zoom, its horses for courses I guess...

I am not sure if it was already posted here but found this interesting url with some mtf observation:

Very interesting article, thanks.

Lenses / Re: Old lenses - really so bad?
« on: May 16, 2014, 02:12:45 PM »
Sorry for the late reply, I just saw this thread. I would get rid of 28-70 2.8 as soon as possible

See: http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/31249/why-is-there-glow-around-lights-in-every-photo-shot-with-my-canon-ef-28-70mm-f-2

or search google for Canon 28-70 2.8 fog issues

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)

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