August 27, 2014, 03:21:49 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 ... 48 49 [50] 51 52 ... 122
736
Lenses / Re: Big white lenses: Foot replacement or Lens plate?
« on: July 01, 2013, 09:34:49 PM »
Loctite Blue 242 is 'semipermanent' - a good hard pull with a long-handled hex key and the screws will come out.  But they won't work loose on their own.  Loctite has other products with a much stronger 'permanent' bond.

RRS doesn't use distributors - you buy direct from them. They do ship internationally.
Once more 100% precise. Thanks  :)

737
Lenses / Re: What's the Difference: 1.4X EF Extender 2 Vs. 3
« on: July 01, 2013, 09:11:44 PM »
I have some purely sentimental reasons to not try to get rid of my II teleconverters though.
The version III cannot be used with any analog bodies except the 1V. The best analog bodies I have are EOS1n.
That and the fact that I will not be able to stack them (but that is mostly for fun).
However 2XIII tempts me. (Maybe next year)

738
Lenses / Re: What's the Difference: 1.4X EF Extender 2 Vs. 3
« on: July 01, 2013, 09:07:32 PM »
I owned both 1.4x and 2x extenders V.II for use on my 500/4 V.1 and 300/2.8 V.1 and when they V.III extenders were released, I upgraded both.

I didn't really see any  noticeable difference with the new 1.4x (perhaps just a tad in the corners) but I did find a noticeable improvement with the 2x on both lenses.  Across the entire frame.  I rarely used the V.II 2x because I was never really happy with the results.  Now I use the V.III 2x all the time and am very happy with the IQ it delivers with both my 1D Mark IV and my 5D Mark III bodies.

If I had it to do again, I would not bother to upgrade the 1.4x extender for my use.

Just my personal experience, for what it's worth.
It is worth. I have always been satisfied with my EF1.4X II but until recently the only use of EF2X II that was really worth was back in 2006 when I had used my 300mm f/4L (non-IS) with that 2X teleconverter and photographed the total eclipse.
An improved 2x teleconverter is always useful.

739
Lenses / Re: Big white lenses: Foot replacement or Lens plate?
« on: July 01, 2013, 09:01:44 PM »
Thank you very much. Better more detail than less.  :)
And anyway I can go back to this when necessary.

I have a non-gripped 5D3 so I believe the problem will be a little less.

I am aware of possible Markins head limitation and when I use it I will be very careful.

Right now I (think I) have no access to an RRS representative in Europe but I have already ordered the Kirk plate and replacement foot so that's it for a year.

I understand that eventually the correct thing is to use a specialized head but the use of this lens will be mostly for:

1. Sunsets/moonrises/sunrises (with extender or not)
2. Wetlands visits. This will be a first!

Lens arrived on Friday 21st. After a rather unfortunate choice of place on Saturday
I found the correct spot next day (full moon day) and that day was rather a success.

Since I did not have either a lens plate or a replacement foot I reverted to my old Manfrotto 055PROB with a Junior Gear Head 410 head.

Now the advantage of this head is that the plate can be used either with a 1/4 inch or a 3/8 inch screw.
I used the later and the lens was steady (with the help of mirror lock and 2 second delay anyway).

This combination is perfect for the sun and the moon but is useless otherwise.

So I am thinking of Markins as a compromise for now.
(Another choice I am contemplating for the next year is the replacement of M20 with an Arca Swiss Z1)
But first I need to test the combination...

By the way isn't the use of glue bothering you with the thought that you are somehow bound to that choice?
Is its use permanent?

Again thank you very much for your response.

740
Lenses / Big white lenses: Foot replacement or Lens plate?
« on: July 01, 2013, 04:30:21 PM »
hello,

having bought a 500mm f/4L IS II and using a Markins M20 head - which for at least this year will NOT be complemented with objects named Wimberely, Gimbal, Sidekick etc - I wonder if the best choice is a lens foot replacement or a lens plate. Since a friend is coming from the States where almost everything is cheaper I decided to test both! So I will get Kirk LP-58  and Kirk LP-55SG - the reason for Kirk is my positive experience with their Camera plates. I will have them in about 2 weeks.

I have the following thoughts:

1. LP-58 comes with 2 1/4" screws and a 3/8" adapter.

My 500mm requires 3/8 and 1/4 screws (one per category) so the adapter will have to be used. Do you have experience with these adapters? Are they safe to use?

For example when you decide to remove the plate which one will unscrew first adapter with the screw or just the screw first and leave the adapter in the lens plate and me scratching my head wondering how to fix it

2. LP-55SG means removal of the original foot. Will the screwing of the new foot be secure? Canon suggest to leave this to them which of course is silly so what is your opinion? Is the replacement safe? I guess it's both safe and trivial...

On RRS site they say:  "If your mounting screws loosen over time, consider using a drop of LocTite 242 for better security. "

There is nothing like that on Kirk's site but I think RRS are being more sincere...

3. Any comparison between Lens foot replacement and use of lens plate?

Sorry for possibly silly questions but I am newbie as far as big white lenses are concerned.

741
Lenses / Re: What's the Difference: 1.4X EF Extender 2 Vs. 3
« on: July 01, 2013, 04:21:48 PM »
I just got 500 II, paid a lot and if the difference is so small as negligible I prefer to not spend more money for now (I have version II teleconverters).

If you only shoot the moon and other things which move slowly or not at all, there's not a substantial benefit to upgrading.  But if your subjects move, the improved autofocus performance with the MkIII extenders is reason to upgrade, if not for the IQ benefit.
I have read that autofocus speed decreases by 50% with EF1.4X III and by 75% with EF2X III.
Are there any measurements with version II ?

742
Lenses / Re: Teleconverters/Extenders, Canon or Kenko?
« on: July 01, 2013, 03:49:28 PM »
Another point is Canon III extenders don't stack because of the protrusion (perhaps it's for weather resistence, but probably more for preventing us from using them in ways they weren't designed -- Murphy-proofing).

It's the extra elements in the 2xIII.  You can still stack a 1.4xIII behind a 2xII.  With the MkIII extenders, you can put a 12mm extension tube between them to stack...if you're willing to take the IQ hit from stadking, that is...
This is a very interesting piece of information. Unfortunately it seems to me that the weakest link in IQ is the EF2X II so if I were to upgrade I would first replace that very lens.

743
Lenses / Re: What's the Difference: 1.4X EF Extender 2 Vs. 3
« on: July 01, 2013, 03:46:54 PM »
They are a tiny bit sharper, probably not worth upgrading unless you are super critical, or, of course, if you have one of the new super-teles at $10K +, why not.
Have you verified that? I mean there  are tests at TDP some of which show the III just a little better but some show them equal. I was thinking about version II telephotos in which case I guess everyone would say go for version III but come on have you made comparison tests? Even TDP has tests only with version III.

I am writing this because I just got 500 II, paid a lot and if the difference is so small as negligible I prefer to not spend more money for now (I have version II teleconverters).

In addition, EF1.4X II is excellent. If I were to update I would update EF2X II.

On the other hand I happily stacked them in a  non-critical case like a moon photo.
 
This cannot be done with version III...

744
Lenses / Re: Used 300 2.8 L IS Mk I
« on: July 01, 2013, 01:17:36 PM »
The older lens looks essentially new -- not even a mark on the tripod foot.
Then it is probably less used and/or more well taken care of. So it must be a better choice.

My 600 II doesn't have a mark on the tripod foot, either.  Of course, that's because 5 minutes after first unpacking the lens, I swapped out the Canon foot for the RRS replacement, and packed the Canon foot away in the case.  ;)
[/quote]
 ;D  ;D But still a heavily used lens will show signs of use on other places...

745
Lenses / Re: Used 300 2.8 L IS Mk I
« on: July 01, 2013, 12:36:55 PM »
Thanks Neuro,

Yeah I was just wondering not so much about stealth updates but more about the finite lifespan of motors and such just like shutter mechanisms rated for x number of actuations....

The older lens looks essentially new -- not even a mark on the tripod foot.

Cheers,

Ryan
Then it is probably less used and/or more well taken care of. So it must be a better choice.

746
I have seen the galaxy photos at your site time and again. They are very good.

I would have thought of Samyang 14mm hadn't I got a chance to get a mint Canon 14mm 2.8 L II in a very good price.
I would also have thought of Samyang 24mm 1.4 hadn't it been accused of having decentering issues.

So I guess for now I will stick to Canon 14L II and my Zeiss 21 2.8 (with my 5D3)

747
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 500mm f/4L IS II travel bag for Alaska
« on: July 01, 2013, 09:59:33 AM »
I just got a Glass Limo from ThinkTank - was very happy for years with my GlassTaxi - the Limo can take a bodyless 600 f/4 or 500 f/4 with an attached body

This is a very interesting choice but it's better for situations where you have to carry your camera/500mm lens with almost nothing else.

However, I am seriously thinking of it as an addition to my bags in cases I will want to use my bataflae 26L for everything BUT the 500mm and I want to store the 500mm in a small bag in the trunk or hotel room. We'll see...

748
Lenses / Re: Nifty 50 or Shorty 40?
« on: July 01, 2013, 07:58:48 AM »
a few hundred left, a small lightweight and relatively fast lens = 85mm 1.8 for me...

Otherwise, if it has to be between the two I'd get the 50 1.8 (I do have the version 1 of that lens)

749
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 500mm f/4L IS II travel bag for Alaska
« on: July 01, 2013, 07:43:27 AM »
Lowepro Flipside 500AW may be too deep to meet airline carry-on requirements (or at least some of them)

Flipside 500AW

          Exterior: 11.8 x 12.8x 20.1" (30.0 x 32.5 x 51.0 cm)
Camera Compartment: 11.0 x 7.3 x 18.9" (28.0 x 18.5 x 48 cm)

Bataflae 26L
External Dimensions: 14 x 18 x 9 in (36 x 46 x 23 cm)
Internal Dimensions: 13 x 17 x 7 in (33 x 43 x 18 cm)

Even the 32L Bataflae may be OK since its depth remains at 23cm...

750
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 500mm f/4L IS II travel bag for Alaska
« on: July 01, 2013, 07:31:23 AM »
My plan is a trip to Alaska (bears and scenery), first time since I visited nearly 40 years ago. Any tips on a decent travel bag for a Canon EF 500mm f/4L IS II that will be allowed in an aircraft cabin. Also any advice on the best local travel agents for a trip of this type, best choice of lenses to take, best hotels in Anchorage and any other advice or suggestions that will make the trip easy and enjoyable. I am not looking at a budget trip nor a super expensive one, but I can afford to pay for decent comfort.

Dave T-W

The Gura Gear Kiboko 22L fits the 500 and weighs 3lbs or so. If you go to the Gura Kiboko 30L or Gura Bataflae 32L they'll fit the 500 with a body attached. All of which are the lightest bags in their segment.

I had 48lbs of camera gear (including the 800) in the Kiboko 30L, it fit on every plane.... including a regional.

If you plan to travel a lot with your gear, the Gura Gear stuff is far and away the best made products on the market. However, if it's a one off, something cheaper would probably be fine.
The Gura Gear Kiboko 22L wastes space for a laptop which may or may not be desirable. The same external size Bataflae 26L has more depth so it may get more gear and holds a 500mm f/4 albeit without camera attached. The 32L holds the 500 with camera but it has more length which would frighten me as a carry on. (maybe some airlines will reject it?)

Pages: 1 ... 48 49 [50] 51 52 ... 122