November 27, 2014, 07:37:00 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 ... 54 55 [56] 57 58 ... 127
826
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 ?

827
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.

828
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...

829
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...

830
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.

831
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)

832
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...

833
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)

834
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...

835
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?)

836
Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II
« on: July 01, 2013, 05:21:20 AM »
The optical module for the 600 f/4 II lens is now available for the users of DXO optics software.
Works nicely  ;)
Very nice picture. And much more on topic  :)

837
I only put Microsoft software on my Windows PC ... not

just curious... what type of PC (Personal Computer) can you put MS software on?

It doesn't matter.  If you don't buy third party stuff, you're just not getting the well-rounded experience of the technology you are involved with and using, even if that third party stuff sucks.  Get with it man.
;D

838
Canon's answer is complete BS!

I have 300mm f/4L non-IS for a few ... decades!

I have used it with 3rd party Sigma 1.4 and Tamron 2X.
Now I have Canon EF1.4X II and EF2X II

With EF1.4X II it autofocuses fine with all my analog and digital bodies and the quality remains top!

With EF2X II it manual focuses except with my 5D3 which autofocuses fine with latest firmware.

839

If you think so highly of third party lenses I must ask you to buy my Tokina ATX28-70 f/2.8 which although very sharp with my EOS1n and EOS620 cameras it is a nice PAPERWEIGHT on my EOS5Dx cameras.
So except for a case where I bought a Zeiss lens 3rd party is not an option. PERIOD.
Everyone who tries to tell me otherwise, they have to buy my nice Tokina paperweight first.


Is it the f2.6-f2.8 version or the constant f2.8?

If it's the first one send me some pics and I will seriously consider buying it (if it is marked pro II rather than pro SV and working to specification in good order etc) if it's the constant f2.8 / SV, you are probably right about it.
It's the constant f/2.8  :(

840
This thread title made me very angry - it's Canon fanboys like OP that drive the insane Canon glass prices up. 3rd party lenses can be just as good as Canon's at fraction of the cost. Don't blindly recommend Canon's glass against Sigma, Tamron, Tokina, Samyang etc. - they all have some outstanding products, while having to reverse-engineer the AF communication.

/rant
If you think so highly of third party lenses I must ask you to buy my Tokina ATX28-70 f/2.8 which although very sharp with my EOS1n and EOS620 cameras it is a nice PAPERWEIGHT on my EOS5Dx cameras.
So except for a case where I bought a Zeiss lens 3rd party is not an option. PERIOD.
Everyone who tries to tell me otherwise, they have to buy my nice Tokina paperweight first.

I was lucky to get rid of 2 Sigma lenses in part exchange in a shop.

Pages: 1 ... 54 55 [56] 57 58 ... 127