Messages

451

Lenses / Re: Moving on from my 7D to 5D MK III 24-70mm, 24-105mm or prime

« on: December 30, 2012, 07:53:23 PM »

If budget is not an issue, the new 24-70 II is the way to go. On my copy, Reikan FoCal showed the sharpness at f2.8 is 985. Not many zoom lenses out there have this kind of sharpness at f2.8.

My comment is based on real life shooting.....let me know if you want to see some photos with 5D III.

Many owners of 24-105 claimed their copy is razor sharp, but the Canon MTF chart doesn't indicate that at all. Again...I owned 2 copies of 24-105 in the past and I didn't see that. I ended up shooting alot with 50mm f1.4 @ f1.8 to 2.8.

452

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Shooting With the EOS 6D Part 2: Costa Rica

« on: December 30, 2012, 11:58:47 AM »

<p>I still don’t like the EF 24-70 f/2.8L II on the EOS 6D. Mainly because of the bulk of the lens compared to the body. The results are terrific, it just doesn’t balance well.

I played with the 6D for 2 days, from 1st patch copies....I shared the same thoughts with CRs members about the 6D chassis with L lenses. Some members didn't take it very well. They thought I was being negative on the 6D over 5D III. Especially people from crop to 6D....oh well

Still...it's a great FF entry camera

Handled one with battery grip, it feels much better even with a heavy lens like a 100mm macro usm.  If I eventually buy it, i'll be sure to add a battery grip immediately.  Try it... You might like it.

I haven't try with battery grip yet...will keep that in mind. Thanks

453

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Shooting With the EOS 6D Part 2: Costa Rica

« on: December 30, 2012, 12:43:10 AM »

<p>I still don’t like the EF 24-70 f/2.8L II on the EOS 6D. Mainly because of the bulk of the lens compared to the body. The results are terrific, it just doesn’t balance well.

I played with the 6D for 2 days, from 1st patch copies....I shared the same thoughts with CRs members about the 6D chassis with L lenses. Some members didn't take it very well. They thought I was being negative on the 6D over 5D III. Especially people from crop to 6D....oh well

Still...it's a great FF entry camera

454

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D II or 5D III or 6D?

« on: December 30, 2012, 12:21:35 AM »

I would take 5D II out of the equation for one reason, fixed auto ISO @ 400 in "M" mode.

6D or 5D III
A. Take 5D III if you want to have the best AF system
B. Take 6D if you plan to shoot center AF with slightly less precise

Goodlucks

what do you mean, less precise ? that 5dmk3 AF center points is more sensitive than 6D?
it is not if you look at the spec.

He said "precise" not "sensitive".  Two different words... you can tell because they use a different sequence of letters.

ok , what does he meant with slightly less precise?

It means under normal light or even with decent light, single-cross type is less accurate than dual-cross type. Especially when you shoot at moving subject(s) or in AI servo.

455

Lenses / Re: 5D3 + 50 F1.2 L

« on: December 30, 2012, 12:07:55 AM »

Just bought 50L f1.2.  Mount on my 5D3, the center focus point is accurate from f1.2 throughout the range and all distance. However the left most, right most, top most and bottom most cross point are all front focus.  Is there anyone has experience that if Canon Service Center (Irvine, CA) can help adjust the 5D3 internal computer to make those 4 out side cross points focus accurately? Or I'd better return the lens within 30 days and forget about 50L? I called them and they say that they can help but no guarantee. That sounds to me "why bother the effort". Any suggestion?

I'm in Fountain Valley(Brookhurst & Warner), Near Fry's Electronics.

Never hurt to ask if Canon Service Center can help or not when you don't have the tool for this task. I doubt I would charge you for this service, since you still under 1yr warranty.

Front or back focus can be adjusted with Reikan FoCal - in your case, select Multi AF points mode.

I tried 4 copies from Crutchfield and all 4 have back focus issue. Out of 4, the sharpest lens was just above 800 @ f1.2 EV10plus (-1 AFMA on copy). Others were around 760-780 with -6 to -8AFMA.

I also ran my 50L from 1.4 to 5.6 through FoCal, I wrote down the AFMA values on a small note and I taped that note onto the lens hood. I'm not sure if I ever need smaller apertures f2.8 - 5.6 on f1.2 lens, but the AFMA values are there when I need it.

456

Lens Gallery / Re: Canon EF 14mm f/2.8L II USM

« on: December 29, 2012, 04:51:59 PM »

TommyLee,
Thanks for sharing your thoughts on 14L II. I feel like if we can frame our photos correctly, the 14mm could provide 3D look.

I'll have to add this lens or rumor 14-24 on my purchase list for next year.

457

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Santa had to wait for boxing day sales

« on: December 29, 2012, 12:04:48 PM »

Santa had in his bag

1dx & 16-35 2.8 mk2 and gp-e1

been charging up the battery and doing firmware updates to 1.1.1

new toys to play with this weekend

That's awesome.....have fun.

458

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Upgrade from 6D from 450D

« on: December 29, 2012, 11:54:02 AM »

450D to 6D -- You will see huge improvement in higher ISO. Your photos will look much cleaner of course.

6D + 50f1.4 + 135L is good a combo. Your 50mm will be more friendly to shoot with on FF vs crop. For the WA lens, I would go with 17-40 if you plan to shoot smaller apertures (f8-11).

Have fun with your new toy(s)

459

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Is it hard not to buy 3rd party lenses now?

« on: December 29, 2012, 11:42:24 AM »

Dylan, your comments are based on your own, personal, biased, limited, non-scientific experience with one copy on of one lens and one copy of the other.

Now, nobody denies that it is enough for you - or even better, that this is the most important review to you.

That said, all the main in-depth reviews agree on the value of this lens and on its superiority to Canon Mk1. It goes by itself that if someone was happy with the Mk1, he will be only happier with more sharpness and IS at a very good price.

Is it better than Canon Mk2? Optically and mechanically quite likely not, but it has IS, and many people like this feature a lot. Also, it costs a half, and even more people like this feature.

So please stop this pointless crusade and try to understand that better can mean a lot of things, and ultimately it means "it suits my needs better".

Exactly

'Testing' one copy of a lens that hasn't been calibrated with something like FoCal to your camera body in a shop means absolutely nothing in an objective sense.

Also IS is helpful, but IS has not been around forever. People have been shooting without it for a looooong time.

Anyway ye useful, but a deal breaker? For a pro no... You will always shoot in a range that will produce a sharp images. Although I will admit IS does help with creativity, shooting in lower light, but with better high ISO camera performance you can rely less on IS. Also the subject is more of a concern than camera shake, if you are an experienced photographer you know the limits you shoot in, its also down to technique.

People took photos for a long time before autofocus was around (and still do using their zeiss/nikon ai/leica glass on ef cameras). That doesn't mean that AF is useless to professionals.

For certain types of video (particularly run and gun documentary/documentation/wedding reception footage), IS is a massive plus to the point of quite possibly being a deal breaker (and this is where you're likely to be using a standard zoom quite heavily - for fiction where you have controlled conditions and time to set things up then you're likely to be using primes). Or do people making money from video count as amateurs now?

My final comment on this topic:
@ Syder -- I'm 90% sure you haven't own the Tamrom nor Canon ver II yet, therefore, your comments on these lenses are pointless. A quick advice for you, don't give comment on the lenses that you haven't own.

I own Reikan FoCal  Pro version. All my lenses 50L, 16-35 II, 24-70 II and 70-200 f2.8 IS II are succesfully calibrated(AFMA) with FoCal. And yes....that includes the Tamron - W+1, +2T @ f2.8


Off topic:
Just for the record, I'm not a Canon fan. If I in the market for the 35mm prime, the new Sigma will be my choice.

Let close this chapter and move on......  

460

Lens Gallery / Re: Canon EF 14mm f/2.8L II USM

« on: December 29, 2012, 01:02:56 AM »

TommyLee,
Your photos make me want to sell my 16-35 II and get the 14L II......most of my landscape shots are at 16mm

461

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D II or 5D III or 6D?

« on: December 28, 2012, 11:14:15 PM »

I would take 5D II out of the equation for one reason, fixed auto ISO @ 400 in "M" mode.

6D or 5D III
A. Take 5D III if you want to have the best AF system
B. Take 6D if you plan to shoot center AF with slightly less precise

Goodlucks

what do you mean, less precise ? that 5dmk3 AF center points is more sensitive than 6D?
it is not if you look at the spec.

I understand 6D has -3EV, but we talking about "precise" single vs dual cross type @ center.

462

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Is it hard not to buy 3rd party lenses now?

« on: December 28, 2012, 08:16:15 PM »

Dylan you always seem like a level headed guy so i hope youre not taking offense to some of the comments above.  I think all folks are saying is that for most people (obviously this does not include you) the results you get from the tamron are more than adequate especially when one considers the price. I'm on the iPad right now but I will happily take a shot with the tamron tonight at f2.8 and post it...will it be as sharp as your 24-70ii? no, so i am not exactly sure what that will prove. all anyone is saying is that if you like the feel of an extra $1000 in your pocket and think IS is important then the tamron is a splendid option especially if you already thought the canon 24-70i was adequate from an iq standpoint as it certainly offers an improvement over that older version. Does iq improve by spending the extra $1000?  Yes, again no one disputes that, however to a lot of folks the improvement over the tamron will not be worth the extra money.

I don't recall I said "IS is important then the tamron is a splendid option especially if you already thought the canon 24-70i was adequate from an iq standpoint as it certainly offers an improvement over that older version"

I do have some pictures that I took with the Tamron from 1st patch at f2.8 inside the church under low light, so I know how this lens performs.

I'm sure alot of us don't mind to have a slower AF lens, that not necessary a bad lens, like Canon 85L.

463

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Is it hard not to buy 3rd party lenses now?

« on: December 28, 2012, 07:27:06 PM »

It's hard to have a good debate when one side uses online sources Vs otherside hands on. 

Its impossible to have a debate between quantifiable data on the one hand and your personal opinion on the other.

You complained that the Tamron was nowhere near as sharp as the Canon Mark ii wide open. When tested under controlled conditions this has shown to be untrue - while the Canon is generally a bit sharper, the Tamron is sharper at 70mm at the borders and corners.

Rather than admit you were wrong your response is to obfuscate this simple empirical fact and post a photo. Without even bothering to post details of focal length/aperture etc and a corresponding image from the other lens which you don't have for comparison. Well Done. That clearly proves... Well... Nothing.

Did you run this test yourself...or you just getting the data from review sites?

If I post a photo that I took with Tamron 24-70 f2.8 VC from the 1st patch @ f2.8 inside the church with my 5D III, will you share your photos or test results?

Again...my comments are based on hands on both Tamron and Canon ver II.  I haven't seen your photo yet. Maybe it's time for someone to touch the products before giving comments.

You can get the shooting details by right click on the photo, under properties.

464

Portrait / Re: Happy Holidays Photos!

« on: December 28, 2012, 04:23:08 PM »

I could have bought myself a 1D X plus couple L lenses

465

Portrait / Re: Happy Holidays Photos!

« on: December 28, 2012, 04:07:45 PM »

10 days in Hawaii...YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS