October 24, 2014, 10:51:54 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 - nicke

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6
31
Lenses / Re: WA lens advice 16-35 II or the TSE 17
« on: June 10, 2013, 11:35:01 AM »
How about the Carl Zeiss Distagon T* 18mm f/3.5? I was also looking for a sharp WA lens for my 5D, I choose the Carl Zeiss 18/3.5, and the lens is extremely sharp corner to corner – only the 17 TS lens can compete with, and the Carl Zeiss lens have 82mm filter thread.

The Swedish magazine Foto have rated the Carl Zeiss Distagon T* 18mm f/3.5 as one of the sharpest tested lenses, http://tidningenfoto.se/de-skarpaste-objektiven-fotos-tio-i-topp-lista/#Carl%20Zeiss%20Distagon%20T*%2018/3,5%20ZF


32
Lenses / Re: 17-40 f4 L discontinued???????
« on: May 13, 2013, 09:21:04 AM »
i agree to that. i don´t need or want an IS version when it increases the price a lot.
but i would pay more for a (noticable) optical better 17-40mm f4.

+1

33
Lenses / Re: 17-40 f4 L discontinued???????
« on: May 12, 2013, 06:06:12 AM »
I would also like to see an updated 17-40/4L (or a 16-35/4L), hopefully with IS, but most imported with high optical quality.

IS versions usually require a larger filter size (front element), that's supposedly why the 24-70/4 has IS and the 24-70/2.8 hasn't. For the 17-40L with 77mm now this might still work, but for the 82mm 16-35L it could be tricky.

In any case if the corner iq is also improved you'd probably see more weight and certainly a massively "improved" price tag. The question is if the 17-40L mk2 could still be the L budget choice - and if you want heavier and better, you can get the current 16-35L right now.

Nikon have a 16-35/4 VR, http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/lens/zoom/widezoom/af-s_nikkor16-35mmf_4d_ed_vr/index.htm, with 77mm filter size. The 16-35/2.8L II that I have seen, have not that good optical quality in the corners.

Canon can keep the current 17-40/4L as a budget lens, and still have a sharp (more expensive) 17-40/4L (or 16-35/4L) as they do with the 70-200/4L and 70-200/4L IS, I think that is exist a demand for both of them...

34
Lenses / Re: 17-40 f4 L discontinued???????
« on: May 10, 2013, 09:57:53 AM »
I would also like to see an updated 17-40/4L (or a 16-35/4L), hopefully with IS, but most imported with high optical quality.

35
Lenses / Re: Poll: Most Wanted New Lenses of 2013.
« on: May 07, 2013, 11:00:35 AM »
A 17-40/4L IS that is sharp corner to corner with low distortion the full zoom-range and all apertures.

36
After a lot measuring I bought the LowPro Pro Trekker 300 AW, and the 5D mk III + Canon 2x extender + 300/2.8L fits in the bag! It is a lite bit tight but no problem to insert nor remove the camera.

37
Thanks for your replay!

I have been looking at the Lowepro Flipside 400 AW, but I prefer the Pro Trekker system due to it a bit deeper internally so that I can have my lenses standing in the case.

38
Software & Accessories / Re: Recommended case for Canon G1X???
« on: December 28, 2012, 02:36:51 AM »
I have a Lowepro Apex 100 AW for my G1 X, and it fits great. I do not have the filter adapter mounted on the camera, but I have it mounted on a B+W polarizing filter in a B+W Filter Pouch, and I have it in the space in front of the case (http://products.lowepro.com//CatalogImages/18-1900-IMG3L.jpeg) and it fits without any problem.

39
I must upgrade my backpack, and due to that I live in a small town (with no good equipment stores) in Sweden, I can't try out the backpack before I buy it.

Normally when I carry the 300/2.8L IS II it is mounted on the 5D mk III without the extender. But sometimes I carry the extender mounted, so my question so, will the kit (300/2.8L IS II + Canon 2x extender + 5D mk III) fit mounted in a Lowepro Pro Trekker 300 AW (http://products.lowepro.com/product/pro-trekker-300-aw,2165,16.htm), or do I need the bigger 400 AW (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lowepro-Pro-Trekker-400-AW-Camera-Backpack-Review.aspx)? Often I do not carry the 300/2.8 and I think that the 400 AW will be unnecessary large for normal use.

When I measure the kit (300/2.8L IS II + Canon 2x extender + 5D mk III) it is 38.5 cm long and the Pro Trekker 300 AW have a height of 37 cm, but normally that is possible to fit a little bit bigger items in the bag.

40
Contests / Re: Gura Gear Giveaway!
« on: December 11, 2012, 07:04:28 AM »
For a looooong time I have ben interested to try the Gura Gear, but they are hard and very expensive to get in Sweden, so I would very much to win the kit due to it would be a great start for me.

41
Lenses / Re: Lens Filters -- preference?
« on: September 25, 2012, 10:49:06 AM »
Thanks -- I saw three B&W 77 mm XSPros... 1) Kaesemann Circular Polarizer MRC Nano Filter, 2) UV MRC-Nano 010M Filter and  3) Clear MRC-Nano 007

Which would you choose?

I have the B+W 007M MRC Nano Coated Clear Glass Protection Filter with XS-Pro (is also written as XSPD) Mount.

The Kaesemann Circular Polarizer is a superb polarizer filter, not a general protection filter (but extremely useful and highly recommended).

42
Lenses / Re: missing 200-400 and 100-400 announcements?
« on: September 19, 2012, 08:43:51 AM »

43
Lenses / Re: Post your 24-70 II Experiences Here
« on: September 12, 2012, 10:06:31 AM »
Some RAW files to let you make your own opinion: http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=9336.0

44
Lenses / Re: Canon 24-70/2.8L II is official delayed - again
« on: September 12, 2012, 10:05:13 AM »
Luckely Canon Sweden was in error, today did I recive my 24-70/2.8L II! Some RAW-files for you to preview: http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=9336.0 Unpacking pictures (in Swedish): http://rust.se/canon-ef-24-702-8l-ii-usm/

45
Some RAW files from a 5D mk III and the new 24-70/2.8L II to let you make your own opinion.

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=9336.0

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6