November 29, 2014, 12:28:13 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 - Viggo

Pages: 1 ... 74 75 [76] 77 78 ... 141
1126
Technical Support / Re: at what shutter speed you turn IS off?
« on: January 27, 2013, 02:34:01 PM »
If I shoot things moving in a steady pace and in pretty much one direction, like a runner or a car I keep it on, always. If I shoot hockey or kids or soccer I shoot with only vertical IS on (or off if I'm in portrait mode), that way I can snap the camera back and forth and not see that slight drag/delay in the VF but still have the benefit of some stabilising, absolutely helps predictive AF.

So it's not about shutter speed for me, but how the subject moves.

And as mentioned above here, 1/200s at 200mm rule doesn't work all that well with high mp bodies. I will always use 1600 or 12800 ISO to get fast speed rather than one step cleaner image with slight blur.

1127
I was absolutely going to sell my 24 f1.4 II for the 24-70, but after using the 24 more again for a period I just realized I could never ever part with it. Although I would also really like to have the 24-70, couldn't be further from each other, but it will take som saving, because, man..

Tried the 24-70 mk2 the other day and yes, it's seriously sharp, but I'm more impressed with the color and contrast compared to the mk1. BUT it isn't anywhere close to being as cool as the 24 f1.4  ;D

Anyway, glad to see DxO score it high since we've always agreed with DxO here on CR  ::)

1128
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: EOS-1D X Firmware 1.2.1 in the Wild
« on: January 25, 2013, 02:30:03 PM »
Oh yes, please, EG-S support!! and for ME it has nothing to do with MF or liveview focusing manual primes, although I might consider buying back the Zeiss 28mm f2 (faaantastically fun lens). It just has everything to do with being able to CLEARLY see where my 1.2 dof is put and when tracking to see when I need to push or wait. For composition it's absolutely crucial and although I have a feel for the dof, there are very small changes that could lift an image IF I could see. Holding the camera out from the eye in LV? No thanks...

1129
Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II
« on: January 24, 2013, 06:19:47 PM »
A small update so far.

No, the seller wouldn't take it back. I have his adress, phone number , name of parents etc so I have a few more cards to play if it doesn't work out ::) No, I will not accept a $2000 paperweight.

The lens is still under warranty so I have shipped it to Canon, arrived there today, so within the end of next week I will probably know what the damage is. The seller said he would split the bill if the fix isn't covered by the warranty after all, I however thinks he will pay the whole bill.

I went to my local shop and tried two other copies of the lens and they were both SERIOUSLY nice and VERY equal, so when it works I think I'm going to use it a lot.

On a side note I shipped away my 85 L today for the third time in 6 years. I  miss it already... ::)

1130
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS-1D X Firmware Specifcations
« on: January 22, 2013, 04:07:25 PM »
When can we DL?

1131
Lenses / Re: 135L vs 85L vs 70-200L II
« on: January 21, 2013, 03:56:19 AM »
I've had them all several times, and it comes down to one thing, what you shoot.

For when my kids were tiny and just layed there the 85 is true MAGIC, nothing comes close. But then they start to move a little bit and the slow 85-AF makes you want to throw it to the wall.

The 135 is creeamy and sharp even wide open, discreet and light. But for me I found that when I was in a situation where it wasn't too long, it was just to short.

The 70-200 have almost everything, blistering AF, with crazy accuracy, the HIGHLY useful (fullframe) focal length and fantastic IQ. The downsides is that it is a beast, heavy and long and forget discreet. But for me that haven't used zooms for years and years, I see now that I crop A LOT because I can't change focal. The 70-200 isn't as long and useless as one might think, it's actually a great indoor focal length for kids ( as they aren't 180cm).

If I could have whatever I want in the lens world, I would absolutely keep the 85 also, the 135 I find is in between what I want, always, so not for me. and the 70-200 is, now once again, a given and most used lens.

1132
Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II
« on: January 21, 2013, 02:47:31 AM »
Yeah, tried it first at 0 and it's sometimes a tiny high pitched squeak from the AF. Like it needs lube. IS on or off does not affect this. There's absolutely no sign of it being dropped, but that doesn't rule it out.

Thanks for the replies! Not quite sure what to so at this point, the seller wouldn't return it as he had already spent the money on a prostitute or some cr@p...

1133
Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II
« on: January 20, 2013, 10:58:56 AM »
@ Viggo - Unfortunately, it seems you may have gotten a dud. You say you bought this copy used, I wonder if the seller fully disclosed the motive behind sale?

Thanks! That is really what I wanted to hear also. I remember this lens as an absolute killer, but both CA and contrast and sharpness is only good at 70mm and useless at 200mm, so I rather it be a dud than me remeber too great things about it.

I've asked him if he would take it back, awaiting reply. But yeah, even though it looked as new, it must be a reason he sold it... I´ve never gotten a bad copy, at least not to this extent before, bummer...

1134
Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II
« on: January 20, 2013, 10:26:06 AM »
I got my 70-200 (bought used) the other day, and I'm really dissapointed. I have had this lens before and it was epic from start to finish, but this copy is nothing that compares to sharp. It is Reikan Focal adjusted to -8 at 200mm and -1 at 70mm, but even with LV it isn't sharp at 200mm. Does anyone else see or have seen this? Is it just my first copy that was insanely sharp or is this a dud? The first one I had I couldn't say it was less sharp than my 300mm f2.8 L IS (mk1) but this is worse than my 70-200 non-IS.



Top image is at 200mm lower is at 135mm. Please forgive the underexposure and noise, I was pi$$ed off and just shot a very repeatable and comparable shot. No NR, small amount of sharpening, same on both.

1135
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II
« on: January 17, 2013, 12:38:46 PM »
Anyone still experience large sample-variation with the 24-70 mk2? I'll be getting one very soon, and wonder if it's still a need to buy three and keep the sharpest, or if if the differences are neglible?

I tried two copies from Crutchfield, Reikan FoCal showed 990ish in sharpness @ f2.8. Both copies were from 1st patch.

Nice, thanks for the input, then I know what numbers to look for also.

1136
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II
« on: January 17, 2013, 07:28:06 AM »
Anyone still experience large sample-variation with the 24-70 mk2? I'll be getting one very soon, and wonder if it's still a need to buy three and keep the sharpest, or if if the differences are neglible?

1137
Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II
« on: January 16, 2013, 10:16:50 AM »
Do you care about IQ?
70-200 II is not able to replace 85/135/200Ls in many situations...

IQ?  The 70-200 II is equal to or better than most of the primes in it's focal range in terms of IQ - basically, the differences are so minor as to be marginal in rigorous testing (charts/Imatest) and practically irrelevant in real-world shots.  The reason for the fast primes used to be IQ, shallower DoF, more light, and smaller/lighter (for a single lens, not the set).  At this point, for all practical purposes, it's down to shallower DoF, more light (debatable with a newer FF body and the excellent high-ISO performance) and smaller/lighter.

Which is exactly my reasons for getting primes in the first place, but now I see the 24-70 and the 70-200 mk2's and to ME the incredible AF-speed of the zooms along with equal or better IQ, I'm getting rid of some primes. I'm keeping the 35 and 50 as the shallow dof favorites and getting the 24-70 instead of my 24 f1.4.

As always the 85 L is incredible! but what good does that do when the AF just can't cope with tiny rapid movements or my kids walking across the floor, to get sharp images I need to get more dof, stop it down to 2,8 helps, why not then use a 70-200 instead.

The only reason for fast primes for me now is shallow dof. I get MUCH better indoor images at iso 400 and flash to the roof than with 1,4 and iso 6400....

1138
Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II
« on: January 16, 2013, 04:08:31 AM »
Once again I have decided to sell the 85 L to buy a 70-200, 5th time now I think ;D

1139
Thanks for posting. I'm a bit surprised, checked the results over at TDP also, and looks like it is like this. Dissapointing.

1140
Canon General / Re: 70-200 F2.8 mark I or mark II?!
« on: January 06, 2013, 03:38:12 AM »
Well of course the mk2 is wayway better in every aspect and not just a tad. But if you're like me it's a lens I hardly ever used and therefor completely stupid to pay that price for.. However I just the other day picked up a 70-200 2.8 non-is for $350 and then it suddenly is a super bargain an totally worth to own, even if I use it no more than twice a year..

Never missed the mk1 or the mk2 when I sold them..

Pages: 1 ... 74 75 [76] 77 78 ... 141