March 06, 2015, 08:50:49 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 - Viggo

Pages: 1 ... 61 62 [63] 64 65 ... 150
931
Lenses / Re: I Repaired my own 50mm 1.4, and so can you!
« on: September 06, 2013, 08:52:56 AM »
This is what you get for posting on a friday  ;D ;D

"what the what? " I like that.  I'm stealing it for sure!

Welcome Emil, you a scandinavian?

932
Lenses / Re: Can 24-70/2.8 II replace 35/1.4?
« on: September 05, 2013, 09:09:52 AM »

I think I'm with that girl.  I'm probably weird, but I don't find 24-70 zooms very appealing.  They're nowhere near versatile enough in focal length for me (for versatility my 24-105 is more useful), and within their rather narrow range zooming with your feet makes as much sense.  I would rather cover that range via a couple of light primes - a 28 IS or a 35 1.4 plus a 50 1.4, say - and save the zooms for lengths where foot-zooming isn't a good substitute: ultrawide and long.  So I would likely be asking the question in reverse....

Still, it's hard to change the perspective between 24 and 70 with your feet. I don't use the 2470 to get closer, I use it to set my perspective and then footzoom to the crop I want. Plus the AF of the 2470 kills every prime under 200mm.

No, you can't change perspective by foot-zooming; that's why I suggested a couple of primes within that range, not one, and zooms for wider (which will go at least up to 24mm) and longer (which will usually start at 70mm).  But the suggestion was for someone who shares my preferences: I was offering a, um, perspective, not a general recommendation (for all I know, no-one shares that particular preference of mine).  I simply don't find the 24-70 range very useful most of the time. 

I have no doubt the 24-70 is as good as everyone says, but does its AF really "kill" the AF on the new IS primes?  The AF on the 28mm IS I own and the 35mm IS I rented is/was impeccable and very fast, while my second copy of the old 50mm 1.4 (unlike the first one I bought) has been fast and accurate too along with having the obvious advantages of being a faster lens.

I have barley tried the 28 IS, but I have had every L prime from 14 to 300 and still consider the 2470
Mk2 to be absolutely spot on in a series of 12 fps with seriously difficult erratic behavior in a way non of those primes could keep up with at all, only matched by the 70200 mk2.

933
Lenses / Re: Can 24-70/2.8 II replace 35/1.4?
« on: September 04, 2013, 04:38:24 PM »
What I have come to see is that prime users are envious towards the 24-70 users with all their versatility and weight saving. While I see zoom users that envy the prime users for the better image, and of course bokehliciousness of 1.4 and faster. Some girl that spent all she got on a 5D2 and the 24-70L II later wanted to get primes instead LOL, wish I could afford that lens though...

I think I'm with that girl.  I'm probably weird, but I don't find 24-70 zooms very appealing.  They're nowhere near versatile enough in focal length for me (for versatility my 24-105 is more useful), and within their rather narrow range zooming with your feet makes as much sense.  I would rather cover that range via a couple of light primes - a 28 IS or a 35 1.4 plus a 50 1.4, say - and save the zooms for lengths where foot-zooming isn't a good substitute: ultrawide and long.  So I would likely be asking the question in reverse....

Still, it's hard to change the perspective between 24 and 70 with your feet. I don't use the 2470 to get closer, I use it to set my perspective and then footzoom to the crop I want. Plus the AF of the 2470 kills every prime under 200mm.

934
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sony's new little cameras
« on: September 04, 2013, 02:21:15 PM »
I like that!  :D

935
Lenses / Re: 200 f2.0 first dissapointed customer ever?
« on: September 04, 2013, 03:37:15 AM »
The first clue was that FoCal just couldn't get it to focus properly on the target and kept prompting me that it had tried 5 times and quality of focus varied a lot.

How much light did you have (what were your reported EVs)?  I find that FoCal is very consistent at 11-12 EV or higher, but inconsistent results or run failures are more common at 10 EV and lower.

Yes, the big whites are allowed issues. It just seems unlikely that I had three copies of the 24 L II, all brand new, non of them worked, too exchanged under warranty by canon. I had two copies of the 70-200 mk2 and changed three AF units and Four IS units. One of them also had to realign a couple of the lenses! It never turned out okay., also under warrranty. Two 580 flashes with multiple issues. Had a 300 f2.8 that front focused about 100 meters aiming at 150 meters. All of this is very strange if it's only the occasional issue..

I currently own 2 bodies, 14 lenses (plus 2 TCs), and 3 flashes (plus an ST-E3).  In addition to those, I've previously owned an additional 3 bodies, 8 lenses (plus 2 TCs), and 2 flashes.  Out of all of those, I've not had a single issue that required service, except the aforementioned need to send in my 1D X for a recall at some point.

Either I'm very lucky, you're very unlucky, or some combination thereof...

I used 11,3 EV light, and I tried both indoors with a work lamp and outside with overcast sun. I used the same setup I always use. After having all that trouble with the 200, I changed the lens to my 70-200 at 200mm and it just worked, even gave me the same value as I already had dialed in.

I think it is a combination of you being very lucky and me very unlucky  ;D

936
Lenses / Re: 200 f2.0 first dissapointed customer ever?
« on: September 03, 2013, 03:04:56 PM »
I'd have not waited a month to exchange it (unless it just suddenly happened). 
 
Even the big whites can have issues, just as $100,000 cars have issues.  Get it fixed or exchanged.

I just discovered the focus ring issue. The AF issue I have been trying to work out if it's calibration, skills or or other, plus as mentioned, getting it to service is quite the task. The first clue was that FoCal just couldn't get it to focus properly on the target and kept prompting me that it had tried 5 times and quality of focus varied a lot.

Yes, the big whites are allowed issues. It just seems unlikely that I had three copies of the 24 L II, all brand new, non of them worked, too exchanged under warranty by canon. I had two copies of the 70-200 mk2 and changed three AF units and Four IS units. One of them also had to realign a couple of the lenses! It never turned out okay., also under warrranty. Two 580 flashes with multiple issues. Had a 300 f2.8 that front focused about 100 meters aiming at 150 meters. All of this is very strange if it's only the occasional issue..

937
Lenses / Re: 200 f2.0 first dissapointed customer ever?
« on: September 03, 2013, 01:13:49 PM »
If you're using the 5D Mark III, there's a known compatibility issue with this lens and a service bulletin from Canon.  I sent my 200 f/2L into Canon for the update.....

What was the issue? I just bought the mk3 and also have the 200 f/2L
Source?

The issue as I recall it was a abnormal rattling or clicking noise in the IS unit. The lens needs an update from Canon.

938
Lenses / Re: 200 f2.0 first dissapointed customer ever?
« on: September 03, 2013, 11:23:43 AM »
The AF issue is a "sh!t happens" thing, it could happen, I can accept that. But everybody here would be pretty upset to have it happen to a 6k lens within the first year.

...as opposed to a nearly $7K camera within the first year?  Honestly, the 1D X issue is worse, IMO, because it affects pretty much all users who bought the camera before the recall, whereas I haven't seen a big outcry or recall of the 200/2 for 'gravel in the focus ring' - seems you were unlucky and got a lemon.  Still sucks, though.  I suspect it'll end up not being gravel (wouldn't you or the person you bought it from know that it had been dragged through gravel?), or the sealing, but something internal that's broken.

I can agree that the 1dx issue is worse because it affects much more people. But I had mine in for service but it never  malfunctioned for me, and it seems to me that majority of serviced 1dx's wasn't having the symptoms, just the serialnumber.

I certainly hope something internal is broken, but considering the ring haven't been used and worked fine three weeks ago, I doubt it. But I can't know that until they open it. I also can't really know where the dust I see inside the lens is located. All I know are the symptoms not the solution. Point being when it has seen almost no use, it shouldn't have to be repaired. A D.O.A-lens would have been much easier to accept...



939
Lenses / Re: 200 f2.0 first dissapointed customer ever?
« on: September 03, 2013, 09:14:59 AM »
All advice and comments are appreciated :)

I live in Norway so shipping with normal post-office mail isn't an option, they only insure up to 1500 usd. And with insurance and shipping for 6000 usd the price is 200.

I know the guy who sold it to me, and he's a great guy, so I think there is 100% chance this isn't caused by either of us, but something with the lens. The lens is only 10 months old.

And I don't think either of us have even used the focusing ring for any thing else than supporting the lens.

It's just very annoying that the sealing is rubbish on this one. I think it's useless that it could happen without even using it situations where it could be an issue with a non-sealed lens. I have pushed the limit with some of my other gear to see what it could take and they worked flawlessly no matter what. I expect this lens to do the same, that's all.

The AF issue is a "sh!t happens" thing, it could happen, I can accept that. But everybody here would be pretty upset to have it happen to a 6k lens within the first year.

I'll update the thread when I get some kind of feedback from the service place, could be useful for others if it is in fact gravel and it's not covered. That means you can't trust the sealing until the lens breaks and you get it fixed.

Thanks again :)

940
EOS-M / Re: EOS M / Sigma 18-35mm F1.8 DC HSM Combo
« on: September 03, 2013, 05:11:47 AM »
I wish they add a little to their prices and have better AF. To me, a lens as sharp as anything is pretty worthless unless the AF can make that sharpness happen consistently. Almost all of my favorite shots of the kids are when they are running or otherwise moving quite a lot.

BUT, I love the turn Sigma have taken with all of their new lenses, they've released quite a few, consistently very high quality in (almost) all aspects, and I bet Nikon and Canon are scratching their heads and perhaps having a wtf-moment.. Love that. !

941
Lenses / Re: 200 f2.0 first dissapointed customer ever?
« on: September 03, 2013, 03:31:05 AM »
Thanks for your replies everyone.  :)

I have bought it second hand, but the previous owner didn't use it and the "grinding" noise in the focusing ring wasn't there when i got it. But, I have by no means used it so this could happen, not even with an extending barrel non sealed lens, would this happen. I bought it to use it everywhere, but if it can't take a stroll in the city and the occasional playground it can't be sealed at all. I do not use any of my gear for anything else than as a hobby and for taking pictures of my kids, so if pro's can drop and bang them around and use them for all sorts of sandy sports, I just don't get it.

And the problem with simply "sending it in" is that if they say there is gravel, that is not warranty and could cost a fortune, meaning I can't afford to fix it. And another thing is how do I get it to the service place? it's a 6 hour drive one way, and to send it can't be done for less than 200 usd , also one way. Simply put , this would easily cost me a 35 L in a repair that NEVER should have been necessary if the lens did what it suppose to do.

942
Lenses / Re: 200 f2.0 first dissapointed customer ever?
« on: September 02, 2013, 05:23:48 PM »


The AF should work on a 6000 dollar lens, not too much to ask I think.. But that is warranty for sure, it's the gravel and dust inside the lens that worries me, they could easily say it's my fault, although I know it absolutely isn't .

I agree entirely, and if it is warrantied then they definitely should look at it at their cost.  I'd eat the cost if it was out of warranty, but only then.

Jim

The lens was new in November last year ,and the first owner almost didn't use
It at all. He sold all his canon gear at the same time and wanting something small, Olympus stuff..

943
Lenses / Re: 200 f2.0 first dissapointed customer ever?
« on: September 02, 2013, 05:21:34 PM »
When you called Canon, what did they say?

Sorry, I know you're frustrated, but $h!t happens.  Occasionally, a bad lens is shipped and someone gets unlucky.  Sometimes, a whole production run has a goof, and there's a service advisory (aka recall) - I still need to send my 1D X in for that, actually.

So...venting is good, but getting your problems fixed is better.

I sent my usual service place a very long email explaining in detail the issues, but it was after closing, so I hope they'll get back to me tomorrow .. I intend on sending it in, it's just VERY annoying I keep having problems with newish lenses. The most expensive gear I have the most issues with..

944
Lenses / Re: 200 f2.0 first dissapointed customer ever?
« on: September 02, 2013, 05:09:14 PM »
I'll trade you my 300 f/4 for it.   ;D

Jim

Thanks for the offer , I'll seriously consider it. Suddenly I highly regret selling my 70-200 that actually worked.

So your lens for mine and about $4K or so?  I'd like one of them, but I don't want it that badly!   ;)  In your shoes I'd send it to Canon; For a lens worth that much a trip for repairs seems like a good investment.

Jim

The AF should work on a 6000 dollar lens, not too much to ask I think.. But that is warranty for sure, it's the gravel and dust inside the lens that worries me, they could easily say it's my fault, although I know it absolutely isn't .

945
Lenses / Re: 200 f2.0 first dissapointed customer ever?
« on: September 02, 2013, 04:18:07 PM »
I'll trade you my 300 f/4 for it.   ;D

Jim

Thanks for the offer , I'll seriously consider it. Suddenly I highly regret selling my 70-200 that actually worked.

Pages: 1 ... 61 62 [63] 64 65 ... 150