Messages

1

Reviews / Re: Can we have a 16-35 2.8L II review next please?

« on: June 15, 2013, 09:16:02 AM »

It's just that when I zoom in, the images just seem to have a lot of noise and don't seem that sharp.

I suppose I just need to learn how to use it after using a 100L constantly for months.

i own both lenses and love using both!  but it's important to understand, your baseline of comparison for sharpness is a world-class, L macro lens

if memory serves me right, even 3rd party so-so macro lenses are still amazing when it comes to sharpness, and is generally a simpler lens design.

UWA from what i understand is very difficult to design and engineer and is prone to distortion, CA, and can be subject to compromises in IQ for a number of reasons.

when it comes to sharpness, many (if not most) zoom lenses will look unfavorable 100%, side by side with a macro.  prepare to be dissappointed if the 100L is your baseline   

2

Lenses / Re: Is the 16-35 L II worth its price?

« on: June 07, 2013, 01:45:07 PM »

even if (when) canon releases a 14-24, i'll stick with this lens as my primary UWA.

24-35 is just too useful a range to give up w/o changing lenses, and i'm skeptical as to whether the new 14-24 would even have filter threads, or at least be a size matching the set i already own.

now if canon decided to release a mkIII (highly doubtful anytime in the near futuer) with improved corners at 2.8-5.6 and 35mm that wasn't soft in the center at 2.8, i would be overwhelmed with happiness

3

Lenses / Re: Is the 16-35 L II worth its price?

« on: June 07, 2013, 02:23:08 AM »

isn't it really interesting how the 17-40 is exhibiting both 8 point and 14 point stars?

anyone know how that's possible?

EDIT: oh wait, the first image is the 24-105 based on exif

4

Lenses / Re: Is the 16-35 L II worth its price?

« on: June 06, 2013, 08:07:10 PM »

However, when you have lightsources in your frame, I felt the sun-stars produced by the 16-35 II looked better than the sun-stars produced by the 17-40 stopped down to f8 and  onward. This aesthetic choice may vary from person to person.

this. 

why i chose the 16-35 II over the 17-40, above and beyond the 2.8 thing since i shoot landscapes

5

Lenses / Re: Is the 16-35 L II worth its price?

« on: June 05, 2013, 09:13:11 PM »

If I had to sell everything but 1 lens due to some financial tragedy, the 16-35 II would be my keeper.

Yes, it has optical shortcomings, yes it's a bit on the pricier side.  But once you understand its limitations, it's simply amazing.

Rent it along with the 17-40 and see what suits you.

6

Software & Accessories / Re: Feisol CT-3441S ... can any one share opinion on this

« on: May 09, 2013, 01:51:27 AM »

I'm a hiker and backpacker.  I love my CT-3441S.

It folds down to nothing, weighs nearly that, and worked exceedingly well on my two romps through europe (italy and germany/swtizerland) paired with my 5D and 16-35II and 100L.

In fact, I'm leaving thursday for Greece/Croatia with the same kit.

I also use it with my 70-200 II on a gimbal and don't feel like I'm making any compromises on stability, but everyone has different needs or expectations with their gear.

It works for me and I love it.  Didn't have to pay an arm and a leg, and didn't cost so much to make me feel like I have to baby it.

sure beats what i was using before lol

7

Lenses / Re: 85 1.2mk3 anytime soon?

« on: May 05, 2013, 04:26:10 PM »

i can't imagine what could be improved in a mkIII.  i use the 85 II and i absolutely love it.

LOCA or bokeh chromatic abberation is the only thing i'm not crazy about, but that flaw rears its head in even the best, super-fast lenses.

and besides, with canon's current pricing trend, i wouldn't care to pay 50%-75% more for what likely won't change much - image quality

8

Lenses / Re: How low will it go? (50L)

« on: February 19, 2013, 01:33:38 AM »

http://www.canonpricewatch.com/product/00592/Canon-EF-50mm-f1.2L-USM-price.html

based on this trend, looks like the last time it hit $1300 was back in 2009.

likely not it would seem?

9

Lenses / Re: Anyone Want an Improved 16-35mm over the much requested 14-24mm?

« on: February 13, 2013, 01:37:08 AM »

sharpness is fine for me at 2.8 from 16-24

35mm at 2.8 is a whole other story

10

Reviews / Re: Canon 200-400 f/4L IS Review

« on: February 04, 2013, 03:23:38 AM »

definitely looking forward to renting this beast.  i absolutely love the built in teleconverter concept.  pure genius

11

Speedlites, Printers, Accessories / Re: post your best photographic gear for under 100 euro (100$)

« on: February 01, 2013, 12:36:51 PM »

a used 40mm pancake for $98, the original owner thought he broke.

easily fixed with a firmware update

12

Lenses / Re: A second look at the 24-70 F/4L IS's place in my bag...

« on: January 31, 2013, 05:45:48 PM »

the macro function is of most interest to me.  but good golly, do you have to get close with the 24-70!

i have enough problems blocking light with my 100L, I can't imagine the excercise in frustration shooting close with speedlites, shadows, etc.

13

Technical Support / Re: at what shutter speed you turn IS off?

« on: January 28, 2013, 01:34:17 AM »

i've never once remembered to turn it off, on countless long exposures mounted on a tripod, on both 70-200 II and 100 L

never experienced any decrease in sharpness

14

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Kenrockwell comments on Canon 6d

« on: January 18, 2013, 02:30:40 AM »

gotta hand it to him though.  all this controversy is exactly how i think he makes all his money and drives so much traffic to his site.

threads that pop up like this every other month tells me he knows exactly what he's doing

15

Lenses / Re: 17-40 vs 16-35, which one got the mojo ?

« on: January 14, 2013, 02:55:22 PM »

actually now that i think about it, i recall the 17-40 performing much better at longer focal lengths.

i dont shoot my 16-35 II at 35mm (between 2.8-5.6) because sharpness takes an unexpected dive after 28mm, which is a shame since i find the bokeh pleasant. 

canon seems to think there's nothing wrong with it when i sent it in...