Messages

316

Lenses / Re: 70-200 2.8 is II - HELP

« on: February 17, 2012, 05:41:17 AM »

Sounds terrible. So I believe that you are willing to go out-of-country for repairs?

I admit to having had only a single damaged lens, so I have let's say limited experiences in this area. That was last year when my 50mm f1.2 rolled out of my backpack, damaging the focus mechanism. I brought it to the German dealer, where I had bought the lens only a couple of weeks before and they repaired it perfectly. Would it be an option for you to travel for example to Germany? Do you come often to other European countries, so that travel costs/shipping costs won't hurt you in addition to repair costs?

317

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 8-15mm f/4.0L

« on: February 16, 2012, 07:11:58 PM »

Yes, indeed. Thank you!

318

Lens Gallery / Re: Canon EF 50MM 1.2L

« on: February 16, 2012, 07:06:37 PM »

One of the uses where the 50mm f1.2 L really amazes me is making me able to still shoot handheld at night. This is wide open at 1.2 shot with a 7D at 1/50s and ISO 3200 at Singapore Night Zoo.

319

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

« on: February 16, 2012, 06:38:38 PM »

Castle Chillon in Switzerland

320

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 8-15mm f/4.0L

« on: February 16, 2012, 05:53:25 PM »

actually I admit to wanting to buy this lens for a couple of months, but I kind of shied away from it, thinking that the fishy distortion would be too much. Seeing those posted samples I am reconsidering. Can anyone point me to some good architecture sample shots using the 8-15mm? I would be interested to see just what it can do in such an environment. For example the shot posted by revup67 in the 8-15mm gallery showing the steps is a very nice composition, because a central element, in this case the steps is not distorted too much.

321

Lenses / Re: EF 50-140mm f/2 IS

« on: February 16, 2012, 04:33:29 PM »

Quite frankly I don't think such a lens design would be sensible. The problem is primarily that you are asking for a zoom. Such constructs always include a certain trade-off in image quality compared to primes. This trade-off becomes more and more visible the faster those lenses are. As a consequence we don't see f1.2 or f1.4 zooms, because it just is not feasible, while f2.8 can be done successfully. A f2 zoom lens could therefore be expected to be reasonably good in IQ only in case it has a rather short zoom range, but then it would not really make sense, because producing a prime in the area of that zoom range would be more sensible. If you look at that article about lens design you will also find that it would be more likely to build a 150-200 f2 lens then a 50-100 f2 zoom lens, because in the latter case the lens design would not be purely telephoto, but a mixed design, because of the lower end being a "normal" length 50mm lens, so it is not a tele.

322

EOS Bodies / Re: 7D Guinea Pig

« on: February 15, 2012, 03:25:04 PM »

Your argument regarding the current market situation and Canon's intention to sell for higher prices instead of selling for lower prices makes sense to me. Take the new 24 and 28 lenses for example. They are upgraded with IS to be sold at higher prices instead of trying to sell them low on price. This makes sense to me. Selling for low prices hurts not only in terms of company reputation, but also in terms of profit and right there it hurts a lot.

323

EOS Bodies / Re: 7D Guinea Pig

« on: February 15, 2012, 08:35:56 AM »

Agreed, but the chain of communication actually leads away from the original topic of this thread. It should be clear by now that FF gives you better noice performance and much better opportunities for wide angle shots  .

Getting back to the original topic I don't think 7D was a Guinea Pig. Instead I believe Canon to have considered that at the time of 7D's launch it would be both an excellent addition to a full-frame body as a secondary body with more reach and as kind of an ultimate upgrade for people coming from the prosumer area and looking for something gradually better.

For me there is no obvious reason to buy a 7D Mark II or anything similar after I already own a 7D, expecting that the Mark II will be only a gradual upgrade similar to going from 40D to 50D. What I will be doing is to go straight for a 1D-X once it hits stores in my area. If this is too big a step forward for others, then maybe a 5D-X or similar more price-conscious pro body may be a better step forward, but I believe going FF is the thing to do, if you already have a 7D, because then the difference in lens reach becomes quite a useful feature.

Just look at how many people have a 5D Mark II and 7D combination.

324

EOS Bodies / Re: buy 7D now or 5D Mark II later?

« on: February 14, 2012, 09:56:25 AM »

In case you intend to keep your new camera around for as long as you have obviously kept using your 20D I can recommend buying the 7D. Prices are quite reasonable and build quality and overall camera features are very nice in case of the 7D. I believe that for your intended usage the 7D is the better option.

I for one would not pick up a 5D Mark II right now, although prices for a new 5D Mark II appear to be in a sweet spot. You may still want to look at a used 5D Mark II later on, once the majority of current 5D users have purchased a possible 5D Mark III/X or whatever this will become.

Nevertheless the feature set of the 5D is more geared towards studio photography and the 7D's image quality will already be a great leap forward compared to a 20D. What I am saying is that you may not be getting some shots with the kind of high image quality as is possible with a 5D Mark II, but overall I expect you will be much happier with a 7D.

325

EOS Bodies / Re: IS vs IQ

« on: February 14, 2012, 09:34:57 AM »

Image stabilization reduces unwanted movements of your camera and lens combination. How do you think would this reduce image quality?

If I would use for example my 70-200 for hand-held shots with IS switched off, the only result would be a smaller keeper rate caused by camera and lens shake. You can easily perform some tests to verify IS effectiveness.

326

Lighting / Re: Using the Built-in Flash

« on: February 13, 2012, 12:05:23 PM »

In my humble opinion you should buy the SpeedLight, but I am not sure, why you would not simply bounce the flash off a wall or something similar instead of using a diffuser. Is there a specific reason based on what you shoot that a diffuser would be easier to use?

327

Lenses / Re: 24-105mm vs 17-40mm on crop

« on: February 13, 2012, 08:12:23 AM »

Actually I have been using both 24-105 and 17-40 for several years now using only crop bodies (40D, 50D and 7D). Originally I used a 24-105 and then I added the 17-40 for wider angle shots. Although the 24-105 is no longer my primarily used lens, I still use it far more often compared to the 17-40, which as noted before by others is really a wide angle zoom lens for full frame. It just makes less sense on a crop body. You would be better off going for a 14mm 2.8 prime later on to cover wide angle shots in L quality. This lens is just fabulous.