Messages

16

Lenses / Re: Owning the Canon 200-400 f/4L Vs 400 f/2.8L II

« on: July 06, 2012, 07:48:53 AM »

When the 200-400 lens becomes available I will be purchasing it or the 400 2.8 prime. The delima of which of these 2 lenses would be more effective is making me mad.

The versatility of the 200-400 with the built in ext will be excellent. To think, though, that with the 1.4X and 2X ext gives you 3 incredibly useful focal lengths is equally incredible.

Has anyone else given this much thought?

It all depends whether the 200-400 is usefully very sharp at 560/5.6.

From the ISO 12233 test charts we know that the new 400/2.8 is very sharp at 560 - even at f4 or half a stop beyond - with the 1.4 TC and it is  much lighter than the previous model. It is also likely to be substantially cheaper than the 200-400.

Close call! We'll know in a few weeks!

If the 560/5.6 works we may see the next models of the big whites all fitted with built in TC - with stratospheric price tags!

17

Lenses / Re: 200-400 spotted at Wimbledon

« on: July 05, 2012, 05:05:20 PM »

I really hope you are right.  I would think that Canon would do everything possible to get these in the hands of Olympic photogs.

Surely Olympic sports photographers would prefer the 400mm f2.8L IS II lens.
One stop faster and probably sharper as well!
Nevertheless I am sure it will be a good - although very expensive zoom lens.

18

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sigma 500mm f4 or f5.6 OS lens - any hopes of one??

« on: July 03, 2012, 05:25:01 PM »

or a 600 f4.5 FD if you can live with manual focus and an edmika adaptor
i got mine for $1400

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=5103.0

If I chose manual I think I would try the excellent Nikkor 500mm f4 P lens.
A few crop up in good condition sometimes on eBay.
Reputed to be very sharp wide open with bright image in the viewfinder to assist accurate focussing - results though would still be hit and miss!
Adaptors available EOS/Nikon with focus confirm.

19

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sigma 500mm f4 or f5.6 OS lens - any hopes of one??

« on: July 02, 2012, 07:42:20 PM »

why not get a 120-300 OS and a 2x Teleconverter then you have 240-600 f5.6 with the latest OS

http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/Sigma-120-300mm-f-2-8-EX-DG-OS-APO-HSM-AF-Canon-1-Year-Warranty-/230769031793?pt=Camera_Lenses&hash=item35bae7fa71

No thanks.

A good prime will always beat a zoom - particularly a zoom + TC - is the reason why!

20

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sigma 500mm f4 or f5.6 OS lens - any hopes of one??

« on: July 02, 2012, 10:01:23 AM »

Excuse me for re-opening this thread.
Just wondering whether anyone has any news of a new Sigma 500/4.5 with OS?
Surely one is due soon!!!

21

Lenses / Re: 400 mm f/2.8 L Mk I

« on: July 02, 2012, 04:14:06 AM »

Would like to enquire whether a 5 year old 400 mm f/2.8 L make I (not II) which is in excellent condition is a good deal at 4000 euro, and what is its performance with a 2x TC III on a 1DX, whether images are still sharp.

If the lens is the 400mm f2.8L IS I lens (ie the one behind the latest current version) it looks like good value to me particularly if its from a reputable dealer who should give you 6 months warranty with it. Watch ebay auctions for current valuations!

Downside is the weight but I guess you have already taken this into account.

Upside is that - with the 300mm f2.8 IS I - it is sharp wide open ie better wide open than either the 500/4 I or the 600/4 I - see the ISO 12233 test charts by Brian Carnahan.

It also takes the 1.4XTC II exceptionally well ie a sharp 560mm - surely that's long enough!

Finally when the IS eventually packs in you still have a very useful long lens - because of the extra stop.

22

Third Party Manufacturers / Smaller pixel means more noise can now be laid to rest!!

« on: June 24, 2012, 08:14:27 AM »

So says Professional Photographer in its review of the 36.3 Mp D800.

It says "...performs nearly as well as the...5D Mark III up to ISO 6400 so the idea that a smaller pixel means more noise can now be laid to rest."

The review goes on to say:

"...delivers outstanding results and levels of detail are truly astonishing ....almost as good as medium format...."

"Even the JPEGS are stunning with this camera"

"Highlight detail retained to an extraordinary level"

"The dynamic range is the best on any DSLR..."

Some camera Nikon have here!

Canon have some catching up to do!

23

Lenses / Re: Pancakes in the UK

« on: June 13, 2012, 01:26:50 PM »

The 40mm 2.8 stm seems to be costing £220 in the uk, thats $300!

Anyone know why this is?

Partly due to much lower sales tax in the US.

UK VAT (ie Sales Tax) is 20%.

Also if Canon overseas sales are priced in USD they may require further cushion if GBP falls vs USD - significant falls could happen in the current financial climate.

Anyway price differential still looks excessive!

Try say New York shop to see whether they will sell you one without local sales tax (because its an export).

Airmail would cost very little for such a tiny lens. Then add import duty and customs charges on the UK side - then VAT on everything so far. Could save a bit! Only worth it if lens has an international warranty.

24

Lenses / Re: First Impression - Canon EF 600 f/4L IS II

« on: June 13, 2012, 05:02:53 AM »

Canon Rumors

The images look pretty sharp!

However please supply proper 100% crops so we can take judge!

Should be easy to do.

Could we have a moon shot or two as well with/without 1.4xTC when weather conditions are right.

I suspect these latest very expensive long lenses from Canon are "birder" lenses designed for max sharpness at close range - say 50Xfocal length ie not exceptionally sharp at infinity - say 300 metres and beyond.

25

Lenses / Re: 400mm f/4. Anything good and "affordable"?

« on: June 11, 2012, 11:12:31 AM »

Could you not make do with the slightly smaller image size given by the Canon 300/2.8 IS version 1?

Arguably one of the sharpest lenses Canon ever made.

Very sharp wide open with huge 107mm nominal aperture.

Resolving power is proportional to aperture (there are other things to consider of course - before anybody chips in!).

For the 400/4 DO you have to stop down to f5.6 to get half decent results from what I have read.

400/5.6 equates to only 71mm aperture - so less detail in your image. In fact the little 400/5.6 prime performs just as well as the DO and is much much cheaper.

With the 300/2.8 you get a very good 420mm with a 1.4TC.

The only thing going for the 400/4 DO is its relatively light weight.

Plenty of 300/2.8 version 1 coming on the market as rich folk trade up to version 2!

26

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4X [CR2]

« on: June 10, 2012, 04:19:13 PM »

What's the point of a built in 1.4X TC anyway - an expensive gimmick?

Why not a simple 200-560mm f4 to f5.6 zoom design?

Better still a 300-560 - after all who is really interested in 200 f4.

This new lens at the proposed price will be embarrassing for Canon if it is not pin sharp at 560/5.6 - IMO.

27

Lenses / Re: Patent: 600 f/4 DO IS & 400 f/2.8 DO IS

« on: May 23, 2012, 11:14:05 AM »

I wonder why the "design" focal length of BOTH are less rather than slightly higher than nominal?

They had better do a better job on these lenses than they did on the 400/4.

Maybe Canon have gone as far as they can with reducing weights of conventional super telephotos and any further weight reductions will have to be by way of DO. Risky expensive strategy!

Note to Canon:
Produce a conventional design 500/5.6 prime coming in at under 5000USD and 2.5kg. It would be a best seller for you!

28

Animal Kingdom / Welsh Terriers.....

« on: May 09, 2012, 04:23:55 AM »

A couple of photos of two year old sisters - Gwen and Maggie - in their winter coats:





... and brother Bryn after recent visit to the barber!:

29

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 650D - sensor size?

« on: May 03, 2012, 03:50:06 AM »

News from Nikon is that the D3200 (24.2Mp) is now shipping to dealers!

Not much point in Canon introducing the 650D with a 18Mp sensor.

Nikon taken a clear lead here in entry level DSLRs and Canon is going to get a hammering unless they respond pdq.

(Rebel - silly name for a camera body!)

30

Lenses / Re: f/2.8 telephoto lenses have better AF than slower lenses?

« on: May 01, 2012, 12:08:06 PM »

IMO, it's definitely a factor to make one consider an f/2.8 lens over an f/4 lens, provided the trade offs (cost, size) are acceptable. 

The 5DIII and 1D X have five of those high-precision f/2.8 AF points.

If it helps, I wrote up a description of EOS AF Systems, which includes a discussion of the high-precision points, as well as the differences between cross, dual cross, what f/2.8 vs. f/5.6 'sensitivity' really means, etc.

Thanks for the very useful background information - worth reading for anyone contemplating a big lens investment - f/2.8 better than an f/4?