July 23, 2014, 02:23:21 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 - Random Orbits

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 85
1
Reviews / Re: Please help me love ef 35mm f2 IS vs 40mm pancake
« on: July 21, 2014, 08:06:24 AM »
I recently got a 10 month old 35mm f2 IS. On top of my two month old 40mm pancake.

I love the pictures coming out from pancake when it came, so sharp, so cute, so light, no distortion, i can make head shots with no enlarge parts.
6D and 40mm combination as light as like i was holding my nexus 7.

Recently, I invested on 35mm f2 IS.
I could not love the pictures at f2, portrait subject is not sharp, and its just giving me a headache looking at it.
at f2.8 picture almost identical on both lens.
I shoot 1/60 and faster so i eliminate the love for IS.

Field of view wise, with 40mm i can take one step backward and field of view is the same.

Maybe I'm doing it wrong. And need more time to play with 35mm. Or I could rent a 35L and see how it fairs.

again f2 is not a keeper at all. or my copy is not sharp as per normal.

Agree with others to take another look at AFMA.  It is unusual to have poor focus at f/2 and good focus at f/2.8 if the AFMA is set correctly.  I once had a lens that had poor focus and had to be sent in to Canon to be recalibrated/focus adjusted but that lens gave soft pictures even at f/5.6.  When you recheck the AFMA, check to see that lens elements don't show major signs of decentering (uneven blur from corner to corner).  Also see if shots taken at f/2 with live view can satisfy your requirements for this lens.

The fact that both the 40 and 35 appear similarly sharp at f/2.8 and smaller is a credit to the value/performance of the 40.  The 35 may be better at f/2.8 but it won't matter or be noticeable in many situtations.

The 35 does have a bit more distortion than the 40, but it is more likely that the increased distortion that you see with the 35 is a function of the closer distance between you and the subject to achieve similar framing.  That one step difference can make a big difference in perspective when the subject is close...

2
Reviews / Re: Please help me love ef 35mm f2 IS vs 40mm pancake
« on: July 21, 2014, 07:43:21 AM »
I am in exactly the same boat...well, sort of. Traveling to FL/Disney/beach in a couple of weeks, and would just love to provide family with pix from inside some of the Disney rides/exhibits/etc. I do not yet own the 35mm 2.0IS and am considering it (instead of the 40mm pancake, which works quite well on the 5DMkIII but I haven't really tested it indoors at Disney when mated to the 5DMkIII). Just how much better would the 35mm 2.0 IS be for this sort of thing? Not live-action sports, but kids are involved, and some movement on rides etc.

I've had some luck with the EOS M/22mm 2.0 as well as the 11-22 something-or-other for outdoor walkaround at Disney and the beaches...and in past years I've used a 40D/17-55 2.8IS for indoor (and outdoor) shots. Recall that the 40D only goes to ISO 3200. Now that I have full-frame capabilities, I'm looking to better my chances.

I get the sense that, for a non-L lens, that the 35mm 2.0IS is a nice one for this sort of thing...

Help/advice is welcome.

What other lenses do you have and what is your budget?  I find that the 35 f/2 IS and the 40 are too close (in focal length range, maximum aperture) to bring together on the same trip.  If you don't have anything wider than the 40 that you can use on FF, I'd suggest looking into the the 24 f/2.8 IS or 28 f/2.8 IS.  If you're planning to have people in the shot, the 28 may be easier to use but would still give you a wider angle of view than the 40.

3
Canon General / Re: New Speedlite Coming? [CR2]
« on: July 20, 2014, 08:17:49 AM »
We are all just guessing of course, but I think the reason Canon has not been in a hurry to put RT into the mid-tier models yet is because Nikon has not yet fielded an RT flash, so for the moment Canon has the field to itself.   If this rumor of an upcoming 430/440 with RT proves not true right now, then I think it is a matter of time.  At the latest, i think,once Nikon puts out an RT flash or two, we will probably see Canon put that feature in the 2nd tier units.

Come to think of it, that is a good question.  When WILL Nikon answer Canon with an RT flash?  And why has it not already done so?  There are already 3rd party RT flashes out, and there are a lot more coming up soon. If the 3rd parties can do it surely Nikon has the ability to do so.

Or Canon just misjudged how well the 600 would sell, and they didn't start working on the RT version of the 430 until after the 600 was already was in the field.  At 2 years and counting, it's feeling more like a product cycle than a tiered release.

4
Lenses / Re: What Lenses are missing from Canon's range
« on: July 17, 2014, 12:32:33 PM »
Just in my idea, Canon miss 8 mm F/ 2.8 Fish eye , Prime Lens---No, I do not need " L " lens, just similar to EF 15mm f/2.8 Fisheye, but = 8 mm. prime
Surapon
PS. The Photos below = Bower 8 mm. F/ 3.5 Fish eye Lens( Made in Korea) = $ 299 US Dollars , at 3 years ago

I used to think that way until trying the 8-15.  Love that you can get similar results with FF (15mm) and APS-C (8mm) with one lens.

5
EOS-M / Re: The promised pics of the 18-200 Tammy
« on: July 16, 2014, 08:07:23 PM »
that lens is in my eyes (currently) the  reason for the M to exist.
I'm not a street photographer but Souks in Marakesh, Old Town Jerusalem, Markets in Bangkok... anywhere where it is crowded this lens just shines. And mounted on the M the lens still takes up less real estate in my bag than the Tokina 11-16 2:8 did in the past.

Pitty that it is so hard to get in the land of the free

Got mine from Canada.  It is a sweet lens.

6
What you choose may matter less than what you think because the 1.6x crop factor changes how you would use the lens APS-C or FF.  I loved having a 35mm prime for APS-C, and I ended up getting a 50mm prime when I moved to FF to maintain the same AOV.  I still used the 35, but it was now for a different purpose.  Just like many that used a 16-35 on APS-C as a general purpose lens use it for a much different purpose when they move to FF.

If you start out with a 24 on APS-C, then you might end up with a 24 and a 35 (or 40mm) pair when you move to FF, and if you start out with a 28, then you might end up with a 40 (or 50mm) on FF.    I'm sure you'll be able to make either combination work well for you.  Personally, I'd prefer the 28 IS to the 24 IS just because I find 24mm a little too wide for general use.  That and there are so many options at 24mm (TS-E, f/1.4, f/2.8 IS) that I'd rather pick something else at 24mm.

7
Speedlites, Printers, Accessories / Re: to 600rt + st-e3 or not....
« on: July 03, 2014, 01:35:24 PM »
The 600s + ST-E3 is a sweet setup.  That would give you 3 600s with the one you already own, which will be good for many setups.  Depending on how much time you can wait, you might want to check out the refurb store when the units are on sale and see how they compare to the price you're considering now.

It's nice being able to change the different power levels (or ratios) from the camera rather than fiddling with power settings on each flash (in a modifier) esp. when used outside and the light is changing due to clouds, etc.

8
Alas, I lost money on the f/2.8 II because I bought it at one of its highest prices in years - no rebates or anything at the time.  I needed the lens for a shoot when I bought it so technically it paid for itself, but I have sold every other Canon lens for the price I paid or more.  Yes I have plenty left over to cover the f/4 IS, but I don't like to lose money, even if it's just in principle vs. reality.  A 3 year rental would have cost me how much?

On the sunstars - I have been shooting with the 24-70 f/2.8 II for a while now and don't find the 9-bladed aperture to be an issue even at 70mm.  I'm not sure I have a strong preference either way - sometimes the spiky 9-bladed sunstars are a nice effect - like for nightime cityscapes, and sometimes they are odd and distracting, but sometimes the softer 8-bladed sunstars just look odd and smeared.  Obviously the aperture makes a big difference, too, so there is some control.  And if you think about it, at the 16-35mm focal length, the sun is never going to be very big in the frame so I don't think it will be much of an issue.

Also, regarding Tom's point about astrophotography, the f/2.8 II like all older Canon zooms and most primes has terrible coma in the corners.  The 24-70 f/2.8 II does not and it's possible that the f/4 IS won't either.  Combine that with the 5DIII or 1DX and the ISO can make up for the aperture, at least in good conditions.

ejenner, thanks for sharing your thoughts on the lens and how it compares to the TS-E 17. I looked at the distortion charts on TDP and the 17mm seems much less distorted, at least in the neutral position.  If the f/4 IS is as sharp as the 17mm, I'll be a very happy man :)

I've lost money on the 3 lenses I've bought and sold:  about 200 on the 17-55, about 50 on the 10-22 and about 150 on the 16-35 II.  The one that really surprised me was how soft the market the 16-35 II had become.  When I bought it, it sold used for 1300, but I got mine for about 1200.  I sold it for close to that, but the loss is mainly from fees.  The only auctions that I saw go for much more than 1200 were usually scammers with no feedback scores.

The one stop difference compared to the 16-35 II won't matter as much to me or those that have faster primes.  With f/1.4 options at 24 and 35, you lose on focal length versatility, but the two stops is more signifcant than the 1 stop difference compared to the 16-35II.

It's true that IS is not as effective at shorter FLs, but I'd still rather have it than not.  It helps when the shutter speed gets as slow as 1/2 second, which is handy for travel (i.e. museums, blurring water flow minimally).  It looks like it'll be an ideal travel lens.  I love the idea of a 16-35 III that is as good if not better optically than the 16-35 f/4 IS, but that is not a option now.

9
$850?  Tamron, who do you think you are?  Canon???

Nope, Canon charges you 2500+.   ;D

10
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 16-35 F4 is shipping today
« on: June 20, 2014, 07:44:22 PM »
Mine is/was supposed to ship from Canon today. So far all I've gotten is an invoice (with an unscanned FedEx tracking number) for my free "100 Million EF Lens Gift Set" T-shirt along with a message that my order is "ready to ship". I am underwhelmed.

Patience.  For some reason Canon is shipping the gift set and lens separately.  I got the shipping number for the lens a few hours after the gift set.

11
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 16-35 f/4L IS Hitting Retailers
« on: June 20, 2014, 12:36:42 PM »
$125 off is better paying full price. Wonder what inside "100 Million EF Lens Gift Set"?

It's supposed to be a t-shirt, lens cloth and pin.  I'll find out when the lens ships any day now.  Buying the 16-35 f/4 IS was funded by selling the 16-35 f/2.8 II, and this is the first lens that I've ever pre-ordered.
Same here, sold the 16-35 II and first time pre-order. Waiting hopeful that it will arrive soon.

They charged my credit card yesterday, and the status has changed to warehoused.  I'll have to FedEx divert it to a FedEx store, so I can pick it up after vacation.  Have fun with yours!

12
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 16-35 f/4L IS Hitting Retailers
« on: June 20, 2014, 11:02:25 AM »
An early CONGRATS

Feel like a kid in the candy shop?  ;D

MTF charts look very nice when compared to 16-35 f2.8 II. Plus that 4stop IS will be a huge benefit for night time shooting.

Post some pics when you ready.

Just wish I had it in hand now.  Heading up to Maine for a family gathering tomorrow, and I would have loved to try it out up there.  I'll be using primes to cover the range instead.

What I really wanted was a 16-35 f/2.8 III with optics that matches or surpasses the 16-35L f/4 IS.  That would help me reduce my lens count from MANY to MANY - 1.   ;D

13
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 16-35 f/4L IS Hitting Retailers
« on: June 20, 2014, 09:46:21 AM »
$125 off is better paying full price. Wonder what inside "100 Million EF Lens Gift Set"?

It's supposed to be a t-shirt, lens cloth and pin.  I'll find out when the lens ships any day now.  Buying the 16-35 f/4 IS was funded by selling the 16-35 f/2.8 II, and this is the first lens that I've ever pre-ordered.

14
I just hope that the acquiring Tamrac doesn't ruin Gura Gear.  My first two bags were Tamrac and my next two were Gura Gear, and I still use all four.  My Tamracs are smaller and used for day trips while the Guras are larger and used for longer trips.  Merging supply chains and workforces with two different cost structures is not easy, and I'm hoping that Gura can continue to expand its product line while dealing with the acquisition.  I'd be more disappointed losing Gura than losing Tamrac.

15
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 16-35 f/4L IS Hitting Retailers
« on: June 20, 2014, 07:14:45 AM »
One of missing pieces in my puzzle.

Since I'm no hurry for UWA, willing to wait for X-mas rebate.

I was going to wait for a rebate too, but then pre-ordered one when the Canon site glitched and was selling at a discount.

What was the discount rate?

$125 off 1200 for the lens, and because it was through Canon, they threw in a "100 Million EF Lens Gift Set" valued at 50 for free.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 85