Messages

166

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

« on: January 31, 2013, 04:04:38 PM »

It is an interesting comparison if price were not a factor.

According to LensRentals, the 24-70 f/4 IS is a bit better than the original Canon 24-70 and the 24-105, but it is closer to those two lenses than matching the performance of the 24-70 II.

The other thing that I've read is that the macro feature requires a short working distance, and at max mag, lighting will be a challenge.  It's not like 0.7x is needed often, but it a nice feature to have...

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/01/canon-24-70-f4-is-resolution-tests

167

Lenses / Re: Lens recommendations for wildlife

« on: January 29, 2013, 04:11:59 PM »

I have the 2.8 is ii
The 200-400 sounds good but it just is not out and not in my price range.

It depends on how much you plan on shooting at 400mm.  The 70-200 IS II takes extenders pretty well.  The general consensus is that its IQ at 400mm is close to the 100-400L's but its AF will be slower.  If you go this route, make sure you AFMA with the lens + extender(s) -- it won't automatically port over the settings for the bare lens.  If you shoot at 400 a lot or want longer, then the 400 f/5.6 is really you're only choice.

I suggest trying the extender route first.  If that works for you, then you could wait for Canon to revise the 400 f/5.6 later.

I have the 70-200 ii and 2xiii combo and AF is not slow at all imho, and IQ is brilliant!

Depends on what you shoot.  Tracking kids running toward/away from the camera is a tougher test on AF accuracy than something moving in the transverse direction.  Distance also matters.  AF speed definitely takes a hit compared to the bare lens.

168

Lenses / Re: Lens recommendations for wildlife

« on: January 29, 2013, 12:26:43 PM »

I have the 2.8 is ii
The 200-400 sounds good but it just is not out and not in my price range.

It depends on how much you plan on shooting at 400mm.  The 70-200 IS II takes extenders pretty well.  The general consensus is that its IQ at 400mm is close to the 100-400L's but its AF will be slower.  If you go this route, make sure you AFMA with the lens + extender(s) -- it won't automatically port over the settings for the bare lens.  If you shoot at 400 a lot or want longer, then the 400 f/5.6 is really you're only choice.

I suggest trying the extender route first.  If that works for you, then you could wait for Canon to revise the 400 f/5.6 later.

169

Lenses / Re: Lens recommendations for wildlife

« on: January 29, 2013, 09:26:59 AM »

Which 70-200 do you have?

170

Lenses / Re: Lens Help - 17-40 & 70-200 f/4 or 24-70 f/4

« on: January 28, 2013, 02:52:54 PM »

If you had your heart set on getting the 24-70 f/4, I'd wait a year for the price to drop.  1500 is a bit much for what it does.

I would suggest trying to get a used/white box 24-105 for 800 or less.  I think it is a better value than the 24-70 f/4.  With the 24-105 f/4, 40 f/2.8 and 85 f/1.8, you should be good for a while.  The 24 on FF is wider than your 17-75 on your Rebel.  Unless, you felt you needed something wider when you were using the Rebel, 24mm should be wide enough for most uses.  You can then use the 40 or 24-105 as a walk-around depending on how compact you want your gear to be.

The 70-200 f/4 IS is a nice lens but so is the 70-300L.  The 70-300L gives a little more reach while costing you a fraction of a stop.  Both are used primarily outdoors though, and neither are great for portrait.  For indoor portraits, most would opt for the 85 f/1.8 over a slower telephoto zoom.  You might also want to wait a year before getting the telephoto zoom.  Once your daughter starts walking, then the 70-200 or 70-300 works nicely for outdoor shots and for trips (i.e. zoos).

Your option 2 would have worked better if you had a 50mm prime instead of a 40 or a 85.

171

Lenses / Re: 100-400L Version II ain't comin' either!

« on: January 28, 2013, 10:05:57 AM »

So do their numeric ratings on used individual lenses reflect the units' cosmetic and mechanical condition, or its optical performance or a combination of both?

Primarily cosmetic/mechanical.  However if you click on a specific item, it has a some imaging (optical) metrics.  Some lenses have higher resolution than others even though they are the same cosmetic condition (overall numeric rating as well) and go for the same price.

172

Lenses / Re: 70-200 IS2 + Canon 1.4x teleconverter question

« on: January 24, 2013, 01:48:19 PM »

which 100? i think its fine with the 100L to be honest i can't see any reason to use it with any lens wider than this anyway

I wouldn't see a use for it with shorter lenses either, I just wanted to see what Kenko was refering to when they said "not good for under 100mm".

That said, does the Canon 1.4x 3 with it's protrusion physically fit on a 100L? If so, looking forward to trying it out in macro mode when the lens gets back from service.

No, the Canon 1.4x III does not fit the 100L.

173

Lenses / Re: What nd filter density (combinations) do you use?

« on: January 24, 2013, 08:30:47 AM »

1.  Agree with Neuro that the 3-stop is better for using fast primes for portraiture.  Your question for what ND level is get is why I chose a variable ND.  I use a Schneider variable ND.  It has a little bit more stopping power than most variable NDs.  The nice thing about variable NDs is that you can set it to a low blocking setting and set your focus then turn the ring to block the light.  The bad thing about VNDs is that it's effectiveness is limited by what focal length you use and whether or not you're shooting into the sun.  With a 24mm prime, I could only get about 2 stops into the sun before x-banding appears significantly.  With the 70-200, it was closer to 7 or 8 stops.  In situations where the sun is not directly in the frame, then you'll have a lot more lattitude.

3.  I'd be more concerned about getting a quality filter that has consistent performance across the whole surface.  Better coatings would be nice, but there are fewer options for these things.

174

Lenses / Re: Multiply, substract and add...

« on: January 23, 2013, 10:10:25 AM »

They don't.  Focal length is the distance between the effective focal point of the lens and the image sensor plane in the camera, and that is the number printed on the lens.  The angle of view depends on the sensor size.  Most people are more familiar with the 35mm relationship between sensor size and angle of view.

175

Lenses / Re: 70-200 IS2 + Canon 1.4x teleconverter question

« on: January 22, 2013, 10:57:46 PM »

I have the 70-200 IS2 and just ordered the Canon 1.4x teleconverter, should be here next week some time. I looked at the chart shots of this combo at http://www.the-digital-picture.com/ and liked what I saw. However, the shots are only at 200mm plus the converter. I read the info on the converter and it says its only compatible with 135mm and longer.

So my question is what to expect out of this pairing when zoomed under native 135mm? I am assuming it will not be very good on the short end. Is that what owners of this combo have found? Or is it still good IQ even on the short end with the converter?

Of course I'll find out for myself next week, but knowing what to expect will help me evaluate if its a good copy, so thanks in advance for sharing what you know.

For the converter being only compatible, it is with Lenses 135mm and longer (I THINK it works with some of the TSE and other specialty lenses). The lens + TC becomes a 100-280mm. The IQ should stay the same throughout the zoom range with a little loss (depending on if MkII or III).

Sort of.  Traditionally, Canon TCs are compatible with zooms starting with 70-xxx and with primes at 135 and above.  That said, people have used TCs on the TS-Es and TDP has reported that Canon TCs can be used on the 70-300L and the 28-300L past a certain focal length.

The 70-200 f/2.8 L IS II works well with TCs and it can be used over the entire range as RMC33 noted.  Just be sure to AFMA the lens + TC combination (i.e. don't expect the AFMA for the lens to be carried to the combo).  The bare lens will be better than the TC, but the 1.4x gives good results compared to the bare lens that you won't notice much of a difference.

176

EOS Bodies / Re: Yet Another 5D vs 7D Question

« on: January 22, 2013, 07:07:03 PM »

Posted by: Random Orbits
« on: Today at 05:13:43 AM »
"Or convert it to IR?  I wish I had converted my old camera rather than selling it..."


How does one do that?? Are there different types of IR?

Yes, there are different wavelengths associated with the infrared band.  The stuff I'm seen is the IR range close to visible light.  The IR blocking filter is removed from the camera, so it won't be able to be used for the visible range anymore.  Because the camera is now sensitive to difference wavelengths, objects look different.  The sensor channels can then be mapped to different tones to create striking images...

LifePixel is one company among many that does the conversion.

http://www.lifepixel.com/

177

EOS Bodies / Re: Yet Another 5D vs 7D Question

« on: January 22, 2013, 11:13:43 AM »

...

Like you, I had the 7D and 5DII combo, the former used for birds/wildlife/sports, the latter for pretty much everything else.  After getting the 1D X, I have come to the conclusion that my 7D is superfluous.  Perhaps worth keeping as a backup camera, but else mainly a paperweight.

Hope that helps...

Or convert it to IR?  I wish I had converted my old camera rather than selling it...

178

Lenses / Re: 70-200f4 LIS USM 70-300 L IS USM

« on: January 18, 2013, 12:16:57 PM »

The added reach of the 70-300L is nice and you don't lose too much speed (less than a stop) over the overlapping focal length range.  The 70-300L's IQ also compares well to the 70-200 f/2.8 L II + 1.4x.  The 70-300L is a little heavier but it is more compact.  My vote between the two is for the 70-300L.

179

Lenses / Re: 135L vs 85L vs 70-200L II

« on: January 16, 2013, 03:37:22 PM »

I never had much problem with the 85L II on the 5D II if I only used the center point for single shot.  Using the outer points usually returned blurred images.  But yes, the 5D III's focus accuracy makes it much more of a joy to use.

I find the 85L and the 70-200 II to be a good combination and that the 135 to be close to the 70-200.  The 135 has a 1 stop advantage and is smaller, but usually the 70-200's zoom versatility trumps those advantages.

180

Lenses / Re: Canon 24-70 ii - another superlative

« on: January 16, 2013, 03:26:56 PM »

-1000... I own both II versions of the 24-70 and the 70-200. Great lenses but could never replace the primes, that's just a bad move selling them off  200 f/2 blows the doors off the 70-200, then there is the 85L, 50L, 35L, 24L, 135L... the list goes on and on... all of which offer something that zooms don't.

They are tools... zooms are great for general stuff but primes take over where zooms leave you... if you don't have them available another pro will take your buisness.

If I had the money to go 200 f/2, 85L, 50L, 35L and 24L and 135L, then I would...  But all those primes in total cost a lot more than the two zooms in question.