February 27, 2015, 12:00:00 PM

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 ... 30 31 [32] 33 34 ... 97
Lenses / Re: Two New 24-70's Coming in 2014? [CR1]
« on: December 22, 2013, 09:59:53 PM »

$2499 for 24-70II to well under $2000 in just over a year.
$1699 for 24-70 f/4 to under a $1000 street price (as cheap as $899) in less than a year.
$849 for 35mm f/2 IS to $549 in about a year.
Etc... (and don't even get started on the EOS M)

It shows their overpriced policy backfired and supply was over demand making the lens drop in value

Probably not.  More like a variation of first degree price discrimination.  Canon has a price that it willing to sell at for a profit.  Anything they get above that is gravy.  Early adopters are willing to pay more, and Canon is turning that willingness into additional profit.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Zeiss Otus Initial Impressions
« on: December 22, 2013, 07:17:14 PM »
It isn't the amount of boke I was referring to. I hope you don't mind me using your photo, but here is a 100% crop that demonstrates the strange concentric rings inside of each boke blur circle (are you saying that funky effect is because the light sources are christmas lights?):

Are the concentric rings a function of the grinding process of the aspheric elements?  I noticed it in the 24-70 II, and the rings go away when the blur circle is a lot brighter.  It might be that the candles flames also have the same "feature" if the exposure is reduced by a few stops.

Pricewatch Deals / Re: Grab a Pancake! $129 at B&H Photo
« on: December 22, 2013, 07:50:53 AM »
Wait!  Does this lens come with the pinch-cap??  that's actually really important.. lol

Why yes, it does!

Lenses / Re: Samyang 14mm f2.8 - focusing
« on: December 21, 2013, 09:12:47 AM »
Try these guidelines from a previous thread:


Lenses / Re: Samyang 14mm f2.8 - focusing
« on: December 21, 2013, 08:18:58 AM »
Some people have added a focus confirmation chip to it or they use a different focusing screen.  Others learn to set it to max DOF.  But if the FG subject is close and you want critically sharp focus (rather than trying to hide it in the DOF), then live view is the way to go.

Canon EF Prime Lenses / Re: Canon EF 28mm f/2.8 IS USM
« on: December 21, 2013, 01:05:04 AM »
Intrigued because it has IS for such a relatively wide focal length, and I picked up a new copy when it was on sale for $350.  The IS can be useful, but I find it more useful at longer focal lengths.  About twice the size as the shorty forty

Handheld at 1/5s.

Lenses / Re: 24-70 II Onion Ring Bokeh
« on: December 20, 2013, 11:08:38 PM »
Normal.  The 24-70 II is a great lens and its color and sharpness are comparable/better the primes in the range, but bokeh is not its strong suit.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Rumor: Sigma 16-20 f/2 DG Art [CR1]
« on: December 19, 2013, 02:04:12 PM »
4mm of zoom? Why bother? I guess there is quite a difference between 16mm and 20mm on FF but why not just pick one focal length and make it awesome. Like 16mm or 17mm f/2.8 would be perfect.

Would this lens be the worlds shortest zoom if it was made??

Yeah, it might be even less, depending on how marketing "rounds" the numbers.  For all we know, it could be a 17-19, lol.

Lenses / Re: Sigma 16-20mm f/2 Coming?
« on: December 19, 2013, 09:19:19 AM »
Interesting, but with such a narrow zoom range, why not just make it a 16 f/2?

Software & Accessories / Re: How many cards?
« on: December 18, 2013, 04:58:59 PM »
You can choose.  It is up to you.

Lenses / Re: DXOMark: Sigma 24-105 f/4 DG OS Reviewed
« on: December 18, 2013, 04:57:10 PM »

Yup, it implies that current coatings are better than something that came out in 2005.  Canon's 24-70 f/4 IS has a t-stop = 4.  The 24-70 II has a t-stop of 3 while the version I has a t-stop of 3.4.

It's not just coatings. The newer lenses have bigger front elements and that counts for a lot (more surface area on the front of the lens = more light gathering ability.)

Maybe... although it would affect some and not all a zoom's focal range.  But it can also be done without changing the lens diameter.  For example, the 24 f/2.8 and the f/2.8 IS both use 58mm filters.  The old one has a t-stop of 3.2 while the new one is 2.8.

Lenses / Re: New to Canon - please help me decide on lenses
« on: December 18, 2013, 03:37:40 PM »
I've been reading a little more about the 20 2.8. The venerable K Rockwell seems to think that Canon intentionally adjusted its design to maximize corner focus/clarity for field curvature when shooting in three dimensions (as opposed to test charts). He even gives it an acronym but I haven't read it anywhere else. He's constantly contradicting himself but I don't find he makes stuff up for no good reason. If the Canon 20mm was good in the field for landscapes, cityscapes etc, I'd be seriously interested in it. I just don't hear much from people who actually use it so I appreciate your input. I really liked my Minolta 20mm. Then I might be more amicable to a mid-range zoom like the 24-70. 14mm scares me but 20 I can frame up in my mind.

I've never used the 20 f/2.8, but reading the review at TDP scared me away from it.  TDP recommends the 17-40 over the 20 f/2.8.


I don't know how representative the review is because the lens is not that common.  Most people opt for 17-40 or 16-35 instead.  Now, if they gave it the same treatment as the 24 and 28mm f/2.8, then I'd be interested.

Software & Accessories / Re: How many cards?
« on: December 18, 2013, 03:29:29 PM »
I'd keep the compact flash.  The camera writes to it much faster and it's also much faster when transferring the files from the card to the computer.  SD cards are slower in practice.  For more critical shots, I'll set the 5DIII to write RAWs to both cards.  Otherwise, I'm leaving the SD card in there but I'm only using the CF.

Lenses / Re: Should I choose the 70-200 2.8 II?
« on: December 18, 2013, 03:24:11 PM »

My advice: Consider if you really need this "all in one" package, the alternative is for example to buy a longer 70-300L and a prime that is faster than f2.8 or maybe the 100L macro which is also f2.8 but gives you more shooting options.

+1.  The 70-300L is a better travel lens than the 70-200 II.  If it will be your only lens in the focal range, then the 70-200 II is more versatile:  sports, portraits, etc.  -- it can pretty much do it all.  You'll just be at a weight and size disadvantage for travel.  It also comes down to how you intend to travel with your gear.  If you're carrying the telephoto in a backpack most of the time and you're using the 70-200 at select locations, then it won't make as much of a difference.

Lenses / Re: DXOMark: Sigma 24-105 f/4 DG OS Reviewed
« on: December 18, 2013, 03:16:28 PM »
An f/4 zoom lens is not one you'd expect to have optimal light transmission anyway.
Isn't the point of lens design to have optimal light transmission?  And if the f-stop is four and the t-stop half a stop worse, doesn't that say something about Canon's glass elements and coatings?  The Canon 24-105 is a good lens but it should not have been branded with the red ring.

Yup, it implies that current coatings are better than something that came out in 2005.  Canon's 24-70 f/4 IS has a t-stop = 4.  The 24-70 II has a t-stop of 3 while the version I has a t-stop of 3.4.

Pages: 1 ... 30 31 [32] 33 34 ... 97