February 28, 2015, 02:01:00 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 - BozillaNZ

Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10 ... 14
70-200 IS II + 1.4x actually give you quite good sharpness and color.

I used to have a 300 f4L (non-IS), which is supposed to be even sharper than the 300 f4 IS, however, after comparing shots of 300 f4 and 70-200 @ 200 f2.8 + 1.4x TC, I sold the 300 f4 without regretting.

Lenses / Re: Which Normal to Wide Angle Focal Length Matches Your Vision?
« on: October 15, 2013, 11:38:12 PM »
Lenses that matches my vision is varying between 16mm and 300mm, depends on where I am and what I am looking at.  ::)

It's impossible to put plane filter over a 180 degree fisheye, the math doesn't work that way.

You need a curved filter.

I see you have APS-H camera, which may be working, but it won't work on ff.

Canon General / Re: Irritating photography advice
« on: October 10, 2013, 09:58:44 PM »
You can never shoot picture with your lens cap on*!

(* unless you are shooting a Leica)

EOS-M / Re: EOS-M + Sigma 30mm f1.4 DC = One sexy camera!
« on: October 07, 2013, 12:49:15 AM »
There is nothing sexy about it. The lens is disproportionally large and heavy. If you find that looks 'sexy', then putting a 70-200 2.8 on it will look sexier. :'(

Lenses / Re: Transitioning to Primes
« on: October 03, 2013, 07:02:49 PM »
If you made up your mind to trade all your zooms to prime, make sure you have 2 bodies and use them side by side in any serious shooting sessions. Otherwise you will stuck in the forever changing lenses back and forth and miss many shots.

Lenses / Re: UV Filter damage limitation on 16-35II
« on: October 03, 2013, 06:58:06 PM »
Lift and remove the rubber ring on the focus ring, remove the tape.

Rotate the focus ring, you will see through the hole on the ring that there are 3 small screws that are not holding a white washer. Remove those 3 screws.

Gently pull the front filter ring part, it will pop up, along with the plastic name tag on the front element.

Now you can use a pair of pliers to bend the filter inward from a point to make it a heart shape. Then it can be removed easily. DO NOT SCREW the filter out, it will damage the filter mount on the lens.

Follow reverse step to put the filter mount back onto lens.

Lenses / Re: Lens reversal macro on canon 17-40mm
« on: October 03, 2013, 06:42:30 PM »
Yes you can stop down the aperture of EF lens, just:

1. Adjust to desired aperture with lens on camera
2. Press and hold DoF preview button
3. While holding the DoF preview button, remove the lens from the body
4. The lens will stay in the set aperture value, until you mount it back and it will snap to wide open

Lenses / Re: Lens reversal macro on canon 17-40mm
« on: October 03, 2013, 06:04:30 AM »
50 1.8 serves better reverse macro than any other lens

Lenses / Re: EF 70-200 f/2.8L II Horror Stories
« on: October 03, 2013, 01:01:33 AM »
I have nothing bad to say about this lens. It's amazing. But for a horror story(Human error) very shortly after I bought my lens I placed it in my camera bag quickly and the lens cap pushed against the edge too hard and popped off and tapped the lens element. Luckily it didn't scratch the element but the coating has a small pen size dot on it. Doesn't show up in pictures at all so most of my worry is gone. But man my heart dropped thinking "If I scratched this... :-\ >:( :( "

Go get yourself a B+W Nano UV, this lens deserves it.

Lenses / Re: Do you usually shoot your lenses wide open?
« on: October 02, 2013, 10:19:30 PM »
Yes I shoot my 24L II at f1.4 all the time, either f1.4 for close up portaits or f8 for landscapes.

70-200 II, yup, f2.8 all the time.

S50 would need to be stopped down to 1.8 to give good sharpness / contrast.

16-35 II is the 'dog' in my line up and when doing landscape I will use f11 and manual focus most of the time. Open up and the corner makes you go "ouch!"

Lenses / Re: 85mm prime recommendation
« on: October 02, 2013, 10:15:29 PM »
With the lenses you have and still wanting a 85 prime, I'd say it's pure lens lust. So go ahead and get the 85L II.

The 70-200 II will make 85 1.8 seem completely redundant in every way.

Lenses / Re: EF 70-200 f/2.8L II Horror Stories
« on: October 02, 2013, 10:09:56 PM »
Pics to show that I am not crazy and I know what I am talking about:

Lenses / Re: EF 70-200 f/2.8L II Horror Stories
« on: October 02, 2013, 09:59:00 PM »
Here you go:


The IS module is prone to give grinding noise and crap out in 1-2 years.

And call me extremely unlucky, my copy brought from overseas exhibits uneven sharpness/CA across the frame. The right hand side of the frame was blurrier and had more literal CA than the left hand side. The boken is also asymmetrical to the right side. So in essence it is de-centered from factory. Putting it on 1.4x extender gives VERY bad results.

In the end I took apart the lens myself and re-aligned the movable elements. It is in top conditional now and I am happy about it all around.

The rear group is critical to the sharpness of this lens and it is fixed by 3 screws with big screw hole for aligment and a dab of black glue. Not a very robust way to fix a critical group. All the rest of 3 adjustable groups have eccentric screws and can be adjusted precisely.

It took me almost 5 days to position the rear group in a good alignment and once that is done, micro-adjust the other groups and got very sharp image across the frame. Also with 1.4x is it very sharp.

So yes, I have went through horror with this lens but in the end I still like it  :-* :'(

Landscape / Re: First landscape submitted for critique
« on: October 02, 2013, 09:49:44 PM »
Water implies mirror, mirror implies symmetry. I would put the water/land intersection line at the middle of the frame, and brighten up the reflection a little bit.

Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10 ... 14