November 24, 2014, 04:42:11 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 2 [3] 4 5 ... 11
Plastic zoom and focus rings, hmmmm, that's first in the the L world with a full plastic outer shell.

Lenses / Re: Filter Holder for Tokina 16-28 f/2.8
« on: August 11, 2014, 11:14:50 PM »
To be honest with that amount of money, I'd sell my 16-28 and buy a Canon 16-35 f4L so I can use ordinary filters on it.

EOS Bodies / Re: Patents: Canon 85mm f/1.8 IS, 100mm f/2 IS, 135 f/2 IS
« on: January 21, 2014, 10:53:11 PM »
Let me see... Image height Y = 21.635mm, not enough to cover FF 24mm?

Lenses / Re: Lens adapters EF-S to EF
« on: January 21, 2014, 06:39:24 PM »
If you have big enough balls, just zoom the lens to 85mm, then put your finger into the rear lens hole, and pull the rear lens protector out of the mount.

Then you can put the lens on 6D but get severe vignetting. And BEWARE that the mirror might hit the lens rear element if you zoom out too far so that the lens protrudes out of the metal mount plane.

Look at this exact same step for EF-s 10-22

I do this all the time to test a EF-s lens on my 1D since I don't have a APS-C camera anymore.

Exclaimer: I am not responsible to any potential damage you do to your camera/lens/fingers.

Lenses / Re: Just bought a 70-200 f/2.8L IS II - A Few Questions
« on: January 01, 2014, 05:18:20 PM »
Another point: don't suddenly swing the lens when the IS is being turned on or off (before you hear the IS park noise), or you can risk damage the IS module.

Lenses / Re: Two Lenses Coming for CP+? [CR2]
« on: December 15, 2013, 08:05:45 PM »
A 14-24 with bobble front element is only good for pixel peepers. No filters? that's a big NO for landscapes, especially for Canon's *cough* DR *cough*.

In comparsion, Canon's 16-35 is a all purpose performer. Adding a UV for harsh conditions, putting all sorts of filters like rectangular GND for landscapes, then as a good reportage lens solely because of the focal range. It is a better choice than a bobble 14-24.

Nikon's 14-24 might be a sharpness marvel but many people bought it and afraid to use because the unable to be protected front element gets scratched easily, also you either can't use GND filters or have to break down to buy some novelty solutions. I personally don't like a lens like this.

I'm all for a new 50mm!

Lenses / Re: 24-70 II Corners
« on: December 12, 2013, 07:58:44 PM »
Glad you found out the issue. Top quality zooms can now rival primes in terms of sharpness, contrast, color and even bokeh, but there are two thing they can't do well yet: Distortion and field curvature.

If the field curves towards you in the corners, try to focus the lens at infinity and stop down, you will get better overall sharpness than let the AF dial in or using hyper focal distance.

The 16-35 II have complex wavy field curvature. Lots of people saying that this lens has so called "mid-field-weakness", which means the center is good, then goes bad in mid-field, then better at the corners. However this is the same as what you discovered above: field curvature at it's most evident term. Manually focusing 16-35 II to infinity and stop down to f11 and it becomes sharp corner to corner.

Lenses / Re: Another strike against UV filters
« on: December 10, 2013, 11:25:35 PM »
Not too many days since you got the new lens and you've dropped it? Oops... That's slumpy. Whether there is a UV filter on it or not doesn't matter. A drop is a drop and there might be some internal damage.

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 35 f/1.4L II to Finally Arrive? [CR1]
« on: December 10, 2013, 04:50:33 PM »
Not interested. When I need a 35 prime again, I will buy the Sigma.

Reviews / Re: I'm amazed by my 5D Mark iii
« on: December 06, 2013, 08:35:36 PM »
ISO 640?? Did you mean ISO 6400?

Lenses / Re: EF 24-70 f/2.8L IS Exists as a Working Prototype [CR2]
« on: December 06, 2013, 05:27:34 PM »
It's been over a year and you are still waiting? So wait away... Waiter's gonna wait...

Lenses / Re: Do You Take Better Pics with Primes?
« on: December 06, 2013, 05:08:53 PM »
Started out with average zooms, then collected primes, then found that I missed too much opportunities by always having the wrong prime mounted. Finally settled on 24-70 II as the main lens.

But even when I am using the zoom lens, I will now consciously choose a focal length that I intend to use and shoot away. So now using 24-70 II my photos come back with EXIF showing 24, 35, 50, 70 but not much in between. To me it is a bag of primes on it's own.

Prime lens are very good at training your sense of perspective and low light stuff. But once you go over it, you will appreciate what a good zoom can offer.

Lenses / Re: Canon 24-70 2.8 II or Sigma 24-70 f/2???
« on: December 04, 2013, 09:07:10 PM »
24-70 II is the most satisfying lens to use after the 70-200 II. Every time I look at the photos taken by it I am amazed by the color rendition and smooth bokeh it gives (no need to mention sharpness, it is the sharpest lens I've used), at the same time offers good mobility. No IS might be a shame but it depends on your intended use.

Tripod landscape? This lens has it. f2.8 portait? Yes can be done. General workaround in day time? No problem.

Only ultra low light no flash situation and no moving people calls for IS.

Also regards to sigma F2 zoom, I don't think it would be feasible. Look at their 24-105 F4, it's already 880g. Their 18-35 F1.8 cropper is 810g. Canon's 24-70 II is lighter than both at 800g. Even if they somehow manages to come up a 24-70 F2, the weight alone would be a show stopper. Just look at how much weight gain a lens gets when it is merely 1 stop faster. And 1.5kg for a standard zoom? no thanks!

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS M2 Not Coming to North America
« on: December 04, 2013, 05:03:06 AM »
It could have been so much better for you.  You wanted it to have an EVF, tilt-screen, built-in flash, added controls, new sensor, etc.  And then of course it would be a very different camera, with a different size & shape and a different price point.

I wanted ONE of the features that I listed to barely justify it being a new model, but apparently Canon delivered NONE. I see no purpose of this release at all.

Now you tell me, what's the difference between M1 and M2 again?

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS M2 Not Coming to North America
« on: December 04, 2013, 04:57:55 AM »
Exactly, we never need the latest iphones or Samsung smartphones but every since year they release a new model, i will buy the latest model and do exactly the same thing on it as i did with the previous internet and make calls...hecl i think a phone 3 years ago did the same thing for me as well! We always want the latest and if we're paying for the latest, there had better be new tech inside :) We're all gear lusting hehe..we need help.

But when some company brings the same old sh!t and call it brand new and asks for a premium, we have a problem. However apparently some people are perfectly happy about that too...

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 11