March 03, 2015, 07:20:34 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 - tomscott

Pages: 1 ... 14 15 [16] 17 18 ... 45
Lenses / Re: What was your first L lens?
« on: June 05, 2014, 11:18:14 AM »
Mine was the EF 70-200mm F2.8 L 17 years old and still perfect.

Then 24-105mm L and 100mm L which I bought with my 5DIII then most recently Ef 24-70mm F2.8 L MKI and EF 16-35mm F2.8 L MKII bought them in march mint from a guy switching to Nikon…

Then a week ago bought the EF 70-200mm F2.8 L IS MKII

Landscape / Re: Milky Way
« on: June 05, 2014, 10:05:43 AM »

EOS Bodies / Re: Reports of EOS 7D Reaching End of Life [CR2]
« on: June 04, 2014, 11:34:24 AM »
Didn't we all think this about 18 months ago? lol

Lenses / Re: New 70-200mm MKII DUST!
« on: June 03, 2014, 04:47:53 AM »
It doesn't effect the IQ nor does it show up at all by shooting a longer exposure as a dust mark.

You pretty much answered yourself right there bro.  To continue to worry about it is ludicrous.

Although, I suppose, it also depends on what you're using the lens for.  Did you pay $2500 to use the lens to photograph stuff?  If so, shutup and go shoot since it doesn't affect quality.  Did you pay $2500 to look at the internal mechanisms and expect perfection?  If so, then you have a problem, and should return it.

My final words in closing: be logical about this.

I dont think there is any need for your tone tbh.

Ive had a 70-200mm L F2.8 for 5 years and its had a few owners before me, its nearly 20 years old and had nothing in it not a spec. To spend nearly £2k and its not $2500 its $3000 equivalent here in the UK and have a rather large piece of what looks like dust but like said looks like a spec of metal. If that is acceptable to you then…

I am being logical about it. Which is why I asked the forum opinion. I am a professional photographer and have never had an issue with any of my L lenses coming from the factory with any sort of large particles already present, after years of use you do expect it then you have them serviced, but not straight out of the box

The reason for asking is I think it may have had a bit of a bang in transport and don't really want to be a year or so down the line out of warranty and have issues with it. I don't think that is unreasonable. If it is serviced and they still can't sort it the likelihood is that they won't take it back with it being tampered with.

If I come to sell it and being honest in my description I say there is a large particle toward the rear of the lens, (with Zoom lenses particles are accentuated toward the rear) most people would browse over it or want it at a good deal less than if it was in better condition. To start off with a good version I don't think is unreasonable, especially with how much the lens retails.

Thank you everyone for your opinions and help :)

Lenses / Re: New 70-200mm MKII DUST!
« on: June 02, 2014, 01:16:38 PM »
Its hard to get a good pic of it through the lens. But here is another, this is from the rear of the lens.

TSP_1069 by TomScottPhoto, on Flickr

It is certainly big and right at the back of the lens like I said between the 1st-2nd element, right in there. It also looks like it could be a flaw in the lens almost like a chip, very reflective or could be a shard of metal?

Anyway I certainly don't think this is acceptable when the lens was £1825 the equivalent to $3060

Ive been in touch with the vendor and Il see where to go from there.

Lenses / Re: New 70-200mm MKII DUST!
« on: June 02, 2014, 10:51:26 AM »
Thanks for your reply.

Would you return it?

I was thinking it would affect retail if I wanted to sell it on in the future.

Lenses / New 70-200mm MKII DUST!
« on: June 02, 2014, 09:13:42 AM »
Hi guys just wanted to know your opinions.

After getting some money together I bought the EF 70-200mm F2.8 IS L MKII.

Upon arrival the lens seems great but upon further inspection there is a rather large piece of dust, I say dust it is reflective. It is in the back of the lens looks between the 1st and second element.

It doesn't effect the IQ nor does it show up at all by shooting a longer exposure as a dust mark.

Im just a little disappointed after spending so much for it to arrive like this. I have a 70-20mm L 2.8 and is 20 years old and has no dust inside it so how does a brand new one have it?

Am I being over the top? Or should I be sending it back. Kind of taken the shine off the new purchase.

Here is the pic comments and opinions welcome.

Untitled by TomScottPhoto, on Flickr

TSP_1346-2 by TomScottPhoto, on Flickr

TSP_1346_crop by TomScottPhoto, on Flickr

Lenses / Re: buy the 24-70 4 IS... or wait for the 2.8 IS?
« on: June 02, 2014, 06:37:15 AM »
GMCPhotographics - have to agree with everything you said. Reason I bought one and it was half the price, I find it perfectly sharp on my 5DIII, and always loved the lens hood design.

Lenses / Re: UWA for a lady - crop user, EOS 700D
« on: June 02, 2014, 06:32:32 AM »
I can't comment on the other lenses but owned the 10-22mm for 4-5 years and loved it.

Plenty sharp, colour rendition was good, not too heavy and enjoyable to use.

If the new 10-18mm IS version is similar IQ but smaller i would be getting that one.

Lenses / Re: buy the 24-70 4 IS... or wait for the 2.8 IS?
« on: June 02, 2014, 04:35:16 AM »
Ye I agree if you can find good copies they do exist. I don't know how but I have managed to get stellar copies of the 24-105 and 24-70 MKI got the 24-105 new with the 5dMKIII and bought the 24-70 second hand but a very late build date almost last batch, also barely used.

Lenses / Re: buy the 24-70 4 IS... or wait for the 2.8 IS?
« on: May 30, 2014, 06:28:01 AM »
I wouldn't call the 24-70mm a must have focal length. Its a useful length but not an exciting focal length.

It is a workhorse and a useful length for pros shooting weddings and documenting. But if you want a lens that gives you a more interesting look then the primes are a better choice.

Depends what you shoot, if your a run and gun shooter looking to fill a missing focal length again I would buy the 24-105mm save some money and wait, that extra range is useful. If you need 2.8 then yes go for it, but again 2.8 is quite narrow and I don't use it all the time. Whereas a 50mm 1.2 or 85mm 1.2 you buy it for the 1.2-2 range.

The tammy is nice, but the bokeh imo isn't that attractive, it has the onion effect and seems like there is quite a lot of variation between copies but is significantly cheaper.

This was the summary from the above link of the difference between the 24-70 F4 and 24-105mm

Less expensive and offering the same L-class build quality, the 24-105mm offers image stabilization and a longer telephoto focal length, but doesn't have the macro capability and is slightly more distorted in the wide angle. In terms of image quality, the 24-105mm is the same or better than the 24-70mm, especially at the 50mm setting.

Lenses / Re: buy the 24-70 4 IS... or wait for the 2.8 IS?
« on: May 29, 2014, 11:10:56 AM »
I have the 17-55mm IS, 24-105mm L IS and 24-70mm L F2.8. Ive always had an IS standard zoom from my days in APC, If you are used to IS you will miss is. Its not that the 24-70 range doesn't need it, but the IS is a big shoulder with heavy glass and also makes the shooting experience nicer with the steady viewfinder.

If you are used to getting away with shooting between 1/30th - 1/80th you will effectively have to double it without IS and FF. I found moving from the 17-55mm to the 24-105mm a really great path. I thought moving to FF would be a bigger issue with the larger mirror/more slap and shallower DOF. But I love the 24-105mm, I had no issue with the move at all. It is equal in IS/IQ to the 17-55mm and served me very well for my first 2 years with FF. Its not the absolute sharpest but its a brilliant range and 90% of the time will be all you need until you get into low light conditions. I also have an exceptional copy which isn't far off my MKI 24-70mm which I think adds to my opinion.

Moving up from APC to FF the mirror is a lot larger and the slap is more pronounced so shooting without IS higher speeds are needed.

Im a wedding photographer and bought the 24-70mm F2.8 about a year ago because of its low light capability. When out testing the lens I found my keepers were well down, you'll find that you do need to ensure your SS is faster or you will end up with blurry shots, more lazy on my side because I'm used to relying on IS. After a couple of outings with it there was no issues at all, I also have the 70-200mm non IS so started using the same technique and it worked a charm. It doesn't take long to get used to but its also a lot heavier and a pain to lug around, so unless I'm on a job I leave it at home and take the more compact, bigger range 24-105mm.

The 24-70mm F2.8 is an exceptional lens tho and the results are incredible. Its just a different way of working and not relying on IS isn't a bad thing and improves your technique. I generally get 95% of keepers with my 24-70mm down to around 1/40th.

I would recommend the 24-105mm F4 over the 24-70mm F4 for 2 reasons - range and price. Its no argument the 24-70 F4 has better IQ but it is marginal, it has less distortion true but this can be sorted in post. A good 24-105mm can be had for £400-500. Also to say that you can't get great results with one check Sean Bagshaw out on flickr his images are astounding using a 24-105mm and 16-35mm MKI

Joshua Trees and The Galaxy by Sean Bagshaw, on Flickr

Hint of Winter by Sean Bagshaw, on Flickr

and one from me with the 24-105 and 5DMKIII

Hallin Fell, Ullswater, Cumbria, starscape by TomScottPhoto, on Flickr

The Macro capabilities of that lens are useful but I'm not sure how useful as you need to be so close you would scare anything away.

Like you I will buy the 24-70mm F2.8 MKIII when the IS version comes out. ATM I feel the MKII lens is too expensive without IS if it had it I would buy it in a heartbeat. IQ may be exceptional but the 24-70mm MKI version is still stellar and not that far behind if you have a good one and leaves you with £1000 change. Thats a lot of money you could add another lens, I added the 16-35mm MKII with the money I saved, which I love shooting with.

5D MK III Sample Images / Re: 5D MK III Images
« on: May 19, 2014, 07:48:14 PM »
Haha thanks! Took me a long time to get near! Army crawled about 50m they are very skittish and just sat and watched him sleeping in the sun! Thanks to the 5DMKIII and the silent shutter he didn't wake up!

Pages: 1 ... 14 15 [16] 17 18 ... 45