Messages

31

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Compare 5D2 vs 5D3 vs 7D dark noise shots, 100% crops online w +4 EV shadow push

« on: April 03, 2012, 10:55:23 AM »

Thanks for the tests.  Very interesting.  Any plans on showing results from less extreme pushing, say +2 stops?  That seems like a more reasonable, real world sort of test.  My 5D3 should arrive tomorrow and out of curiosity I'll probably do the same test with a 5D2 & 7D and even a IR converted T3i if it's be useful.

And to the folks who are critical of anyone posting this type of info - some of us are interested in sensor performance pixel peeping and find it informative, whether or not it has any real world relevance.  Personally, if I'm going to drop $3500 on a camera (or even just $100), I want as much info about the camera's performance as possible.  If you don't, well maybe consider just moving on, that way it won't turn into a DPR type debacle.

Cheers!

32

Lenses / Re: Question re: image quality 24-105 Kit lens with new 5D Mark III

« on: April 02, 2012, 06:13:58 PM »

I have a 24-105 & use it on a 5D2.  It sounds to me like you've got a subpar 24-104.  I think your expectation that  it not be as sharp as your macros is realistic but my version of the lens doesn't suffer from the issues you describe.  I'm expecting a 5D3 in a couple days and I'll certainly be testing the 24-105 on it.  Hopefully the new gapless microlenses & ever so slight bump in MPs haven't combined to accentuate any weaknesses of the 24-105.

Sorry - can't comment on the 24-105 vs 70-300 comparison but I'd be happy to report back on my 5D3 + 24-105 tests.

33

Lenses / Re: 24-105 or prime lenses on 5D2 ?

« on: April 02, 2012, 06:05:52 PM »

My opinion, as a former "primes only" kinda guy:

I use a 24-105 f/4 IS on my 5D2 as a walk around, do everything sort of lens.  I really love it for that.  Yes, it has some downsides like some distortion (particularly wider than 35mm), vignetting and it's kinda slow at f/4 but man, I find the image quality to be pretty darn good and the IS very useful.  The range is nice too but I do sometimes wish it had a bit more on the long side.   I still have a bunch of primes for special circumstances but the 24-105 is certainly my most used jack of all trades, fun, worry free lens.

Good luck with your decision!

34

Lenses / Re: 16-35mm II "Loose" - Repair costs?

« on: April 01, 2012, 09:58:43 PM »

Judging from a recent personal experience and from others on the Miranda forums, recently a trip to Canon repair will start at around $200 and go up from there.  They probably won't give you much info over the phone but will send you a quote & request for authorization to make the repair via email when they receive and inspect the lens.  I'm going to be sending an old 300 f/4 IS in tomorrow for a loose focus ring and cleaning/inspection to make sure everything's in spec and I'm braced for a $200 charge. 

Good luck!

35

EOS Bodies / Re: 5D2 vs 5D3 ISO100 around 50 test raws

« on: March 28, 2012, 02:53:17 AM »

Yowza!  Thanks for all your hard work!  Very much appreciated.  It's great you used a wide range of focal lengths.  I'm looking forward to downloading some of the files and doing a side by side.

Cheers!

36

Lenses / Re: Ultra Wide Angle with Full Frame

« on: March 22, 2012, 03:02:40 AM »

Certainly was, many thanks for taking the time. I have the 17-40 and MK I TSE 24mm and always use MF + Liveview when doing landscapes so no worries there. Cumbersome aperture selection might niggle me, but I presume you could test out the apertures and notch in your most use (mine would be f/13 or f/14)? Adapter is MK III but no idea on what has improved, certainly not aperture selection by the looks.

I'll wait the year till I see if Canon can respond with a UWA of comparable form. TSE-17mm would be interesting acquisition 

Thanks again.

Have you tried a 24 TSE Mk II vs your Mk I?  The MK II is worlds better (I owned a Mk I).  Frankly, now, for architecture and landscapes, I can't imagine going back to a non-TSE lens.  I'd seriously consider a 24 or 17 TSE + 1.4 adapter over the Nikon if you're considering the Nikon, especially if you're used to using TSE lenses and live view.  But yeah, for over all usability, a Canon 14-24-ish f/2.8 equivalent would be very, very cool.

37

Lenses / Re: Ultra Wide Angle with Full Frame

« on: March 21, 2012, 07:58:38 PM »

Oooh, I was looking at the Nikon 12-24mm with adapter.... Could you expand on why you did not like the adapter please? Assume you got the 16:9 website one?

Yep, it was the 1st generation 16:9 adapter.  I bought the adapter & eventually rented a 14-24 for a couple weeks with every intention of ending up buying one.  Well, first off, the 14-24 is indeed a rocking lens.  Sharp throughout its range and into its corners, contrasty, built well, etc.  Highly recommended for the right person.  For me, the fact that at that time (it may be different now, I haven't kept up with the Canon to Nikon adapter evolution), you had to pretty much guesstimate what aperture you were using (except wide open and maybe f/8 and fully stopped down) was bothersome.  I also found I unexpectedly missed the ability to AF (it was going to be an all purpose lens, not just a landscape or architecture lens and I kinda suck at fast manual AF).  In the end I decided that for the amount of times I really need or want really wide, I could make do with the Sigma 12-24 Mk I I had at the time and hope they would soon make an improved version, which they did.  Given the cost and slight inconvenience of the 14-24 plus adapter combo, I just couldn't justify the purchase.

Now, my 24 TS-E MK II on the other hand is the best lens I've ever used and I'm now saving for a 17 TSE (but that's another story)

Hope that's useful.

38

Lenses / Re: Ultra Wide Angle with Full Frame

« on: March 21, 2012, 06:02:55 PM »

I own both the Mk I & Mk II versions of the Sigma 12-24 I use them on a 5d2.  I've also tested the Nikon 14-24 with  adapter on my 5D2. I also use the amazing 24 TSE MK II.  The Nikon is a terrific lens but ultimately its cost and the necessary use of adapter turned me off.  My sample of the Sigma 12-24 Mk I is pretty good in the center but not so good (e.i. bad) in the corners.  My Mk II version is also good in the center and much, much better in the corners (e.i. very usable).  The MK II does have more distortion than the Mk I but  PTLens deals with it just fine.  Both lenses are contrasty enough and both have a bit of Sigma color to them which I don't mind.  Build quality is pretty good as well.

As far as the "don't settle for anything other than the 16-35 Mk II" sentiment expressed by some, I dunno, if you want *really* wide, 12mm is *a lot* wider than 16mm.  But if you need f/2.8, well then the Sigma would be out of the running. 

Have you considered the Samyang 14 f/2.8?  That gets generally good reviews, especially for its price to performance ratio.

Cheers!