November 24, 2014, 05:03:29 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 - dlleno

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 41
Speedlites, Printers, Accessories / Re: to 600rt + st-e3 or not....
« on: September 11, 2014, 04:45:21 PM »
Would you guys advice against getting the yongnuo st e3 to save a few bucks? Also, is there a reason why you cant get an st e3 receiver/transceiver?

For me, a key benefit of the Canon -RT system is reliability.  Personally, I wouldn't compromise that with a YN transmitter.

There's no receiver because it's really not in Canon's best interest to make something that allows cheap, 3rd party flashes to be added (but I wish they would, to add in monolights).

If my livelihood depended on it I would  go Canon all the way.  For me at this stage in my photography  (I do automotive product photography as a secondary business) I find the YN stuff to be quite good.  the three YN flashes and four 622 triggers haven't missed a beat. solid performers on my 5D3.   no experience with their YN-E3-RT  though -- I'd be careful there as I'm hearing it may have pushed to market too soon.  gotta be careful with the reverse engineered stuff. 

Speedlites, Printers, Accessories / Re: YN-622C and 580EX II MAJOR issues
« on: September 11, 2014, 04:34:47 PM »
I have four YN-622Cs and three YN-568EX II flashes for my 5D3.  zero issues -- the system doesn't miss a beat and has worked flawlessly.

The value proposition for third party flash equipment includes taking the risk of compatibility -- especially if you purchase from a no-name ebay snakester who has accumulated old inventory, does not have a return policy, and you don't establish compatibility commitments up front. 

I wrote a review of the 568EX II flash and included in that review I made mention of how important it is to purchase from a reputable supplier such as  Before I ventured into the Chinese flash territory I confirmed that there was a return policy and that my compatibility needs were met, including optical slave functionality.  Right now I wouldn't trust anyone except for

 I have endured issues with Canon repair as well -- took them four times to get my 17-55 right and they displayed outright arrogance and unresponsiveness to their failures. I think they must have have employed a couple of monkeys just following instructions by rote, without any real knowledge and certainly no ownership to test for full functionality.   my experience was almost enough to make me switch to nikon it was that horrible. In the end I got it fixed right and I'm still with Canon :D ..

 Since it appears you are already financially committed repairing your 580EX I can only suggest to hold Canon's feet to the fire and  test full optical master/slave capability, even if it means going to a camera shop to see if another used 580 will work with yours.  Prove that it works with Canon before you test with third party stuff.  Unfortunately Canon can't accept third party hardware as part of the measure of success. 

When my 580EX died I decided to go with all Yongnuo hardware.  What would have cost me nearly $2K in Canon cost me under $700. 

Speedlites, Printers, Accessories / Re: iDC Triplethreat
« on: September 11, 2014, 04:11:56 PM »
I realize this is an old thread but I thought I would offer an important observations

1.  The IDC tripple threat works wonderfully on Canon.  I like the billet design which is very solid, and the non-adjustable foot is a nice bonus. 

2. After I purchased these, I found that they didn't marry as well to my Yongnuo flash feet.  Now that I have converted to all-Yongnuo flash I find that I don't need these anymore

if anyone is interested in my IDC triple threats I have a pair for sale. 


Personally, I would stay with Lee unless you must must must have the ability to stack three things at 14-16mm on FF.  In my limited experience, that doesn't come up that often.  Staying with Lee keeps you in the landscapers-standard 4x4 / 4x6 ecosystem, where there will be many more filter options -- both in design/style and price levels.

- A

this nails it.  BTW Lee has a larger system as well -- their SW150, originally developed for the Nikon 14-24, which can be used on other lenses as well with the SW150 system adapter.  I went down a similar analysis road myself, and came to the same conclusion - one needs to decide if you need the capability to use the more expensive and limited options for  filters that are 6-inches WIDE. 

Software & Accessories / Re: Neutral Density Filters
« on: July 07, 2014, 09:38:51 PM »
I ordered my little stopper from the 2filters website and all went well.

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 16-35 F4 is shipping today
« on: June 24, 2014, 01:16:59 PM »
I ordered mine form The Imaging World in NY yesterday, and got my lens today. (Canceled my amazon pre-order)
:D :D :D

Funny.  Amazon must be low on the totem pole, as I had to cancel my pre-order with them as well.  I got an "error" from UPS that delayed my shipment until next week but that was not B&Hs fault.

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 16-35 f/4L IS Hitting Retailers
« on: June 20, 2014, 06:09:04 PM »
As you probably see in other posts B&H is shipping now.   Mine is due next week

Lenses / Re: Any word on new 16-35 F4
« on: June 20, 2014, 06:07:56 PM »
Mine is coming from B&H with Shipment confirmation for 27th.  I see others are getting theirs on the 24th I guess I didn't play the shipping method game right.   Lol

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 16-35 F4 is shipping today
« on: June 20, 2014, 06:05:44 PM »
Mine is arriving 27th. Canceled my amazon order without issue.   

Canon EF Zoom Lenses / Re: Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM
« on: June 11, 2014, 05:50:45 PM »
Just got one after initially rejecting it (as a kit) in favor of the 17-40 F4L.  While I find the 17-40 very good for landscape photography, I was surprised at the very good IQ from this versatile lens.  Now, I'm torn apart if I'll bring both lens or just stick to the 24-105 for our family's Krabi trip this May.  My wife warned me of bringing more than 2 lens.  I'm thinking of just bringing a 50mm and the 24-105mm.  If it were you, what would you bring?

late to the party... but if it were me, given the choices you describe, I would bring both f/4 zooms.    The 24-105 will stay on most of the time, but the 17-40 will give you FL overlap and you will have better performance than the widest portions of the 24-105.  If you have the time to change lenses, for example, to avoid flare and minimize distortion at 24mm, you will appreciate having the 17-40.  You will also  have the UWA range which might come in handy.  Wives who warn of more than two lenses are more likely to influence the time you have to get certain photos, which means you may have to take the shot, sometimes, with the lens you have on the camera.   

Sad, but my GAS has made me purchase so much equipment (cameras, headphones, computer stuff, etc.) I just broke down and purchased this:  ;D

I have a pair of these in my garage.  IgotGASbadDude is right -- they provide good storage, but no security whatsoever :D

Something else to consider.   Tenba 48 inch airline compatible case.   Between this and the lowepo Trekker I can store ship or carry everything  including a light stand,  umbrellas etc. 

Software & Accessories / Re: Use a CPL with an ND Grad setup?
« on: May 21, 2014, 03:00:08 PM »
with apologies for resurrecting this thread, it does seem better than further polluting the 16-35mm f/4 thread with additional LEE questions.  since the experts are already subscribed here. 

I just wanted to ask you ahsanford, and with my gratitude for asking the questions you have:  did you end up purchasing the massively thick and massively priced B&W 105mm wide angle CPL?

or the moderately thick and still-expensive flavor:

f/2.8 is not that thin DOF as you go to UWA. A 50 mm FL at 6 feet away f/2.8 gives DOF 0.78 ft (very thin, and difficult to manage), whereas a 24mm FL gives 3.4 feet, which is more than enough. At 15 feet away for a group, 24mm lens gives a whopping 36 feet of DOF. The razor thin concern doesn't apply at ultra wide.

An extreme example here: 24mm f/1.4 at 15 feet still has a DOF of 11 feet (but Canon's 24 1.4L is very soft in the corners at 1.4, different issue).

16mm f/2.8 at 6 feet away still has a very easy to manage DOF of 11 feet. Even as close as 3 feet, gives about 2 feet DOF.

So, f/2.8 really can help indoor photography for ultrawides without causing DOF problems.

yea.   so f/2.8 can help isolate the subject from the background as well.  in your example, the DOF extends from about 2 feet in front to 9 feet behind, which may be pushing it for subject isolation but still  doable (you would more likely be stepping back and zooming in to 21 mm for example, for better results --  But to continue the example:   at f/4 (still 16mm and subject distance of 6 feet)  you loose almost all hope of subject isolation from the background because everything 34 feet behind the subject  is in focus.     so in this particular example, the f/2.8 lens has a hope of capturing a venue feature like a candelabra or whatever, with some isolation from the background, but the f/4 lens has little hope.  I doubt very many people/group shots are taken at 16mm and 6 foot distance... but I'm not a wedding 'tog so I'm open to correction here :D 

I'm using 7D, pairing with 16-35 II... as my regular walk around lens  :D
wonder shall I go for the 16-35 IS? worth?

also I haven't got my wide for APS-C  :-[ , which should I go for?
I) New, 10-18 STM
II) Old, 10-22 USM

Thanks...  8)

Guess I have to ask why?  I feel like there are so many better options for a standard zoom lens on a APS-C.  Why not the 17-55?  Or something like a 24-70 or 24-105 if you want an EF lens.

If you're willing to spend that kind of cash on a lens then I wouldn't be lured in by the low price of the 10-18, unless it proves to be markedly sharper, which seems unlikely.  So unless you want STM for video I'd stick with the tried and true 10-22.

+1.  f/2.8 is going to be more important on the 7D, so for the required FOV the 17-55 f/2.8 IS is the better choice imho for a walkabout lens, than the 16-35 f/4 IS.   16-35 f/2.8 II is certainly doable -- its corner softness will be mitigated by the crop body, and it will serve as an upgrade path to FF, but it does not give you IS in the so-called "normal" FOV region (i.e. ~28-80 FF equivalent).  Note also that the 7D's AF system will benefit from f/2.8.   

But to help answer the question, you need to ask: in what situations does the 16-35 f/2.8 II fail for you?  what capabilities does it lack that would allow you to take better photos?  what are the situations where you have a low keeper rate?  If the answer is "low keeper rate due to camera shake" then you need to add IS.  If the answer is "low keeper rate due to motion blur" then for sure you don't want to give up f/2.8, while IS may not be important.  you can see here that the combination of IS and f/2.8 may or may not be important to you.

I would also recommend you review the meta data of your 16-35 f/2.8 II photos and  see what percentage of them use f/2.8.  Consider too, that the region between 35mm and 55mm may be important to you as well.

I sold both my 17-55 and 10-22 but they were important regulars in my crop body bag.  Only downside to the 17-55 is that it is flare-prone and needs a front filter.  FYI  I had a $250 repair experience gone way bad (on my 17-55 before it sold)  -- took Canon four attempts and four months to get it right, so make sure you test your copy, and beware of purchases from individuals. 

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 41