April 17, 2014, 02:40:21 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 - GMCPhotographics

Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10 ... 35
Lenses / Re: I'm done - I have all the lenses I need
« on: January 07, 2014, 05:03:40 AM »
Let's hope I don't have re-buyer's remorse with the new Sigma:

It's about time some one made a really good 50mm....I just hope Sigma have nailed their AF and QA issues. It sure looks like a pretty lens!

Lenses / Re: I'm done - I have all the lenses I need
« on: January 06, 2014, 04:02:19 PM »
I agree that the 16-35II is a fine lens, but I don't think the sharpness is nearly as good as the recent Ls.  I recently had it and the 24-70II out shooting a live oak and when comparing the two at 24mm & f/11, it was shocking how much sharper the 24-70II was than the 16-35II.

Agreed.  At 24mm, my preference is TS-E 24L II > 24-70/2.8L II > 16-35L II.
+1 And there is a fairly wide gap between the 24-70 and the 16-35.

Only in sharpness....not in any other metric or concearn.

Lenses / Re: 24L or 35L
« on: January 06, 2014, 06:22:30 AM »
My mkI is a stellar copy and I have to say that I won't be buying a mkII. It's a good lens and a lot to rave about...but against a stellar mkI, there isn't any great benefit for the cost

Thanks for the clarification, and it squares with lensrentals' review of the mk2 in which they say that the *average* mk2 is better than mk1 but a above-average mk1 can be about the same as a mk2 from the bottom of the pile. The distinction they see is the better built quality of the mk2 which is said to be more resistant to decentering after a bump.


The other thing I considered when comparing my 24-70L vs mkII was that between 24-35mm, my 16-35IIL was a better performer than both lenses. Especially when shooting landscapes. Less distortion, a lot less flare, better sunstars, slightly brighter (although still f2.8) and sharp enough. Sure it's not as sharp wide open and the 24-70IIL, but it's certainly sharp enough, and there's more to a lens than critical sharpness. I've not had any build quality issues with my 24-70L, it seems very heavily built even by L standards but 've read enough people who have had genuine issues with theirs. I do wonder if Canon performed a silent upgrade to this lens during it's production life. Both mine and my 2nd photographer's copies are very good...in fact her copy is slightly sharper than mine. So while I say that mine is stellar, her copy is the best I've seen from a mkI.

The 24-70IIL certainly seemed a very nice lens, it's just not that great an upgrade to what I've already got. If I was in the market for a new 24-70, then I would snap one up...but unfortunatly, I have other lenses which are serving me just as well. If I need sharpness, I'll use my primes and stop down to f2.8. 

My 16-35IIL is on it's second front element due to scuffing and really has had a hard life and it's the only Canon L lens which I've had any issues with.  It was the result of the harsh realities of pro wedding abuse. It's the only lens I don't use a hood with (it's a pointless piece of plastic) and the front element is quite exposed as a result.   

Lenses / Re: 24L or 35L
« on: January 06, 2014, 05:45:37 AM »
(which is a true 24mm, unlike it's predecessor).

As far as I remember the reviews the 24mm of the mk2 is *longer* than the mk1 - or what do you mean by "true 24mm"?

I was referring to the 24-70L vs mkII at 24mm. There's a big difference between the mkI and mkII at 24mm.
The mkII is noticably wider at both 24mm and 70mm. The mkII doesn't focal length breath as much either. The mkI's focal length got a lot longer as the focus drew into MFD....which helps it create selective focus effects a bit easier. With intelligent use, the 24-70L was very easy to throw background out of focus, easier than the new mkII version. The bokeh was less agitated too, smoother and creamier. Apart from the sharpness improvement and flat plane of focus wide open...the mkI is better (in my opinion) in many regards. 
The 24IIL is a little longer than the 24mm mkI but not by much. The 35L is a little longer than most 35mm lenses too. But most users won't be aware of this behaviour and mostly observed at close focus distances. Neither of these facts should deter their use.
I recently hired a 24-70IIL for a landscape workshop I was on. I spent a whole week with it. I've spent many years with the mkI and knw that lens very well. My mkI is a stellar copy and I have to say that I won't be buying a mkII. It's a good lens and a lot to rave about...but against a stellar mkI, there isn't any great benefit for the cost....oh and the 24-70IIL's hood is truely awful. One of the worse hoods from Canon.

Lenses / Re: 24L or 35L
« on: January 06, 2014, 03:43:37 AM »
I much prefer the 35L myself. The 24L II did not impress me much. Great lens, but too wide to be very useful for versatile shooting. I think the IQ of the 35L is better as well.

Plus, I have the 24-70 II which has better IQ than the 24L II anyway at comparable apertures. Better corner and edge performance for one.

The 24 L has MUCH less distortion where the 2470 II is frankly a dissapointment. That is on of the reasons I bought it, but serious AF issues and, as you say, I found my favorite lens in the 35 L as it is epic in (almost) every way, and why I am waiting so bad for the mkII to show up...

Hi Viggo, that's pretty much the same thing I discovered with my primes too. The 24IIL is a little sharper but I use my 35L a lot more. The 24IIL has a lot less distortion than the 24-70IIL (which is a true 24mm, unlike it's predecessor). It also flares less and handles harsh light better too...although the 24-70IIL has better sunstars.
I've been using a 16-35II, 35L and 85IIL combot for professional weddings for years and they have served me well.

Lenses / Re: I'm done - I have all the lenses I need
« on: January 06, 2014, 03:38:37 AM »
Every time I buy a new lens, I say the same thing.  I've probably said it a hundred times.   ::)  Will likely say it again.


Although I have slowed down and don't have my eye on anything right now.

Good to see the thread continued and reality set in for Mackguyver.
I think and hope I am pretty much finished - at least with Canon's current line up.  We'll see what 2014 brings, but the only lens I'm really wanting is a better 16-35, and I'd happily sell the one I have to upgrade. 

The 50 1.2 was the one I didn't want to sell but did.  I quickly realized that f/2.8 is way to far a bridge and with the double-dip, well, as we all know, I HAD to buy it :)

I don't really understand why the 16-35IIL gets such a bad rap. It's a really good lens and is very versatile. For landscapes, I see better results than the 24-70IIL...which is a lens every one seems to go nuts over.

Lenses / Re: New Wide Angles Lenses in 2013 [CR2]
« on: January 01, 2014, 06:32:39 PM »
Can anyone account for the validity to this idea?


The point I'd make is that Canon is pretty good about covering lengths well so it seems unlikely that a replacement for the 16-35 would have a greatly different zoom range.


I don't think anyone waiting for a new version of this lens is hoping for a different zoom range.. The thing this lens needs is a big improvement in sharpness! I would never use the current 16-35L II for landscapes, not even if someone gave the lens to me for free.

I've been waiting for a new EF lens to rival the legendary Nikkor 14-24. Many people are hoping for a 14-24L, but I'm more interested in a razor sharp 16-35L III. :)

It is very sad that Canon still don't have a truly sharp UWA-zoom lens.

Oh boy....one born every minute....stopped down, it's more than sharp enough.

Lenses / Re: EF 400mm f/5.6L IS on the Way?
« on: January 01, 2014, 06:26:26 PM »
Very true, but that doesn't mean I can still wish they filled it. :)

Then again from Canon's point of view:
- I purchased the 100-400
- I purchased the 70-200/2.8 II + 2x III.  The image quality + AF was close enough to the 100-400 to no longer justify carrying it.
- I still wasn't happy with the image quality + AF, so I bought the 400/5.6
- I still wanted something with IS and a bit more reach, so after some time I used the money I was saving for the 600/4 II and bought a 200-400/1.4x with the justification that it is far more flexible.

So in the end Canon got a lot more money out of me than if they had just introduced a 500/5.6 IS in the first place.  :)
Sounds familiar - my path was 70-300 f/4.5-5.6 IS, 70-200 f/4L IS (+1.4x II), 400 f/5.6L, 300 f/2.8L IS II + 1.4xIII & 2xIII.  I will say that the 400mm had me satisfied for many years.

Lol....I passed on the 100-400 LIS, and went straight for a 400mm f5.6 L.
Then I took up a 70-200 f2.8 LIS II and 1.4x and 2x teles.
Then I sold the 400mm f5.6 L and picked up a 400mm f2.8 LIS.
Apart from the weight, I couldn't be happier!

Landscape / Re: Post Your Best Landscapes
« on: December 28, 2013, 06:26:41 PM »
No photoshop all in camera.

It's a lovely shot...but I don't understand what you mean by your comment, no photoshop, all in camera?
Are you saying that your camera faithfully recorded exactly what your eye saw? Or are you saying that your camera's limited colour and contrast interpretation and lower dynamic range are a more truthful representation of the scene then your eye was?

Lenses / Re: EF 400mm f/5.6L IS on the Way?
« on: December 28, 2013, 06:23:11 PM »
I've always found the 400mm f5.6 L to be very sharp. Ok, I find my 400mm f2.8 LIS is slightly sharper but that's comparing a much more expensive and faster optic. But it's certainly a bit sharper than the numerous 100-400 LIS and 300mm f4 LIS I've tried. But they are all sharp enough. If people find that any of the above lenses aren't sharp enough for them...then please get a grip...they are all sharp enough.

Lenses / Re: EF 400mm f/5.6L IS on the Way?
« on: December 27, 2013, 05:31:22 PM »
The 400 f5.6L is a really nice lens. It's sharp, light and it's AF is very fast.
But the lack of IS is a pity and it's Min Focus distance is painfully long. For many the 300 f4 LIS with a 1.4x is a better prospect.
If Canon can nail those issues, it'll be a far more versatile lens.

Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 50 f/1.2L
« on: December 27, 2013, 07:46:52 AM »
To put a more positive spin on this review - and justify my re-purchase of this lens, I wanted to post the link below that demonstrates the advantages of the 50 f/1.2L that don't necessarily show up in test charts:
To my eyes, the 1.2 has superior contrast at all apertures.

It's a curious lens...you have re-bought one and I'm about to sell mine...lol.
It kind of reminds me how many times i've bought and sold and re-bought fisheye lenses....

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon 1DX paired with Ec-S focussing screen
« on: December 21, 2013, 06:41:50 PM »
For folks using the 1DX along with the "unsupported" Ec-S high precision focusing screen, what sort of exposure compensation are you having to manually apply, since it's not supported by firmware?

Canon states the following:
Previous Ec-S, Ec-N and Ec-R screens: These are previous generation screens that will fit into the EOS-1D X. They’re a bit brighter than standard screens, such as the Ec-C or Ec-D series, with no custom function to adjust metering to compensate for the added brightness (some degree of user-applied exposure compensation will be needed if they’re installed).


I already use a high precision screen on my 5D for fast MF primes, and would very much prefer not to use AF points along with focus confirmation aids on the 1DX.

Thanks in advance!

Likewise, although I've been finding the spot focus is really good with f1.2 and f1.4 glass.
If you use the other screens, please remember to instruct the camera in the Custom Functions. If you don't your metering will jump all over the place. The camera's light meter array is in the prism and a different viewfinder screen will drastically effect it.

Landscape / Re: Post Your Best Landscapes
« on: December 20, 2013, 09:44:00 AM »
Thanks guys, your comments are appreciated!

EOS Bodies / Re: A 2014 Roadmap Part 1: The 7D Mark II is Coming [CR2]
« on: December 20, 2013, 09:41:32 AM »
I'm clamoring for a successor to the 5D3 to be announced, so that the price of the 5D3 will drop. I'd like to pick up a 2nd 5D3 for around $2K, and retire my 5DC.

Check back around 2018. The 5DIII might drop to around $2K by then.

Yep, the 5DIII was launched at a higher price than both the 5DI and 5DII. The 5DIII is higher specced and a more up market model to either of it's previous cousins. It would have been clearer if Canon had called the 5DIII a 5Dx and the 6D a 5DIII. Indicating that the 5DIII range was split in two models.

Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10 ... 35