January 26, 2015, 03:48:14 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 - GMCPhotographics

Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10 ... 50
Lenses / Re: Review: Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS
« on: July 01, 2014, 09:03:15 AM »
Just picked mine up this morning and that's probably the last time I buy from B&H.  "Expedited" shipping was UPS Ground and they require signature and blocked all options for alternate delivery other than picking it up on the other side of town at the UPS airport terminal.  I don't know why they wouldn't let me re-route to a UPS Store at the very least.  Very annoyed to waste over an hour of my day.

Also very excited to have the lens, though :D

I think your problem is with UPS and not with B&H. Let B&H know of your issues, they might swing their postal contract in future.

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 16-35 f/4L IS Sample Images
« on: July 01, 2014, 05:31:44 AM »
In the end, I think we all agree to disagreements. We choose the lens that suits our shooting needs the most. But objectively, the new 16-35 4L IS is a sharper lens, has IS, and sells for lower price.

Objectively it also is unable to do f/2.8 at all, which is the whole point and quite significant, as well as the fact that at f/11 the sharpness is similar to the 16-35 f/2.8L II - the importance/usefulness of this should not be ignored when advising on which lens to pick :)

Yeah, and you've been sure to state this across 3 different threads now. We know, 4.0 is not the same as 2.8.

Guess what, though? That 2.8 aperture isn't a 1.4! Good luck freezing action as well as a prime lens.

People have different needs. I'd argue that for most people, it doesn't matter. This lens has a million different purposes, and the difference between 2.8 and 4.0 is a deal breaker for very few of them.

True, but no one makes a 16mm f1.4 lens yet. 24mm isn't THAT wide compared to a 16mm.
Another issue with an image stabiliser is that it takes a few seconds to settle. If you just point and snap, there a possibility that the gyros and elements haven't settled and you get soft images. I used to get this a lot with my 70-200 f4 LIS until I switched off the IS most of the time or I allowed the IS unit to settle under half pressure on the shutter release.

Lenses / Re: Review: Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS
« on: July 01, 2014, 05:25:33 AM »
I wonder if Canon are re-jigging their wide zoom range. Maybe from a 17-40L f4 and 16-35 f2.8 II L range to a 16-35mm f4 LIS and 12-24mm f2.8 ranges?
If so, I can see both being added to my lens bag.

Lenses / Re: Review: Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS
« on: July 01, 2014, 05:23:50 AM »
I think this lens, along with the 24-70IIL and 70-200LIS II will out perform 99% of the photographer's using it :D
Looking over the reviews and posted results here's my take:
The new 16-35 f4 LIS has less distortions in the far corner (less image stretching). It looks slightly wider than the 16-35IIL too. The wide open sharpness is amazing, as are the corner sharpness...stopped down the difference is less noticable. The colours and contrast look a lot more vibrant, but could be due to a 1/3 under exposure with the f4....time will tell. The 16 point sun stars are new to Canon and look different, not sure if I like or dislike....just different. It's now easier to tell which lens was used with a sunny landscape picture.
The IS unit for me is irrelevant. The time it would take for the image to stabilise would make this feature less useful to me. I miss the extra stop of the f2.8. The flare control looks very good and the new coatings look better....especially for cleaning. It's quite big for what it is....but hey, it works great. At last a wide zoom lens hood which doesn't look rediculous. This one might actually protect the lens from damage.
If I had a 24-70IIL and this lens in my bag, I might get confused which one is which...they look really simular.
77mm threads, great...but erm the 24-70IIL has gone from 77 to 82mm....step ups gonna be needed.
But the real IQ advantage which no one else seems to have noticed is the lack of CA compared to the f2.8 II L.
This new f4 lens seems to have pretty much zero CA, where as the 16-35IIL really needs correcting for most images (I have a preset just for this lens in Light Room to correct CA, vignetting and distortion). CA is a blight, correctable but an irratation for sure. I've been using my TS-e 17mm a lot more recently because it needs less post prod (ironically) than my 16-35IIL.
Looking at the results from this lens, pushes me to sreiously consider one....but i think I'll wait a year for the price to drop to more realistic levels. All you fan boys with deep pockets....go for it! It's a stunner with some clear advantages over the existing models.   

Lenses / Re: 16-35 F/2.8 vs F/4 for weddings
« on: June 27, 2014, 09:21:58 AM »
I would wait a little bit for the new 2.8 wide angle zoom and hope that it is a 16-35/2.8 IS at a relatively reasonable pricepoint. ::) Otherwise you will kick yourself for buying a compromise too early. If it is not, you can still buy another lens.  ;)

I think it'll be a 14-24/2.8, non IS

I'm hoping for something a little wider like a 12-24mm f2.8. A 14mm isn't that much wider than a 16mm.

There was a patent not too long ago for a 11-24 f/4 lens from Canon.  I would definitely pick that up as I could then use the 16-35mm f/2.8L II for events and the 11-24 f/4 for ultra wide landscape.

Here is the patent:

I hear what you are saying, but I've seen patents for a 11-24mm f4, a 12-24mm f2.8 and a 14-24mm f2.8.
So it's hard to predict which way Canon will go with their production lens. Unfortunatly patents are just a piece of conjecture...or paper. We won't know what's happening until it's announced.

Lenses / Re: 16-35 F/2.8 vs F/4 for weddings
« on: June 27, 2014, 07:21:13 AM »
I would wait a little bit for the new 2.8 wide angle zoom and hope that it is a 16-35/2.8 IS at a relatively reasonable pricepoint. ::) Otherwise you will kick yourself for buying a compromise too early. If it is not, you can still buy another lens.  ;)

I think it'll be a 14-24/2.8, non IS

I'm hoping for something a little wider like a 12-24mm f2.8. A 14mm isn't that much wider than a 16mm.

Seems like SAR has already picked up on the Canon rumours of a new sensor.

I do not know if he was joking, but he says that:

All I can tell you know is that I heard about a 54 Full Frame Megapixel sensor from Sony (with 2460 focusing points (no joke!) and the focusing area covers 78% of the entire sensor). It was actually planed for a 2015 release but maybe Canon will make them change those plans…


Not sure if it is just very quiet in the rumour website business at the moment, and they have all agreed to throw a little spice into the mix, but it looks like Photokina could be a very interesting show to attend.


And let me guess...with all those focus points...it still back focusses and misses the target?

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: D810!!!
« on: June 27, 2014, 07:18:47 AM »
Can someone (I am thinking of you, jrista) explain why no low-pass filter is better than a non anti-aliasing one (except to Nikon, who can probably save some money).

No OLPF is better in that there are fewer layers of material over the photodiodes (the OLPF is two layers of lithium niobate plus a 1/4-wave plate, not sure of the material, maybe quartz?).  Same idea as using a top quality UV/clear filter vs. no filter – probably not much of an IQ hit, but maybe some under certain circumstances.  With the D800/E, the 'inactive' OLPF was in there so everything else could be the same (image sensor mounting, piezo drive for the self-cleaning sensor, etc).  Standardizing on one model means they can eliminate the OLPF entirely.

There's still the IR cut filter over the sensor to protect from dust and to vibrate for the self-clean.

Thanks, Neuro.
I was also under the erroneous impression that it is the OLPF that does the dance.

I'm not sure about Nikon, but on Canon cameras it's the IR-cut filter and one half of the OLPF that are moved, while the other half of the OLPF stays with the fixed sensor.

Yep and Canon will end up selling about 10 cameras to us lot on forums and totally kill their regular sales with such a niche product. The beauty of the 5DIII and 1Dx cameras is that they are increadibly versatile, more than any other DSLR in history...is it no wonder they are selling so well and for such a premium?

Lenses / Re: 16-35 F/2.8 vs F/4 for weddings
« on: June 27, 2014, 05:12:44 AM »
The 24-70mm is sharper in the corners too.

when ever has wedding client moaned or passed on a sale due to slightly soift corners? never....it doesn't happen and I've never lost or gained sales based on extream lens optics. The 16-35IIL offers clear advantages over the f4 variant for weddings...none of them are sharpness related. The modern obsession with lens charts and web site reviews over real world application and shooting is worrying.

Lenses / Re: 16-35 F/2.8 vs F/4 for weddings
« on: June 26, 2014, 08:54:52 AM »
I've noticed that a lot of 24-105 f4 LIS wedding shooters, they are either in a sunny part of the world or they use a lot of flash. I have nothing against using a flash and there's a lot of really good photographers out there with amazing flash useage. It's just not my style. I prefer the available light approach and certainly one I aspire towards. Although there's often one wedding per season which needs some extra lighting, even with f1.2 glass and iso 6400!

I used to use a 17-40L but found that the extra stop was really needed for the light levels I encountered on UK weddings. I don't know how this translates to weddings in your area. But a lot of guys get by with a 24-70 f2.8 as their main lens and i've seen a lot of strong work using that range.

The 17-40L f4 came to the market in may 2003, while the 16-35 f2.8 mkI was still widely available. In fact that lens stayed on the market for some time and was eventually replaced with the mkII in April 2007. Which brought the f2.8 version upto the f4 design and optical standards. So I'm assuming a simular thing will happen with the 16-35 III L? Give it a few years and Canon will probably release an updated version with simular mft charts as the f4 variant.

Lenses / Re: The sharpness curse!
« on: June 26, 2014, 08:44:32 AM »
Hate me for loving that 1.4 sharpness, I REALLY don't care  :P
Great photo of your beautiful daughter - turning a "snapshot" into a true photograph!  I don't hate you for wanting the sharpness wide open - I'm sure nearly all 50L owners would be beyond excited if Canon came out with a 50L II that was razor sharp at f/1.2!
+1 Exactly! And then they would forget about the previous L "unique" characteristics and they would enjoy their new sharp 50mm L lens  ;D

I'm sure there will be some, but If I need a 50mm, I'll use the focal length on a zoom. This year i've had a prime lens consolidation, selling my 50L, 24IIL, TS-e 45 lenses. I even sold my Siggi 12-24 too. I just wasn't using them any longer and they were expensive assets to have lying around the house gathering dust.
My wedding mojo works well with a smaller kit than before. So i'm being really well served with my 16-35IIL, 35L and 85IIL. I take along a 70-200 f2.8 LIS II and 24-70L for the reception speaches but that's pretty much my regular kit. For landscapes I use a 16-35IIL, TSe 17L, 24-70L, 70-200 f2.8 LIS II and tele converters with a 100mm macro LIS for occasional use. I currently have no shooting need for a 24IIL or a 50L.

I had an R1800, a good printer for sure. Although it's ink useage was a scandle.
I fitted mine with a CIS system and after a lot of prints...the printer was end of life.
I replaced it with a R2880 which served me well, again i fitted a CIS system to it, but after 2 years I got head clogging issues. The yellow channel completely died on my and I decided to abandon the CIS route and replace it with a R3000, which is easily the best printer I've ever used. I wish i had more money at the time for a R3880, I think it would have served me better, but I wanted the ability to print onto CD's (important for me at the time) and that was the swing vote for me along with the price.
I've been using it with  a Marrut / lyson re-fillable cartridge solution and i have to say, the results are fantastic. the best prints I've experianced and easily match the OEM colours. I'm on my third set of inks for it and I've had it now for a year and a half. It's messy to refill the cartridges and clear the chip, but I only have to do this every 3-4 months or so and I do them all in one go. It's a lot more reliable than the CIS systems I've used in the past and the colour vibrancy is the best i've used. It easily matched the Epson colours when profiled. I tend to use semi matt papers, I like the wedding / photographic look, so I was a big fan of the ilford perl papers until that company folded earlier in the year.

I hope this helps! 

Speedlites, Printers, Accessories / Re: 600-ex-rt upgrade?
« on: June 26, 2014, 08:11:50 AM »
I suspect that small flash technology with the 600RT has reached a relative peak and is leveling off. It will be difficult to get more photons out of it as that's fighting physics. The wireless technology isn't going to change, again physics and band regulation. That just leaves firmware and features. At some point they might go to a color touchscreen which wouldn't hurt, of course that would eat more battery too.

Maybe they can make a flash with adjustable light temperature.

That's what the supplied gel holder's for. Mine came with a few gells too.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: D810!!!
« on: June 26, 2014, 05:55:28 AM »
I feel sorry for Nikon owners.
It doesn't matter what model they buy, even when first released, as a few months down the track, Nikon will bring out a new and improved version of it making your current model obsolete and now worth substantially less than it cost you. Remember the D600 then the 610?
Canon does hang onto models much longer, and hence they have better re-sale value later on as say, after 3 years, your Canon may be just superseded, but if you had an equivalent Nikon, it would be 3 models old and practically worthless.

I'm not saying that Nikon cameras are no good, in fact, they are very good indeed, but constant model updates is not how you keep up the perceived and resale value of products.
It also makes it more difficult regarding spare parts too, as many models mean lots of parts and distributors only have so much space and money for parts.

I feel sorry for people who buy cameras based on how much they can sell them for.

If your camera is in good enough condition to be sold as "mint" or "near mint" condition then you obviously haven't used it very much.

While I can understand this for lenses....for camera bodies, they are a depreciating asset. Every camera body I have bought has dropped in resale value over the three years I have owned them. The lenses i have bought have generally been worth more over time due to inflation and increasing prices year on year. My 16-35IIL cost me £850 new, it's still worth close to that S/H and new they are nearly £1200. My 85 f1.2 II L cost me £1200, it's worth nearly that S/H and it's new price is between £1500 and £1800 depending where you buy it. 

Lenses / Re: Waiting for the 35 1.4L II
« on: June 26, 2014, 05:01:43 AM »
Optically, yes there is a little bit of room for improvement on the 35L.
Yes, from a weather sealing and build quality, there is also room for improvement.
Flare control, colour, contrast...ability to render beautiful and stunning photos in the right hands...not much room for improvement.

The thing that kills me on the 35L is the straight aperture blades... If only they'd update it!

It's only an issue if you stop down. If you don't then the inside of the lens is circular and bokeh takes on that charector. To be fair, it's not an issue I've experianced with this lens but I have seen it with the 135mm f2 L when shot at f2.8. I think it's becuase the Bokeh circles are quite small with a 35mm lens, so their slight irregularlity is quite small and not so obtrusive. The out of focus rendering of the Canon 35mm f1.4 L is really quite flattering and a joy to behold....but that never replaces the need fro a great photo in the first place. Creamy out of focus renderings don't make a great picture on their own. But the ability to diferentiate focus and isolate a subject at tools in a skilled photographers repertoir. This is why I love the 35L and 85IIL as a specific combo on two camera bodies. 

Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10 ... 50