December 20, 2014, 06:54:55 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 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 49
76
Animal Kingdom / Re: Show us your Hooters (Owls)
« on: July 02, 2014, 03:38:44 PM »
Here's a few of mine:













There's Eagle Owls, A Snow Owl and a long eared Owl.
All taken with a 5DIII or 7D and either a 70-200 f2.8 LIS II with a 1.4x TC, 400mm f5.6L or a 400mm f2.8 LIS and a very sturdy tripod.

77
Lenses / Re: 70-200 f2.8ii or i
« on: July 02, 2014, 02:58:15 PM »
I recently had some unplanned cash at hand and upgraded the 4 IS to 2,8 II IS.
Although pretty much razor sharp, sometimes the 4 did limit my exposure time - I know ...this is post-hoc rationalizing for GAS
I really see a difference in autofocus performance on my 5D3, and I can make good use of the additional weight for training purpose...

Bottom line: If IQ is your driver, 4 will get you there. If weight and shooting time per day may be a limiting factor, don't go for the 2,8. It is substantially heavier more than double the weight and very obvious (no really for candid portraits)

If you are strong and committed to weight lifting -go for it, it is sooo cool...

Yep, optically there is little between them too.

78
If it's more than 150 on the wide end, then I definitely won't be interested.  If I want a narrow range of focal lengths, I'll get a 400/5.6.  I want a zoom because I need a zoom.

Sony makes a 70-400.

Yep, the 100-400 is an odd range, slotting in with a 24-105 as it's only option. Which is a really old lens and really needs an update. The 24-70 lenses have 70-200 and 70-300 partners.

79
Software & Accessories / Re: Tripod centre column - yes or no
« on: July 02, 2014, 02:02:36 PM »
While this shot may not look it...it was taken in really strong head wind. My pod was low and the spikes embedded in the bracken. It was stable for a long exposure in the buffeting wind:


Exif says 240 second exposure. It's pin sharp and I'm not sure an IS equipped 16-35 f4 LIS would have gotten the effect I was after ;D

80
Lenses / I feel vindicated by this post about the 120-300 Sigma
« on: July 02, 2014, 05:27:54 AM »
I have to say, I feel more than a little vindicated by this following post about the 120-300 f2.8 OS from Sigma:

http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/06/the-saga-of-the-sigma-120-300-f2-8-os-sport/

I had a copy of the previous (non art) version which is the same lens optically and mechanically. I took it to Ireland to photograph Irish sea birds and I was astonished how lame the AF system was compared to my 70-200 f2.8 LIS II, even with a 1.4x TC. It couldn't track a bird in flight, it would lock and then loose AF. It was hesitant and unreliable. I had high expectations of this lens, but I soon sold it once I returned to the UK in disgust.

The focal drop at MFD was appalling too. At MFD, which one would use to try and diffuse the background of a sitting bird, the focal length dropped alarmingly short. Around 240mm by my estimations, far below the 300mm stated and not much different than my 70-200, which doesn't focus breathe. It's a heavy lens for sure and not really worth the bother for the results I couldn't achieve. Where as the 70-200 f2.8 II L and a 1.4x nailed this shots every time and really showed me how bad the Siggi was behaving. These Siggi lenses really are no match for Canon's finest L's. I currently use a 400mm f2.8 LIS and I look back at this Siggi as a tragic error of judgement on my behalf.

81
I don't know where you heard that the 120-300 was better than the 70-200, and I seriously doubt it's as good as the 300 f/2.8 IS II.  Just look at the charts against the 70-200, it's no contest IMO.:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=381&Camera=9&Sample=0&FLI=1&API=0&LensComp=687&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=0
Even with the 1.4x extender the 70-200 is noticeably better.


As for the 120-300 vs. 300 f/2.8 IS II, again, no comparison.  Even at f/8 the 120-300 isn't as sharp as the 300 at f/2.8:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=381&Camera=9&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=0&LensComp=739&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0


That is not the lens I am talking about, this is a much older design by sigma which did not even have IS ... the new one is a completely different design and much improved

The AF capability of the Canon 70-200 f2.8 LIS II and 300mm f2.8 LIS are in a different league to the Sigma 120-300 f2.8 OS. The Siggi is a nice lens optically but it's over sized and too heavy for what it is and it's focal length reduction due to breathing is rediculously bad. At minimum focus, the lens is closer to 240mm than 300mm, which to be honest it's that much different than the 70-200 at the long end (which doesn't breath like this).

82
Lenses / Re: Waiting for the 35 1.4L II
« on: July 02, 2014, 05:10:59 AM »
No doubt, sigma 35mm 1.4 art is canon killer.

Check some reviews, many people compared the two lenses. Though I'm not quite sure about the build quality that Sigma provides — at first sight yes, it's very good, but will it last as canon 35mm does?

I'm not sure I'd call it a Canon killer....it's a little bit sharper but that's about it. Also bare in mind that I've been using my 35L for the last 8 years (and it's paid for itself time and time with great professional images) where as this Sigma is new to the market. I'm happy with my 35L and see very little reason to swap to the Sigma. My Canon 35L has provided great images and will continue to do so.
If you rate a lens by optics alone then sure the Sigma looks great. But I would wager in a comparison that few could tell from an A3 print which lens was which. The Canon is far better built, has a far more reliable AF system and will hold it's value on the second hand market over the long term. Sigma AF issues are well documented, even their 120-300 has af issues.

83
Lenses / Re: 70-200 f2.8ii or i
« on: July 02, 2014, 05:01:51 AM »
Either the 70-200mm f2.8 LIS mkII or the 70-200mm f4 LIS are pretty much as good as it gets in the optical long zoom category. Neither have direct equals in other bands which says a lot about the quality of these lenses.

84
Lenses / Re: Review: Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS
« on: July 02, 2014, 04:51:23 AM »
The IS will be nice for anyone using this lens without a tripod and the video crowd will dig it, and it's the only Canon UWA zoom that's ready for a higher resolution camera. It's reasonably priced. What's not to love?

What's not to love?

The price of course! It should be cheaper by $200 - $300 :)

Will the street price drop over time? Hard to say but for a lens that is reviewing so well, why would anyone feel the need to drop the price? People want it already at the current price!

It already has! Canon (apparently accidentally) marked it as valid for the 20% off discount thing they held some weeks ago. So a few of us did get it for $200 cheaper  ;D.

Try the UK then. It's still sold everywhere for £1199, which is $2056!

Canon UK ramps up the UK RRP expecting the UK shops to discount heavily. But when a new product comes out, most shops sell it for the max RRP, pocketing the difference and effectively penalizing new to market gear.
When the 70-200 f2.8 LIS II hit the market, it was only available for £2500....which is silly money. So I waited  about 9 months and picked up one for £1549. So my advise with the UK market is to either buy abroad or wait. If you buy new to market kit in the UK you are only feeding the greed of the UK shops and letting them get away with it.
It's your money and your choice at the end of the day, but I've found most UK Camera shops to have questionable behaviour. They charge these crazy prices because people will pay them.

85
Lenses / Re: Review: Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS
« on: July 01, 2014, 07:07:31 PM »
Nothing to argue about that, Ruined. You're 100% right. But I think this lens is mostly aimed at landscape photography, and for that it doesn't need f/2.8 in about 99% of the time?..

I think this lens only has an image stabilizer because Nikon's version has one too. It's really not that useful for landscape work. But for general travel and site seeing...I'm sure it'll be very useful.

86
Software & Accessories / Re: Tripod centre column - yes or no
« on: July 01, 2014, 11:43:20 AM »
When I bought my tripod, I chose a model which was more stable than my needs and didn't have a centre column.
Gitzo Systematic GT3541LS...with spikes.
I'm in the market for a larger pod for use with my 400 f2.8 LIS (my current pod is ok but it feels a little top heavy) so I'm thinking of going for a Really Right Stuff TVC 44 as my big pod.

87
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 16-35 f/4L IS Sample Images
« on: July 01, 2014, 09:04:17 AM »

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.

If you had tried the IS on this lens and 70-200 II, you probably would not have made this statement. The IS is almost instantaneous on the 16-35 4L.

I have both 70-200 lenses and use them professionally...and there is still a slight delay.

88
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.

89
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.
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?action=post;quote=410385;topic=21594.0;last_msg=410473
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=21530.msg410346#msg410346

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.

90
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.

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 49