September 20, 2014, 12:04:32 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 ... 48
76
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.

77
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.

78
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.

79
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.

80
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.

81
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.

82
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.   

83
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:
http://www.canonwatch.com/canon-patent-11-24mm-f4-lens/

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.

84
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.

85
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:

Quote
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…

 :o

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.

http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/canon-to-start-a-new-sensor-tech-war-in-september/

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

86
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).
Thanks

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?

87
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.

88
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.

89
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.

90
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! 

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 48