September 30, 2014, 06:24:46 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 - mrsfotografie

Pages: 1 ... 14 15 [16] 17 18 ... 94
226
I'm suddenly charmed by the 400mm DO. Is the contrast really that bad?

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-400mm-f-4.0-DO-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx
Supposedly the newer lenses are much better than these earlier ones that were tested, and I've seen some great work done with the lens, but I haven't tried it myself.  I was a bit torn between this and the 300 f/2.8 IS II, but decided to go for the 300 in the end.

Yes if you look at size and converter compatibility, the 300 f/2.8 II IS is the better choice. Not sure when and if I will go that route.

227
Lenses / Re: Affected with GAS, Gear Acquisition Syndrome
« on: July 14, 2014, 06:06:07 PM »
Phew!!! I think I've satisfied my GAS for the moment... cheaply! Enjoying my little 24mm f/2.8 (scroll down):

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=3453.0  ;D

228
Canon EF Prime Lenses / Re: Canon EF 24mm f/2.8
« on: July 14, 2014, 05:55:49 PM »
And this one was cropped from 3:2 to 5:2.

229
Canon EF Prime Lenses / Re: Canon EF 24mm f/2.8
« on: July 14, 2014, 05:52:38 PM »
A few more samples. I like this tiny little prime! Again these were taken with a 5D Mk II. My 24mm carries a B+W 010 UV filter.

231
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 1DX dust behind superimposed screen
« on: July 14, 2014, 05:38:48 PM »
So I just got the camera back.

The new pentaprism has some tiny black specks in the pentaprism too. Oh well...much better than before and I can live with this.

It's come back with a slight problem, however. When I try dropping the focusing screen down it sticks. It drops down about 2-4 millimetres and stops. I have the use the screen removal tool to pull it down and then it releases dropping the focusing screen.


Think this is an issue worth sending it back over?


EDIT:

The camera keeps getting dust on the bottom of the focusing screen now. Not a big deal as I just remove the battery, remove the focusing screen and blow it off. While the focusing screen not dropping down freely is a bit annoying, it doesn't particularly bother me. Probably the technician tightened something a bit more than normal. Either way it's not really interfering with the removal of the screen other than just having to use the tool to slightly move the bracket down a bit more before it drops down on its own.

Be careful not to get into a type of vicious circle now - your experience is a learning point for me too, sometimes we just have to let stuff be before we make it any worse. ;)

232
Software & Accessories / Re: To filter or not to filter
« on: July 14, 2014, 05:35:38 PM »
I don't use UV (protection) filters on my 40/2.8 pancake or on my EF-M lenses, but I do on the all the others that take them.

Crap, that technically should change my vote.  I am answer #1 above, but the pancake is an exception. 

- A

Should change mine as well (I voted as close to the actual as I could).  I have the same exceptions as Neuro, plus my TSE 24 (version 1) and my Rokinon 14mm.  Haven't yet figured out filters for those.  And sometimes it's too much work to replace the clear if I am swapping my CPL on and off lenses doing landscape shots.

Ah that's right, I forgot about my Samyang 14mm. No filter possible  :P

233
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II [CR1]
« on: July 14, 2014, 02:18:44 PM »
I am sticking with my non-stabilized 400mm f/5.6L until I can afford an f/4 supertelephoto.. I would not advise beginning birders to start with a non-stablized lens. unless they have lots of patience.
I keep hoping to see an updated version of that lens..

Yes, IS would make all the difference.
not only that, but the improvements in IQ from the series 1 to series 2 big whites are truly astounding. As someone who has been into photography for more than 40 years, I find the quality of the recent lenses astounding. A lot of people fixate on sensors, but the glass is whats makes it all possible.....

To be honest I was checking out prices for the 400 f/5.6 yesterday because I find that now that I shoot full frame only, my 100-400 is fixed at 400mm almost all of the time - so I might as well use a prime. Still the lack of IS is THE show-stopper as war as the 400mm f/5.6 is concerned.

234
Software & Accessories / Re: To filter or not to filter
« on: July 14, 2014, 02:16:02 PM »
I will also remove the filter when shooting sunrise/sunset shots directly into the sun.

What's the advantage of doing that?
It reduces flare quite a bit and generally halves the number of sunspots in the photo.  When the sun is low in the sky (to save your eyes & sensor!) give it a try and you'll see that you get better contrast (i.e. less flare) and fewer sunspots with the filter off of the lens vs. on it.

Thanks mackguyver, I'll keep this in mind, next time I shoot in those conditions ;)

235
Software & Accessories / Re: To filter or not to filter
« on: July 14, 2014, 01:30:27 PM »
I will also remove the filter when shooting sunrise/sunset shots directly into the sun.

What's the advantage of doing that?

I've got protective B+W UV filters on all of my EF mount lenses. For my Sony lenses I have a mix of B+W and Hoya. The FD stuff has UV filters too but can be any brand. The old FL lenses and a few FD zooms I have don't have filters on them.

236
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II [CR1]
« on: July 14, 2014, 12:59:06 PM »
I am sticking with my non-stabilized 400mm f/5.6L until I can afford an f/4 supertelephoto.. I would not advise beginning birders to start with a non-stablized lens. unless they have lots of patience.
I keep hoping to see an updated version of that lens..

Yes, IS would make all the difference.

237
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II [CR1]
« on: July 14, 2014, 05:42:09 AM »
There's another advantage too, the curent design pushes the centre of balance way forwards and the tripod collar is right at the back of this lens towards the rear mount. Hopefully the newer design will address this.

This is what makes the current design such a great motorsports lens IMHO. I agree it's not great for tripod use, but the lens is fantastic to handhold and track objects. The lengthening effect helps to stabilize.


238
Cool, will get the IS 4.

70-300 is not sharp enough at wider end and I don't need 300mm for anything.

OP already choose the 70-200 IS4, so we could actually close this topic.


...to be honest, there isn't any losers here, all three lenses are top tier and we really are splitting hairs between them. There has never been so much top end choice as we have available to us these days.

True, for me it boils down to this:

70-200 f/2.8 IS II: This lens's f/2.8 and prime lens image quality allows me to forego a bunch of primes in these focal lengths. It's also the best event/reportage lens. Comes at a price but is the absolute king and works fabulously with a 1.4 teleconverter..

70-300L: Get this one for versatility and compactness; the ideal travel tele-zoom with stunning image quality. The placement of the focus ring near the camera body makes this a little awkward to use if you like to (fine-tune) focus manually.

70-200 f/4 IS: The excellent 70-200 for people with smaller weight and /or budget tolerance. The only reason not to get this is if you already own one of the two other lenses (which is why I've not owned one of these personally).

239
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: A Summary of Sigma Lens Rumors
« on: July 14, 2014, 04:44:51 AM »
Nice sky in the second one. Now I can't stop thinking about this lens :). Could be GAS infection.

That's the way GAS works, anyway if you think your creativity is enhanced by such a lens, you should go ahead and buy one. I personally think the new price is a bit steep at the moment (€619 in the Netherlands, somehow this lens is getting more and more expensive to buy new) but it's a good lens to pick up second hand if you can find a nice and clean copy.

240
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II [CR1]
« on: July 14, 2014, 04:35:10 AM »
I used and liked my 100-400 but it frustrated me.  Maybe I don't have one of the "good" copies but there have been many times when the image is fabulous.  But, there seem to be many more times when the image is not that good.  My frustration peaked during my trip to Denali last year.  I just could not get the IQ I was searching for and now would like to repeat that trip someday since I got the 300ii.  Here's one of the "better" images I got using the 100-400 at 400 with the 1.4x.  In fairness, these critters were way far away but I think I can do better.

So, do I go for the 100-400ii or not?  We will see how it fares if and when it arrives and at what price.

Are you sure that the lens is to blame? Maybe the light was bleak, and contrast may have been reduced by too much humidity (or dense clouds of moquito's! :P ) in the air. Shooting long range is very susceptible to atmospheric conditions.

Pages: 1 ... 14 15 [16] 17 18 ... 94