Messages

46

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: "I am boycotting Nikon" campaign

« on: April 13, 2013, 08:29:27 AM »

I hate guns, so I shoot with a CANON 

47

Site Information / Re: Minimum CR Forum IQ?

« on: April 11, 2013, 12:01:11 PM »

2.8 is OK I guess provided a red L follows 

Tsss, are we becoming elitist now? 

I'm all for 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6, it's not 'how big' your IQ (Image Quality) is, it's what you do with it

48

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Just picked up a ligtly used 40D as a back up for my 7D!

« on: April 10, 2013, 03:12:59 PM »

The 40D was my first DSLR, and looking back at the photo's I took with it, it was a great camera! The 50D when it came out was of no interest to me - the 40D beats it in IQ.

After I got my 5D2 I sold the 40D, then started missing it for the crop factor. I then got a 7D and haven't really looked back at the 40D. Although... I did then buy a 400D for light travel use. The 400D is reminiscent of the 40D in that it uses the same sort of sensor (but with only Digic II, makes less good use of it).

Owning the 400D now is an eye opener, it's a convenient little camera but I am very happy I went with the more expensive 40D at the time.

49

Lens Gallery / Re: Canon EF 35mm f/2

« on: April 09, 2013, 02:03:05 AM »

Thanks for the samples in this topic, I've been teetering on the edge of getting a new copy, and now I'm really compelled to do so.

Teetering done, lens ordered! Yee-ha! 

I think you'll be pleased with it's performance, optically it is good; just doesn't have a 'snob' value.

Below is our latest picture shot on the 35mm f2 and below that a comparison we shot on the 35mm L f1.4 of the chapel at Marlborough College ( where the Duchess of Cambridge - nee Kate Middleton - was at school).

At f8 to 11 there is no difference.

It is a great little lens To be honest I expect to use it most at about f/2.8 to f/5.6 and not to stop it down all that much beyond about f/9. Its main uses will be travel, street, low light and as a contingency lens that can always find a place in my bag (like the 50 mm f/1.8 Mk I). Yes, (small) size does matter!!!

50

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 35mm f/2.0

« on: April 08, 2013, 03:59:28 PM »

In short, I've changed my mind. No 40 for me. Too tight, too slow.

I've reviewed the photo's I took over a year ago with my old 35mm f/2 and a lot of those were OOF due to AF problems that I think are the result of wear and tear on the tired old lens I had, but those shots that were focused on target are definitely good enough for my purposes.

The 40 mm is not going to cut it with f/2.8 and no IS - and the new 35mm f/2 IS is too expensive and bulky for my purposes. I'll give it another think over but chances are I'll mail-order the 'methusalem' 35 very soon

Hence, I am again considering a new 35mm f/2 optic.

To round off this topic - I've ordered the 35 and included the hood  The wider aperture and mechanical drive of the focus ring won me over. Besides, it's a nice partner for my 50 mm f/1.8 Mk I, and they can share the EW-65II hood!

51

Lens Gallery / Re: Canon EF 35mm f/2

« on: April 08, 2013, 03:54:18 PM »

Thanks for the samples in this topic, I've been teetering on the edge of getting a new copy, and now I'm really compelled to do so.

Teetering done, lens ordered! Yee-ha! 

52

Lens Gallery / Re: Canon EF 35mm f/2

« on: April 08, 2013, 11:45:22 AM »

I know there was a thread on images from this humble little lens in 2011, but it appears to have been held in such contempt there were zero replies !!

With all the excitement around the arrival of the new 35 f2 IS and the Sigma f1.4, how about posting your best shots taken with the old 35 f2 ?

Well, as I'm considering getting one of these again (I may have had a dud before), I recently started a thread on this lens here: http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=13894

Thanks for the samples in this topic, I've been teetering on the edge of getting a new copy, and now I'm really compelled to do so.

It's clear that the bokeh, when stopped down, is not all that smooth, and the corners are not that sharp at wider apertures but then again the small size and weight means this lens promises pictures that cannot be taken otherwise

53

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 35mm f/2.0

« on: April 07, 2013, 01:21:21 PM »

Wow, never seen the 35 f2 receive so much attention !

Is this like great artists or composters ? Their work is never fully appreciated until they are dead 

It may be more alive than you think - today was another day where I was out shooting (old army bunkers) and having to choose between my 50 mm f/1.8 and Sigma 20 mm f/1.8 I found myself wanting a 35 mm. I settled on the 20 today because the framing for the 50 was way too tight.

In short, I've changed my mind. No 40 for me. Too tight, too slow.

I've reviewed the photo's I took over a year ago with my old 35mm f/2 and a lot of those were OOF due to AF problems that I think are the result of wear and tear on the tired old lens I had, but those shots that were focused on target are definitely good enough for my purposes.

The 40 mm is not going to cut it with f/2.8 and no IS - and the new 35mm f/2 IS is too expensive and bulky for my purposes. I'll give it another thinkover but chances are I'll mail-order the 'methusalem' 35 very soon

Hence, I am again considering a new 35mm f/2 optic.

54

Lenses / Re: Canon Cinema CN-E lenses compared to Canon EF

« on: April 06, 2013, 03:58:07 PM »

Thanks neuro, that´s sad I thought it might have a higher optical quality and deliver a higher resolution with a nice low DOF .

Most of what you're paying for is lack of focus breathing, accurately calibrated focus markings, excellent internal gearing, and standardized build/size and transmission across the line (e.g., so T/3.2 gives identical exposure with any cine lens).  In short, benefits for shooting a production film.

Having to meet all these extra demands to me implies that -despite the premium price-, optical quality may be compromised a little if you look at the needs of a stills photographer. After all in any design, trade offs have to be made between different functionalities, there is no one tool that does it all perfectly.

Of course this is personal interpretation. I haven't physically seen let alone held a CN-E lens, but my guess is if you're fanatical about canon and cinema, this is obviously the way to go (and don't forget to bring a big pile of $$$).

55

Lenses / Re: I bit the bullet!

« on: April 06, 2013, 03:50:41 PM »

I've been struggling with getting a longer lens for way too long.  I have debated 300 f4 vs. 70-300 L vs. 400 f5.6 vs. 100-400 vs. 70-300 DO (not too much consideration) along with the TC issue (I have the Canon 1.4 but would need a Kenko to use with some of the above).  You see what I have below.

Thought I'd settled on the 70-300 L after taking some shots of the moon with my 70-200+TC last week.  The night was cloudy but the shots were not too bad with cropping post (BTW, the Redged legs are great but I'll probably up the ballhead in the future).  I knew what I wanted and was just waiting for the right price. 

Then, the 2 day Canon refurb sale comes up.  As I was ready to buy a 70-300 L, I had a quick change of heart and purchased the 100-400!  Should arrive soon.  I truly hope there is no "buyer's remorse," but my thoughts were to expand my options with some IS and little overlap.  We'll see.

100-400 is the best way to reach 400mm on a budget. About 2 years back I was in the same type of situation and went for the 100-400, happy ever since

56

Lenses / Re: Migration from zooms to primes...your suggestions?

« on: April 04, 2013, 08:33:54 AM »

dont.
stay with your optics.

a) upgrade the 24-70 + 70-200 to the II-versions, it's worth the money!

b) add a 14mm (if you need it)
c) get a 50mm
d) get a 100mm macro
changing optics on the job sucks if you have 2 do it too often.
you don't have 4 bodies, do you?

+0.75 I would suggest to go full frame first. You can sell the 24-70 and get a 35 or 50 mm prime instead. Keep the 7D for convenience (it's nice to have 2 bodies so you can swap FL's without changing lenses. The crop gives you an extra function for each lens) In the end that will save you changing glass twice. For the 14 mm I would suggest the Samyang to save lots of $$ (add an AF confirmation chip for MF convenience).

Check which FF equivalent focal lengths you use most before deciding between a 35 or 50mm.

57

Lenses / Re: Is the upcoming 50mm F/2 IS USM for me?

« on: April 03, 2013, 10:53:38 AM »

Still rocking a 20+ year old 50mm 1.8 first version.  Build in Japan with the metal mount.  Clean, fast , reliable & sharp. Only fault is the 5 blade shutter makes crappy bokeh.  I am waiting for a reason to replace it.  A $1,200 lens, even if it's 1.2L is not a good enough reason.  A 1.4, for $400, even if a tad sharper in the after 2.8 is not a good reason.  a 2.5 with 1/2 frame macro, and sharp, for $500 was a good reason.  So I bought one of those too.  I'm really hoping for a hyper-sharp 1.4 with IS that does not break the bank.  Guess I will be holding onto that 1.8 until the first price drop on any new 50mm

The 1.8 Mk I truly is a brilliant little lens, I'm very happy with my immaculate copy

58

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: When you get a new Body (Camera) and Lenses, what do you do to check it out

« on: April 03, 2013, 01:55:51 AM »

I take an evening to sit down and configure/learn the controls on the camera. With a new lens I'll take some 'real world' test shots in and around the house but nothing involving test charts or the like. Then I'll usually take it out on a foto-shoot the next weekend, always nice to use new gear Any fault should quickly become apparent if you start using the stuff before the return period is over.

59

Lenses / Re: Is the upcoming 50mm F/2 IS USM for me?

« on: April 02, 2013, 05:54:11 AM »

i must have missed the rumour!
is there a CR rated rumour about a 50 f2 IS?

I don't think so, but it's fairly safe to assume a new '50' in the style of the 24/28/35 is around the corner

60

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Digital Film (for use in old camera's)

« on: April 01, 2013, 04:41:32 PM »

Already invented as well  - a digital back?

Yes, but not generally applicable as would be the 'digital film'