Messages

31

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 6D Specs Leaked?

« on: September 14, 2012, 11:58:19 AM »

Whew, this is getting confusing.  I know lenses are more important than the body but only those knowledgeable will realize that.  Newbies will always opt for the best body they can get because of the hype.  Before you know it, they're invested in the system already.  Should I fear that one day, Canon system won't be as popular as before?  It happened with Kodak, IBM and Pepsi.  Will it happen again?

Yeah, the only thing keeping me in Canon is my lenses.  If I was starting out right now I would totally go Nikon.  Not just because the bodies are better right now but for the reason that Nikon seems to understand what the consumer wants better than Canon. 

32

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II Arrived

« on: September 14, 2012, 10:36:28 AM »

What I'd like to know is how the extending part of the lens react when the body + lens pressure is put on the lens hood. Juste like in the picture. The full weight of the camera is resting on a moving lens part...  On the old 24-70, thehood was fixed to the lens my body, not the extending part.

I worry that the extending part if the new 24-70 might loosen up and degrade the performance of the lens in a long run.

it is now just like every other extending Canon zoom.  After years of use the 24-105 has been just fine as is the 70-300L and the 17-55 I had with my crop cams. 

33

Lenses / Re: Anyone heard when BH, Adorama or Amazon will ship 24-70 II?

« on: September 13, 2012, 01:57:46 PM »

Amazon typically runs a couple of months behind on new high end photo items.  Adorama and B&H are among the first.  Small local shops also seem to be pretty fast.  They only order one at a time, and Canon seems to want to support them.

And the fear in this is that Amazon is supposed to be adding sales tax on all orders as of this Sunday. In CA in my area that's 9.75% or about an extra $225.  Its been a nice ride in the past, but those days are coming to an end. At this point, it makes sense to buy from your local brick & mortar store and skip the shipping costs.

And not to mention Amazon's legendary way of taking a >2K lens and putting it in a much larger box with no packing and shipping UPS ground. 

34

Lenses / Re: The Raw Data: The EF 24-70 f/2.8L II is the Sharpest Zoom Canon Has Ever Made

« on: September 12, 2012, 06:49:23 PM »

Much like Canon L lenses, crack cocaine is also considered too expensive by many of its users.

Ironic thing is, L lenses are almost as addictive.   

If I never heard of this lens I would be perfectly happy with the 24-105L but knowing there is something out there that is as sharp as the 24-70 II makes me think silly things like I need to sell my 24-105L and 35L so I can be ready for this. 

35

Lenses / Re: The Raw Data: The EF 24-70 f/2.8L II is the Sharpest Zoom Canon Has Ever Made

« on: September 12, 2012, 02:26:20 PM »

Late to the thread, but a few points:

1) Boo to people describing Roger's data as conjured or impossible to achieve.  +1 to anyone who backs Roger, who is an absolute nerd/enthusiast who very transparently shared his perspective, methods, etc.  This guy is a friend to photogs.  Further, being at LR gives him the chance to test 5, 10 of the same lens at once, which many 'experts' on line do not do.  My trust factor with his data is therefore very, very high.

2) To the 'it can't be better than a prime' folks, you are correct in principle, but throw the latest tech, design and (as an engineer, I'm assuming) spectacularly tight tolerances at the problem, and yes, a zoom can beat a prime.  It just happened.

• To that end, in theory with that same level of tech/design/tolerance we should see *even sharper* primes down the road.  As I am moving from zooms to primes, I find this attractive, though daunting for what the price might be.
  
• As a side comment, that same thinking has seen Canon recently produce non-L lenses that rival or beat their L counterparts.  The new 24mm IS and (especially) 28mm IS lenses are right up there -- again, just with sharpness -- as the L glass of similar length.  They aren't weather-sealed, or produce the same bokeh, but the sharpness is there.

3) Sharpness is great, but it isn't everything.  We also need to consider AF, carrying weight, size in the bag, the color this thing produces, the new hood size (refreshingly smaller despite reversing the telescoping), the #$!# decision to go to 82mm filters (though I'm sure that's part of the math to get the sharpness we want), etc.  The user experience should be about more than just sharpness, or we'd all be carrying howitzers around as our walkarounds.

In all, I expected Canon to pants the Mk I as it's 10 years old.  I was not, however, expecting it to be this doggone sharp. 

I'm not drinking any Kool Aid here -- it's unbelievably pricey and we as consumers need to weigh purchasing decisions carefully.  But on a core metric of sharpness, kudos to Canon.  Now make me a super small wide L lens, dammit!

- A

Technology marches on.  Of Course someone who just spent thousands on a couple of L Primes is going to dismiss the Prime-sharpness claim right off the bat.  Personally I would have thought the fact the 70-200 2.8 IS II beats out most all primes in it's focal range would have made it easier to accept the same from the 24-70 II but the human nature to hate what you don't havde to make your-self feel better is too strong for reason to overcome. 

36

Lenses / Re: 70-300L or 70-200 2.8 IS II?

« on: August 15, 2012, 10:54:50 AM »

I have both too,

The 70-200 IS 2.8 II is sharper (slightly) faster 1-2 stops, and focuses faster.  It is very heavy so if you ever have a situation where yo will be carrying it for an extended period of time you will not be happy. 

The 70-300L is still very sharp even wide open.  much smaller and lighter.  great range, fast focus, and still an L lens in every way. 

When I attend family picnics or sporting events where I want the speed and IQ and I can put it down I take the 70-200.  When I go to the zoo, hiking, Sea World with the family, etc the 70-300 comes with me. 

37

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Bird of prey eyeball and megapixels

« on: August 10, 2012, 10:16:06 AM »

Yeah it is funny, people are never happy unless they are able to rant about how bad the newest canon camera is.   Remember when the 15.1 MP 50D came out?  People were screaming their heads off saying that number of pixels was just too much and the noise was going to be unbearable and that they hoped canon does not stop selling the 40D because the 50D was going to be a flop.  Aaaaaand it turned out to be a great camera.

Earlier this year when the 5D3 came out people were crying and moaning that it has too few megapixels at 22 and that they were going to sell their lens collection at a loss to switch to the latest Nikon body...

Just a few weeks ago when the EOS-M was announced the same people were complaining that the compact camera aimed at beginners does not have every external button and control as the full sized bodies. 

No matter what comes out people will try and say it is the worst thing ever...

38

Lenses / Re: Worth buying Zeiss 35-70mm T*

« on: August 06, 2012, 03:17:51 PM »

Yes!  I have it and it is wonderful if you like the micro-contrasty Zeiss look.  it is great for landscapes and outdoors and the 'macro' mode gets you down to about 1:2.5 or so.  $525 seems to be slightly on the good side of normal prices for a copy in good condition.  If you decide you do not like it you can laways sell it on Fred Miranda for what you paid. 

39

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 135 f/1.8L IS

« on: August 01, 2012, 04:04:37 PM »

Why would a portrait lens need a focus limiting switch?  Isn't that a Macro thing? 

If it is real though, then Canon will be selling one to me! 

40

EOS Bodies / Re: first pic of canon mirrorless?

« on: July 20, 2012, 03:01:40 PM »

The only thing I am worried about with the EF adapter is lenses like the newer 70-200 2.8 IS II will suck the poor battery dry in no time at all. 

70-200 2.8 IS II 70-200 2.8 IS II Why would you want to use a big/bulky/heavy 70-200 2.8 IS II on a small/light camera

Yes that is an extreme example but valid, ok how about 70-300L or a 17-55IS.  Given the saturation of this market the biggest selling feature of this camera has to be the proposed dual purpose.  You can use it as a good compact camera AND you can use it with your EF lenses too.  If you just wanted a mirrorless and nothing else I think it would be better to go M4/3 because of the availability of different lenses  or to the Fuji models for looks and IQ. 

41

EOS Bodies / Re: first pic of canon mirrorless?

« on: July 20, 2012, 10:51:29 AM »

This is the camera that the Canon community has been holding their breath for?

Not holding my breath but it would be nice to have a nice light + compact camera to take with me and the family at the fair/ theme parks etc that can double as a back up body for my large collection of EF lenses.  If I did not already have so much invested in Canon it may not interest me at all given the other excellent cameras already available in this segment. 

42

EOS Bodies / Re: first pic of canon mirrorless?

« on: July 20, 2012, 10:39:27 AM »

If it has a 1.6x sensor and has an available adapter that controls EF lenses I will absolutely buy one.  The only thing I am worried about with the EF adapter is lenses like the newer 70-200 2.8 IS II will suck the poor battery dry in no time at all.  there is just no room in that thing for a battery big enough.  I am afraid that a EF to EF-m adapter will disable IS and/or AF (I hope I am wrong!). 

43

Lenses / Re: New Canon 50mm Coming? [CR1]

« on: July 18, 2012, 11:03:54 AM »

Oh I get the $850 pricing.  It is almost the exact  cost of getting a canon 50f1.4 breaking the focus mechanism out of warranty and then getting the Sigma 50.  I hate to be labeled a fan boy but if I can get Sigma 50 build and IQ with no focus issues I think it may be worth the $850.  Besides it will probably be $699 on the next round of rebates after its release.