Messages

541

Lenses / Re: Does a lens hood reduce the light?

« on: November 10, 2011, 09:02:44 PM »

To be fair, I think @texphoto is pointing out that in a zoom lens such as a 70-200mm the lens hood limits the angle of incident light to the front element the same regardless of the internal positions of the zoom mechanism.  This much is true.   However, he's not correct in his statement (I'm paraphrasing) that the zoom position doesn't matter at all.  Clearly, at 200mm the front element is being exposed to a far greater angle of incident light than will be in the field of view of the lens which is how flare is created

You guys are missing the point entirely. If you are shooting a 70-200 zoom, and you have the stock hood: you have 2 choices:  Use the hood or don't.   Which of these 2 choices will better control flair at 70mm? Using the Hood.  Which will control flair better at 200mm?  Using the hood.  In fact, if the hood is preventing all flair at 70mm, I will guarantee there is no flair when zoomed to 200mm assuming no other changes.

Now if you want to argue that you should not use the hood you have because a theoretical 200mm only hood (that you do not have) would be better than the stock hood, then you are right from a theoretical standpoint, but wrong from a reducing flair/practical/not just being difficult standpoint. Now if anyone here owns a 200mm only hood for their 70-200, I will... eat a bug/admit defeat/ etc  Whatever.

542

Lenses / Re: Does a lens hood reduce the light?

« on: November 10, 2011, 04:06:04 PM »

Even if the hood were designed to perfectly fit the edges of the image, and zoom as the lens does (a few do this, Canon 24-70 2., it would not protect 100% fom flair. 

Hoods provide some protection from flair, not 100%, but it is a whole lot better than none.  A gobo can still be useful.

The hood of a 70-200 is shading the front element exactly the same amount at 70 vs 200.  So it makes no sence to say  hoods protect mostly/only at the wide end of zooms.

543

Lenses / Re: Does a lens hood reduce the light?

« on: November 10, 2011, 12:14:20 PM »

As long as you have the right lens hood, it will only improve the photo.

It is possible to put the wrong a hood onto a lens that will vignette the photo, but as long as you use Canon's or a good knock off, you'll be fine.  And you'd see that in the viewfinder anyway.

Lens hoods also provide some measure of protection in drops and bumps.  I highly recommend them.

544

Lenses / Re: 400mm 2.8 L (non- IS)

« on: November 10, 2011, 12:10:10 PM »

That is a shame, but good you did not get something you did not want.  Think about a 300mm f4 IS as a way to get your feet wet in the long side of the L world.  I kept mine after getting my 400, and it is a great little brother.

545

Site Information / Re: Problems uploading images.

« on: November 10, 2011, 11:51:02 AM »

Can someone explain the best way to add an image that is hosted on Flickr? 

546

Lenses / Re: Tripod Collar 70 300L is

« on: November 09, 2011, 09:08:45 PM »

Identical experiance to wicki.  The real canon ones I have on 2 other lenses are metal, preciece and tough. The fake one I have doesn't fit well, is lightwieght plstic, and just feels wrong.  I don't use it.

Are there better fake ones than others?  I don't know. 

547

Lenses / Re: Changing lenses quickly or safely in the field

« on: November 09, 2011, 10:01:29 AM »

Lord, people like to over complicate things.  The way I change lenses is to have a good bag on my side with the top open, remove lens on camera, put in it's proper place in the bag.  Move the end cap from the new lens to the old lens, install the new lens on the camera.  With a good camera strap, you can do this quickly with one hand, other hand holding onto the side of the mountain/screaming 5 year old/sidearm etc.

Now when I switched from Nikon to Canon a few years ago, and the lenses have to turn in a different direction, things got difficult for a while.

548

Lenses / Re: Two lenght or not two lenght

« on: November 09, 2011, 09:47:21 AM »

The 100-400 is a good nature/wildlife lens, but is a poor choice for sports.  I would try to get a 70-200 f2.8, be it Canon, or Sigma IS, or no IS depending on your budget.

I think it is a mistake to try and build a kit in one big purchase.  Buy one lens/camera/flash at a time giving yourself a chance to make each purchase with as much fothought as possible.

549

EOS Bodies / Re: 1DX: obviating the need for more expensive lenses?

« on: November 07, 2011, 08:47:47 PM »

I'm sure the 1DX will have great low light performance, but I doubt it will be revolutionary.  And I really think it's something we need to see tested extensivly and independantly, not just listen to Canon.

As much as I enjoyed reading about how much more awsome you are than your fellow shooters, why not just show us some photos?

550

Lenses / Re: 400mm 2.8 L (non- IS)

« on: November 07, 2011, 07:50:52 PM »

Sounds like a great price if it's in good shape. 

I have the IS V1, and love it.  You should pick up the 1.4X and/or 2.0X teleconverters.  I have both V IIs of these, and they give you a whole lot of flexibility.  IS is really nice, but paying for it is really not!

551

Lenses / Re: 600mm f/4L IS VS 600mm f/4L IS II

« on: November 06, 2011, 07:39:28 PM »

While we are on the subject, why the 600?  Why not the 400 2.8 and the 1.4X and 2.0X teleconverters.  That gives you a 400mm f2.8, 560mm f4 and 800mm f5.6 in a slightly heveir, but slightly cheaper package? 

552

Lenses / Re: canon is not for poor film makers anymore! 47,000$??!!!

« on: November 06, 2011, 12:24:55 PM »

CN-E14.5-60mm T2.6 L S (EF mount) lens for 45,000 to 47,000$ each?
what did happened to you, canon?, I waited for an year to see better cam than 5d, in an affordable range!
but finally what we have is FULL HD cam for estimated 20,000$ price range!!

I laugh at myself for being poor.

So canon has prodced some new products that are out of your price range.  They have not stopped selling the EOS line of cameras that opened HD video to so many users.  The fact that the T3i is a better video camera than the 5DII speaks volumes about the future of low cost high quality video.   And this new high end (or low pro end) will pay huge dividends to the low end in the near future.

Ask yourself what you can do with the equipment you can afford, and then think about why you have not done it yet, and change that.

553

United States / Re: Telephoto Zoom or Prime?

« on: November 04, 2011, 02:19:58 PM »

I'd pick up a Sigma 80-200.mm f2.8 while they are still $800 new, or even look for a used one.  I think you need the zoom.

554

EOS Bodies / Re: Rain Photos - Wet Camera Photos/Stories

« on: November 02, 2011, 09:39:26 PM »

Just to clarify, this thread is for photos taken in the rain? Not photos of wet kit?

Yes, mostly.  My point is that people talk up the waterproof qualities of their gear, show photos of wet gear, and then show photos taken in nice sunny conditions.  Lets see the photos you took when you got your camera wet.  And tell us why you kept shooting.

555

Lenses / Re: 24-105mm and ERR01

« on: November 01, 2011, 06:56:28 PM »

Happened to me at about the 2 year mark.  Sucks.  About $225 a the place i used.