January 25, 2015, 11:22:43 AM

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 - LetTheRightLensIn

Pages: 1 ... 118 119 [120] 121 122 ... 277
1786
Site Information / Re: The 10 Commandments of CR
« on: August 25, 2013, 04:57:25 PM »
Thou shalt not believe in false scores of DxoMark


Thou shalt remember that only lens scores from DxOMark and any overall summary scores are false and thou shalt believe in their individual sensor chart scores, for they are true and good.

1787
Lenses / Re: Why pick 70-200mm f/4l IS over 70-300mm f/4-5.6l IS?
« on: August 25, 2013, 04:43:55 PM »
70-300L is a true gem of the Canon system. No other system has such a lens. All the 70-300 for other systems are noticeably compromised in quality compared to 70-200 lenses.

1788
Lenses / Re: Why pick 70-200mm f/4l IS over 70-300mm f/4-5.6l IS?
« on: August 25, 2013, 04:41:17 PM »
OK,
Given one would benefit from the extra range-
So from what I've read the 70-300mm is as sharp as the 70-200mm f/4 IS through 70-200 at the minimum, [...]

TDP shows the 70-200 to be sharper at 200/4 than the 70-300 at 200/5.


Not on my tests, the 70-300L at 200mm f/5 was slightly sharper than the 70-200 f/4 IS at 200mm f/5 and noticeably sharper than the 70-200 f/4 IS at f/4, it also had less CA there (although the 70-300L has a lot more CA at 70mm, and yet it is also noticeably sharper at 70mm f/4 all the same; my 70-200 f/4 IS was definitely sharper at 135mm f/4.5 though).

My findings match Canon's MTF charts a lot more than TDP's do and they also match closer to what I've seen reported on a majority (but not all) blogs and to what photozone shows.

IMO, TDP either got the world's best 70-200 f/4 IS and/or very sub-par 70-300L and tamron 70-300 VC (all possible) or simply messed up their test or maybe tested them at like 4' to target or something weird.

1789
Lenses / Re: Why pick 70-200mm f/4l IS over 70-300mm f/4-5.6l IS?
« on: August 25, 2013, 04:36:54 PM »
The 70-300 is not f4 to 200, it is 70-103mm f4; 104-154mm f4.5; 155-228mm f5; 229-300mm f5.6; so if that is important to you then it could make a difference, as could the 38% more weight for the longer lens.
Yes - so with the 70-200 you gain a faster aperture in most of that below 200mm range, and if you throw a 1.4x TC in your bag, the two are comparable at the long end of the zoom:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=738&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=1&LensComp=404&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=7&APIComp=1

The 70-200 also benefits from a non extending design, and the combined weight of the 70-200 and 1.4x TC is just a bit lighter than the 70-300L (985g vs 1050g).

However, the 70-300 goes all the way out to 300mm, and if you're splitting hairs, it's slightly sharper there - plus, of course, there's no messing about with fitting/removing the TC to use all that range.

They are not comparable at the long end, the 70-300L is better unless you have outlier copies of either one or both. TDP either had a bad copy or messes up their 300mm tests. With my copies 70-300L was clearly better than 70-200 f/4 IS+1.4x TC III. The fact that TDP also had the 70-200 winning at 70mm f/4 also hints at something gone wrong. Most blogs have the 70-300L better at 280mm and at 70mm, wide open, so does photozone, so also implies Canon's own MTF charts.

Also at 280mm the 70-300L focuses 50% faster since you don't have the TC slow down.

and the 70-300l is much shorter when zoomed in.

1790
Lenses / Re: Why pick 70-200mm f/4l IS over 70-300mm f/4-5.6l IS?
« on: August 25, 2013, 04:34:17 PM »
OK,
Given one would benefit from the extra range-
So from what I've read the 70-300mm is as sharp as the 70-200mm f/4 IS through 70-200 at the minimum, perhaps even further out.  Also, while the 70-200mm is f/4 constant, again my understanding is the 70-300mm is f/4 up to 200mm.

So, even if the 200-300mm range is ever so slightly less sharp and is also f/5.6, since the overlapping range between the two lenses is basically the same I am not seeing any disadvantage with this lens vs the 70-200 f/4 is... Thoughts?

because the 70-300L is not f/4 up to 200mm  ;) it is f/5 by 200mm (OTOH the 70-200 f/4 IS is a slightly slow f/4 at 200mm, more like f/4.25)

the 70-200 is also a bit lighter, you have that constant aperture

but yeah the 70-300L is good, I did end up selling my 70-200 f/4 IS after getting the 70-300L, not needed to swap on a TC is nice, that is SUCH a pain (plus, if you still swap on a TC, on the 70-300 it gets you to 420mm!!)


1791
Site Information / Re: The 10 Commandments of CR
« on: August 24, 2013, 08:04:26 PM »


Thou shall not lay with a Nikonian.

;D;D

Hillarious !

Hah

(well not unless she looks like the Nikonian in that Nikon/Canon music video from a couple years ago :D)

1792
Site Information / Re: The 10 Commandments of CR
« on: August 24, 2013, 08:03:30 PM »
Quote
4. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbours dynamic range

4a. Nor thy neighbors 14-24mm

4.b. But thy neighbor shall (better) covet thy 24-70 II and 70-300L (I created them myself! And deemed them good!).

1793
The DR of the D600 was amazing... but I figure the successor to the 6D will surpass it and I will get that.

Don't hold your breath because Canon haven't demonstrated any significant gain in DR since the 5D Mark II was delivered.

Not since the 1Ds3 actually. The 50D and 5D2 were worse than the 40D/1Ds3 generation.
With the 6D they are finally back to where they had gotten to with the 1Ds3.

1794
Lenses / Re: How to clean lenses ?
« on: August 24, 2013, 04:53:43 AM »
Pop it in the dishwasher.

Not too much soap powder.

Does that only work with weather sealed lenses? ;D

Not at all, it actually works better for non-sealed lenses since the water and shape cleans all of the internal elements too of those ones.  ;D

1795
Lenses / Re: How to clean lenses ?
« on: August 24, 2013, 04:52:06 AM »
When I bought my 600D/T3i camera with 18-55mm lens, the seller used alcohol wipe and glasses microfiber cleaning cloth to clean both the LCD screen and camera lens. Is that safe ? Or should he have used something else ? Also, I didn't clean my lenses ever since I bought my camera, how often should I clean it and with what ?

spit and sandpaper is the best

but barring that, a chamois or micro-fiber cloth works great and a few drops of FormulaMC or the like if needed. Oh and first use one of those manual puff blower bulbs to try to blow off any sand or grit before rubbing that all over the lens surface

1796
Site Information / Re: The 10 Commandments of CR
« on: August 24, 2013, 04:49:46 AM »
You will not argue with Nuro. The scientist of this forum. :) Respect!

there are others....

1797
Site Information / Re: The 10 Commandments of CR
« on: August 23, 2013, 11:00:47 PM »
Quote
3. Thou shall bitch about any new lens announced by Canon
4. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbours dynamic range

I think those got lost in translation. It should be:

3. Thou shall bitch about not having they neighbors dynamic range until thy wizard render it upon you too.

4. Thou shalt not covet every new lens announced by Canon lest thy go bankrupt.

1798
Lenses / Re: Canon 24-105mm f/4 IS : Seller's remorse?
« on: August 23, 2013, 10:25:02 PM »
So I have a buyer lined up through CL to sell off my hardly-ever used 24-105mm for $800. Ever since purchasing the 24-70mm mk2, it has been gathering dust. I'm not lacking anything over that FL range, so it shouldn't bother me, but...

I just wonder, am I missing something obvious about this lens? I have wanted to love it since I bought it over a year ago. So many people on this forum and others extoll its virtues (IQ, versatility, IS). To be frank - I just haven't seen it. And I think it sounds great on paper - good FL range, IS, compactness. It SHOULD be my go-to walkaround lens. But it isn't.

I did the AFMA on focal, but I've never been able to get true sharpness from this lens in darn near any situation. My prior workhorse was a Canon 17-55mm 2.8 on a T3i, and I didn't observe signiciant difference in the "upgrade" to the 24-105 (although, I felt color was noticeably better).

I'd hate to have seller's remorse if there is some secret to its awesomeness I just haven't unlocked yet. Or maybe I just have a crap copy. I suppose since I'm getting about the same as I paid for it. No loss, and hopefully prices will be similar in the future if I want to try to jump in again. What do you think; will I regret it?

I've sold it three times  ;D and never a hint of seller's remorse! (buyer's remorse three times though, quick too, as no copy lasted more than 7 days in my house)

And man $800 for it? SELL IT SELL IT FAST! It's virtually impossible to get that much a new copy now, never mind used! Many used copies go $600 these days, even $550!!

1799
Lenses / Re: Best telephoto clarity for the money
« on: August 23, 2013, 05:33:42 PM »
If you can get a high enough shutter speed with the 400/5.6, that's sharper than the 300/4.  Both are very slightly sharper than the 100-400, but there is copy variation to consider, so you may find some 100-400s that best the 400/5.6.  The 70-300L is sharper than all three.

The superteles are on a different class, for IQ and cost. My 600/4L IS II delivers substantially better IQ than my 100-400L, my 70-300L, or the 300/4L IS that I used to own.

The 300mm are only sharper than the 100-400 if you can get close enough on a 5D3 to frame as desired. For birds that is often not the case. Nothing, no matter how sharp, makes up for 100mm. At comparable focal lengths yeah the 70-300L is sharper than the 100-400 though, same for the 300 f/4 and of course 300 2.8.

Have you actually tested the 300mm f/2.8 L II against the 100-400mm at 400mm to back up that statement?

Not that exact combo, but others, and believe me something has to be worse than a coke bottle and the other lens the sharpest lens in history to make up for 100mm. People just get confused by comparing pixels at 100% view and not comparing actual captured detail differences. The 100-400L is just not that much of a coke bottle at 400mm and sensor densities are not high enough at this time for even a perfect 300mm prime to make up for it.

Some claim the same thing for 200mm vs 300mm, that a 70-200 f/4 IS at 200mm, for instance, easily upscales to something better than any 300mm non-L to bring more detail. Not even close. Sure the 100% view looks sharper than from a 70-300 non-L or tamron 70-300 VC or a sigma 70-300 etc. but the actual total captured detail doesn't match the lenses that hit 300mm. Even the old 75-300 IS disaster would bring in a bit more total detail (although the hazy lack of contrast and CA and so on might be enough in that case that you wouldn't care that it brought in any more total detail).

1800
Lenses / Re: Canon EF-S 55-250 f/4-5.6 IS STM Announced
« on: August 23, 2013, 05:26:43 PM »
My Rebel 2000 has a plastic mount.

Pages: 1 ... 118 119 [120] 121 122 ... 277