Messages

376

EOS Bodies / Re: on the verge of buying, just need some final moral support

« on: February 04, 2013, 01:49:51 PM »

While a camera body is never an "investment" (lenses are more so), I feel 5D3 is likely to hold its value better.

Given only a few hundred dollars seperate it from 6D, 5D3 may keep you growing for longer in the FF world.

As RLphoto said, waiting is always an option. But only you can assess the balance between waiting, value, and your photographic needs. A standing recommendation is to never buy something that you cannot comfortably afford. The fact you are considering an FF, however, suggests you may be within striking range. Good luck!

377

Lenses / Re: Resistance to Larger Filter Size, Kills Great Lenses?

« on: February 03, 2013, 12:25:48 PM »

This thread is just silly.  There is no reason whatsoever for a 24-70/2.8 IS to have or need a larger front element than a 24-70/2.8 non-IS.

Also, some of the posts give the impression that a front elelement over 90mm is a done deal and build further on that soft-cheese foundation.  I think the 72mm, 77mm, and 82mm filters (and the legacy smaller sizes) will be the consumer L lens range for many years to come.

378

Site Information / Re: Moderators: You are Too Sensitive

« on: February 03, 2013, 12:00:49 PM »

I visit this forum to become a better photographer - not to be subjected to the "the internet is a big free-for-all, get lost if you don't like me" movement. And that is not even considering that such behaviour is not just brutally offensive, but also inherently contradictory.

+1   Amen!

379

Lenses / Re: Resistance to Larger Filter Size, Kills Great Lenses?

« on: February 03, 2013, 11:55:45 AM »

Sort of like that pimped-out nifty-fifty!

LOL... winter is awful and lasts way too long and with lenses that aren't weather sealed, I have used strips of stretch parafilm at the lens/mount-joint or the whole lens if it is internally focusing.

Granted, it doesn't look as clean as the pimped out nifty-fifty you posted.
It looks like ghetto bandaid holding up the lens and falls off more often than not.

380

Site Information / Re: Moderators: You are Too Sensitive

« on: February 03, 2013, 12:22:07 AM »

Moderators: Grow up please!!!

Totally Disagree...they don't have to grow up. They are in fact behaving AS grown ups in removing the posts.

Just because you have a thick skin doesn't mean others should be forced to endure racist rants...

What is acceptable is determined by those who feel offended...not by those who dish it out or stand on the sidelines and snigger or support such posts under whatever guise.

History is replete with bullies and racist- and sexist-intimidators who suggest "grow up please, it is just a joke".

Recognize hate when you see it. Call out people by name when you see it. It is the only way to stop hate from being pawned off as being a joke!

Hate doesn't require "growing up" ...it requires stamping out!

381

Site Information / Re: Moderators: You are Too Sensitive

« on: February 03, 2013, 12:09:47 AM »

It ended with the racist rant. Most countries have laws about that.... to allow it to remain, particularly after the moderator was made aware, is to invite legal action against CanonRumors.

The moderator is not just within his rights to remove the post, he is required by law. Kudos moderator.

+1 to that!
Keep up the good work moderators! That thread needed to go!

382

Lenses / Re: Resistance to Larger Filter Size, Kills Great Lenses?

« on: February 02, 2013, 06:11:44 PM »

* compatibility: 82mm filters fit into all my lens caps, from the 70-300L to the 17-40L - with a 95mm nd/polarizer I'd have to shoot w/o any lens hood which I don't like because of protection & flare.

You lost me with the lens cap thing... neither 70-300L nor 17-40L have 82mm filters.

383

Lenses / Re: 16-35 f/2.8II vs 17-40 f/4

« on: February 02, 2013, 04:00:48 PM »

If you can afford the few extra $$$, 16-35II is a no brainer. Just get it.

Also dampen your expectations as both are UWA's and expecting ultra "crisp" images from corner to corner is setting yourself up for a disappointment. These are both great lenses and do their job very well. If you are realistic, either of them will make you happy.

384

Lenses / Re: Resistance to Larger Filter Size, Kills Great Lenses?

« on: February 02, 2013, 03:40:53 PM »

I think 82mm is believable; 90+ mm not so much.  Canon lens designers would have not wandered that far even conceptually...Canon R&D is not an academic institution...some of these critical parameters would have been set early on, even before time was allocated for them to waste. 82mm will keep them in the 16-35II range and will not come as a surprise.

I generally shy away from UV filters, the only ones of concern would be CPL and some ND's.  And I already did all that with the 16-35II...and so have probably many others. So 82mm will not be a new hurdle. Canon for that reason will try and stay with 82 IMHO, if I were to hazard a guess. Some of my hard core friends use "filter systems" and would not view larger mm as a deal breaker.

Having said that, a heavy, expensive, 24-70mm range is not something I am keenly waiting on.

385

Lenses / Re: 70-200 f4 IS

« on: February 02, 2013, 02:43:20 PM »

Anyone know how old this lens is, and when it's due to be updated?

One of the handful of lenses that is higly regarded in the line up. 

It is rather recent from 2006, so highly unlikely it will be upgraded in the next few years.

386

Lenses / Re: A Hands on Review of the Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Autofocus Lens

« on: February 02, 2013, 12:01:21 PM »

i do wonder about the 1.4 though. is it really as mushy as the 1.8? i really would be shocked if it were. can the color rendering of the 1.4 be as awkward as the 1.8? 

Can't comment on f1.8...but I have owned both the 50L and 50 f1.4. The debate here on 50L aside, I use 35L as a standard lens, and 50mm focal length, whatever the lens brand or model, is not something I go to often. I hang on to the Canon 50 f1.4 as the only 50mm now as it is not a major investment that is being wasted and performs well for its low price.

Someone shared a Sigma 50 f/1.4 wide open shot recently in a different post and I posted a similar Canon f/1.4 subsequently. Both posts have full frame and center crops. These are just snaps and are not artsy-fartsy shots with models or careful lighting, nor can they be compared head-to-head given the variables involved. So take it with a grain of salt. And as for color rendering there is tons of red/crimson in the house, so make of it, what you will.

Sigma 50 f/1.4:
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=12608.msg224867#msg224867

Canon EF 50 f/1.4
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=12608.msg227087#msg227087

387

Lenses / Re: Which 50mm (with AF) is best from f/1.4 - f/2.0?

« on: February 01, 2013, 05:12:41 PM »

Wide open f/1.4 taken with the basic Canon EF 50 f/1.4 lens.

Full frame and the center crop (she signed the release forms just fine once I held the food back for a day or two). Not an artistic effort, just a snap to test the lens.

Had to sharpen it on LR, but this is good performance wide open (f/1.4) given the low price.

388

Lenses / Re: Please explain the need for f2.8 zooms

« on: January 30, 2013, 08:19:05 PM »

The standard lens requirement for shooting events/weddings seem to be a combination of 24-70/28 and 70-200/2.8, I read both are nailed to a pro's camera 90% of the time (though I have problems doing the maths :-))

I disagree with your basic presmise that  24-70 and 70-200 are "nailed" to wedding photographer's SLR's...and are "must-have" lenses. This is simply not accurate.

One wedding photographer I know uses his crop body and just two EF-S lenses and has a bag full of speedlights and radio gear ...he looks through my L lenses and smirks... "so, more toys I see?"  Another is an old timer who can pick his L-lenses from his oversized bag, but what sticks out in my mind is not his lens collection...but what he said about the amateurish need for razor thin DOF of f/1.2 on every occation...to paraphrase:

"You want a DOF where the bride appears to stand out amongst her guests, not so shallow a DOF that she apears to stand alone at her own party; it would be rather sad and a terrible waste of effort to have invited all those people!" (P.S. This gentleman also uses for the bride's portraits a softfocus prime 135 f/2.8!!!)

So it is almost a cliché to say that wedding photographers "must have" 24-70 f/2.8 or 70-200 IS II.  In fact, f/4 or higher would serve better at many moments.  For portraits and "beauty shots" probably faster lenses ranging in f/1.2 to f/2.8 work best, but a wedding is more than just portraits.

Many wedding photographers worth their salt and established in their business would have several speedlites well placed and programmed ahead of time across the hall and will also want some background DOF so it doesn't look like the couple is on their own.

Just my 2 cents.

389

Animal Kingdom / Re: Kitty

« on: January 30, 2013, 03:17:26 PM »

Listen up!

I am disgusted by all these good quality L lenses you sad sad cat people are wasting on these…these… rats with hair!!!  And displaying such waste in public too!!! Aren't you even ashamed!? Seriously, people, pull yourself together !!! 

Now on a completely unrelated note, here is our house rat snapped with some lenses of ill repute.   

135L
70-200L f/2.8 II
70-300L  (last one on an old Rebel body)

390

Lenses / Re: Lens Help..EF 28mm f1.8 any good?

« on: January 30, 2013, 11:03:07 AM »

I agree...this lens has unfairly gained a bad rep...typically from those who have read the reviews and haven't used it. Or have tried it, but with a biased view and an unrealistic expectation of L-quality. The CA issue is true but is overblown and is easily corrected. Even wide open the center is sharp and gets sharper still stopped down just to f2 orf2.8.

As for corners, if one is fair, some softness is to be expected with wide angles and my 35L is soft in the corners! And 28mm is even wider and this lens is not even an L.

The build is better than the other consumer lenses, while not as heavy as say 24II or 35L, this lens will feel solid if you handle it...it doesn't feel cheap. Again, some expect it to be the L build without paying for the L.

Ironically, "mood wise",  this lens comes into its own on full frame, corner issues notwithstanding. And you can't beat f1.8 at this wide a focal length.

Canon keeps this lens in production for a reason. In spite of all the armchair punditry, this lens is a steady seller and a good performer on FF and doubles as a normal lens on crop bodies.

Not perfect, but highly underrated.