Messages

1

Lenses / Re: Advice on which lens to upgrade/replace/add

« on: Today at 09:00:50 PM »

Interesting thoughts. The 3 primes (85, 100 and 135) did cross my mind several times. Perhaps its a good idea to buy used but in good condition and try them out, and sell it off later if not used much.

85L II + 70-200 f2.8 IS II are my fav for indoor portrait.
 
24-70 II + 135L is not a bad combo at all. Photo below was taken with 135L @ wide open.

Dylan, beautiful photo! I know you recently bought the 135, and you also have the 85. Right off the bat, what did you like most about the 135 over the 85?

The recent thread regarding the 14-24 and 16-50 lenses got me all excited, though it's still a rumor. I know I will definitely jump for the 16-50 (prefer non bulbous front element) if it's released and as stellar as the new 24-70 II or if it's mid frame is substantially better than the 16-35 II. Till then 16-35 II stays. Upgrading to 24-70 II just got more confusing if 16-50 is indeed in the works.

Upgrade the 24-70.
Give the 135L a try (I love mine....)
Are you a strobist? Take a look on a pair of 600rt's.

Choices. Have more fun than headache!

I am no strobist but I am trying to learn the art whenever I get the chance. Have not yet experimented with multiple flash.

2

Lenses / Advice on which lens to upgrade/replace/add

« on: Today at 07:11:58 AM »

Saved up enough for a 70-200 f2.8L IS II. Initially I thought I would replace my current 70-200 f2.8L (non IS) with the mark II. But now I am confused which lens to upgrade/replace/consolidate. I like to travel light, and given my travel habit (with family most of the time) I usually take around 2 lenses, a medium tripod, 1x ND filter and a remote trigger.

Travel kit (these two lens combination worked really well for me so far)
16-35 f2.8L II - Landscape
70-200 f2.8L - Landscape/portrait

Family & friends events kit
24-70 f2.8L (have not tried any other lens combination yet)
580 EX II

General walk-around
24-70 f2.8L
50 1.8 II

I would say all my lenses get almost equal amount of usage in a year, and I am pretty happy with these glasses. I guess I am trying to find out which one to upgrade first, or maybe add a prime. At one point I was thinking maybe get the 70-200 f2.8L IS II and a 1.4x Extender first. So my question is, if you were to upgrade one glass from the list, which one would you replace first. Also, if you were to add a glass (for e.g. travel, family events, walk-around, indoor portrait) to the list, then which would one would you consider? Hope I made sense, and thank you for your recommendation and advice.

3

Lenses / Re: Anyone Want an Improved 16-35mm over the much requested 14-24mm?

« on: June 14, 2013, 07:49:44 AM »

Definitely would like a 16-35 MKIII over 14-24 for few reasons

1) Non bulbous front element, so that we can use screw in filters.
2) the focal range 16-35 is just so much versatile and can be used in/for so many applications/purposes.
3) 82mm is the new 77mm (for those who also own 24-70 MKII).

Can't remember if there was any rumour regarding an update for this lens, was there?

4

5D MK III Sample Images / Re: Ultra long daytime exposures - 5D mkiii

« on: June 11, 2013, 09:57:16 AM »

One more from the trip


Slice of Heaven III by Dhanad Islam, on Flickr

Thanks Krob78 =)

5

Lens Gallery / Re: Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM

« on: June 11, 2013, 09:46:42 AM »

One more from the trip.


Slice of Heaven III by Dhanad Islam, on Flickr

6

Software & Accessories / Re: Advice on B+W 82mm 3.0 ND (10 Stop Filter)

« on: June 10, 2013, 08:00:00 AM »

I recently got the 82mm 10 stop from Haida. Got to know about this little gem from Dustin here in CR. It uses the same Schott glass B+W uses in their filters. The Haida filter is known to produce a slight blue cast, which I have not seen that much in hundreds of photos I had taken just a couple of weeks back. Here is a photo I took with the Haida filter on it, straight out of camera. The only thing I did was change the profile to 'Landscape'. I did not bother to play with the WB at the time of uploading this. Also, I could auto focus with the filter on with no problem.

However after taking nearly hundreds of photos with the filter on my recent trip, I did realize one thing. It often became annoying to take off the filter to take normal shots, and only finding yourself putting it back on for long exposure shots time and again (I was not carrying a second body). The filter only cost me $80, and it's MRC (Multi Resistant Coating). I did not notice any loss in detail or clarity. I too was waiting for Lee back then before getting this. Frame's quality - I felt B+W's brass frame is better, and noticeably heavier than Haida's one. I often stored the Haida filter in my jeans/jacket's pocket. It got knocked around or the glass got hit by something or the other quite a bit and did not get scratched once...yet. Overall I am pretty happy. I checked out some reviews of in a flickr group discussion thread before diving in. You could get some more insights regarding this in that group if you are interested.


Twilight and Tranquility II by Dhanad Islam, on Flickr

7

5D MK III Sample Images / Re: Ultra long daytime exposures - 5D mkiii

« on: June 09, 2013, 12:18:44 AM »

5D3 + 16-35 II. Used the 10 stop from Haida (Thanks to Dustin for the heads up).


Twilight and Tranquility II by Dhanad Islam, on Flickr

8

Lenses / Re: What is the next Canon lens you want or covet and why...

« on: June 08, 2013, 09:04:05 AM »

I thought of replacing my current 70-200 2.8L (non IS) with the 70-200 2.8L IS II. On the fence if should go for it or instead keep the existing 70-200 f2.8L and add the 85 1.2L II to my armory.

So possible list

70-200 f2.8L IS II (to replace the original 70-200 f2.8L)
24-70 f2.8L II (to replace the orginal 24-70 f2.8L)
85 f1.2L II (add the prime to my kit/replace the 50 f1.8 II).

9

Lens Gallery / Re: Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM

« on: June 07, 2013, 09:23:20 AM »

Few more from a recent trip.


Slice of Heaven II by Dhanad Islam, on Flickr


One Last View by Dhanad Islam, on Flickr


Twilight and Tranquility II by Dhanad Islam, on Flickr

10

Lenses / Re: Is the 16-35 L II worth its price?

« on: June 07, 2013, 02:54:57 AM »

isn't it really interesting how the 17-40 is exhibiting both 8 point and 14 point stars?

anyone know how that's possible?

EDIT: oh wait, the first image is the 24-105 based on exif

Lol, good catch. Thanks for the heads up. That photo was submitted to the 17-40L group by the user, should have double checked the exif. Thanks. >_<

Edit: I have removed the link to this photo. Thanks again.

11

Lenses / Re: Is the 16-35 L II worth its price?

« on: June 07, 2013, 01:20:37 AM »

However, when you have lightsources in your frame, I felt the sun-stars produced by the 16-35 II looked better than the sun-stars produced by the 17-40 stopped down to f8 and  onward. This aesthetic choice may vary from person to person.

this. 

Yes, I like the sunstars with the 16-35L II.  But, can we see some examples of the not-as-nice ones from the 17-40?

17-40 sunstars examples
http://www.flickr.com/photos/nblain/8916365476/#in/pool-17-40ff/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/28682226@N05/8970694376/#in/pool-17-40ff
http://www.flickr.com/photos/quichbill/8628416467/#in/pool-17-40ff

I kind of like this one though: http://www.flickr.com/photos/hoops510/8946512922/#in/pool-17-40ff

12

Lenses / Re: Is the 16-35 L II worth its price?

« on: June 06, 2013, 03:41:40 AM »

I recently bought the Canon 16-35 II, and had the opportunity to run it through it's paces. My 16-35 II is sharp in the center when stopped down, and I wish the mid frame was as sharp or at least close to the center sharpness. But it's still pretty good stopped down. Corners did not bother me much, but that's just me. However, when you have lightsources in your frame, I felt the sun-stars produced by the 16-35 II looked better than the sun-stars produced by the 17-40 stopped down to f8 and  onward. This aesthetic choice may vary from person to person. I also felt that my copy of the lens performed better at 35mm than at 16mm. By better I mean, images felt much crisper at 35mm. Would I drop this lens for something else? Yes, only if a 16-35 MKIII with performance as good as the recent 24-70 MKII is ever made. But that's just wishful thinking. If sunstars aren't your thing and you have no use of f2.8, then go for 17-40. My 2 cents.

13

Lenses / Re: Lens got sprayed with mists from waterfall. TODO?

« on: June 01, 2013, 04:36:49 PM »

Thanks folks. I cant rest my mind for now. I will be giving it another thorough check to make sure its nice and clean.

14

Lenses / Lens got sprayed with mists from waterfall. TODO?

« on: May 31, 2013, 11:51:02 PM »

Was shooting the Bridalveil Fall in Yosemite, and it was windier than usual that day. I was using the 16-35 II, and I had a ND filter on. After the shoot, I realized the mist from the waterfall nearly soaked the interior of the hood. Like soaked it pretty well enough that there was a small pool of water inside the hood, and front of the filter glass. I have wiped the lens down, but do I need to take extra measures to make sure its dried well enough. I guess I am a bit paranoid.

15

Software & Accessories / Re: Help! Fix or convert damaged RAW files =(

« on: May 29, 2013, 02:51:44 PM »

Tried opening in Canon's ImageBrowser EX, and in there the preview thumbnails of the corrupted RAW files are just blank, and wont open when clicked on it. What intrigues me is that the file size appear to be normal. I managed to retrieve an embedded jpeg off only one of the corrupted file which can be viewed/opened like any normal file. However, the rest of the corrupted files can't be viewed or opened =(