Messages

16

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Amazon vs B&H for purchase?

« on: March 03, 2013, 10:20:36 PM »

Doesn't really matter (as long as you're buying direct from Amazon, not a 3rd party even if fulfilled by Amazon).

I'm curious about your caveat for 3rd party vendors fulfilled by Amazon.

I'm in California where Amazon started collecting sales taxes late last year. Goods from out-of-state vendors fullfilled by Amazon, however, are not taxed. So when pricing is in my favor and provided that the 3rd party vendor is an authorized Canon dealer, I have made purchases in this way. So far, I have not had any problems. Are there any potential problems out there that I'm not aware of? Thanks.

(Btw, I'm aware of California use taxes.)

17

Software & Accessories / Re: Circular polarizer for the 16-35

« on: February 25, 2013, 10:45:10 PM »

Yes, the XS-Pro has front threads.  I have the Slim, I don't use the cap but then I only put the CPL on during active use, and take it off before putting the lens away.  I normally keep an XS-Pro MRC UV filter on it (needed to complete the weather/dust seal).

Thanks again neuro. I thought about that as well, i.e. not really needing a cap for the CPL since it wouldn't be on all the time. Still, it would be a nice option to have as I can see myself carrying around that configuration for several hours at a time.

I just placed an order for the XS-Pro MRC UV filter. Thanks.

18

Software & Accessories / Re: Circular polarizer for the 16-35

« on: February 25, 2013, 10:01:07 PM »

I've got it, do you want to buy it?

I mostly bought the 16-35 for low light situations - indoor and out, so I'm thinking about forgoing a polarizer for that lens altogether. (Man they're expensive!) I also have the 17-40, and have the corresponding 77mm polarizer, so for landscapes, I may continue to use that lens where f4 is generally fine.

At some point, I'll get the 24-70 II, so I'll have to revisit the 82mm polarizer again.

Thanks!

19

Software & Accessories / Re: Circular polarizer for the 16-35

« on: February 25, 2013, 09:53:48 PM »

That one (standard mount for CPL, which is ~7mm thick) will cause a slight increase in optical vignetting (<1 stop wide open).  You'd be better off with the Slim or XS-Pro mount. 

There will be banding on blue skies at wider than 24mm (assuming you're using it on a FF camera), but it's great for waterfalls, increasing saturation in foliage shots, etc.

Thanks neuro.

Yes, I'd be using it on a full-frame camera (forgot to mention). I was trying to avoid the slim mount because of the flimsy filter cover. I have already used one of those on a 10-22 in the past and was not particularly fond of it. Does the XS-Pro mount have filter threads that would accommodate a lens cap?

20

Software & Accessories / Circular polarizer for the 16-35

« on: February 25, 2013, 09:06:41 PM »

I'm looking to purchase a B+W circular polarizer for my new 16-35 lens. Does anyone know if this particular one shows vignetting at the wide end?

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/10890-REG/B_W_66_016117_82mm_Kaeseman_Circular_Polarizing.html

Also, how bad is the banding? Is it better not to use one, or do the benefits outweigh the banding problems?

Thanks!

21

Lenses / Re: Looking for new lens for vacation

« on: February 21, 2013, 05:00:53 AM »

I would say, just bring a 24-105.  It's good enough in the quality department and gives you both decent wide angle and a little telephoto.  My second choice would be the 24-70 f4 IS and my third the 30mm 1.4. (This is assuming you are leaving the two zooms you own at home, which is what I think you are saying.)

+1 on the 24-105.

Since you're considering the 24-70 f4 IS because it is smaller/lighter compared to the 24-70 II you already have, I would get the 24-105 since it is just slightly heavier (2.5 oz) than the 24-70 f4. You get a little more reach and arguably better optics than the 24-70 f4, especially in the 35-50mm range:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=823&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=0&LensComp=355&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=0

As for the 35 f2 IS vs. the Sigma 35 1.4, I think you answered your own question. Since you generally want more DOF at a place like Disneyland, you probably won't be using 1.4 too much. As you said, you usually sit between 5.6-10 when photographing your family. I'm also thinking lots of stationary poses which would be good for IS and low-light hand-holdable shooting. Also, while not 1.4, f2 is plenty fast when you want to compensate for motion blur, especially since you can safely crank up the ISO on your 5DM3.

If portability is your primary consideration, you could get the 40mm 2.8 pancake. Great optics, tiny, and inexpensive! In fact, I would bring it along as a backup. It easily fits in your pocket.

Have fun!

22

Lenses / Re: What's the best deal you've ever gotten on a lens?

« on: February 17, 2013, 10:08:50 PM »

35mm 1.4L refurbished for $922
300mm 2.8L IS new for $3580

Awesome lenses!

23

Lenses / Re: Is your midrange gear insured?

« on: February 16, 2013, 08:36:44 PM »

I have a State Farm personal articles policy that covers most of my camera gear at full replacement cost. At first I covered everything, memory cards, batteries, etc. but then realized that I would never make a claim for the small things if I happened to lose them. When my agent told me that her brother had a similar policy and that State Farm cancelled his policy when he made too many loss claims, I decided to only insure items costing over $300.

I've had the policy for about 5 years now and have only made one claim for a broken 580EX that I dropped. They basically paid for a new 580EXII. When I made the claim, they asked if I had gotten an estimate to repair it, which I did. Canon's estimate was a minimum of $150, so State Farm just sent me a check for what I originally paid for the 580EX. I later got the flash repaired for $150 and have kept it since I could always use another flash with 5 camera bodies.

As my collection of camera gear has grown, my annual insurance cost has doubled from around $150 to $300 per year. Is it worth it? I think so. Although I've only had one loss, I gain peace of mind and feel that I don't have to baby my equipment (although I am careful with it). I also know that if I'm ever in a situation where I'm in a confrontation with someone for my camera gear, I'd just hand it over knowing that I'd get brand new updated versions of my equipment without a problem. I would however, kindly ask for the memory cards.  How ironic, in that that's one of the things I don't insure. 

24

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

« on: February 13, 2013, 03:42:28 AM »

I agree.  I'd take a 16-24 or 16-28 as well.  I don't really like the fact that a 14-24 can't take filters unless you are looking at 6x6's which are insanely expensive.

+1

If the extra 2mm on the wide end means it can't take filters, I'd much rather have an improved 16-35 or a 16-xx over a 14-24.

25

Video & Movie / Re: Indian Wedding shot with 5D Mark III

« on: January 22, 2013, 07:23:58 PM »

Nice work.

To me the depth of field in many of these shots looks very shallow, so I wonder how you get it in focus. Lots of practice pulling focus ? Or do you prefocus each shot (including the ones that start out of focus) before you start recording ? What sort of apertures are you shooting these ?

I was wondering the same things about depth of field being shallow and how you managed to get into and maintain focus.

Nice work! A very moving video of a beautiful couple.

26

Lenses / Re: How long are the current lens instant rebates slated to last?

« on: January 15, 2013, 09:14:32 PM »

Looks like they're going through Jan 5 now

Hmm....

Looks like it is still running on most sites I see.

I wonder how long this will last??

cayenne

The current rebates end on Feb 2nd.

27

Reviews / Re: Any thoughts yet on the Canon 24-70 f/4 IS

« on: January 11, 2013, 09:38:15 PM »

Notice, however, that with all 3 copies of the 24-70, it is weakest at 50mm? The 24-105 beats it handily at 50mm (as does the 24-70 2.8 ), and distortion aside, the performance of the 24-70 at 50 ~ 24-105 at 24.

Interesting... I didn't notice that. As you said it's particularly interesting to note the performance of the 24-70 f/4 IS  at 50 compared to the 24-105 at 24.

I wonder what the reason is for the fall off in performance at 50mm?

28

Reviews / Re: Any thoughts yet on the Canon 24-70 f/4 IS

« on: January 11, 2013, 08:01:06 PM »

TDP has published ISO 12233 crops for the 24-70 f/4 IS. Bryan also published a preliminary review. Corners are sharp wide open compared to the 24-105 and the results compare favorably throughout its range:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=823&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=355&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-24-70mm-f-4-L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

29

Lenses / Re: Canon 35mm f/2 IS VS the Sigma 35mm f/1.4

« on: January 04, 2013, 05:31:12 PM »

A reputable review of the 35 f/2 IS vs. the original 35 f/2 non-IS from TDP:

"The Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS USM Lens results are remarkably better than the results from the replaced Canon EF 35mm f/2 Lens in the mid and peripheral (corner) areas of the image circle."

http://the-digital-picture.com/News/News-Post.aspx?News=3895

30

Lenses / Re: Canon 35mm f/2 IS Review

« on: December 29, 2012, 02:02:10 PM »

18-55 has IS too, it doesnt add 500$ over the normal 18-55

Rather than cherry picking one of Canon's least expensive lenses out there, average the cost of IS over its non-IS counterpart throughout Canon's lineup. Some of the 70-200mm lenses come to mind.

Btw, I'm not defending Canon nor this particular lens. I don't even have it. The lens is expensive, even if the street price were to come down a couple hundred dollars a few months after its introduction, as was the case with the new 24/28mm 2.8 IS lenses.  My comments were about the review, which I didn't find very credible, especially when the reviewer didn't appear to understand a fundamental concept like f-stops. If someone is going to publish a lens review, at least get that right...