March 02, 2015, 06:37:45 PM

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 - Isurus

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5]
Lenses / Re: Canon MP-E 65 Add on's & Tips
« on: January 05, 2011, 08:10:34 AM »
What I like about the RRS rails is the precision.  Even at 5x, there is enough precision in the rail to the focus exactly where you want it.  My experience with some of the cheaper rails is that they work ok at 1x or sometimes even 2x, but once you get to the higher magnifications sometimes they aren't precise enough to actually let you get focus exactly where you want it. (for example, lets say focus is behind the eye of an insect.  On the cheaper rails, sometimes the smallest allowable movement in an attempt to get the eye in focus will now put focus in front of the eye).

No doubt the RRS rails are quite expensive, but they are built very, very well.  Also, if you don't want to drop 6 bills, you can get one rail which would allow for forward and aft movement for 3 to 4 bills.  That being said, given the price, it still may be worth it to try a cheaper one first to see if it meets your needs.  You can always flip it latter if you decide to go RRS.

Lenses / Re: Who do you trust?
« on: January 01, 2011, 12:03:20 PM »
Like others here, for Canon gear I go to  I also refer to for reviews and photography tips, especially for info on Zeiss lenses.  For user reviews, I pretty much solely use the Fred Miranda forums.

Lenses / Re: Canon MP-E 65 Add on's & Tips
« on: December 28, 2010, 03:09:35 PM »
I use Really Right Stuff's macro rail and flash brackets, which work great.  Picture of the setup (for the most part - don't use the tripod shown or the lens.  this is just an example photo off their site.) can be found here:

I like using the bracket as it takes the flash heads off the lens and gives more freedom.  That being said, it takes a bit to get used to this rig given the size and complexity.

Edit:  I should have also mentioned that RRS gear is expensive.  The rig shown is well over $1K excluding the Canon gear.

Lenses / Re: Noisy IS on EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 - is this normal?
« on: December 24, 2010, 06:05:46 PM »
That is normal.  It's IS is from one or two generations ago and isn't nearly as quite as the new on in the 70-200mm L f/2.8 IS II for example.

I had become so accustomed to the noise that when I was first using the new 70-200 I actually checked to see if the IS was turned on a couple times. 

But, back on topic, there is nothing to worry about.  Noise is normal in that lens.

Lenses / Re: Canon Announces 8-15 f/4L Fisheye Zoom
« on: August 26, 2010, 09:33:50 PM »
mmm... I wonder if this baby is weather-sealed? It'd be a great choice for landscape photos, but hate to run into problem when it rains...

Gut feeling says it's going to be one of those lenses that refuses to take filters and hoods....

Based on the released documentation, it looks like it is sealed.  I'm actually really interested in this lens.  I've been wanting to get a fisheye for a while, but the current 15mm is quite out-of-date.

Lenses / Re: Canon Developing 500 f/4L & 600 f/4L Replacements
« on: August 26, 2010, 09:29:18 PM »
This will be interesting, but the price of both will be over $10K given the price of the new 400, which the new 600 probably being quite a bit north of 10K (probably 12.5-13K).  Just like with the new 300 & 400, these are going to have to be simply amazing lenses to justify the equally amazing price tags.

Lenses / Re: Canon Announces New 300 f/2.8L IS & 400 f/2.8L IS
« on: August 26, 2010, 09:26:20 PM »
mmm.... $5000 for the 300 f2.8 and $7000 for the 300 f2.8 II....

I don't know if the weight reduction, new IS, and new coating warrants the jump in $$$...

Same here.  The current versions are great performers.  These are going to have to be ridiculously good to justify the price increase.  I'll probably stick with my current 300 for the time being.

Lenses / Re: Canon Announces 70-300 f/4-5.6L IS
« on: August 26, 2010, 09:24:42 PM »
If 70-200 F/4 L IS with Extender EF 1.4x III will still be cheaper than 70-300 f/4-5.6L IS then the pricing of this tele is not very justified.

This.  I can't for the life of me make any sense of this lens.  And $1500?  How exactly is this an "affordable" lens?  Strange.

Lenses / Re: The Big White Lenses [CR2.5]
« on: August 18, 2010, 07:33:52 AM »
I'm hoping "reduced weight" doesn't mean they are going to continue the trend of using plastic construction for their L lenses and these in particular (I'm looking at you 100mm f/2.8 L IS Macro and 24mm f/1.4 L II).  I'm really not a huge fan a plastic construction.

EOS Bodies / Re: 1Ds Mark IV & A New
« on: August 09, 2010, 08:28:08 PM »
I'd love to see this be true as well, but I'd actually like it to be in the bigger, 1D-like form factor.  Personally, I like the balance of the bigger camera and they feel better in my hands.

Lenses / Re: 3 Lenses for Photokina, but...[CR2]
« on: July 28, 2010, 01:51:58 PM »
Why are people so convinced that the 60mm macro will get an update with I/S?  Just because of the patent?

The bigger question for me is why would someone prefer to have this lens over the 100mm macro?  While I know there are cost and size advantages, I would think the not-as-pleasant out-of-focus areas, EF-S limitation (can't mount to FF), shorter working distance, and probably poorer build construction would be things you wouldn't want to give up.

It seems to me there are more important lenses in the line-up that are actually in need of an update.

Lenses / Re: New f/4L EF Zoom [CR1]
« on: July 20, 2010, 10:20:47 PM »
I certainly don't think the high ISO ranges of newer cameras negates the need for f/2.8 zooms.  Some will always have a preference for the depth of field of an f/2.8 and f/2.8 will always allow you to use a lower ISO and higher shutter speeds relative to f/4.0, which will still allow for incremental improvement in some situations.

That being said, the performance of the 16-35 f/2.8 II leaves something to be desired.

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5]