Messages

256

Lens Gallery / Re: Canon EF 70-300 f/4-5.6L IS USM

« on: February 18, 2013, 08:41:15 AM »

Thanks to everyone on the nice comments of the image above.  Here's another that I took with the 70-300L this week.  I hadn't yet done the AFMA on the lens, which I did the latter part of this week.  I've had a bit of an issue dialing in the long end - it is great at/up to AFMA distance (roughly 25 feet), but out closer to infinity (75 feet +) I find it is a little out as compared to the Live View focus.  I tried AFMA from a little further away, but it does get a little harder to be precise (longer distance + f/5.6 is not a great combination).  I ended up with only one point further (-3), so I'll have to see how it goes.


The Grey Owl by Thousand Word Images by Dustin Abbott, on Flickr

257

Reviews / Re: Why I Chose a Canon EOS 6D over a 5D MKIII

« on: February 18, 2013, 08:37:15 AM »

Dustin, some fantastic images there! Thanks for posting. Inspirational stuff! What part of the world do you live in? 

Ontario, Canada

Here's a shot I took this week of a Grey Owl in the woods (6D, 70-300L):


The Grey Owl by Thousand Word Images by Dustin Abbott, on Flickr

258

Reviews / Re: Why I Chose a Canon EOS 6D over a 5D MKIII

« on: February 17, 2013, 12:22:27 PM »

Here's another winter landscape from the 6D:


Winter's Splendor #7 - Time by Thousand Word Images by Dustin Abbott, on Flickr

259

Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 40 f/2.8 STM

« on: February 17, 2013, 09:25:27 AM »

Discuss the review of the Canon EF 40 f/2.8 STM here.

The review is spot on except it forgets to mention one thing; for the target audience it is intended for; the 40mm f/2.8 costs twice as much as the faster, sharper, and far more consistent 50mm f/1.8 II "Nifty Fifty".  I bought the pancake for a light street kid on a 7D or 5D body.  I returned it two days later even though I had another few weeks before the 30 day return policy expired.  I new at onset it was "ok" but that the $99 50 f/1.8 II was far more consistent and lighter.  I just don't get why you'd pay twice as much for the slower 40mm.

Video AF?  Really?  If you want AF in video buy a camcorder, they do a much better job in AF.  The STM only works with the T4i and there is a reason they didn't incorporate that into the 5D3, 6D, etc.

Interesting.  Your experience with the nifty fifty is certainly different than mine.  Faster (in terms of aperture), I'll give you.  Sharper and more consistent?  Far from the experience I have had with two copies of said lens.

My 40mm is much sharper and has improved color rending (and smoother transition to OOF as well).

260

Lenses / Re: New Canon USA Lens & Speedlite Rebates

« on: February 17, 2013, 09:20:48 AM »

I always find it pretty sad to hear of the plight of my fellow photographers shooting in Europe.  Europe's tax laws seem to have gotten pretty ridiculous.  I wonder at times how Europeans afford anything....

261

Reviews / Re: Why I Chose a Canon EOS 6D over a 5D MKIII

« on: February 16, 2013, 07:52:05 AM »

Here's another:


Winter's Splendor #6 - Sculpted by Thousand Word Images by Dustin Abbott, on Flickr

262

Reviews / Re: Why I Chose a Canon EOS 6D over a 5D MKIII

« on: February 15, 2013, 06:03:31 PM »

I'm really enjoying the 6D as a landscape model.  The dynamic range and slightly smoother color have given me a lot of options in shooting.  I've been uploading a series to Flickr all from the 6D.  Here's the one I put up today:


Winter's Splendor #5 - Frosted by Thousand Word Images by Dustin Abbott, on Flickr

263

Lens Gallery / Re: Canon EF 70-300 f/4-5.6L IS USM

« on: February 15, 2013, 02:51:53 PM »

Here's another from the series:


Winter's Splendor #3 - Pastels by Thousand Word Images by Dustin Abbott, on Flickr

Thank you, and a good call.  That morning was very much like the fantasy version of winter.

Lovely subtle image, reminds me of the fantasy "Narnia"

264

Lens Gallery / Re: Canon EF 70-300 f/4-5.6L IS USM

« on: February 15, 2013, 02:51:16 PM »

Had an interesting experience out in the woods with the 70-300L today and a large grey owl.  Here's a link to an article with photos if you're interested.

http://www.dustinabbott.net/2013/02/my-grey-owl-experience/

265

Lenses / Re: Sigma 35 or 135L??

« on: February 15, 2013, 01:29:17 PM »

According to your signature you have the 85mm f/1.8, so the 35mm f/1.4 sounds like the right choice.

+1.  I love the 135L and if it were just head to head, I would say that 135L.  But considering that you have the 85 you have about 80% of the 135L.  The Sigma will be a very handy lens, and is my next lens purchase.

266

Lenses / Re: Canon 24-105 f/4 L IS vs. Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 IS vs. Canon 24-70 f/2.8 L II

« on: February 15, 2013, 11:47:01 AM »

I sold my 24-105L for the Tamron 24-70 VC.  I found I wasn't really using the 24-105L anymore.  The Tamron does give up some in range, but is better in every other way.  The 24-70II is still better optically, but comes at a huge premium and loses the VC/IS.  If cost were no object, I would probably own the 24-70II; since I try to find the best compromise between image quality and value, I chose the Tamron.  BTW, I have been more than pleased with my Tamron.  For event work it is great.

One final consideration - the Tamron's AF is slightly slower than both of these other options.  If you are shooting in environments where you need AF to be instant, then the Tamron isn't your choice.  I did a walkabout today packing the Tamron and the 70-300L - the 70-300L was noticeably faster, although, to be fair, it isn't pushing nearly as much glass around.

267

Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 40 f/2.8 STM

« on: February 14, 2013, 10:18:53 AM »

I have two lenses covering this range already, the 24-105L and the 35L. But after reading all the reviews about how good and sharp it is, the small size, the low price etc I really want one. I might just have to get myself one soon.

I loved the 24-105L (I have owned two copies, just recently sold my last because the Tamron 24-70 VC nudged it out), but at similar apertures the shorty forty will top it in IQ.  Hard to believe, but true. Sharpness across the frame is REALLY high in the shorty.  Stopped down to f/8 or so the sharpness across the frame is as good as anything in my kit.  I have read that refraction sets in after f/10 or so, so I wouldn't suggest using it as a primary landscape lens if you want really deep depth of field, but its resolution is impressively high for such a small optic.

268

Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 40 f/2.8 STM

« on: February 13, 2013, 01:51:28 PM »

I love carrying the shorty 40 either in a walkabout kit as a pocket or back throw in with a longer lens (telephoto zoom or 135L).  I recently traveled with the 24-105L, 135L, 1.4x and shorty forty.  All of this went comfortably into a smallish sling bag and was a great combination.  I did everything from landscapes to 3 portrait shoots on the trip.  The shorty forty is a nice complement to the 135L for environmental portraits.

40mm is a nice "woods" length lens.  Wide enough, and the sharpness is as good as anything I've got for things like that.  It is also very sharp at minimum focus distance, which allows for some very crisp leaf or flower shots like this:


Hanging Around by Thousand Word Images by Dustin Abbott, on Flickr

I do disagree with the reviewer as to this lens vs the 50mm f/1.8.  The 40mm, while a slower aperture, is perfectly usable wide open, has much better color rendition, smoother transition to ooF, better build quality, and, of course, focuses much faster and quieter.  IMO on a full frame body the 40mm is a preferable focal length (I prefer the 35mm range to the 50mm).

269

Lens Gallery / Re: Canon EF 70-300 f/4-5.6L IS USM

« on: February 13, 2013, 08:11:46 AM »

Here's another from the series:


Winter's Splendor #3 - Pastels by Thousand Word Images by Dustin Abbott, on Flickr

270

Lens Gallery / Re: Canon EF 70-300 f/4-5.6L IS USM

« on: February 12, 2013, 11:54:26 AM »

...but this lens (from 200mm till 300) produces not very sharp images and the contrast is very low.

*yawn*

Overall IQ, excellent IS, good focal range, weather sealing, portability.... it is an excellent zoom.

Not very sharp, low contrast?  Where does that come from?  The advantage of this lens according to all reviews is that it does the exact opposite of what you say.  Here's one of my own 300mm pictures - looks pretty sharp to me!