July 31, 2014, 09:45:05 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 - Plainsman

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6
31
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Rumored Sigma Lenses Coming in the Next Year
« on: September 09, 2013, 02:09:21 PM »
The 300/2.8 OS looks tasty!

Could be the same price or maybe cheaper than a used EOS 300/2.8 IS I but with OS equivalent to IS II.

32
Canon General / Re: procamerashop?
« on: September 08, 2013, 07:09:19 AM »
Handing over big money to a "cut price" outfit is a bit risky - you always wonder how difficult it's going to be to get your money back if it suddenly ceases trading.

I understand this shop only supplied their own warranty so even though you might have received your ordered item the warranty is obviously worthless if it goes bust.

Always worth paying a bit extra for your lens in order to get a proper Canon warranty IMO.


33
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Big Sigma Primes [CR2]
« on: August 26, 2013, 12:52:35 PM »
Mr Sigma - go for a 400/4.
All the other lens fl/apertures combinations are covered by the big boys.


EF 400mm 4.0 DO IS



The Canon 400/4 DO is very expensive and is slightly mediocre optically.
I was thinking that Sigma could wisely ignore the 10 year old DO concept and give us a conventional sharp wide open 400/4.

34
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Big Sigma Primes [CR2]
« on: August 26, 2013, 12:31:04 PM »
Mr Sigma - go for a 400/4.
All the other lens fl/apertures combinations are covered by the big boys.

35
EOS Bodies / Re: The Canon EOS 70D is Hitting Stores
« on: August 21, 2013, 12:32:52 PM »
After the 70D could the new 100-400L be far behind?

36
Lenses / Re: Stabilization for IS lenses?
« on: August 19, 2013, 07:03:52 AM »
This is a very interesting topic!

My most used lens is the 100-400L IS and I think I have got a good copy of it.

My modus operandi is to support it from a car window or off the car roof or solid wall or sometimes a monopod at f5.6 with the IS always on. The shutter speed in sunny conditions will be about 1/1000 sec and 90% of the time I always get a  good sharp image at 400mm - the image swims about a bit initially for 2 secs max and then stabilizes - that's when I press the shutter.

The 400/5.6 gives slightly sharper images but never supported as above - only if mounted on a tripod using cable release.

There may be an upper shutter speed limit for effective IS but 1/focal length is to low for Canon IS.
Maybe it applies to Nikon VR.
Then maybe Canon IS is the best image stabilizer you can get!

37
When the price comes down, or there is another sale ( one guy recently bought it for 1871 euros!) , I am sure to pick one up
That must be the old version.
Actually there are 2:
- Sigma AF 120-300mm f/2.8 EX DG IF HSM  (around 1350 euro)
- Sigma AF 120-300mm f/2.8 EX DG APO OS HSM (around 2000 euro)
 
The new version - the sports 120-300 - is for sale around 3500 euro

I think you are incorrect the latest is called the DG OS HSM/S (ie drop the EX). Confusing!!

Now looking at tdp crops it would appear that the previous EX DG OS HSM model is sharper on axis than the current expensive one with TCs. Very odd maybe Sigma have a QC problem here!!


38
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 100-400 f/4-5.6L IS Update [CR2]
« on: August 07, 2013, 10:06:05 AM »
Canon could loose a lot of business by "delaying" their new 100-400 for tactical reasons if that is the case. So what are the alternatives?

The latest Sony 70-400 is reputedly sharp especially at 400/5.6 and pretty good value.

More expensive is the new Nikon 80-400 - also pretty good.

(Personally I don't like the telescopic designs of either but suspect that the Canon will also drop their robust push/ pull and offer the same).

I can't see the 100-400 - if it is that - being any cheaper. With camera bodies being relatively cheap quite a few loyal Canon customers might say can't wait so lets switch brands just this once to get a decent 400 zoom now. Brand loyalty is basically stupid and only suits the manufacturer.

39
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 100-400 f/4-5.6L IS Update [CR2]
« on: August 07, 2013, 06:36:33 AM »
I'll wait for the 400 5.6 IS.

...wait till hell freezes over.

There seems to be a conspiracy between Can/Nik not to produce a simple easy to design lightweight 400/5.6 IS prime. It would such a sharp handy hand holdable long lens.

It would be best seller but won't be made by Canon because it would stop the production line of the mediocre but profitable 400/4 DO and impinge on sales of a new 100-400L whenever that one turns up.


40
Very odd ISO 12233 crops for this new lens on the-digital- picture which Sigma refer to as the DG OS HSM/S lens.

First of all scrolling down two OS lenses are listed but not DG OS HSM/S specifically.

So we have to assume that the latest lens crops are actually the "DG OS HSM" crops.

What is odd is that the "EX DG OS HSM" (the first OS version?) gives very much sharper 1.4x and 2xTC crops than the new lens!!

Are Sigma going backwards here or does it show wide variability in the Sigma product compared to Can/Nik?

41
My biggest (and only one so far) concern is about the reach.
I've read a couple of times that the Siggy is shorter @ 300mm than the canon fixed 3002.8ISII. Those reviews were about the previous model of 120-300 but it ain't supposed to be optically different from the brand new one.

If this was real, the Sigma wouldn't be as interesting as it seems...
Ideally i'd buy it to complement my 70-200 as the 120-300 remains really cheaper than the Canon 300mm and i often need an extra reach that a 300mm (or 420 with 1.4x) would bring me.

Anyone ? Have you ever heard any kind of complaints like this ?
Does anyone could compare the reach of the 120-300 to the 300L ?


"...Siggy is shorter @ 300 than the canon..."

It irritates me when people make confusing statements like this without stating what focus distance they are referring to.

I suspect that focussing at "infinity" ie in practice say 200 to 300 metres and beyond the new Sigma is probably a true 300 lens. However it seems to be the case that at close focus zooms generally loose focal length faster that primes.

The same used to be said of the 100-400L. I once carefully compared image size of a 100-400L @ 400 with the Canon 400/5.6 using same camera focussed on a distant building and guess what - the image size was exactly the same ie my 100-400L was a true 400 at distance.

42
Reviews / Re: Review: Tamron SP 70-200mm f/2.8 VC USD
« on: July 27, 2013, 03:49:43 AM »
Good review - thanks.

Now Tamron could we please have a 400/5.6 VC because it appears that neither Canon or Nikon are interested and you would have the market to yourself.

43
Lenses / Re: Dxo tests canon/nikon/sony 500mm's
« on: July 15, 2013, 09:19:18 AM »
In defence of Dxo - at least they publish test info like MTF-50 sharpness graphs for you read and interpret as you want.

Nothing I dislike more than wishy washy "reviews" with nothing to justify the claims of the reviewer - like juzaphoto stating that the Canon 70-200/2.8 II is "pretty poor with teleconverters"! At least try another lens before you make a statement like that juza.

BTW Nikon will not like Dxo's tests which show that their expensive new 80-400 appears to be inferior to Sony's cheaper latest 70-400 offering certainly at the top end.

Anybody investing in an expensive new lens needs as much info as possible - so carry on Dxo.

Sony 500/4 more expensive than Canon 500/4 II. Ridiculous - won't tempt many pros over to their system.

44
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 70D Announced
« on: July 02, 2013, 02:39:04 AM »
AFMA not mentioned in CR specs!

45
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 70D Spec List [CR3]
« on: June 30, 2013, 02:25:03 PM »
It was rather stupid of Canon not to give AFMA to the 60D.

I hope this facility returns in the 70D to make it a serious camera.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6