I have 80d for wildlife and birdshots.

great camera. get it with confidence.
keep in mind it not gonna work with sigma 18-35. they have updated that lens. maybe it is good now

stevelee said:

Since Apple is buying Sony and Canon, they wouldn't notice buying Nikon also.

Click to expand...

You HEARD it here FIRST. -HF

There's another way you can make this work, sort of, but it's totally insane.

Get a reversing ring with electronic passthrough for EF lenses (they have a cable connecting the two parts, connect to a real Canon camera, connect the other side to your Sony Camera (you may need to make a new mount for this.

Then use the canon camera to control aperture.

Not idea, by any means

alternatively, hack up a cable to do the same connecting the pins on the EF mount of your canon to the lens while it's in the Sony mount.

650€ in Germany Its ok I think. Lets wait how it is going to perform.

neuroanatomist said:

jhpeterson said:

But, I think what bothers me the most is there's still a good bit of falloff in mine, at almost all focal lengths even without a hood or filter. Sure, it's not as bad as the original version, which I sent back three times to get corrected, but it's noticeable just the same.
Another problem I've had is it gets loose, not all that often, but maybe every few months. I've had to tighten screws on the barrel just to make it sharp enough to use, even on one short trip running to a hardware store for a screwdriver.
I not sure my experience is typical or whether I have a bad copy.

Click to expand...

The screws coming loose seems atypical. The vignetting is certainly noticeable, although it’s pretty easy to correct effectively. One thing to point out is that a standard filter will actually increase vignetting with the 70-200/2.8 II, so if you typically use a UV/protection filter, consider switching to a thinner one (e.g. B+W XS-Pro) or don’t use one. Personally, I think Canon cut the design a bit close on that lens – the other f/2.8 zooms (16-35, 24-70) went from 77mm to 82mm diameter filters with their MkII updates, but the 70-200/2.8 IS remained at 77mm.

jhpeterson said:

I hope somebody at Canon is listening.

Click to expand...

Not here. Contact them directly, or at least try posting on their own forum.

Click to expand...

I bought my EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II new in August 2010. The screws on the bayonet mount and the screws under the tripod collar flush with the lens barrel were constantly working their way out and I tightened them often.

In 2014 I sent it to CPS for a minor tilt issue (possibly related to a minor drop a few months earlier). I got it back with only a little improvement in the optical alignment, but the screws suddenly miraculously stopped working themselves out.

I worked around the minor tilt issue until another drop definitely caused a major tilt issue in 2017. This time I sent a CD with test shots demonstrating the problem and a letter describing it in much more detail. I got the lens back in perfect optical alignment. The screws are *tight* this time.

My guess is that the earliest production runs either did not torque the screws tightly enough or didn't use any type of loctite type compound. Apparently by 2014 they had increased the torque or started using 'loctite'.

That might be a smart move. I purchased nothing but Canon (well than for a couple Tamron and one Rokinon lens) from 1986 until a few years ago, but they haven't gotten a dollar from me in a few years now.

slclick said:

I think the f/4 II could blow away the Tammy G2 2.8.....someone tell me I'm wrong

Click to expand...

Depends on what you mean by blow away. If you are referring to sharpness, AF accuracy/consistency, build quality, IS effectiveness, etc. then you may very well be right.

But if you are referring to how nice the f/2.8 output looks... :

- A

RGF said:

Like to see canon's update to the 5D M4 following Nikon's D850 announcement. The D850 is a stellar camera, it raises the bar.

Click to expand...

Curious to see if Canon keeps the 'all-arounder' and 'high res' 5D lines separate, or if they follow suit with Nikon and just make the 5DS2 the top of line supercamera that really does it all.

My money's on the former, but folks may still interpret the detail camera as being top of the line if it slides in at (say) 60 MP x 6 fps (70 x 5, 50 x 7, etc.). See my ramblings on 7 fps with the 5D4 really muddying the waters between the 5D4 and 5DS2.

- A

Optical limits(former Photozone) just posted their review of Laowa 25mm Ultra macro:
http://www.opticallimits.com/canon_eos_ff/1042-laowa25f28ultra

The more I read and learn about this lens, the more I want it!

I've never owned a 70-200mm lens and currently use the consumer grade EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS II USM Lens, which seems alright and I've got some pretty good images with it.

I like the extra reach with the 300mm end but I'm thinking the added sharpness with this new 70-200mm, all I really would need to do is just crop more often if needed.

I honestly don't see buying the approx. 12yr old version of this lens when the new one is only 200.00 more.

I'm wondering if it's really worth upgrading to this new lens??????

Hi wsmith.
No worries on the commotion, not the worst topic on here for sure, in fact it made me take a second look at my cameras! Also I did a quick google search and couldn’t find a single picture of the bottom of a Canon camera! I have to agree that it does look a little narrower than some bodies.

Cheers, Graham.

wsmith96 said:

Quick comparison. See how the bottom of the camera isn’t straight on the 60d (right) and 80d (top)? There is a slight curve out to accommodate the mirror box. He 5D, left, is straight across. Sorry for the commotion on this.

Click to expand...

There is a pin on the extender that drops into a hole in the lens. The pin or mechanism for it can become bent. The same thing happens to the camera bodies occasionally. It may be difficult to see the issue, but get it fixed rather than a much more expensive cost to repair a dropped lens.

Meh, I don't love the system. I've been tolerating the system so far because of the advantages it has. I want Canon to come out with something that competes. But I'm working on an important project this summer, and I wanted to see if the Sony might be useful to me.

One thing I have noticed, there's very little focus missing. If it does manage to lock focus, it pretty much nails it every time. That's really really nice.

Oh, and the sensor cleaning on the Sony kind of cracks me up... With Canons you just see a little animation on the screen, and you trust that it's doing something in there. With the Sony, hold on tight, because when you run the sensor cleaning, that sensor is moving in there. ;D I guess that's something else IBIS is good for... A vigorous sensor cleaning.

Last, regarding the focus hunting, I'm starting to learn that what really sets it off is if you try to autofocus and the point you have selected is not pointed at something with a decent amount of contrasty edges. Good light or not, try to focus on something that's not contrasty, and it's going to freak the camera out.

Seems like Canon has been working on a stacked sensor for 10 year or more (at least it seems that way)

Wonder if they will ever bring something to the market?

tmc784 said:

That's why I always buy first party lenses.

Click to expand...

That statement doesn't make sense. So you may buy an inferior product just because it may get a firmware update? Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying third party lenses are bad. But to buy them only because they offer firmware updates makes no sense to me. Also, firmware updates are necessary for third party manufacturers because when new bodies are released, they have to change their lenses to perfectly adapt them. If you buy OEM, there is usually no need for an update, or much less so.

AlanF said:

You seem to have missed that there is a current thread about this topic http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=35188.0

Click to expand...

I did indeed miss it - thanks for that. I looked in the Third Party forum and did not see anything so I started this. Apparently the other thread is in Industry News.

I've been experimenting with Sony mirrorless, specifically the A7 III, and while I'm slowly learning the strengths of the camera and its advantages, right out of the box, the thing felt extremely finicky. Namely, the most irritating thing was the automatic switching between using the rear screen and the viewfinder to take photos. I rarely use live view on my 5D to take photos, and I didn't want it on the Sony. But in its stock configuration, the camera pretty much forces it on you.

With the stock settings, the screen is the default way to take photos, until you press your eye up to the viewfinder, at which point it switches to the viewfinder, and then it goes back to using the screen as soon as you move the camera away from your face. I just wanted it to work like a DSLR... Viewfinder for taking photos, screen for looking at them and changing camera settings.

At first I just shut off the automatic switching and used a custom button to manually switch back and forth between the two. This was ok, but it was still very clunky. It stopped the screen from coming on every time I let the camera hang down at my side, but after I reviewed photos or changed settings, if I forgot to switch back to the viewfinder, I risked putting the camera up to my face and staring into a dark viewfinder.

Finally, I discovered a setting hidden under the camera tab number 2, page 6 of 9. In here, Choose the "DISP Button" setting, and then "Monitor." (Seriously, I love the tech on this camera, but these menus drive me up a fucking wall. They're truly absurd.)

In this setting, you can see there are different possible displays that you can have the rear screen use when the rear screen is being used to take photos. Like the live view options in Canon, there are various things you can show overlaid on the screen like an electronic level, etc.

HOWEVER, one of these display options is "Monitor Off." It's unchecked by default, but turning this on is the key to making the camera function more like a DSLR.

Check this option (and uncheck all the others if you don't want the camera to have a live view function at all.) Also ensure that the automatic switching between the viewfinder and the screen is set to on.

After enabling this, when you take the camera away from your face, it will technically switch over to the rear screen, but if it's in that display mode of "monitor off," it will not act as a live view, it just goes off. This is nice because if you playback photos, or press the menu button, these will still show up on the screen, but as soon as you go back to shooting, the rear screen goes dark, and only the viewfinder is used for shooting, which will automatically activate when you put your eye up to the finder. So in this way it's very similar to a DSLR.

Hope this helps someone making the transition but supremely frustrated by the way the camera always seems to want to default to a sort of live view functionality the way I was.

why then even bother.... Canon 50mm 1.8 is cheap already and very sharp.

maybe they should try something like 35mm 1.4 or 50mm 1.4

It seems to be that the white lenses shows wear many times more than does the black lenses.

Well Camera was in Custom WB and later thats where I noticed the red shift.
I wish I could use raw, but in photographing a Rodeo in RAW mode the current 7DII buffer slows down. FYI Rodeo rides last 8 seconds and a lot can happen in that time. So I hold the shutter button down and blast away. I normally come home with 3000 pictures for a 2.5 hr show.

I was told that maybe my +- comp may of been not 0? will have to test and see.
Just wondering if anyone else has noticed any issues.

I'm very curious what the rumored video-centric mirrorless will look like and what the alleged "prioritization" of video in the mid-to-upper range DSLRs will mean. If the C100 is really dead, that will leave quite a hole, in terms of both price and functionality, between the XC series or a 5D with Canon LOG and the C200. If they'd do something competitive in the $2,000 - $4,000 space (e.g. good 4K codec, reasonable exposure and monitoring tools, reasonable active sensor area, log), I'm sure I'm not the only one who'd be all over it, even if they withheld nice-to-have features like advanced IS or XLRs or built-in ND filters or 120+ fps.

Hi Folks.
Please don’t get me wrong, we all start out somewhere, my thought is that learning (and investing a sizeable chunk of cash in) a new skill might not be the best way to sell items for your main income?
I completely get the ‘I can do this’ attitude, there are a good many things around here that I have done with the ‘if they can do it so can I attitude.’
However, ‘I can build a gearbox and overdrive’ doesn’t seem to have given me much preparation for ‘I can skim and paint this bedroom wall!’ Apparently there are tricks of the trade I don’t know or the original (purple) paint on the wall wouldn’t be blistering under the new emulsion paint! ;D
Apparently not everything can be done by everybody, but my outlay is under £100 to discover I can’t do this well!

Cheers, Graham.

Talys said:

Orangutan said:

Valvebounce said:

Hi Orangutan.
I seem to recall product photography was discussed in great detail, with a very good argument being made on why to get a pro to do it for you (or at least someone who understands photography and lighting, like a brother!) if you want to actually sell the product, nothing hinders sales more than a poor photo!

Cheers, Graham.

Click to expand...

Yes, but "pros" have to start somewhere. It may be foolish to rely on your own product photography without the skills, but if she's looking to build skills, she might as well practice on her own product. I would hope that a working jewelry artist would be able to tell if her early photo work was crap.

Click to expand...

I am absolutely with Orangutan.

The key to "doing it yourself" is to not accept a photograph that isn't as good as what a professional charging you top dollar would produce. To get there, all you need is some lighting, a roll of paper and time to learn -- and some good reading on lighting is helpful too.

If you have the will to generate good photographs, whether it's textiles or jewelry or automobiles, the subject isn't going anywhere, so given enough time, you can figure it out -- and then it will be a lot easier the next time. Product photography also has the benefit to allowing those who are learning to (generally) use continuous lights instead of strobes/flashes for difficult shots -- and then move to strobes and fancier modifiers later on. This is especially true of items like gemstones that reflect and refract light in all sorts of interesting ways.

The real argument against doing it yourself is that all the photography and lighting equipment, and in some cases, the space (if your subject is larger) is much more expensive than just having someone who does it for a living take care of it for you. But then again, if it's your hobby, there is satisfaction to being able to produce it yourself!

And if all else fails, and you don't like your photos, you can hire someone to do it on location, observe what they do, and figure out what you did wrong

Click to expand...

Thanks for the valuable advice!

Like this forum

lexaclarke said:

I know this thread is old, but the board won't let me make a new thread to ask about all the 20/21mm options at once, so I'm kind of stuck using these old, dead threads!

Just wondering if anybody can give any input as to whether this Zeiss is still worthwhile today now that lenses like the Sigma 20mm f/1.4 and Samyang 20mm f/1.8 are out, where the Sigma has AF and the Samyang is a bit lighter (and cheaper!). It's easy to find example photos but that doesn't tell you much about how the lens is to really live with. And most examples I find are of landscape or astro, while I'm looking at these lenses for indoor use when 24mm is proving a little cramped.

Click to expand...

I feel that Zeiss has a kind of signature rendering. Another good option to consider is the 18mm f/3,5
For Canon, think Zeiss 21mm is a good option.
For Nikon, think the 20mm is better.