Posts

privatebydesign · Jan 7, 2018

Don Haines said:
privatebydesign said:

Canon said their 300 f2.8 from ages ago is faster to focus than the 100 f2, why would they lie? Subsequently they have made better bodies with better algorithms and better lenses that also focus faster. There is no way on this earth that the 100 f2 focuses faster than those more modern lens on bodies designed for them.

Click to expand...

WAIT A MINUTE!

Are you saying that a high end 2010 lens focuses faster than a 1991 lens! Who would have thought so!

In this case, he might be right though.... a 100F2 has considerably smaller lenses than a 300F2.8. Since the AF motors have about a quarter as much mass to move, despite older tech and poorer algoritms, it is a possibility. Even so, it is comparing apples to oranges and not a very valid comparison.....

"He" is not a 'he', of course in this new non binary world that doesn't mean, given the statement "It's not "he"", we should assume they are a she...

Just because the primary optic is very different in size doesn't mean the focusing elements are, don't forget they are both internal focusing designs and as such that focusing group is designed to be in the optimal area of the light path to maximize efficiency both in size and weight. Focus speed certainly isn't a simple function of lens size, if it were the 400 f2.8 and 600mm f4 would be amongst the slowest to focus, and clearly they are not.

bgoyette · Jan 6, 2018

NorCal said:
That would indeed be appreciated, but I'm also still wondering when Canon will realize that 24,30, and 60 aren't the only frame rates that filmmakers use. Still waiting on the ability to easily choose between 12, 18, 24, 30, 32, 36, 48, 60, 72fps--- at ANY resolution!

C300 and C300 mark II have both had this feature since launch. Under "slow and fast motion" you can select frame rates 1-60fps. Not sure whether c100 II has this, I'm sure C500 and c700 have it. I believe C200 does not.

ahsanford · Jan 6, 2018

D-shaped bokeh balls. Can't be unseen!

- A

Mada · Jan 6, 2018

Hi!

Having the same issue! Just recently bought this camera and scans came back out of focus but focusing itself was fine.

Do you use AF lock? I was trying to use it but it doesn't show up in the viewfinder. Any ideas why?

Many thanks!

hne · Jan 6, 2018

ahsanford said:
hne said:

ahsanford said:

YuengLinger said:

And what a great job they did. Grand slam. IQ, IS, AF, and ergonomics. Cream machine!

Click to expand...

And clipped d-shaped bokeh balls. Don't forget the key things. ;D

- A

Click to expand...

That's something you get with all lenses faster than f/1.8, isn't it?

Both my f/1.4 lenses show it and neither of my f/1.8 do. Also, from a geometrical reason, this should be irrelevant of focal length (and every bokeh ball picture I've found on the net from a lens at f/1.4 on a FF camera have shown it).

Click to expand...

Think it's lens dependent, but yes, very wide aperture is more likely.

I've seen it on:

85 f/1.2L II
85 f/1.4L IS
50 f/1.0L

But it's likely on a few others.

- A

Add 24/1.4L II, 35/1.4L, Sigma 85/1.4 Art and Nikon 85/1.4 on that list.

The light cone for an oof hight for f/1.4 will have the same top angle no matter the value of f. Or expressed in a different way: from the point of view of any pixel on the sensor, the exit pupil of any f/1.4 lens will have the same apparent size.

Viggo · Jan 6, 2018

StoicalEtcher said:
Larsskv said:

I just checked on my brand new 85L f1.4, which I am on my way out to test. ;D

The hood that comes with the 100-400 L II does not fit very well at all. For some reason it is hard to turn around, and I would be afraid to break it if I were to use it.

The hood that comes with the 70-200L f 2.8 (non IS) - ET-83II - fits very well, does not cause visible vignetting, and must be deep enough to keep raindrops out. I guess it is a little less deep than the ET-83C, but it should be sufficient.

Click to expand...

Just to follow up, I can confirm that the EW-83F fits on both normally and reversed absolutely fine (better in my case than the ET-83B II which feels stiffer somehow) and, having tested it further, does not vignette at all. It is also somewhat longer than the ET-83B II, even at the shorter petal, so may provide even more rain cover.

It also still seems to be a stock item, at least at WEX in the UK where I have just ordered one (currently on half-price discount).

Cheers

Thanks a lot! I ordered one of those also, at 4 dollars it’s worth it. It’s usually no problem with flare in the rain so a cheap one will do ;D

Ryananthony · Jan 5, 2018

ahsanford said:
jd7 said:

The Fat Fish said:

The 6DII is my worst camera of the past few years. As a 6D owner I was early awaiting an upgrade but it really isn't much of one and in many ways is a step back. Such a shame.

Click to expand...

In what way/s is the 6D II a step back? I know it scores slightly lower DR at ISO 100 but is there anything else?

Click to expand...

Yeah, touchscreen + DPAF + 6 more MP + 2.5 more fps + 34 more AF points + NFC / Bluetooth make photography worse for everyone. Total step backward. :

- A

but the guy I saw on youtube said it sucked. :

slclick · Jan 5, 2018

The evolution of my wish list now consists of:

EF 135 Mk2 or with IS
EF-M normal and short tele primes,perhaps ~30, 55 and 85 ish.

Dantana · Jan 5, 2018

Any more feedback on this lens? I’m going on an Alaska cruise this summer and I have been considering it as an option.

slclick · Jan 5, 2018

The taller you are the more likelihood you need a four section pod which most folks would like to avoid but that's life buddy.

Besisika · Jan 5, 2018

ethanz said:
That monopod without the head (I don't think I need a head, I already have some) isn't too expensive: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1305532-REG/sirui_sup424sr_carbon_fiber_monopod.html

Even if I don't end up using it to shoot video, it still looks like a nice monopod for just shooting pictures.

True,
Besides, monopod look is very attractive when there is a lot of action and movement.

ahsanford · Jan 5, 2018

Talys said:
Keep in mind that some people don't rent/use before they buy. Instead, they go to the camera store, where something like an A7RII/III feels pretty good with a relatively small lens attached. Also, they're holding it for a thirty seconds at a time. "Wow, look, OMG, I can have a FF camera that feels like a point and shoot! How awesome is that!"

...or they walk into B&H in Manhattan, play around with an A7R2 for about 10 seconds and realize what a fail the ergonomics are. It was an pretty quick reality to absorb.

Thanks for the pics, Bwud!

Working with that grip and working well with that grip are a different things. I see Sony wheeling out a smaller crop body (non-7D) grip on their FF rigs -- it's a grip reminiscent of my old T1i. You can shoot with it, but it's not comfortable. A few prior posts on this:

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=33709.msg693701#msg693701

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=33528.msg688331#msg688331

I continue to contend that the A7/A9 size is fine if you don't plan on using heavier non-monopodded/non-tripoded glass -- but in fairness, it is well designed for a the 'keep it small' shooter of the Fuji, EOS M or m43 mold who may not be slapping huge lenses on it.

- A

Maximilian · Jan 4, 2018

Thanks for sharing your experience and nice pictures.

Maximilian · Jan 4, 2018

Thanks for sharing, traveller!

This sumes it up quite well:
[quote author=Roger Cicala and Aaron Closz]
This lens does everything well and one thing (low light) exceptionally well. It’s the decathlete of 85mm lenses.
[/quote]

JMZawodny · Jan 3, 2018

Does the photographer have any idea what to do with these TS lenses? These simple photos do not seem to demonstrate why these lenses exist. Same comment applies to the samples from the TS-E 50mm. When can we expect the real reviews to get published?

FramerMCB · Jan 3, 2018

x-vision said:
18mm is not wide enough for a high-end standard zoom on crop cameras.
And until now, Canon has shown zero interest in providing fast UWAs in EF-S format.

So, I say that these will be (expensive) cine lenses for super-35mm cine cameras.

FWIW, Canon's 10-18mm f4.5-5.6 IS EF-S lens puts in a good showing for the money. (roughly 16mm - 29mm FF equivalence)

FramerMCB · Jan 3, 2018

aceflibble said:
Y'all joke, but Tiffen's mist filters do exactly that, and come at a premium thanks to increasingly high demand. Look them up. A Tiffen black pro mist in a low strength is a great way to make the most of an f/1.4 or f/1.2 lens.

Thanks for the tip aceflibble!!!

niels123 · Jan 3, 2018

docsmith said:
[email protected] said:

I'd recommend buying from B&H with the dock and returning if the performance isn't adequate.

Click to expand...

^^^ This

One of the reasons I held off on buying a 5DIV is that many told me that my Sigma 50A which works great on my 5DIII, would start to fail on the 5DIV (price, lack of a truly compelling reason to upgrade, and general contentment with the 5DIII were other reasons). I waited until a sale on the 5DIV I couldn't pass up.

It was the first lens I tested on the 5DIV and it works great. I walked around taking a couple of hundred shots and it is hitting about as well as any lens I own (including several "L" lenses). From what I've read, others have had problems. But my 35A (since sold) needed pretty significant adjustment on the dock. My 50A needed only minor adjustment as is pretty stellar on both my 5DIII and 5DIV. My Sigma 150-600S is also rock solid in terms of AF.

My point being, given the different experiences out there, get a lens you can keep, test it yourself with your camera in your system. If it works, great. If it doesn't, make sure that you get it from someplace that you can return it (B&H is always been solid).

I just pulled the trigger and ordered from Amazon Germany because I live in The Netherlands and they offer a really good price at the moment.

midluk · Jan 3, 2018

I have to agree with this. This pier would have been the ideal showcase of tilt used to make it sharp from front to back. But it has only been used for "see I have a tilt lens and I can use it to make pictures all blurry and crappy".
And the one closeup photo also does not seem to make any use of tilt (and having tilted surfaces in focus is the only reason to use a TS lens instead of a proper macro I can think of).

stephan00 · Jan 3, 2018

Well, I probably should have written "looks very unspectacular in IR *for us*". I don't know much about physics or physiology, but possibly an animal with receptors exclusively in the IR-range might see a lot of brilliant "colours" in what is dull whitish in the photograph - just guessing

Anyway, since I've had time over the holidays to get over some old shots, here are a few more, this time with a 700nm-filter.

Mt Spokane Photography · Jan 2, 2018

Frodo said:
Thanks Mt Spokane, you are a veritable font of knowledge.
Yes, this is as I feared. I have ordered a Larmor screen protector to reduce the risk of water ingress and grime building up in the crack.
I won't replace the screen at this stage, but what is the display quality of the cheap Chinese screens?

I've bought one for a point and shoot, It seemed fine, but I have no idea as to the quality for a 5DS. I doubt if it would be noticable unless someone was really trying to spot a difference. LCD screens are a commodity, Canon does not make theirs.

olympus593 · Jan 2, 2018

preppyak said:
And the 18-200 optical performance is so comically bad in the 150-200mm range that its like having a heavier/more annoying 18-135.

This. The 18-200 is terrible beyond 140mm... so bad that depending on the copy it may be better to crop the image out of a 18-135.

For traveling, the 18-135 is much lighter and does the job with 35mm equivalent values of ~30-210.

Not only 3rd party lens makers do have better and cheaper alternatives, Nikon has a 18-300, even more versatile.

razashaikh · Jan 2, 2018

Great shots. Contradicting each other, one full of lights another B&W.

Xavitxaung · Jan 1, 2018

I still believe in a Canon EOS 3D, so in a pro revolutionary system, a DSLR body with a classic design, next to the Sony a9 (or a Canon F1N), not a mirrorless but coupling a large electronic viewfinder just above of the pentaprism with a rail system to focus through the back screen (like the EOS M5), more place to the nose (like the Contax 645 AF or Mamiya one), an electronic shutter speed (up to 1/32.000) and the rotating screen of aEOS 6D Mk II or like the Nikon D850... I don't think than Canon wants to create a mirrorless camera, is not necessary right now, at the moment there are four EOS 5D in the market (DS, DSr, mk III, mk IV), it's time to sell just a 5D Mk IV and create a camera to introduce to professional photographers to the future EOS 1Dx Mk III, a kind of a EOS 1v (body + booster). I know I am just dreaming about to believe than Canon is going to change his commercial strategy, but, it could be a right moment to make something different and traditional, at the same time...

tron · Jan 1, 2018

Anyone can say whatever they like and it is supposed to compete with Nikon D500 so:

20 better Mpixels (In reality I believe it will be 24)
12 fps
better DR at low ISO (like 80D or a little better)
better at high ISO
Touch screen
WiFi (in addition to GPS)
Nothing else is missing and to me much I read seems like nonsense (30Mp, no AA filter, etc)

Posts

Posts

Attachments

Filter

Forum statistics

Gallery statistics