Thank you all so much for your interest and your endearing comments!

hbr said:

Hi Ben,
Great website and lovely pictures! For the benefit of others wishing to visit our great country, would you please list the equipment you used and what gear that you did not bring along that you wish you had.

Click to expand...

That's an easy one: I brought all of my gear because I didn't want to risk needing something that was left at home on my biggest and most important trip so far. My complete gear list can be found here: http://www.focrates.com/gear/gear.html

Valvebounce said:

Hi Ben.
This is what I would describe as a great page, I went at your request to have a quick look, drawn straight in I stayed to the end of the page, and I intend to go back, I might even end up with your site as one of the permanently open pages on my tablet it was that interesting. The pictures are great, but the commentary really makes it for me, well done.

Cheers, Graham.

Click to expand...

Wow, Thank you! I'm not a writer and often seem to be struggling what to put under my pictures - I'm really happy to hear that it sometimes does add value to the imges.

DominoDude said:

My initial thought was: Oh, another self promoting photographer that is in desperate need of increased visitor stats.
But!...
I only came as far down in the forum as to Graham's (the involuntary and unknowingly guinea pig) post, to realize that there might be something else here. And I really wanted to see it with my own eyes.

Very interesting, and, as Graham mentions, the storytelling part around the photos adds another dimension.

Well done, Ben! I will surely check in on that site more to see what you come up with.

Click to expand...

I'm not making money off my website so I don't actually "need" any visitors at all. That said, it of course makes me happy when people visit my site and show interest in my work. And especially so if I can gain another viewer that stops by every once and a while... ;-)
Thanks for your comment!

Maximilian said:

Hi, KKCFamilyman!

I suppose you've become obsessed by something I'd call an "external" problem.
You read the reviews that are "bad" - or better call them "mediocre" and full of "disappointment".
And I must agree that I've expected more from the 24-105 Mark II. But I am still a happy - or even more happy - Mark I owner.
Because...
The original 24-105 was a really good - but not excellent - lens and so is the Mark II as well.

So what do you have to do now (IMO):
[list type=decimal]
[*]Forget about the reviews and simply use the lens. Go out, get used to and enjoy you new gear.
[*]Then consider if f/2.8 and even better IQ is more important to you than IS and the extra 35 mm reach
If yes ==> If you can afford and justify it, go for the 24-70/2.8 II
[*]If no ==> Then consider if smaller form factor and better macro functionality are worth the sacrifice of losing the extra 35 mm and additional money as I don't expect that this change will be a zero sum in costs.
If yes ==> If you can afford and justify it, go for the 24-70/4.0
[*]If no, stay/get happy with what you have now, because it is really good equipment
[/list]

Hope this helps you with your decision.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the response. I do really want the extra reach and like the new lens hood which was a real issue with me on the v1. I have all three lenses here right now and cannot tell a real difference but if I was recording video the IS would be the best. I wanted the extra reach because when carrying one lens I get 85mm and 105 which gives me a better portrait FL. I think there would not be an issue if the 2.8 had IS. I think I will shoot with it for a few weeks and go from there. Everyone keeps price as an issue but I got this for $900 so it is not much more than the 24-70 f4.

I am an amateur with a 20D, 50D, and 5D. I was getting by ok a 430ex, but got a chance to pick up an old 550ex, 420ex, and 90ex. Tonight at a Christmas dinner I put the 550 diffused on 5d camera and slaved the 430 and 420. Wow was it better!
In the famous words of Larry the Cucumber when asked how many of a certain toy did he need, he replied, " I donno. How many are there? "
Realistically for me these old flashes are enough, but I can certainly see how you pros and serious amateurs could use a bagful.
So I guess I would say the more the merrier
whvick

Sorry a bit late to this thread but since I went through the same upgrade path as OP is thinking about and with similar gear I wanted to just add a little.

I had the 17-40L for the longest time and when the 16-35 f/4 came out I decided to wait until the price came down. That took a while but it was OK as I was fairly content with my 6D and 17-40 set up. After much deliberation and great advice from my fellow CR forum members I decided to upgrade. Best decision ever!

The 16-35 f/4 is amazing and is absolutely worth every penny. The IS alone is worth it for me. Sharp all the way to the corners and a much more modern look to images (dunno how to describe it). Possibly the last UWA I will ever need. I sold the 17-40, though it was a tough sell and I didn't get all that much for it sadly but still glad it's gone. And I actually liked the 17-40, it was my workhorse! I also eventually ended up selling my Samyang 14mm f/2.8 (16mm is wide enough for me).

Is it an absolute necessity? No. Will it make you happy? Oh yeah! Better images? Hmmm well it will certainly inspire you to go out and use it! Maybe see how long you can handhold it an still get sharp images, that's a fun game to play for sure!

If you can afford just go for it.

tomcat said:

Do they transmit the focal range of the lens to the flashes too?

Click to expand...

When flashes are not mounted on or near the camera, while bounced, used inside light modifiers, or used for specific light effects, the lens data are little useful, and probably you're going to set them differently depending on the role. But it would be useful to control each flash coverage angle from the master.

Past 5 years, I'd guess by average I replace the batteries ~3-5 times a week, let's say 4 times x 52 x 5 = 1000.

That's with 430-I and 580II.

Never had any problems.

Very striking shot! Like it.

Jack

Canon is not likely to add more features. They place cameras in brackets which have features according to price. Buying one from a lower price bracket and hoping they will upgrade it to high end features generally results in disappointment.

So, if you purchase a item, be it a camera or a car, don't expect upgrades to come out adding high end features from a more expensive model, even if its just software. Make sure what you select has features you need.

I wish the M series had remote tethering that would work with my pc via USB. I've never bought one because they do not and apparently will not have it.

Update re M5 and Godox x1tc triggers Ive updated with V19 on the software released yesterday still not working , As a big fan of godox slightly disappointing that they have ignored 3 e-mails asking them to verify if they have this update in development , In the mean time I'm using the youngnuo 622c triggers to fire my speed lights which all work fine .

BasXcanon:

After 15 years of digital photography for consumers it is still only like 30% of the world population that can install a canon printer to their computer and learn how to get the SD data to the printer.

Click to expand...

Because 70% of the camera owning population don't care about printing - they share their images on social network sites or 500pX, Flickr and the like. Nothing wrong with that - and you try showing a lot of low light smartphone photos on large screen, or cropped.
Besides, if you want it printed there are a growing number of photobooths around where you can slide in your SD card and print it off yourself.

Professionals - the subtext to your comment is that professionals are as mis-informed as anyone else. They are bigoted and blind about gear as anyone else - and as an example you only need to see the insults fly around when a professional says 'I now shoot all my wedding with micro 4/3'. I have been convinced for a long time that all this blather of 'you owe it to the client t ive them the best possible quality so you have to shoot raw with FF cameras' is more about personal ego than about giving the client what they want.

The well known enthusiasts - I think your logic here is rather muddled. There are many 'well-known enthusiasts' who are well known only because of their skills in post processing to produce outstanding quality images.
Apple have not declared war on the camera industry, for the simple reason their phones have cameras. They are simply dong what Apple do best in telling the customer what they will do and when. To download pictures you have to put the photos on the cloud (preferably theirs) so they are tying you in. They are reducing manufacturing costs by not installing a SD reader and not paying any royalities (if they are due) for using SD technology.
One social network site (I don;t recall who) now will only take photos from smartphones and will not take pictures made by 'standalone' cameras.

Younger people - the number of skilled your photographers is growing from what I can see.

You have to admit that the competitions cameras from Panasonic at 350€ are way more appealing than the 1300D.

Click to expand...

You may thing that as an experienced photographer because you know the payoffs, but I have advised several friends and acquaintances on their first camera - I have shown them the images quality and size comparison using my own DSLR and MFT rigs, and every one of them went DSLR.

I think that is the answer, neuroanatomist. Thanks!
I had linepairs/mm in mind whereas it clearly reads LW/PH. So no theoretical considerations necessary.
Perhaps just a pair of glasses. :-[

This, in combination with the sweetspot as Mikehit mentioned, explains why the figures for APS-C are a bit higher than when the figures for FF are just divided by the crop factor.

Is it possible to read out the shutter counter with gphoto2 on EOS M5?

gphoto2 --get-config /main/status/shuttercounter

I read on another site this morning that Canon is working on two different AF systems for the 6D II but a decision has not been reached as to which system will be used. That gives me hope that it will have a decent AF system.

I also use 3rd Party Batteries in addition to genuine Canon batteries. So far, I've been pleased. Mostly Wasabi. Thanks for the detailed info since I recently picked up a 5D4 around Black Friday.

Oh - and congrats Neuro on passing 20K posts. (Wow!)

chrysoberyl said:

Thanks for yet another review! The coma is a little disturbing, but otherwise, it looks good for astro.

Just so I am clear, the camera has no control over aperture? To me, this is a good thing, since it will avoid focus shifting.

Click to expand...

Absolutely none. There is no electronics at all, so aperture is controlled via an old school aperture ring. There's actually very little focusing to do with this lens, unless you are focusing on something within five feet. For me I could pretty just focus to infinity (maybe back it off the tiniest fraction), and at f/5.6 everything was in focus. Just point and shoot.

The GPS stopped flashing after I left the camera on for a minute or so, under a clear path to the sky.

Thank you for all your help.

Thank you for the list. I guess we'll have to wait for the update.

If you're searching for big whites this might be the Friday you've been waiting for:

https://www.ac-foto.com/onlineshop/v3/?s=advent

Canon EF 400/2.8 L IS USM II for 9.400 €
and
Canon EF 600/4.0 L IS USM II for 10.750 €

jd7 said:

Larsskv said:

Act444 said:

Larsskv said:

Act444 said:

ahsanford said:

I chatted up Uncle Rog about TDP's less-than-inspiring IQ samples vs. the Mk I version in the comments, and here's what he said:

"Given sample variation I'm not at all surprised. They're really close. They vary. Some are going to find the II a bit better, some the I. I'd expect something like 60:40 find the II a little better."

- A

Click to expand...

And on top of that, the II is larger and heavier. Why carry the extra weight if it's not any sharper? Anyway, let's see how the price holds up. I feel that most folks getting it now will do so as part of a kit; there seems to be little need for us existing 24-105 I owners to rush in line for a non-kitted one...EDIT: I'd like to see the distortion method at 24mm and how correctable it is - this is where the 24-70 dominates the 24-105 V1...if V2 distortion is correctable to the point where lines are at least semi-straight - that'll be an improvement by itself.

As for the 24-70 f4, yes it can be brilliant - but I find it softens up dramatically as you get close to (non-macro) MFD. and the 2.8 II version is still better regardless.

Click to expand...

I'm on my third 24-70 f2.8LII, and it is sharper in the center, and it has good contrast and clarity, that gives a nice pop to its images. However, each of those three lenses have had some issues. At 35mm my current lens is pretty bad in the upper right (APS-C) corner. The 24-70 f4 L IS is not as sharp at its sharpest, but it is much more even and don't have any particular weak spots. For landscapes, the 24-70 f4 is arguably the better lens of the two.

Click to expand...

I disagree about the 24-70 f4 not having any weak spots: if all the lenses I own that cover 50mm, this one is the worst performer at that length (softest, least contrast), and that includes the 50 1.8 STM (although shooting that at 1.8 is similar, at f4 it runs circles around the 24-70). That weakness at 50mm is almost THE reason I still have the 24-105, where it is strongest at 50mm, and sharper near MFD.

If it were simply the 2.8 II version optically with an f4 aperture, it likely would have been an instant 24-105 replacement for me. Alas, it is not, and I keep both and enjoy the extra reach of 105mm.

Click to expand...

I've heard people complain at the 50mm performance, but my experience does not support that. I dont find my 24-70 f4 bad at 50mm at all. It is overall better at 50mm, than my f2.8 is at 35mm.

Roger Cicala has tested the 24-70 f4 at 50mm, and found it to be very close to it's 70mm performance.

Click to expand...

That is my experience also. And that is not the first time I have heard someone say the f/4 IS is more even across the frame than the f/2.8 II (as good as the f/2.8 II may be in many respects), although I don't have enough experience with the f/2.8 II to have an opinion about that myself.

Click to expand...

The 24-70 2.8 II does suffer from focal plane tilt problems and it's very hard to get a uniform copy across the board, probably would need to try at 8-12 copies. But it has insane micro-contrast, it's pretty much APO and reject LoCA amazingly well, it starts super sharp anywhere remotely near the middle even at f/2.8. At the 60-70mm range the corners and field curvature can be a little odd and my 70-300 IS maybe handles the field in a more natural way although anywhere in the center, anywhere not at the corners, the 24-70 is crazy sharp at 70mm even at f/2.8. Some copies are a bit sharper at f/2.8 than others. The best copies are peak center sharpness basically by f/3.2 already while the others probably hit peak center sharpness 2/3 more stops down at f/4. I tried a bunch. My current copy does have on corner pair or corners that do still have focal plane a touch tilted but it's not too bad and over almost all of the frame, including far edges, the results are just fantastic, simply fantastic. Occasionally a scene may be tricky enough to get slightly got by focal tilt at one corner or two compared to 24-70 f/4 IS but in most cases the 24-70 II produces better overall results at 24mm and in the other cases that still holds for the bulk of the frame. I noticed that 24-70 f/4 IS copy variation was of a different sort, the tilt of the focal plane and just regular corner vs corner tended to almost always be in fine balance but the overall quality could vary. The worst copies are softer across the entire frame and far softer along all edges and corners and radically so at 50mm than a good copy.

Would still buy the Milvus, been looking at it lately. Compared the Art and Milvus I do not like the dark purple numbers with the Sigma that should be black.

Wonder how the 85 F1.4 L but be priced, between the Otus and Milvus somewhere I guess.

StudentOfLight said:

I've posted the Astro pictures over on another thread:
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=20392.msg638255#msg638255

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=20392.msg638433#msg638433

Click to expand...

I just viewed them, thanks. I may try my 70-200 the next time I have clear, dry air in a low light pollution place. And I definitely will try my Milvus 100/2.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1hsv6YtNXus

8)

ahsanford said:

East Wind Photography said:

Ive used this with astro and the vignette is not really a big deal, particularly when you get excellent stars all the way to the edge of the field. Your alternatives are to crop out the edges anyway when you get bat wings with other UWA lenses. Plus you can use in camera PIC to to cut your jpg which you cant do with another brand such as tamron.

Click to expand...

So are you pushing the corners of a high ISO long exposure the 4+ stops you've lost (and how does that look?), or do you leave the vignetting in the shot?

I personally don't mind vignetting with portraiture, environmental portraiture, street, travel, etc. but I don't shoot astro.

- A

Click to expand...

No I'm correcting the vignette to flat. You need to.properly expose your image. Obviously if you are under exposing and expect to raise the vignette 4 stops and then try to.push another 3 or 4, you may not be able to do it with a consumer camera. I use a 1dx2 and a 7d2. With the 7d2 I get less vignette due to the crop factor. The 1dx2 handles it quite nicely though. I'm very happy with the lens and the only reason I don't sell my 24 1.4 is that I sometimes need 1.4 otherwise this 18-35 rarely leaves the camera.

This is the page to read - measurements of acutance at different focal lengths and apertures, not perceptual megapixels at some intermediate f. The old one has the edge at 600mm etc

https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Tamron-SP-150-600mm-F-5-63-Di-VC-USD-Model-A011-Canon-on-Canon-EOS-5DS-R-versus-Tamron-SP-150-600mm-F5-63-Di-VC-USD-G2-Model-A022-Canon-on-Canon-EOS-5DS-R__1263_1009_1751_1009

TDP is similar in the centre

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1079&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=0&LensComp=929&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=0

However, copy variation in these lenses is important. From the several reviews I have read, on average the older lens has the advantage in the centre at 600mm. My current Sigma 150-600mm C is far better than the Tamron 150-600mm I sold.

AAPhotog said:

neuroanatomist said:

It's called the Canon Loyalty Program. AFAIK, it only applies to cameras, not lenses. Apparently the discounts aren't that much, any more.

Click to expand...

thanks. yes indeed it was the loyalty program. shame the prices arent as low as they used to be, although I was only interested in some lenses any way.

Click to expand...

If you wait for a sale, you can save 15% off the refurb prices, the loyalty program used to give as much as 20% off, but its more like 5% now. They discounted cameras, but not lenses unless bought with a camera.

I have bought some a few years back, but don't bother now.