rt said:

Am I missing any differences here? Even with the usual f/4 or f/5.6 sensitive points will the camera focus better with a f/2.8 lens rather than with a f/4 one (I wouldn't be surprised as there is more light available with a f/2.8 lens with maximum aperture, so the one that is used for focusing)

Click to expand...

Unless the ambient light level is really limiting (e.g. below 0 EV), there's not going to a significant difference with a faster lens when used with f/4 or f/5.6 AF points. The aperture values specified for phase AF points aren't about the light intensity, but rather about a wider spread of light which is needed to support the wider baseline of the paired line sensors. In any sort of reasonable light with an f/5.6 AF point, you'll get the same accuracy with an f/5.6 lens as an f/1.2 lens.

rt said:

Do you foresee that high-precision or dual cross-type points will be used closer to the edges in new cameras? The range seems to be growing (slowly) for the recents models, it's currently a column rather than one point.

Click to expand...

I'd say it's unlikely. If you look at the 1D X AF sensor, you can see the limitation – the f/2.8 part of the 5 dual crosses are the diagonal lines.

In theory, they could possibly squeeze another set in a couple of colums away from the center, but they're not going to get much closer to the edges than that...and even so, I suspect there are other technical reasons to not locate them away from the center.

rt said:

I am mostly asking about the future direction (the camera is secondary to me really), but if this really matters, I will be using the lens with 7D (and 40D to some extent) now but I am planning on getting a 5D Mark IV (when it happens), will also consider 7D Mark III / 6D Mark II (if they happen).

Click to expand...

For current and the next generation of cameras, I would not expect much difference in focusing between the f/4 and potential f/2.8 versions of a 16-35 lens. The exception being if you typically use the center AF point, since with f/2.8 that's high precision whereas with an f/4 lens you're using the f/5.6 cross. However, with UWA lenses critical focus is generally not as evident due to the apparently deeper DoF.

Thanks all!

Berg, I'm sorry to say...that it's not the 5DIII that's at fault. It's AF system is amazing and one of the best currently available. But it needs a different skill set compared to the 5DII. AI servo in all points is now a credible option..but suffers less accuracy and getting the initial lock can be tricky. In low light the central 5 points are all equal to the old 5DII's single point. It's also more sensitive and more accurate compared to the 5DII. So consider the 5DIII as a quantum leap in AF and needs to be re-learned and you might need to take up some 1 to 1 advice to get the best out of it.

Gday.

As a happy owner of a Sigma Art 20mm f1.4; I have found myself - twice now - suffering from trying to take photos and realising the front element is fogged up.

This is something that I haven't experienced generally until now.

The first time this happened I was up on a mountain at night, with two layers of wind-proof clothing and a "feels-like" of -12C. My sigma lens was initially okay. But then, a few minutes into taking photos it started fogging up behind the front element. So I switched to my 8-15mm L fisheye, and that one didn't have any problem. (Both lenses were in the car cabin before I went out - the fisheye being in a pouch while I used the sigma before it fogged up).

The second time this happened, it wasn't that cold. It was 9C and I had been driving in the car (a hatchback) and stopped to take some photos. Inside the car it wasn't that hot either. It was maybe 17C. I went out to take photos and saw that my viewfinder was hazy. I looked at the front element of the sigma, and water had condensed on top!. I wiped with with my tshirt, which didn't help; I wiped with my hoodie that was in the car, and i wiped and wiped until there was no water left, then once more with the microfibre cloth, and back to photo taking.

This weekend, I'm going to the snow and was hoping to carry my camera in my backpack (with batteries on my person) and well, do I take the Sigma? Previous experience shows that it'll probably fog up or condense. Is my Sigma dodgy? or does it have something to do with the Sigma NOT having "weather sealing" and the fisheye having it? NB: My other lenses, 24-105L and 70-300L have never fogged up either.

Thank you for your time.

Depends what you are using it for. I use the 24-70 Mk ll for weddings, for its versatility - I often couldn't change location fast enough or am not allowed to as in the ceremony, so the 24-70 range is paramount. When you take a lot of photographs cropping in camera as opposed to post is very time saving also. I carry a 35mm f1.4 principally for low light where I can't bounce flash - it doesn't get used much.
This is just my m.o. Others may well work differently. The lens is a tool, it really does boil down to how you propose to use it the most.
Hope this helps.

Dholai said:

Thanks all. again.

I found the solution. I think placing the filter in the proximal slot solves the problem. I placed it in the distal one ( just beginning to use it) !

Then I saw the link Mikehit gave from the Lee website. They are exactly right.

BTW, I did cover my viewfinder ( knew that much ) ;D

Thanks everybody

Click to expand...

Excellent discussion and learning +1

Is that a macro? If it released before years end, I am going to bag it for my short macro needs. I desperately need a 50/60mm 1:1 IF macro which seems to be available for Nikon users since 2008.

Fantastic, Sebastian. They bring back some very happy memories.
I love the 'Lone Tree' shot.

As others has said already, since you're on a budget you are better off going with a used lens than a new one. There is nothing wrong with buying used. Just make sure you are buying from a very reputable vendor on ebay. Or buy it from craigslist, that way you can actually test out the item before paying it. I bought my 24-70 2.8 from craigslist, I even brought my laptop to do a quick view of the images before paying the seller. Not to scare you, but I did buy a lens on ebay which had issue. But paypal had no issue issuing a refund and the product returned to the seller. A lot of others have already suggested what to purchase. It is best to wait for items that are up for bids instead of buy it now, as you can usually get better deals.

I have a 7D2, one of the early release batches back in October 2014. And since day 1 uhave had the 7d2, I have found it to overexpose when using zoom lens. Have upgraded firmware to latest and it still the same.

The 135 looks interesting, but the 85t1.5 has a strangely long minimum focus distance (1.12m).

It looks like their next release will be in the 18-19mm range, which is very useful for Super-35.

One other question springs to mind: is the 100-400 a full-time manual lens? If so would fixing the focus ring in place solve the problem?

ashmadux said:

Those are 100% crops of the problem areas- what kind of larger of sections would you rather see?

- The amount of green fringing is huge. If you see the bird crop, there fringing even in the wood- and its not 'super high' contrast.
- Whether it's coma/ghosting, some oof elements look really bizarre, like one single part of the scene is in movement. there is nothing good about it.

Im still reviewing shots from the rental versions of this lens- I just haven't seen these effects exhibited before, after 4/5 rentals. So I'm suspect that this lens is likely busted. I'm doing my research as I want to be sure, and I will need it for the upcoming fashion week.

Click to expand...

Those comments are helpful. Decking wood is often treated with copper so the colour didn't surprise me. And the photo with the fencing that could have been normal reddish.
I wonder if you have longitudinal chromatic aberration for some reason - I can't remember that this is an issue with by 35/2, but it can be with my 85/1.8. I would have thought that lateral CA would show up in the first image but its not apparent to me especially if a 100% shot.

I think the blur/bokeh is okay, but as I note, even my 85/1.8 will have disturbing bokeh in certain situations.

You are the best judge, because there is only so much I can see on a screen. If you have rented a few and this one is worse than the others, that's your answer. Bring it back! It should be a good lens (coma excepted).

Cheers

I have the Wimberley head, 5d3 gripped, the zoom does effect the balance but it is minor as said.

Good shooting, SwnSng. You guys seem to be having the time of you life. Thanks for sharing!

I sort of like this outfit...

I'm hoping it's an up scaled g5x

And there you are:

Nikon D500 issue with Lexar UHS-II SD cards

http://www.planetnikon.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=28820

Fixed with 1.02 firmware!!!

http://downloadcenter.nikonimglib.com/en/download/fw/191.html

Addressed an issue that sometimes caused errors with certain UHS-II SD memory cards. As we were able to confirm that these were read errors arising not in the camera but in the cards themselves, we addressed the issue with a work-around that switches temporarily to UHS-I mode when a card-side error occurs in UHS-II mode. The camera switches back to UHS-II mode when turned off and then on again or when the standby timer restarts. Card-side read errors may still occur after the update, albeit very infrequently.

EDIT: So were not for the fixes the solution would be Canon with Lexar and Nikon with Sandisk ;D ;D ;D

MrFotoFool said:

Mt Spokane Photography said:

There are two approaches.

1. Buy the right camera for the job (Ruthless Approach)

2. Buy a camera that appeals to you as a status symbol or just because it looks neat, or its the best, etc.

I have nothing against either method, but because many of us fall into one camp or the other, the answers will be impossible to interpolate because we have so many reasons for picking the right model to suit us.

Click to expand...

To quote a famous Billy Crystal character, "It is better to look good than to feel good."

Click to expand...

...or like the mantra my ridiculously overconfident friend lives by, "look good, feel good, ARE good"

-pw

I vote for Captain Slow: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LO0PgyPWE3o

Canon Rumors said:

We’re told that there will be at least one new “G” Powershot camera announced for Photokina in September. The likely candidates for a Mark II update would be the PowerShot G5 X and the PowerShot G9 X.</p>
<p>The “G” series of PowerShot cameras from Canon have been a sales success for the company, but nothing like the heyday of point & shoot digital cameras.</p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>

Click to expand...

How about a G1X3 with an APSC sensor and this lens http://egami.blog.so-net.ne.jp/2016-07-15

Im taking pictures at a rodeo and using anti flicker bc of the lights and so far my autofocus is a complete failure. Will this camera not cobtinuously autofocus with anti flicker on. I used a 1dx last year and my autofocus at high speed was fine. Im holding down af on and just the shutter button and have terrible results

jd7 said:

I don't have the 100L but I recently picked up a second-hand Sigma 85 1.4. I haven't had a chance to use it that much yet (sadly!) but so far I'm really liking it! Basically, I would echo Gregorywood's post above. I think the IQ is great, and (touch wood) the AF has seemed pretty good so far.

I've used a 100L once and it was fine (and doing a bit of macro was fun), but unless you want the macro capability I've never really understood why so many people praise it as much as they do. I don't mean that to be provocative, I'd just really like to understand! At that focal length a max f-stop of 2.8 just doesn't seem exciting for a prime lens (although I admit the IS and weather-sealing are attractions), and I don't feel like I've seen photos with the 100L which have a character and bokeh which catches your attention in the way that, say, some photos with the 135L can do. Anyway, maybe if I used the 100L for a while I'd start to understand its charm?

Click to expand...

Remember, with the 100L, you can focus very closely. At 4-5 feet away, you have a very shallow depth of field and can get some very nice bokeh. Here are just a few I have at hand taken with the 100mm f/2.8L Macro. It is not my primary portrait lens, but very nice.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=628&Camera=614&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=2&LensComp=977&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=0

The Canon is noticeably better where they cross over than the Nikon lens that was considered a benchmark for many years.

And before anybody says 'yes but the Nikon is an f2.8 and the Canon at f4 is much easier to make' look at this one.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=628&Camera=614&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=977&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

Halfrack said:

Based on how PCB promote their battery chemistry, I would not be surprised it's a custom cell setup.

Did you get them from PCB stateside or locally when PCB Australia was around?

Click to expand...

Yes from the Australian distributor. PCB pulling the plug on them was a shock and major setback to the distributor necessitating a quick restructure and an unwelcome inconvenience for Australian PCB customers. No more local support. Darn!

-pw