privatebydesign said:

infared said:

These break so often that there is a repair video readily available for your use.
...and why did Canon wait 22 years???? :-X

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NTu00wgJgRE

Click to expand...

I've had mine for over ten years and it works fine, meanwhile I have broken three different L lenses. I always have the hood on it especially when it is loose in my bag.

Click to expand...

You just gave me one more reason to get excited about a future 50 f/nooneknows IS USM -- a proper hood. I can't stand the current 50 f/1.4 USM hood.

My 50 f/1.4 is still going strong at five years. Soft as a pillow at f/1.4, I tend not to use it wider than f/1.8. But stopped down to f/2.8 or narrower it's sharp as the dickens.

- A

privatebydesign said:

CanonFanBoy said:

privatebydesign said:

CanonFanBoy said:

I've noticed, though, that the closer walls are, the more distortion there is.

Click to expand...

That isn't true. Distortion is entirely consistent with distance.

Also, you can use the free Adobe Lens Profile Creator http://www.adobe.com/support/downloads/detail.jsp?ftpID=5489 to make profiles for any lens at any zoom length and any aperture. These custom made profiles are not difficult to make, the program even gives you a target to print to help the process, and can then be loaded into PS and LR and will appear in your normal lens profile panels.

Click to expand...

Actually, the magnitude is more noticeable in narrow spaces. So it is true for this lens.

Click to expand...

Can you post some test shots to prove that because it would be very unusual?

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=26729.msg530143#msg530143

Click to expand...

Actually, I have two shots here. The problem is I am pretty sure I was not square with the building in each shot. I believe we are talking about two different things. You are speaking about things in the same part of the frame at different distances. I am not.

You see, when I owned Canon's EFS 10-22mm and I went to the Las Vegas Strip (90 miles SW of me) everything, and I mean everything, leaned in towards the center top of the frame very harshly even if the subject was near the center of the frame (not at the left or right edge... but maybe half the way towards the center at the bottom and coming closer at the top. It was bad. I am not getting that type of barreling here. If anything, this lens seems to go the opposite way, but not nearly as extreme as my old 10-22.

In these two photos I got while waiting on an oil change (just trying out my new lens right after getting it), I do not have that problem. In fact, while I am not exactly square with the truck bed I have a hard time seeing any distortion at all in the truck bed, but I do in the building (I'm even less square with the building. However, things further from me (moving towards the center) are straighter.

I've got a few more photos taken inside some RVs where the keystoning is quite noticeable on the walls next to me, but not at the end of the small room. BUT, I may have no idea whatsoever what I am talking about either. My perceptions and reality may be quite different. Also, since I was not really testing for that, the problem may be that I was pointing the camera at a slight down angle.

These photos are not cropped. In the truck photo the camera is nearly resting on the tailgate. In the shop photo the camera is extremely close to the red post on the right. I really do not see any "stretching". If it is there it is very well controlled.

EDIT: There was correction provided by the profile in Lightroom. No cropping, though, was done. Sorry. Like I said... having some cognitive issues. I did not correct what the profile did. There could be some fine tuning done.

geekpower said:

i'm using the Hoya HD and haven't had any complaints. they have remained scratch free, even when i absent mindedly clean them with my t-shirt instead of digging through my bag for a lens pen.

Click to expand...

Ditto for me. I have several of the Hoya HD+ Low Profile Threaded Super Cool CYB (Cook Your Breakfast) filters. They have held up great and don't seem to cause any issues with the image.

I use them indoor/outdoor all the time. I don't use lens caps much. I clean them with my breath and my shirt all the time. In general, I abuse the hell out of them and they keep working fine.

Edited to Remove Fake Article

The 16-35mm F2.8 MKII, isn't the best, but it isn't awful either just a little soft in the corners. But at current cost is most certainly overpriced. I bought it about 2 years ago pre owned and have used it extensively for a few years and been fairly happy with it does the job, been round the world with it as well as covering events and weddings. Also shot a fair amount of astro and been happy with it

The Tamron is a better lens and I think you made the correct choose. I prefer the canon glass. When the new version comes out I will certainly upgrade to it.

A single Canon 600EX-RT makes a fine wireless trigger /shutter release.

If I were you, I would bring the Canon EF 28-135mm IS with me. You can take both wide angle shots and close up shots.

Sabaki said:

Hi everybody

I have a very good offer (less than $100 equivalent) for the 85mm f/1.8 that I'm considering but would like some opinions on this lens.

Can owners/users of this lens kindly share their experiences of it with me please?

Thanks in advance 8)

Click to expand...

I'd say you should get it. It's an fantastic lens. If you get a good copy, you could even take a close up headshot right at f/1.8. And $100 is a super inexpensive price. Just make sure the lens doesn't have any problem. Dust inside the lens is not an issue though. My 85mm 1/8 has a huge amount of dust inside but it still get sharp and clarity photos from it.

Stacked and merged...used colored LED lights.

daaningrid said:

are they going to put hasselblads on drones

Click to expand...

Obviously, there has to be a connection. I'd expect Hasselblad cameras built into a new large drone perhaps for government use or for corporations who can afford it. It might not be just a camera strapped on, but the works integrated into a drone camera with all the gyro stabilizers, etc.

I like the Think Tank Hydrophobia. I have used it from shooting races in heavy rain to even a couple of color runs. I have seen a lot of people basically use the cheap bags, but I prefer to have protection and like the way the Think Tank allows access but still does a great job sealing.

Now if you REALLY want to be sealed, look at Outex. Been jonesing after one of these set ups for a while, but pretty much can go underwater and still be fine.

Almost like the full body condom from Naked Gun, but for a DSLR

If I owned this lens, I would still use it for astro set at f/2.8 where vignetting is better than 2.8 rivals and coma is acceptable. Not what we were hoping for, but usable for astro. Other low light use wide open at f/1.4, and really sharp landscapes at f/5.6 would be a bonus.

But I will not buy because I have most of these uses covered by other lenses.

telemaq76 said:

JMZawodny said:

You very likely need one of these Drop in filter holders.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/186092-REG/Canon_2612A002_Drop_In_Filter_Holder_for.html

Click to expand...

i bought the lens. you mean i have to buy a second filter holder ? I can t use the one i have in the lens?
by any chance do you have a picture of the filter holder with the astro filter on it?

Click to expand...

I bought an extra drop in filter holder used (didn't care about the quality or the glass)..not the screw on. The problem is most filters are.too thick to fit back into the camera. I bought the one with the flip up gel holder. There is a retainer ring that holds the glass filter in. I just swapped it with my deep.sky filter. Works like a champ.

Contrast ratio 2100:1? Might be OK for business data projection but absolutely not for watching movies. For a comparision my old JVC RS-10 does 32000:1 (native!) and is very quiet at the same time. Only OLED beats it for contrast/color reproduction). I paid about $2000 for the RS-10... and Canon wants $11000 for this?!

Canon EF 35mm f/1.4 version I mint second hand at 800 euros or version II at 1800 dollars plus freight.
You must be American not to see the situation as I see it.

Thanks

neuroanatomist said:

First, is the clamp replaceable? It is on some Manfrotto heads, not on others.

For a tripod clamp, I prefer a lever over a screw knob for faster loading/unloading. Full gradations aren't really needed, but a center mark is very useful (better body/L-plates will also have one). If your camera has an electronic level, that will be more accurate than the bubble level on the clamp, so for me a level on the clamp is dispensable.

The other important consideration is getting a clamp with a threaded socket that matches the stud (diameter and thread pitch) on the head.

Click to expand...

definitely replaceable. I had a tripod tip over and bent the lever so it was very hard to close.

rfdesigner said:

ahsanford said:

rfdesigner said:

So if it isn't as small as possible, what's the point.. might as well get a 6D or an SL depending on what format you want.

Click to expand...

About half the world agrees with you on 'the main point of mirrorless is to get smaller'.

The other half love what pulling the mirror can do to (someday) outperform SLRs, believe it or not. They have little interest in reducing size.

- A

Click to expand...

which markets though?

Sport?.. EVF is going to have to lag vs a mirror, even if it's only 40ms.. a combined mirror/EVF could be good though... raise the mirror once, then leave it there using the EVF while you shoot 25fps at full resolution.

Nature?.. sitting in a hide for hours on end using an EVF is going to kill those batteries.

Wedding?.. maybe, it could give accurate DOF but I don't see a huge leg up on live view.

what am I missing?

Click to expand...

I agree with ahansford but I don't think you are missing anything either ... I think there are two broad categories of reasons for wanting mirrorless:
1. you want small and light;
2. any other reason/s why you think mirrorless offers something better than a DSLR, eg EVF, faster sync speeds, etc. (I am unsure of how many of these things would actually require mirrorless as against have simply become associated with mirrorless, but let's leave that to one side for now.)

However, my view is if you are in the first group, you need to be looking at an APS-C (or even a m4/3 sensor), so you have lenses which are also small and light. I think what Canon has done with the EOS M line makes sense in that regard (whatever other criticisms may be leveled at other aspects of the EOS M line). If you are looking for small and light but also a FF sensor, I don't see how you are going to get it by the time you add a wide aperture lens, or a long lens, or perhaps even an UWA lens. At best, it seems to you might get something reasonably small and light if you limit yourself to lenses in the moderate wide angle to normal range - but I think that is a fairly serious limitation for many people, especially if you are shelling out a couple of thousand dollars for the camera body.

So, my thinking is if you want FF mirrorless you are probably in the second group. And so for people wanting FF mirrorless, I would have thought better to keep a body with at least a bit of size (I chose 6D size in the poll but I can see people wanting a range of sizes, eg if you are shooting superteles you probably want larger), so it's a better match for the size/weight of the lenses you are likely to use.

I'm sure there are people who will say they really do want FF mirrorless even though they are looking for small and light. I'm just not sure how realistic that really is. Perhaps there is a compromise though: say Canon made a mirrorless around the size of the SL1 (and perhaps lighter?) with an EF mount, with a view to it being used with lenses like the 40 2.8, the 24/28/35 IS lenses, the 50 1.8 STM and the 50 1.4. That would give people options, and in fact I can see quite a few people who own a 5D3 or similar also buying the mirrorless EF camera. All the lenses would be interchangeable so you could mix and match as you chose on any given day, but basically if you were happy shooting in the wide to normal lengths (and perhaps without very wide apertures) you could take your mirrorless EF + smaller lenses, and the rest of the time you would take your 5D3 or similar. I realise the flange distance issue would mean you wouldn't be using the smallest possible lenses on your mirrorless EF, but even so I reckon it could be pretty good. Plus it seems using a shorter flange distance may lead to increased vignetting on wider angle lenses, so keeping the EF flange distance may have advantages in making the mirrorless EF useful in a wider range of circumstances, so it might actually be a good compromise all around.

Pitbullo said:

StudentOfLight said:

Pitbullo said:

I am looking forward to the Canon FF mirrorless, as I am thinking of getting a Sony A7II next year. If I could stay with Canon all would be great. I like Canon. However, as many are saying, they want to use their EF-lenses, and dont want a new mount. I dont really get that. I also want to use my lenses on a Canon mirrorless, but with an adapter. I really hope they shorten the flange distance so we can use legacy lenses like we can on the Sony cameras. Apart from the EVF, the enormous amount of lenses that can be used is one of the greatest strengths of the mirrorless Sonys.

Click to expand...

Which legacy lenses are you hoping to resurrect and how good are they by today's standards? How would they hold up to the current crop of 24/36/42/50 MP sensors?

Click to expand...

TBH I dont really know as I have not studied those lenses (I shoot Canon crop today). However, looking at the Sony forum it seems like people are adapting all sort of lenses. Not just for their qualities, but also for the price. Older lenses tent to be quite cheap compared to modern lenses. I want that option! It would be silly to leave this possibility out when they have the chance to leave it in.

Click to expand...

Using 'legecy" lens is fun, But not practical. You have no AF, therefore you are force to use MF or guess the distance (that is a hit and miss). When you are in out door, the screen may not be bright enough. I brought the Leica Elmar 90/4 and Summicron 35/2 for 2 oversea trip along with the M and 3 EF-M lenses. The 35/2 never got used. The 90/4 has been used a few time as a deflecto 135mm at distance beyond 80 feet. Both lens can beat any M lens in definition and fidelity.

I was very disappointed with my 24-70 f/2.8G at the edges and corners, they were bad enough that even I could see them, and that's remarkable.

It sounds like this lens would be a better all around performer. I really have not seen a need for IS.

bedford said:

PureClassA said:

Sorry to shatter every Sony fanboy myth, but here....

http://www.canonwatch.com/sony-increases-earnings-demand-for-sony-cameras-felt-by-27/

Click to expand...

What's the source for the 27% drop in unit numbers?

I couldn't find this information in the official Q2 financial report.

Regards,
Oliver

Click to expand...

Oliver

This is from Tom Hogan's site (my italic & bold)

Note: once again we have a number of photography sites blindly repeating numbers they found published by the mainstream press, this time the decline in camera unit volume at Sony reported in their latest financial disclosures (unit volume down 27%). Without a detailed breakout, it’s tough to tell what that decline really represents, but I’d guess it’s mostly Cyber-shots, which are slowly becoming invisible. <snip>

Your are correct and completely wrong at the same time.

mitchel said:

As a lifetime Canon user with a ton of great Canon glass, I can't help but voice my growing disappointment and concern with the brand.

Click to expand...

Okay, but what you are complaining about has nothing to do with Canon.

mitchel said:

Every day I feel more like someone with a great collection of buggy whips, endlessly debating with my friends and colleagues the merits of one buggy whip versus another... the upcoming Light 16 (as well as the existing Lytro stuff) ... along with massive in-camera image processing, is where things are headed.

Click to expand...

Possibly, but what you fail to grasp is that we are a good 10 years or more away from any of this technology becoming truly usable. We may be debating buggy whips, but we are debating buggy whips 10 years before automobiles became viable. If you want to sell or shoot the horse now, that's your decision, but you have to be prepared to walk for the next decade until the technology catches up.

mitchel said:

We need to face the sad fact, for whatever reason,Canon is failing to keep up with the innovation in image-making and processing. We all sit around waiting for Canon's latest horse-drawn carriage; meanwhile, in the real world, SONY offers continually superior sensor performance and, more importantly, shows where photography is really headed.

Click to expand...

Complete and utter bull. Sony isn't showing anyone anything. They have focused on one minor metric and done a very good job of exploiting that metric. But, it's neither revolutionary nor even all that significant for the future of photography.

mitchel said:

They really need to wake up and take a serious look at what is happening around them. They already missed the boat, completely, on the impact the cellphones would have on their P&S market, and now they appear to be snoozing as other companies exploit more effectively the intersection of optics and computer processing.

Click to expand...

Yes ALL the camera manufacturers has utterly failed when it comes to connectivity and the internet. Canon has been no worse or better than any other manufacturer. They all failed to comprehend the market revolutionizing impact of cloud technology and connectivity. I certainly hope they all get their act together on this front, because it's more than annoying, it's having an impact on my ability to compete and deliver for clients.

But, it is simply trolling to single out Canon on this front and to pretend Sony is any better.

expatinasia said:

It's 10:25 in the morning here. Why do I have a funny feeling it may be 22:25 (or later) wherever you are?!!

Cheers, anyhow.

Click to expand...

22:32 in Florida. Just got back from Guatemala and it is 21:32 there!

Canon 5DS R vs Canon D2000 DSLR

How far has Canon DSLR technology come since the release of the 1st Canon branded DSLR in 1998? To find out we put the Canon D2000 head-to-head shot-for-shot against the latest Canon 5DS R. To my surprise the D2000 still has some tricks up its sleeve!

Click to expand...