Its generally been close to a year for the pro level bodies. The consumer ones like the 70D made it in about 9 months.

A 5D3 = old and boring... what the!

Does aperture control actually work? If so, autofocus ought to work, because it uses the same communication pins. You might check your camera's AF settings to make sure it is set to continue searching upon a focus miss.

Failing that, the TC might be decentered or something.

Back to Autumn by Thousand Word Images by Dustin Abbott, on Flickr

nancy said:

To find a site is legit or not, you can do some methods. You can check whois lookup for a domain name. Visit the site WhoisXY.com here you can check whois information for domain name. If the information is public and looks legit,you can note the email id, contact number of the domain name owner or administrative or technical department or else sale department. It will help you to contact them if you have any problem after using their services or buying their products. Then you can visit the site ScamAdviser.com check whether the site is trusted or not. If the result will "High Trust Rating. This Site Looks Safe To use." It is good site. Then you can visit Webutation.info here you can read users or customers reviews, ratings and feed backs about the site and their services. If they said good, you can start using the site.

Click to expand...

The scam detecting websites are easily fooled, they have become worthless. Any one with a smart phone can give 20 feedbacks using different IP's, which fools those sites into think they are different submissions.

There are some basic things that a website should have.

1. A customer Service phone number

2. A physical address

You can then search out the address and find whats actually there. Often scammers use a mail drop, so you'll find a UPS store at the address. If you find a half dozen camera stores at the same address, watch out!

jeanluc said:

I agree about the 24-105........some of my best shots have been with this lens, and if they made an updated version I suspect a lot of people would jump on it, including a lot of us who now use the 24-70.

Click to expand...

IMHO, the 24-105 is Canon's most popular, most purchased and most used workhorse lens in their L lineup. It was Most folks' FIRST L Lens. And it successfully whetted everyone's appetite for more L lenses. So I'm a little surprised that they haven't shown it more love.

I am not that impressed...using my 1Ds3 coupled with a 180 macro lens with a 2X TC and extension tubes,
coughing out 3X magnified images isn't difficult, then using PS CC for the stacking/merging process results
in images of impressive native resolution.

Mr_Canuck said:

It looks like you're not planning on full frame. I'm not sure why people say to buy full frame lenses as a better investment if you're not planning on it any time soon. The EFS lenses are so much cheaper. I would avoid the 16-35. You are way overpaying for something you won't benefit from. Get EFS lenses. Cheaper, smaller, lighter but can be great quality.

Click to expand...

+1 on getting EF-S lenses if you plan to stay with crop cameras. No reason to pay extra for more expensive EF lenses that are not better for your 70D than some excellent EF-S options. For landscape, I would recommend the EF-S 15-85 or EF-S 10-22 if you want UWA (the new 10-18 is also a great UWA option). I owned both when I was shooting crop and used them extensively for landscape work.

The EF-S 17-55 2.8 is probably a better general purpose and portrait lens. I also owned one of these, but found that 17mm was often not wide enough for most landscapes. The same comment is true about the Sigma 18-35mm and Canon EF-S 18-135 STM lenses. Very good lenses, but I was never happy with 17 or 18mm at the wide end.

dcm said:

FoCal Test Distance Chart and Explanation here. Two things to note
[list type=decimal]
[*]its the minimum recommended distance, you can be farther. I tend to check lenses at two distances just to be sure - the minimum and 2X the minimum is my default.
[*]you do a teleconverter in the focal length, but you don't consider the crop factor in the focal length when deciding the distance.
[/list]

So 8m is the minimum recommended for your 400mm lens.

Click to expand...

But how about a target, should I resize target as I go further? If yes, what is the ideal target size (width of strips, of black and white)

Because in my experience, when I go further, AFMA green/yellow dot go crazy, no pattern at all, it never stay solid. So I tend to go closer to my target.

Hope my question make sense..

http://delightphoto.zenfolio.com/blog/2014/12/ttl-or-not-ttl-shooting-ttl-with-off-camera-flash

Recently I did some test with the Yongnuo stuff: 2 Flashes and T2 Transceivers + a very charming controller for 350.- €...

Excellent build quality and easy to use... => fun!!!

GraFax said:

privatebydesign said:

GraFax said:

Just to add my two cents;

Lightroom uses ProPhoto RGB as it's internal color space so I use that within my own workflow to keep things simple. So, if you edit RAW's in lightroom, you use ProPhoto.

Click to expand...

No it doesn't.

All images displayed in the Library Module are jpegs in Adobe RGB, these are internally created. I am not 100% certain if it displays tagged jpegs in their native space, like in the Slideshow Module, or if they are all recreated as Adobe RGB previews.

In the Develop Module it has it's own colour space, although the chromacity levels are based on ProPhoto it has a gamma of 1.0, ProPhoto has a gamma of 1.8. You can't ever see the internal Lightroom Develop Module colour space, it is called Melissa. The images you see in the Develop Module are Melissa colour space with an sRGB gamma tone curve applied. This is why you sometimes see a colour shift when switching from the Library to Develop Modules.

In the Slideshow Module RAW files are displayed in Adobe RGB and tagged jpegs in their native colour space.

In the Web Module all images are displayed in sRGB.

Lightroom is a colour space marvel, it is extremely complicated under the hood but they did a very good job of the methodology, basically it reminds me of a swan on a lake, it looks serene and unmoving on the surface, but below the water it is paddling like a paddle steamer.

Having said all that, only for the sake of accuracy, as has been pointed out, if you are shooting RAW and using Lightroom it is close to irrelevant with a nod to the improved histogram in Adobe RGB, if you are shooting in jpegs and doing little or no post processing then sRGB makes more sense especially if you upoad or email many of your images. If you shoot jpeg and do extensive post (but why would you!) then Adobe RGB will give you more tonality to maneuver before posterization kills your image.

Click to expand...

Adobe's linear gamma and proprietary version of ProPhoto, named after the developers wife Melissa Gaul, is still for all intents and purposes ProPhoto. I was trying to provide a simple explanaton for a user who may be intimidated by color management. But, if you need to feel smarter than everybody else on the internet, than by all means say "No it doesn't".

Click to expand...

Well you failed.

The request for help was specifically about Adobe RGB and sRGB as selected in camera. Adding a third, and unselectable, colour space into the mix, and mislabeling it to boot did nothing to help anybody let alone provide a 'simple explanation', so forgive me for trying to correct some of your inaccuracies.

If you are using Lightroom you don't have a choice regarding colourspace and it never uses ProPhoto, all internal colourspace handling is automatic until export. If you are shooting RAW and using Lightroom it doesn't matter which colourspace you assign in camera as it will ignore them both anyway.

The Melissa colourspace is not proprietary, it is freely published and usable, just take the chromacity values of ProPhoto and a gamma of 1.0. To label Melissa Gaul as 'the developers wife' is also a gross misrepresentation, true she is married to Troy Gaul one of the original developers, but she was also the Adobe QE manager for Lightroom and as such played a key roll in the development herself. Indeed she is still at Adobe but moved from her managers position in 2007 after over 9 years.

Now, having said all that I still don't feel smart, but I also didn't feel the need to bring in spurious misinformation into this thread and then try to put somebody down that pointed out some factual errors.

Thanks folks. I think I'll try the Arcaplate from Peak.

AlanF said:

WEX has offered me a very good part exchange price on my 70D so it looks like it will be the 7DII for Christmas or Hanukkah or whatever excuse we need! My standard setting for birding is iso 640, so I don't care what the iso 100 sensor score is. The 7DII is really up there for higher iso and seems to have great AF. The AF of the 7D is what killed it for me. The 70D is very, very good, but I miss the 3 custom settings.

Click to expand...

Having 3 "c" modes is a big plus. I also like that the mode dial has a hard stop so you can select your c modes without looking. With a lexar 1066x cf card the thing just keeps ticking. The af system on the 7dii would make it a worthwhile upgrade from the 70d even if everything else was the same. (If you need it)

Looking at your lenses and current price drop, I would go straight to 6D for huge lift in IQ.

http://www.canonpricewatch.com/product/04039/Canon-EOS-6D-price.html

Maui5150, we may be wrestling with how to apply our personal experiences with our perception of the OP's need.

I see the OP's sports need to be minimal now, maybe picking up as his son grows up. I also perceive his gear acquisition as a longer path than this single purchase.

If the sports in question are outdoor where light isn't an issue, then a 7D2 with a 70-200 f4 would be the way to go -- for today. down the road, an ideal setup would be the 7D2 with the 70-200 f2.8L II. Or, if sports never becomes a priority, maybe a 6D with the 70-200 f2.8L II. But, what path to take to get there?

The 7D2 offers maybe a stop of the light advantage over the T3i with respect to noise (for RAW images). It offers more focus points, but for getting shots of a specific athlete, you will still be using a single point for focusing. The advantage that the 7D2 offers is that you can add a bunch of expansion points around that single point and you can move this group around the frame to improve composition. Additionally, the 7D2 offers 10 FPS vs. 3.7 FPS of the T3i. Finally, the 7D2 offers a burst rate of 24 RAW files over 6 RAW files of the T3i.

When indoor sports is the subject, we need to look at the full impact of low light, beyond noise.

The 7D2's noise reduction may offset the loss of a stop with the 70-200 f4 vs. the f2.8 II. But, what are the ramifications of focus lock under low light with a 4.0 lens vs. 2.8 lens when using the 2.8 sensitive focus points? I suspect that the OP will see an improvement in his center-point focusing performance with the 2.8 lens over the 4.0 lens. Plus, the 2.8 Mark II lens reportedly has the best focusing performance of all the Canon 70-200 zooms. I'm not suggesting that the T3i with the 70-200 2.8 will outperform the 7D2 with the 70-200 4.0. But, in low light, the 2.8 lens will improve the performance of the T3i while the 4.0 will limit the potential of the 7D2. I have noticed focus misses with my 24-105 4.0 on both my 7D and my 5D3 that I don't experience with 2.8 lenses (17-55, 24-70, or 70-200).

Keep in mind, we are considering kids in sports. We aren't, yet, talking about a lot of speed. I see no issue with center-point focusing for these events. I've spent many years shooting center point with an XT. I also don't see the 3.7 FPS as an inhibiting factor. Burst rate has its place, but ought not be a crutch for poor timing. If anything, limiting one to a slower rate may improve one's skill set in timing the shot.

I shoot most of my sports with a 5D3 and still use the 7D for outdoor events. There are times when I use the burst mode, but I think it can be over-rated. Again, this depends upon the sport and the level of play. In my experience, even the 8 FPS can be too slow to be a reliable alternative to timing the shot. For example, try shooting a kid throwing a free throw in basketball and getting that shot where the ball is only inches away from the hands after the throw. If you start bursting as the shooter begins the throw, you will miss it. You'll get a shot before the throw followed by one with the ball leaving the frame. A lot can happen in 1/8 of a second. The best chance of getting this shot is by improving your timing. Of course, the 10 FPS of the 7D2 or the 12 FPS of the 1Dx, just might be fast enough to offset poor timing. But, it isn't hard to get this shot with a T3i.

Again, we are talking about young kid's sports here. When I shoot younger figure skaters for the club, my 60D (with a focus system similar to the T3i) does a fine job. It is with the older, faster athletes that I see a distinct benefit of the 7D and 5D3 focus systems during AI SERVO. Better athletes need better focus systems to track them. Younger athletes, not so much. I believe that the biggest hindrance that the T3i presents with kid sports would be the buffer. You do have to be conscience of it filling up. If a skater is preparing for a jump, don't fill the buffer with shots of the approach. Save some room for capturing the jump itself.

Add to this the OP's inclusion of the faster 85 (which is a fine lens) and I still think that the 70-200 f2.8L II offers more bang for the buck now. When light and fast action aren't part of the picture, the T3i sensor can challenge the performance of the 7D2 sensor. The 70-200 2.8 will give the OP greater control of DOF and a greater opportunity for fantastic portraits and candids.

I still recommend the 70D, the 7D2, or a full frame body down the road. If the fast action (which excludes the young ones) isn't an immediate need, why not wait until the price of the 7D2 drops and benefit now from the good deals on the 70-200 2.8? Then determine which body will best serve his need.

I certainly have a bias here. If the OP really gets into photography, I do think the 70-200 f2.8L II will at some point have a place in his bag. I'm just not sure which body is best. I can't advise getting lenses that would become obsolete by the 2.8 zoom. Further, it would be a shame to make a cumulative investment in lenses now that would inhibit a future purchase of this 2.8 zoom. I think this lens is THAT good and will help him define his direction in photography. It did with me. It was a big help to my then immediate need in low light sports with a crop body. Now it's an even better lens on my 5D3 -- together better in low light, more useful focal range, greater DOF control, and sharper on FF than crop.

Ultimately, I don't know if my assumptions and perceptions accurately reflect the OP's current interest and need. But, I do hope that offering the differing experiences and views in this thread will help him weed out those that don't apply and come to a conclusion that best serve's his current need and his future acquisition of gear.

Good one neuro! You've got game tonight dude!

The old Sigma 50mm is roughly as sharp at f/2 as the ART is at f/1.4 (not quite, but very close). It's sharper then both the Canon 50 f/1.4 and the Canon 50 f/1.2L when all are at f/1.4. You can see this in TDP's samples.

In real world use f/1.4 is perfectly usable. f/2 and f/2.8 come off very sharp.

I would say the old Sigma 50 has some of the best bokeh of any lens made. I would rank it slightly higher then the ART in this respect.

Color fringing outside the plane of focus is common to all fast primes, and I wouldn't say the old Sigma was worse in this respect then other lenses at the time of its introduction. Though it could really stand out at times (i.e. brightly lit black on white detail where some of the detail lies slightly outside the plane of focus), in normal use it was not an issue at all (i.e. portraits).

AF is finicky on the old Sigma, but that to seems to be common to all fast primes as well.

I've been able to shoot with an ART and I'm considering an upgrade. But I think very highly of the old Sigma, and consider it a steal at its current price.

Dustin either had a bad copy or was way too harsh in comparing it to the ART. It's a very good lens.

They show 32 lenses available, 16 Canon lenses, and 16 Nikon Lenses. They could not buy even one of each for the $20,000 kickstarter target, so someone else is investing a lot of $$.

The promise of being to swap lenses may result in disappointment if the lens you want to swap for is out for a few weeks or months.

The turn-around time to swap a lens isn't given, but even with 2 day shipping, it could be 7 or 8 days before you received the shipped lens. Here is how it works. Ship Monday, arrive Wednesday. Return is shipped Thursday, and arrives Monday. If its 3 day shipping, its a long wait. Only overnight shipping could arrive before Friday if you shipped on Monday.

Nice shots, I picked this lens up in October. I like it a lot too, it is my first L lens. Too bad I couldn't wait a tad longer and snagged it up at $799! BTW I really like the snow shoe trail pic.

thanks everyone for the generous response. I am not planning to sell the lens to individual buyers as I don't want them to suffer . I assumed that the big companies like BH, Amazon and all will do some level of clean and check before putting it in the used gear market.
I spoke to someone at adorama and told about the fungus. they are glad to take a look. I did not think it was in such a bad state yet. With macro lens, for me its a heavily used lens in summer and stay in the shelf during winter. I will have to find ways to use it like my other lenses.
if I get something in return, I will gladly invest it in the L lens and try to follow the advice I got. If they also say its bad,
then I am not going to attempt to sell it again

thanks again

The way chip development works is you spend A LOT of time developing individual circuits, and then reuse as much as you can. An indivdual pixel sensor/amp/readout takes a lot engineering and must be reused. So, if you just scale the 7DII up to FF, you get 53 megapixels (double the 1.6 factor for area). Same size pixel electronics as the 7D, just more of them. This would explain the delay in getting 7DII out: they were really developing the high MP FF, but used the 7D to work out the bugs. 5DmIV would make sense, but so too would a 1DX replacement. Both Sony & Nikon have 36MP cameras, and smaller profile cameras (like micro 4/3s) are approaching 20+MP. Canon really needs to respond.

Marsu42 said:

But you're correct, in-viewfinder focus peaking is a game-changer for fast lenses and obsoletes a lot of fuss to phase-af with thin dof.

But as you just discovered, you have to use it to get an idea of the value, so unless Canon adds this to their own lineup die-hard Canon enthusiasts will never know: If Canon doesn't have it, it cannot be any good.

Click to expand...

Focus peaking is nice in theory, but my experience with the Sony implementation is that it's accuracy is questionable for fast lenses, especially in low light/high ISO situations.

AcutancePhotography said:

"Canon didn't release a new full-frame DSLR this year"

Click to expand...

Let us hope that changes next year with the 5D Mark IV shall we?

Unfortunately, I'm not an iPad owner so I can't actively diagnose the problem. However, if it was me, I would try doing the same thing on another iPad to at least determine if the problem is just that iPad. Depending on how the second iPad is set up, you could determine if it was the iOS version or something else. Good luck! Let us know what you discover or if you fix it.

RustyTheGeek said:

Question: I have owned a 24-105L for about 4 years. Anyone think that the newest ones coming off the line now might be any better or worse?

Click to expand...

I bought a new 24-105L with 5D3 some time ago, kept the new lens for new warranty and sold my old one.
So similar situation to you.
As I didn't want to get into such thoughts as you have now, I just made a short comparison of those two and found nothing really different. (But I'm no test chart photographer and no pixel peeper)

The only thing about the new one was the lack of zoom creep
But after a few months even this "problem" was solved and the new is behaving like the old

A little bit more serious:
I think (but do not know) that Canon hasn't changed any big things in the production line of this lens.
I think (but do not know) that QC level is still the same.
So if you haven't got a lemon the performance, built and IQ will be similar to your old lens.