Posts

weixing · May 24, 2014

Hi,
I had this on my 6D and will AF (not reliable), but the 1.4x TC is not reported (the 1.4x TC is reported when use with EF400 F5.6L).

Have a nice day.

traingineer · May 23, 2014

mackguyver said:
traingineer said:

The Canon 24-70mm Mark II apparently doesn't have fluorine coatings, as seen in image 1

Click to expand...

Or does it???
(from the Canon USA EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM page)

Canon is annoyingly inconsistent and inaccurate about this kind of stuff (just look for the lenses with Super UD elements in them throughout their websites and brochures), but this page has 2 references - the text and the FASC logo which stands for Fluorine Anti-Smear Coating, I think.

And the North America lens manual is pretty clear as well. See both attached below:

Thanks mackguyver! But Neuro was a little faster in correcting my mistake.

AvTvM · May 23, 2014

Re: Off Brand: Sony Announces the A7 & A7R Full Frame Mirrorless Cameras

Rienzphotoz said:
Yes, the Sony FE 70-200/4 OSS is "80 grams HEAVIER and slightly LARGER than Canon EF 70-200 /4 L IS", but following are the reasons why I went with the Sony FE version:
[list type=decimal]
[*]I already have the EF 70-200 f/2.8 L IS II, so I don't want another EF lens of the same FOL
[*]Although I really like the EF 70-200, if I want to use it on my a7 or a6000, I need to use my metabones adapter which takes away the weight & size advantage and not to mention slow AF
[*]Being a native lens the Sony FE 70-200 f/4 OSS auto focuses really fast and accurately like a machine gun on my a6000
[/list]
So, for me, the above considerations are worth spending the extra money on the FE 70-200 f/4 OSS

I totally agree. Had i bought an A7/R i would also have purchased native lenses with at least halfway decent AF. However, i find sony lens pricing even more outrageous than canon's. Not only fe lenses but also other zeiss branded glass as well as almost all of the sony G lenses (a-mount).

Lens choice is one more reason why i would really like to see and buy a canon FF MILC ... along with a) decent mid-price lenses and b) outstanding high-price L's ... Like 70-200 2.8 II and 4 is, 24-70 2.8 II and 4 IS ... Of course in a new native short flange distance mount.

Mt Spokane Photography · May 23, 2014

I think he removed it because there is nothing t the rumor worth discussing.

You might want to get the hint

Tugela · May 23, 2014

Most likely it would be available as an option on new bodies I expect. Something like either buy a C300 at the old price or a C300-X for $350 more (the price difference being the service cost for old bodies being upgraded).

The C300 is old tech however, so we can anticipate that it will be superseded by more modern models in the near future in order tor remain competitive. The C300 upgrade IMO is a temporary stopgap to accommodate the gap between what they have now and the arrival of more modern camera bodies.

WinterComing · May 23, 2014

TrumpetPower! said:
I hate to break it to y'all, but that's not a camera.

It's a mechanical black poodle.

No, really!

http://www.upcdatabase.com/item/013803222654

Cheers,

b&

Here's a more serious link. http://www.upcchecker.com/013803222654/

Andrew Davies Photography · May 23, 2014

Mt Spokane Photography said:
Andrew Davies Photography said:

Took it out again today after perfecting AMFA at home at -10 on the 5D2

Heres the results
http://weddingphotographernortheast.blogspot.co.uk/

Yet i had to go back to 0 to get it sharp - go figure ??

Click to expand...

I noticed that you indicated that you were adjusting it handheld. That's not going to give good results, and many methods rely on your vision to select the sharpest image, which adds another variable. Then, the 50mm f/1.4 is well known for inconsistent autofocus, so its never quite in the same place on each photo.

Put all these together, and you will be tearing your hair out.

Here is something to read concerning the complexities of trying to get accurate AFMA, and gives you some information as to why so many struggle.

There are a ton of factors to consider, something as simple as image content will cause a shift in autofocus.

It wasnt hand held all adjustments were made with timer on tripod at home and were accurate , then out in the field it changed again

atkinsr · May 23, 2014

Judgements about money aside, you are in the middle of riots and mosh pits with multi-thousand dollar cameras that are large, easily damaged, and easily stolen? Sorry, that's just nuts.

You are shooting editorials for print, you don't need the resolution or color accuracy for wall size art gallery prints. If it were me, I'd be looking at something like a used Rebel T3/T3i (or if you don't have to have Canon, a Pentax K-30 which takes incredible pictures and can be had for just under $400 *new* on sale) with a cheap but capable do-it-all lens such as the Sigma 18-250.

If you are willing to step away from DSLR for your assignments, take a look at the Sony A6000 and see if it works for you. The DxO scores are very impressive, bettering a lot of the mid-range DSLRs out there.

IsaacImage · May 23, 2014

Once Sigma 50 (Art) will get rid of theirs AF issues… if so, it's going to be hard to Canon's engineers to bring something better to the market !

Right for now in a few focal lengths Canon is missing the crown
14-24
35
50

Please Canon hurry up and start doing something otherwise no budget will be transferred to "censors" R & D department and then we gonna lose great quality bodes !

duffer5 · May 23, 2014

That got it. I don't know when or how it was set the Quick AF, but when I changed it, everything works as it's supposed to. Thanks.

DanThePhotoMan · May 23, 2014

I'm curious to think what the thoughts about the direction Canon will be taking in the next 2-4 years with the C100-500 line. Will there just be more firmware upgrades for the next few years or new bodies? What's Canon going to do, if anything, about the cheaper yet still very useable 4k cameras like the BMCC, Ursa, GH4, CION, etc?

pulseimages · May 23, 2014

neuroanatomist said:
pulseimages said:

OK, so the code on my lens mount looks like UB07## so it's July 2013?

Click to expand...

Correct.

Thanks!

wsmith96 · May 22, 2014

tevscale said:
Thanks again for all the advice. I've just ordered a 6D + 24-105 kit; once it arrives and I get some time to get used to it I'll post again.

Congrats on the purchase!

mackguyver · May 22, 2014

Thanks - it was kind of fun to shoot - I used to do fashion many years ago - but haven't done so much since I got married ;D.

On the variable ND filter, they are handy, but I'm not sure if you're aware of the dreaded "X" you can get with them at higher (i.e. darker settings). Essentially they are two polarizers fitted together and you turn them to increase or decrease the amount of light being filtered. The trade off is the flexibility for changing light, particularly when shooting video.

I went for this set from Tiffen and have been very pleased with it - it comes with a 0.6, 0.9, and 1.2 filter in 82mm: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/674667-REG/Tiffen_82NDK3_82mm_Digital_Neutral_Density.html

The 0.9 (3-stop) filter is probably all you need for this purpose, though the 1.2 might be needed on bright days. I have Hoya, Tiffen, and B+W ND filters and this Tiffen set seems to be the best in terms of value, but the B+W filters are really nice and a bit thinner.

skitron · May 22, 2014

One question I'd ask is do you really want/need a fast prime for portrait? I'm not a portrait shooter but have read (mainly here) how pro portrait shooters are often stopping down to get enough dof to keep the model's features all in reasonable focus. In that situation the 24-105 and the 70-200 may both be worth consideration for that application.

Lawliet · May 22, 2014

Don Haines said:
We just got back a damaged pelican case at work.... Air Canada ran a forklift through it.

We once had a case fall overboard - and promptly having an argument with the boats propeller. Ended not that pretty for either, but the gear inside the case was fine.

lescrane · May 22, 2014

dgatwood said:
Mr_Canuck said:

Keep your 17-85. You seem to be satisfied with it.

If you get a full-frame camera in the future, then buy the full-frame lens at that time. There may be new ones coming, or you might find a deal when it's relevant. But why spend money on a lens that you apparently don't need, for a camera you don't own?

Click to expand...

Agreed. The 17-85 is a solid lens. The 15-85 is a step up, but probably not enough to justify the cost. And if you ever go full-frame later, that's money down the drain.

http://www.juzaphoto.com/article.php?l=en&article=32

Alternatively, you might wait, save up the extra few hundred bucks, and buy a 6D/24-105L kit. That will do far more for your image quality than any lens upgrade by itself, and it's not a lot more than the eBay prices for the original 24-70 f/2.8 lenses. And the 24-105 is also sharper than the original 24-70 L f/2.8 even when stopped down to f/4, according to LensRentals.

So IMO, the only reason you should even consider the original 24-70 f/2.8 L is if you shoot a lot of sports and really need the f/2.8. Maybe not even then. The increased ISO capabilities of a full-frame body will usually do a lot more for you in terms of usable low-light performance than a single extra f-stop on the lens.

I found that the upgrade from 17-85 USM IS to the 15-85 USM was well worth the cost. The lens is somewhat sharper, much less CA and I find that those 2mm are a big difference for wide landscapes. I think the 15-85 is a great value. before buying a I rented it along with the 24-105 L and could barely see a difference in tests in overlapping focal lengths. Can't speak to video at all as i don't do it.

NancyP · May 22, 2014

Buy a bigger size coat

I have a camouflage number that I could fit a view camera under. Or, carry a plastic bag and stick the camera into the bag when you go inside.

For long exposures (time-lapse) you could consider the chemical hand warmer wrapped around the lens. Kevin Adams in N.C., USA has a little nylon and velcro holder for the hand warmer, fits reasonable sized SLR lenses: Lens Muff . very handy for astrophotography, prevents condensation on front element over the evening. Or, if you are at all handy and don't mind having an attached battery, you could rig a resistance heater in a fabric band, something like what the astronomy folks use to drive away fog from their optical tubes and eyepieces.

Marsu42 · May 22, 2014

neuroanatomist said:
That's my point. They could easily do so from a technical standpoint, as they could have with the 430EX II, but they didn't and they won't

Let's hope someone codes an inofficial fw update for the 440rt flashes

... some people at least managed to add an external power connector to the 430ex, also seems to be no real problem.

AcutancePhotography · May 22, 2014

Thanks, I never noticed the year markings. I will have to check mine.

What did Canon say when you told them your battery was 2010 after they claimed it was 2013?

Gary W. · May 22, 2014

Hey all,

Thanks for the info! I was planning on using it as a fill/hair light. The voltage did concern me, but now i feel a little better! Thanks again!!

Gary W.

privatebydesign · May 22, 2014

There is no 540EX, it was a 540EZ and it only works as a dumb flash on ETTL II cameras, that is, any digital camera.

For any kind of automated use, or integration with your 550 or any other EX flash, the 540 is worthless. It would make some sense to sell the 540 and get a 430 instead, then, at least, the flashes would be the same generation with the same features, primarily auto exposure with digital bodies.

The 550EX is a very good flash, indeed it is the best bang for the buck regarding Canon flashes and I highly recommend it unless you need the radio triggering of the 600EX, but then only having one 600 is close to pointless if you already have a 550.

BL · May 22, 2014

Mk I is awesome. Biggest advantage of mkII is the improved MFD imho

Mt Spokane Photography · May 22, 2014

They are usually well protected, but it all depends on just how the box lands. I sell very sensitive equipment online, and ship all over. I tried various packing methods and kicked and dropped the package numerous times, and then checked the internal accelerometer of the equipment, as well as some other parameters that are affected by shock. Eventually, I decided on the best packing method, and rarely have a item damaged in shipping. I am pretty sure that Canon and others have recommended packing practices for their resale dealers.

Mt Spokane Photography · May 22, 2014

I remember that lens when it came out, it went with the Canon 7 series rangefinder body, and, at first, it looked fantastic. It was sold as being for newspaper photographers to allow shooting in low light. Then I read the reviews, and they were not very good. A guy who sat next to me at work bought the camera and lens, he might still have it, I haven't talked to him since I retired in 1998.

Posts

Posts

Filter

Forum statistics

Gallery statistics