sdsr said:

A few posts ago you commented on its "sloooow focus". Hard to imagine how such a lens would "excel[] as a sports photography lens" but perhaps I'm missing something.

Click to expand...

You are actually missing out on what I wrote.

Canon esspecially marketed the 85L also as an excellent sports/action lens with a much faster AF motor than the original 85L (which is why I reacted too the totally inaccurate claim that this lens was intended and constructed only to do portraits - this is simply complete nonsense).

If you read the early reviews people took the lens to test this out and were less than impressed. AF was still too slow for many sports applications.

Thus Canon's intent when making the lens did not live up to its claims and user expectations - and therefore the 85L II needs an upgrade to faster AF - as I argued for.

I believe I understand what you're saying, but for example, if two lenses are both +5 on body A, if the only change is to use body B and it is found one of those lenses is now 0, my guess is that the other lens would also be close to 0, not +10.

EDIT: added "close to"

martti said:

I have the 100mm f/2 as well. The picture quality is excellent and it is light, fast and not too expensive.
On the metaboned Sony a6000 it behaves like a manual focus 150mm f/2.0 which is really nice and crisp.
Unlike the 85mm L it fits in my ThinkTank bag.

Seems that not many people use the 100mm macro L for portraits?

Click to expand...

I complain about the 85L being too fat too... but it belongs on my body... so I can't be too mad at it.

When the 100L was the best lens in my bag... I used it for portaits... and sports... and macro... whatever really.

The old version is still OK. All of a sudden there are lots of them on the used marked. Wonder why.
People keep complaining about Canon's policy of conservatism. They have ore of DSLRs and lenses out there in the field than any other manufacturer and the situation has remained about the same for many years. Obviously there are happy clients out there. It is so much easier to keep a client than to win over a new one.
This explains pretty well the slow going –which is not so slow after all! Quite a few improved versions of old classics out there as well as the new f/4 zooms of briliant optical quality.
The lens selection is a very good reason to stick with Canon.

Upgrading the dust pump, the version II on the 24-70 and still get the 16-35 f/4...Well, i'll have to stop somewhere. I have to stop reading this forum, calm down and go scare some birds with the dust pup!

chrisnosleep said:

So I'm on the fence about whether I should wait and hope for the 5DIV to come out within the year, or go ahead and finally put down the money for the 5DIII. Also, any input on what people are thinking the 5DIV is going to be priced at would be nice. If its more than $1000 higher than the 5DIII or more than a year out, I probably won't be in the market for it after all. I currently have the 70D and 6D usually paired with the 70-200 2.8 II and I shoot mostly sporting events. The 70D does a decent job for the outside events, but anything indoors is too grainy. The 6D does fine on the graininess indoors, but misses focus way to often. So this is my dilemma, any help would be greatly appreciated.

Click to expand...

Can't tell you which is the right decision for you. However, my beloved 6D (the three month old one not the 2013 model) was recently stolen from an apartment I was renting. Seriously considered the 5D mkiii as a replacement, but don't need the better focusing for bif and action photos and really liked the 6D sensor in low light. Have used the 5D mkiii briefly that my sister owns and it is quite a bit nicer body....buuut the new 6D was under 1500 (under 1300 now for grey market). It's the age old question, a new body or new lenses? The later is the wiser investment imo. Always get the best lens(s) you can afford!

btw, they also got my 24-70 f/4 is and the new copy just doesn't have the same IQ snap (bummer).

It'd be great in a 500/4 or 600/4. It's not new, some FD supertele lenses had them.

sagittariansrock said:

candyman said:

...
I don't have experience with Ice sculptures so you gave me some valuable information, thanks! So I could take the 16-35mm I still wonder about the f/4 aperture......

Click to expand...

Considering the fact that your subjects aren't moving, you should wonder more about the 4-stop IS that the f/4.
Plus, I would always take a wide angle lens in a crowded event. Sometimes you'd need to back up so much with a standard lens (especially a prime) to capture your entire frame that you can't avoid dozens of people coming between you and your subject.

Click to expand...

The IS is really helpful in case you can't setup the tripod. And, the f/4 wasn't the issue. I could have used wider than 35mm but only in the beginning of my photoshoot. I guess I may have missed some interesting compositions because of that. A lesson learned for the next time.

AvTvM said:

Yes. I was not clear enough: i would like to have an EF 24/2.8 pancake ... as small, cheap and good as the ef 40/2.8. And a EF 75/2.4 pancake in addition.

Click to expand...

Just get the 24 f/2.8 IS. It's a gem of a lens, and it's fairly small.

Quote from original post-
"☺ I'm skeptical due to horror stories I've heard of them spending more time in repairs then being used... "

I've never heard of a higher failure rate for the 5diii ? care to elaborate? I upgraded from a 60d (still have the 60d ) in September 2013, I havent once had a problem with either camera. A new model may have glitches for early adopters- the 5diii did, Nikon have the d600 and d750, I don't think the reliability of the 5diii vs a new 5div (or S) should be a factor for the OP.

please, take ME to iceland!

very jealous

The French do not like their pictures taken without their permission. This is one of the reasons why French street photographers mostly exhibit pictures from Maghreb (North Africa) and Far East. I have been in a situation where a lady started screaming for police when she happened to be in a shot. (My son who is young and handsome has no such problems with ladies.) For people pictures, fluent French and good social skills are the alternative for a small, discreet camera with a fully tilting screen.
There have been quite a lot of famous photographers spending time in Paris. All the museums have books and postcards for sale. There are treasures there. For instance for a casual tourist to 'document' places like Versailles, Louvre, Tuileries, Orangerie etc. is a pretty hefty task. there have been professionals there with all the necessary permits and access, equipment and the time to get the lights and the compositions right.
As for lenses and stuff, the best results usually come with the equipment you are familiar with.
I like the short normal 35mm, especially when it has f/1.4. Paris is very photogenique at night when it rains a bit. A fast lens is nice when shooting in the metro or anywhere inside and in the shade like the shops of the flea markets. There also, it is polite to ask the owner if taking photos is OK. A Gorilla, a monopod or a bean bag make miracles happen to the sharpness of you 'lense' in the night time.
I have been carrying the 100-400 zoom along as a partner for the 35mm prime. I got it second hand and it does the job. The 70-200 f/2.8 might be a better choice as for picture quality but I like the reach of the 400mm. One body, two lenses, a support and a quality compact for the backup. Books and postcards. Crazy Frenchmen. (Less and less of them as Africa is taking over Paris)
Amusez-vous bien. Bon voyage!

This is one of my favorite lenses. I can't seem to shake it. My AF is wonky. I dropped it onto a rug from about 2 ft high and the helicoid warped. There is a very thin section of plastic. I was able to shape it back close to the way it should. It worked pretty well for a year or two, and then it is now snagging at points. Manual works though, it feels a little rough. at 5.6 though this thing is sharp. At 1.4 things aren't so great, but it does make the occasional dreamy portrait. This lens has definitely been worth every dollar I spent on it.($300 used). I do always keep the hood on it. It is well worth the investment.

Re: Success!!!!

drmikeinpdx said:

Canon received my 50L and my 5D3 on Tuesday. Today is Friday and my gear showed up this morning. Pretty fast service, I'd say! BTW, I am a Gold CPS member, which probably speeds things up.

The really great news is that the lens now focuses perfectly!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I tested the center point and all four peripheral points and they are right on the money with no AFMA. I also checked for focus shift with aperture changes and did not find any at my usual six foot test distance. If I recall correctly, that was only a problem at minimum focus distance anyway, according to forum posts.

Sorry I can't comment on curvature of field, I don't have any brick walls handy!

The service note says that they only adjusted the lens, not the camera body. Apparently some optical assembly in the lens was still decentered after their first attempt at repair. They did clean the 5D3 body, including viewfinder and sensor, and they reset my custom functions to the defaults.

I am a very happy photographer right now!

Click to expand...

Nice. And great news too........

Well done, Thomas.

Not sure where the C300 II will fit in the current lineup. The C500 already does 4K. So why not just lower the price of the C500 and introduce a C500 mark II with better specs, (DR, FPS, Global shutter, low-light performance etc)? Unless they plan to make it a crippled version of C500 that take away many features except 4K recording.

Hi Ash

Great job on the comparison. Easy to understand and draws pretty much the same conclusions as the rest of the comparison videos. This one though leaves us smiling.

Tamron posted this brochure pdf a few hours ago (English) with a few high res images.

http://www.tamron.co.jp/en/support/catalog/pdf/a012.pdf

AvTvM said:

hoodlum said:

I don't see any major issues related to bokeh or contrast from these images.

Click to expand...

It may not show in carefully arranged and selected official glossy marketing materials ... but it will rear its ugly head in real life - exactly in those situations, when owners of the lens are already most challenged to capture good images.

There is an issue! Otherwise Nikon would never have admitted to it up front and included warning language and images in their 300/4 phase fresnel "brochures" and added (only partially effective) correction functionality to nikon software ...

Click to expand...

Those images were from a production unit that someone purchased in Australia.

Better to go for a Phottix Aion or even better a Hahnel Giga T rather than overpriced Canon remotes.
These work as cable release or remotes with intervalometers. And are far cheaper than the TC-8093 (or something like that...)

DRR said:

FWIW my definition of "small and lightweight" fits the current 20mm. At or under 400g, coat-pocketable.

Click to expand...

I have a trench-coat which can pocket my 16-35mm f/2.8-II. I admit that with the lens hood on it's a bit of a squeeze, but I still get it in there.

Andrewccm said:

I've used the 200-400 several times and most recently to cover the college football championship. Is it me or does that lens vignette like crazy? I was using a 1DX body that did not have the lens correction profiles loaded. The JPGs had very much a spotlight look to them with vignetting across a majority of the frame. The raw files looked fine once lens correction was applied in LR, but for this assignment I was given both the body and the lens and had to shoot JPG for the client. I was pretty disappointed. Having shot the Cotton Bowl with the same combo and in raw, it was much better. I'm just not a fan of a $11k lens requiring so much digital manipulation to be consistent across the frame.

Click to expand...

I have gone through a number of my images with the 200-400 to critically asses vignetting. I have not measured it accurately, but if I had to give a number I would say that, wide open, it´s about 1 stop.

This story is about nothing.

MikeT,

Yes I noticed this as well when using it before. It's pretty similar and the two combined is a good combination IMO.

I have never used a soft-focus lens so I may appear daft here, but the example pictures look like they could be mostly achieved in post.

Also, the Flickr page's images look like some were manipulated by smearing the UV filter. And these are just stills for personal tastes (not seeing too many of these on mainstream media).

Most importantly, I still can't see any real-world, practical applications for this lens in the movie scene. It doesn't make sense for anyone to market a (dare I say it) useless lens to the high-end market.

the visual language is different.

Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more. One looks to capture the moment while the other conveys a continuous action. I do think, though, that for slower-paced events (catwalks, wedding-in-church) stills from videos can work if there's no manpower to spare for a separate photographer, since there's not much to convey in terms of action anyway.

As for the motion blur thing, it seems like nobody does it if it can be avoided. Too much of a workaround?