dufflover said:

Well even the minimum number in the patent is quite long compared to the original 100-400. So that's why I am talking about a longer physical size even if Canon could make it shorter - this particular patent says 5cm longer which means it isn't in that 70-200 form factor anymore. Don't get me wrong I'm sure it will be bloody good as usual for their refreshes but the "purpose" of the lens changes slightly in that it would take the role of my Sigma 120-300 (for example) which goes in a backpack, not really a "in shoulder bag ready to go travel lens" that I use my 100-400 for.

Click to expand...

If you look back at the 70's, SLR equipment has been steadily growing in size. Bigger glass has the potential for better optics, so it's not too strange that this trend continues. Fortunately the materials are getting lighter though.

My Fuji X-E1 and 6D make an interesting combo

giltaminphotography said:

Let me know your thoughts on this lens deciding on wheather its worth keeping. I don't use macro often but it may come in handy for wedding work.

Click to expand...

It's an absolute keeper for portraits, and as you already used it you seem to be ok with the slower focusing speed (even with the focus limiter on, a full round trip takes a lot of time though probably less on a 1dx).

giltaminphotography said:

I'm using it with a 5d3 and a 6d, I couldn't imagine not shooting full frame.

Click to expand...

... though the 100L is one of the lenses that are also very good with crop, and even beneficial for macro because of the larger working distance (180L-IS anyone?).

Hi everyone,

I have had a 70d for a while now, and use it for both video and still work. I see that Mosaic Engineering recently introduced a moire filter for it. Anyone tried it out? That's one of the few issues I have with the 70d.

http://store.mosaicengineering.com/VAF-70D-Moire-Aliasing-Filter_p_24.html

Mt Spokane Photography said:

Are the images from POTN Yours? You can be banned from this forum as well as most others for posting copyrighted material without permission from the owner.

Click to expand...

yes, images are my work and my name is what it says on the pictures. i wouldnt post someone else's pictures without their permission and without specifying that.

that said, if the focus is spot on and you dont crop too much, 70D's ISO performance is quite nice. im pleased with it

Upon buying my 6D and 300 2.8 I got all worked up about the IQ and sent it to Canon. Then I bought a 40D for $200 and used my 24-70 4 for a couple months. Very glad I did, and then I gave it and the 70-300 non-L to my daughter and it's serving her very well (she had an EOS film and a 17-40 already). I liked the 40D and if I wasn't looking at a 6D 2nd camera upgrade soon, I'd grab another 40D in a blink.

Jack

dcm said:

About the size/weight of Canon's EF-S 18-200 - probably a better comparison than the 28-300L. Will be interesting to see how it performs in comparison.

Click to expand...

What's funny is that it only needs to be as good as the previous 18-270 to basically be a win for them. Especially if the 16mm is decent at all. I imagine it will really be an ok zoom from 24-200ish, with the extreme ends being a bit of a joke.

But, that still puts it in better position than the Canon 18-200 (only good from 24 to about 135-150). And it'll likely retail in the $650-700 range, which makes it a big savings over the Nikon version.

And since it seems Canon has given up on anything more than 18-135 on APS-C, they wont really have competition there

Halfrack said:

LensRentals will rent it to you

http://www.lensrentals.com/rent/canon/accessories/calibration/sigma-usb-dock-for-canon-ef-lenses

Click to expand...

Thanks, but I'm a bit far away from the States. I will buy it with the 50 art

Rudeofus said:

jrista said:

LOL. Sorry, but you entirely misunderstood the point of my blog article, which had to do with the myth of diffraction as it relates to pixel size, a myth that presumes once you stop a lens down to the diffraction limited resolution of the sensor, you suddenly experience worse IQ than a sensor with larger pixels (yes, many photographers actually DO believe that). That's a different issue, though.

Click to expand...

Smaller pixels won't automatically make the result worse, except if their small size means relatively more space is dedicated to non light gathering circuitry. But the claims I saw in that blog go further: "That means softening caused by diffraction can fairly easily be corrected with some sharpening while post-processing.". It then goes on to show that F/22 and sharpening yields the same result as F/8 here, although even with this sample image the extra noise from F/22 and sharpening is quite obvious.

And the reason for this extra noise is simple to explain: the diffraction limited lens acts as a low pass filter, which unfortunately does not low pass filter sensor noise at the same time. Which means you lower the signal to noise ratio for higher image frequencies. Once you boost the higher frequencies, you also boost high frequency noise components, and that's what you see in that sample image.

Click to expand...

Actually, the noise in the f/8 vs f/22 example is primarily due to the fact that the image was saved as an animated GIF (256 color palette). The first frame is what the color palette is based on, all subsequent frames kind of get the shaft when it comes to their color, so they end up a little more noisy (the exactly correct colors for the f/22 image cannot be found in the color palette, so the nearest color is picked instead). You have to realize there was a pretty minimal mount of sharpening involved there...not enough to produce artifacts or enhance noise to the point it is a visible problem.

Rudeofus said:

jrista said:

As for sharpening, it mitigates the impact of diffraction, it does not eliminate the effects of diffraction entirely, or make lenses behave purely geometrically. Sharpening an f/22 image does not make it diffraction limited f/2 performance. There are also limits as to how far sharpening takes you the farther you stop down...sharpening an f/32 or f/45 or f/64 is certainly not going to reduce the impact of diffraction enough to produce geometric results. It does, however reduce the muddiness of diffraction blurring that affects the f/16+ image to an acceptable level. But that's all post-processing. Lenses behave as lenses behave. Anything you do in post does not actually change the behavior of the lens.

Click to expand...

The diameter of an Airy Disk is measured between its first minima, so yes, some extra pixel resolution below this diameter can be helpful, but after you put more than three pixels in each dimension you will barely gain extra information from higher pixel density. As you stated it: F/16 will be ok on full frame, but F/32 will bring visible loss of detail. The whole "myth of diffraction" boils down to "diffraction hurts, but later than many believe" and is therefore no myth at all, although Sigma evidently wants us believe so

Click to expand...

Again, your not understanding the point of my article. I'd been asked on several occasions about why someone would choose a sensor with smaller pixels, "because wouldn't diffraction just make the IQ worse when it affects the image at f/6.3 rather than f/8?" THAT is the myth I was aiming to debunk...that because diffraction STARTS affecting IQ on a sensor with smaller pixels at wider apertures than sensors with larger pixels, supposedly using smaller pixels is only useful if you use wider apertures. I wrote the article to explain to those people that diffraction is absolute, it exists due to the nature of light as it passes through the lens, and that pixels size really has nothing to do with it...diffraction is a lens trait. Sensor pixel size simply allows the ever-present effects of diffraction to be realized at a finer resolution when they are smaller.

Whether you have big pixels or small pixels, diffraction is going to affect the real image projected by the lens onto the sensor the same way. The exception is that smaller pixels will always be able to resolve more detail when more detail can be resolved (i.e. up through that first minima, which obviously grows as the aperture is stopped down.) The point is that smaller pixels can never be a bad thing, but they can be a good thing, as far as image resolution is concerned.

Your reading something into my article that simply isn't there if your trying to make some argument about Sigma's geometric MTFs based on anything I've written there. Please don't twist my words. In assuming purely geometric traits for their lens MTFs, Sigma is really just looking for a way to edge their MTF plots higher up the chart, make their lenses seem better. Unsuspecting customers who really don't know what an MTF is will inevitably be comparing geometric MTFs of Sigma lenses with diffraction MTFs of Canon lenses, for example, and the comparison will be invalid. It's a cheat. Not exactly unexpected, someone was bound to try it sooner or later.

We (humanity) have known for a very long time that lenses do not behave purely geometrically, that they exhibit diffraction limited behavior when aberrations are eliminated.

Dylan777 said:

Rienzphotoz said:

Cool 8) ... I take it that the cute model is your daughter?

Click to expand...

Yes...that is my 5yrs Very active - ballet, indoor swimming, painting and piano. My wife and I are quite busy with the kids in the weekend.

Click to expand...

Impressive 8) 8) 8)

I wonder what this will do to the market for a 1Ds Mk3 replacement? It might help to speed up a new high-megapixel 1D series body, or it might force Canon to rethink their strategy and move the high-megapixel sensor into a lower end body. A lot will depend upon the price of this new Pentax 645...

Interesting, don't care for the 30mm more at the long end but the 2mm on the other side.

• hionhifi said:

  I owned a Sony A7 for awhile but sold it and now have a 5DmkIII on the way. I found the Sony a joy to use but for several reasons I chose the Canon instead. For the shooter who does video as much as he does photographs, the 5DmkIII is still the best game in town.
  
  Here are a few reasons I dumped the Sony...
  [list type=decimal]
  [*]Lacks third party support, ie apps, software, and hardware devices like intravelometers, shutter release controls, etc.
  [*]Poor lens selection
  [*]Lacks some pro level features, ie dual SD cards

  Click to expand...

hionhifi said:

The Sony as nice as it is, lacks some features I like. Maybe time will remedy some of the issues I had. [/list]

Click to expand...

I have the 5D MK III and the Sony a7 ... when it comes to professional/serious use the 5D MK III and Canon's eco system are far superior ... but you do not need an intervelometer device for the a7 ... you can use the highly customisable in-camera intervelometer ... when you are happy with the settings you need you can use any a7 compatibale remote to activate the shutter or just press the shutter button. BTW, below is the simple and fully automated timelapse vid I had uploaded to the youtube (made with Sony a7+28-70 kit lens).
I have another really cool timelapse vid of fog moving in and moving out from my office window (it as pretty cool to see how fog moves in and out) but didn't upload it to youtube yet.
Timelapse with Sony a7 & Kit Lens
Short Timelapse with Sony a7+28 70 f:4 lens Straight out of the Camera

16-300mm (crop cameras) 28-300mm (full frame),.. wow!

Let see here..

http://www.tamron.com.hk/NewDevelopmentAnnouncement.htm

mpphoto said:

I was going to wait for the price to drop below $1,000, but after seeing the different reviews and photos taken with this lens, I am considering paying the early adopter cost.

It's out of stock at both B&H and Adorama (and probably everywhere else). Has anyone heard any dates for when supplies will be replenished, or have any idea how long the waiting lists are?

Click to expand...

I ordered mine from b&h about 1-14 and got it yesterday so I am guessing 2-3 wks if you order now

I agree with what Nancy has to say. I will add the following.

For through the telescope photography, you will benefit from the Baader filter mod (HII bandpass). However, how much depends on what you image. Some things you don't notice the difference at all, and some things won't show up at all unless you have the filter. It is handy.

However, IMO your 1DX is way too big and heavy for that. Weight is a key issue with stability of your telescope's mount, tracking accurracy, mounting hardware, etc. If I were to buy a camera today that I was going to use for through the scope astrophotography, I would get an SL1 or T3 and have it modded. I use a modded XS right now. Since noise is handled by imaging multiple frames and stacking in software, the sensor performance can be offset by additional exposure time. Yes, a better sensor is better, but you can get by without the latest and greatest.

For camera alone shots, either tracking or just looking up through a normal camera lens, you can get tons of great shots without the mod. Just go have fun for a while.

-Brian

flowers said:

A 5dII/5dIII/1DX/1-D C in the hands of a competent film maker can produce a lot more compelling footage than a digital arri or a RED scarlet in the hands of an unimaginative person whose only qualifications are 100 grand spent on film school.

Click to expand...

Precisely. Give me an Oscar-winning movie shot on a 5D3 than a crappy Youtube video shot on Phantom 65.

neuroanatomist said:

Basically, you need a light stand and an umbrella swivel, plus a cold shoe on which to mount the flash.

Click to expand...

Thanks neuro for you advice, I've got the Manfrotto 1051BAC & 026 and they're great, not too expensive either. Except the good build quality (at least from what I can tell) I really like the air cushioning - if I want to lower the flash, I just unscrew it for a second w/o fearing that the whole thing collapses with a a big bang.

Woody said:

Lee Jay said:

15mm.
Got to start at 15mm.
Replace the old 24-85/3.5-4.5 that was developed for film.

Click to expand...

For 35mm film, 15 mm goes into the ultrawide regime. The replacement for 24-85 f/3.5-4.5 is already out: 24-70 f/4 IS and 24-105 f/4 IS.

Click to expand...

As should have been obvious, I was talking about a standard zoom for 1.6-crop.

There are a lot of financially or sensibly constrained punters out there looking for a sharp used prime capable of good performance with 1.4x and 2x TC.

I am thinking of the 300/2.8 IS to give 420 and 600, 400/4 DO to give 560 and the Sigma 120-300/2.8 to give 420 and 600 again. But all require stopping down 1 stop to get any reasonable performance at 600 ie 600/8.

As test results come through and IF it is really true that Tamron 600/8 performance is OK then it may become blindingly obvious that if you really want the 300-600 range the Tamron is the lens to get.

Tamron has placed the cat amongst the pigeons and good luck to them.

I bought the Heliopan. It is slim and it has a mechanism to make it easier to unscrew, which was recommended by Bryan at TDP.

I quoted those numbers because some people were talking about Fukushima as if the largest radiation dose anywhere near the place would be measured in single millisievers or less! But of course you're right, different radioactive materials emit different amounts if different radiation types which are dangerous in different ways.

Now let's put an end to this! I made this thread as something fun and lighthearted so let's keep it that way. No one should worry about a little radiation, it's normal, or even a lot of radiation like multiple CT scans and x-rays. Life is too short to worry! But it's also not good to think radiation can't ever harm you.
edit: removed bleak stuff!

privatebydesign said:

Rocky said:

Good points. However, If the rule is there, the gate agent have ALL the rights to stop you if your carry on does not meet their weight requirement, then, your unprotected camera bag will be gate checked. What are you going to do at that time? Even between big airports, it will happen. I have be requested to lighten up my carry on between SFO and Singapore to meet the 7 Kg rule. Same thing happen between LAX and Mebourne Ausralia. Travelling within US and between US and Canada is a lot more forgiving on the wieght of carry on. Travelling oversea, even between US and oversea is a different ball game.

Click to expand...

When that has happened to me, and I had it happen several times the worst was in Heathrow in the UK. I put my 17" MBP down the back of my trousers, I put my Cagoule on and filled the front pocket with my 70-200 f2.8, 24-70 f2.8 and some batteries, I stuck the 16-35 on the 1Ds MkIII and put it over my shoulder and then reweighed it, all was good, got the boarding pass and put it all back in the bag.

Click to expand...

I'll do something similar, I'll let them check the tripod and other stabilizers and if that's not enough I'll shove lenses in my pockets/under my shirt til they're happy.

neuroanatomist said:

Slow compared to what? Regardless, it's definitely not going to be instantaneous to go from MFD to infinity. Canon knows this, which is why they put a focus limiter switch on the lens.

Click to expand...

Iam compared with canon 400 mm 5,6 L and this lens and this lens seems to me that it has a faster response when focusing from close to infinity...and and overall seems faster somehow, I am testen on 1D Mark IV and 7D body ...

m said:

ajfotofilmagem said:

There are several options lens starting at 17mm:
Canon 17-55mm IS
Sigma 17-50mm OS
Sigma 17-70mm OS contenporary
Tamron 17-50mm
Tamron 17-50mm VC

Click to expand...

Thanks for the list. I'm capable of googlin' together 17mm lenses.
As said I do not insist on 17mm. What I like to hear about are personal impressions =)

ajfotofilmagem said:

I have a Tokina 16-50mm (no longer produced) I can say that was made ​​to last many years.

Click to expand...

I heard of Tokina's solid builds.
How did it perform optically?

Click to expand...

Tokina 16-50mm F2.8 has very good picture , but it has the weakness of chromatic aberration at wide angle, at maximum aperture diaphragm. So I specifically avoid the combination 16mm F2.8 . As a general rule, the greatest weakness of the Tokina wide angle lenses is chromatic aberration. There is no perfect lens. In the case of zoom lens, when zoom is in short end, performance can be completely different from performance at zoom tele end, and completely different in the middle of the zoom. In different diaphragm apertures, the performance also varies dramatically. So to choose the best lens for your case, compare the tests several similar models, and see if the weaknesses are in the position of the lens zoom and aperture diaphragm would you most like to use. It is important to compare only tests performed with the same methodology. If you compare the test of a lens in PHOTOZONE with another lens test in DXO, the results have useless because the test methodology is completely different, and give invalid conclusions.