I am eagerly waiting for more Sigma lenses to come out that are dock-compatable. I think it is a good idea and one that the other manufacturers will probably be copying soon.

Take the 5DIII or you will regret. Keep the 5DII as a back-up if you can.

AlanF said:

They are much, much better at 600mm than you would have expected from the TDP iso tests.

Click to expand...

Stop down 2/3 of a stop to f6.3 and it sharpens up nicely. Its certainly a sharp lens, it's nearly as sharp as a Canon prime no question. I'm not sure I'd want to use a 2x TC on a 1.6x crop camera...that's pushing it a bit too far for critical sharpness. But on a full frame, a 2 x TC and a stop drop works very well. I used a Canon 2x mkII and a Canon 1.4x mkII & III. The 1.4x hardly drops any quality and can easily be used wide open. The 2X, not quite so well.

wickidwombat said:

I know i'm right on this

Click to expand...

And yet so wrong...

Don Haines said:

wickidwombat said:

Ricku said:

Oh little EOS M. What are you going to do now that Sony has launched their EF-capable A7 and A7R?

Just go FF or go home.

Click to expand...

I was thinking about this the other day
all they would have to do is take a 6D bits as is whack it into an EOS-M body with EF Mount and it would sell tons
have a hotshoe mountable EVF as an option perhaps
not sure if the EOS-M body is deep enough though to mount the sensor far enough back and retain the needed depth for the EF lens image circle projection.
of course this would bury the 6D sales but then they would bring out the 6Dmk2 with better AF wouldn't they

Click to expand...

a 6D sensor would not solve the big problem with the EOS-M.... slow focus speed.. Let's see what happens if they put a 70D sensor into it....

Click to expand...

And if you limit it to EF lenses and made the body 26 mm deeper, you'd still have an off-balance rig with huge lenses on a tiny little camera body.

Now if you made it compatible with EF-M, EF-S, and EF lenses (throwing away a third of the pixels when attached to EF-S and EF-M lenses), then you'd have something that was at least usable, but you'd still have horrible autofocus with EF lenses because they tend to block the IR focus assist beam. To make a full-frame mirrorless camera, you need to start with a 6D-sized body (or bigger) and move the sensor forward or otherwise make it thinner, not start with a current EF-M body and try to stuff in a larger sensor.

Of course, you'd still have the inherent problem of distortion caused by adapter slump....

35 for environmental portrait.
50 for cba to change lenses and it's for fun, not work (because canon's 1.4 sucks)
85 for portraits or medium distance action
135 for indoor sports and making men look manly

Canon has to register their AC adapters and test them for RF interference. The Chinese don't. Make sure that the adapter is at least certified by a safety agency like Underwriters Laboratories (US). Fire and shock hazards can be avoided.

Then you only need to be concerned about damage to your camera rather than losing your life. And, if its a registered product, it is not likely to hurt your equipment.

As an owner of the 1D-X, I'm sorta disappointed with it. Don't get me wrong, I love what it is but disappointed that it should have been more. Many times I wished I had stepped down from the 1-series bodies but I thought that was a bad idea as well. I really love the 1-series bodies.

While bigger photosites are "always" better, that concept must be balanced with resolution. After all, nobody wants one photosite (imagine how noise free it would be! LOL). Of course, then the questions comes "What resolution is enough?" This is where everybody has their own opinion. Maybe it would be better if Canon also made a low light specific camera (a reasonable but respectable resolution) separate from a high resolution focus camera.

I've always felt that Canon's flagship camera should also have the highest resolution and best technology. Don't hate me, but I also want video and was very disappointed that Canon made a 1D-C. Just because a camera has video in no way detracts from its photo capture ability.

Sidenote: Honestly, if the Canon 1D-C was only 4k (at 4096, not TV's 3840) in resolution in both photo and video might make a pretty bad ass camera setup. I would definitely pay $7k for that, not sure if I would pay $15k but it would be tempting (especially if it has 60p and a global shutter). This would also make an awesome low light camera too.

Since most of my work is in a controlled lighting situation, I want a higher resolution. Something around 30 megapixels would have been enough when the 1D-X was released but today I think Canon needs to make a statement against Nikon and produce something around 40.

Neuro always knows what you are thinking.

the review at petapixel is a lighthearted look at the lens and some pointed out that there was not much in the way of scientific analysis there, well that's what dxo does so if anyone is interested how this lens measures up in the technical areas then give it a read.

beckstoy said:

Sweet! Thanks, guys! I'm gonna go get a new lens.

Click to expand...

YES, YES, YES = + 100 for this get the New Lens Idea.
Surapon

What I mean about shutterspeed. 400mm at 1/40 and what was told about zooming and DoF.

Don Haines said:

Is there a way to change the file naming structure on Canon cameras?

All images are IMG_xxxx If you shoot more than 9999 pictures you get duplicate file names.

Click to expand...

Not all Canon cameras, but on the 1-series bodies a custom naming convention can be used, although it's still limited to a four-character prefix. I changed mine to XX_#, where XX are my first and last initial, and I increment the # up when the counter hits 9999 (and the _ will be a number when I go over 100K images). So, I'm covered with sequential image numbers up to one million shots.

The whole lens/body autofocus topic has driven photographers crazy for years. The only thing that saved my sanity was the purchase of a 5D3 last year. All my old lenses that drove me crazy on my 5D classic, now work perfectly. Some need a little MFA, but not much. Even my Sigma 50/1.4 works like a champ.

I can see why Canon doesn't put MFA on the Rebel bodies - most users mount zoom lenses with fairly small apertures, so focus errors are masked by the DOF. Although i do recall adjusting the focus on my 450D with a teeny tiny Allen wrench one time in order to make it work with my old 50/1.8

paul13walnut5 said:

I think canon have became quite complacent.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, totally agree, absolutely.

The chap earlier that rambled about Canon being Non Profit, non etc etc, is deluded, Canon is and has been for many years, a Multi Billion Dollar Company, having owned my own Business I know exactly what drives Companies, Profits, Profits first, profits always, anything else, quality, design etc etc, is secondary, important of course (and ignoring these areas tends to have a negative impact on, Profits), but all are secondary to Profits.

Innovation is what Companies generally need to stay on top of in order to continue generate Profits (Apple being the perfect example I believe), without Profitable Companies and Innovation we would all be still using Box Brownies, and likely quite Happy, Companies don't bother with innovation if it doesn't generate more profits, more market share, the Car Manufacturing Industry is an example where Companies fold because there is little room left within the Market for innovation, everyone is making the same piece of crap for the same Market, less room for the smaller companies.

Canon has I feel let the innovation department slip, 1Dx is a lovely Camera, for me no question, 5DMK III is Ok nothing special, does the job, the M is somewhat ill designed and lacks in most areas, unfortunately I own one so this is disappointing, but I've learnt to live with that (My Apologies up front Paul for throwing dispersions on your Once Loved), Canon missed the Boat on the D800, I feel this Camera took Canon as much by surprise as did the 5DMK II for Nikon.

The Sony a7r took most everyone by surprise, yet to see if it's going to live up to the Hype, but I hope it does at least mostly, if for no other reason than it will push Canon, Nikon etc etc to innovate, otherwise Sony will eat into those Profits that large, and small, companies bow down to, allowing us, the Consumer, access over the years to better and better products, don't much care from which company, but as I've a large investment in Canon, I hope Canon lifts their game going forward, I don't really see that at the moment though.

ksagomonyants said:

Here's another extreme example of lens damage and dust inside the lens, and how it affects image quality

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2008/10/front-element-scratches

neuroanatomist said:

Good of lensrentals to answer. I guess they didn't point you to Roger's blog?

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2011/08/the-apocalypse-of-lens-dust

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Thanks. I read those before but it's been a while and for some reason I thought those were focused on a different aspect of things. The lens is sharp (tested against the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II and while a little bit behind held up well at f/4. The lens I'm returning is actually a TINY bit sharper than the other but I bought that one with the 15% off coupon so the $30 difference isn't worth it. Plus the lens I'm keeping is from this year so it also has the new Canon lens cap with the pinch in the center which I've to say I'm really liking much better. Thanks for everyone's help.

@unfocused : great post!

Canon Rumors said:

A Canon EOS 1D X, 5D III (at v1.1.3 or later) or a Rebel T4i/650D is needed to install the upgrade. Alternatively, the lens can be sent to Canon Service to have the firmware upgrade installed.

Click to expand...

Has anyone tried this with a 6D?

Hi Vlim.
Loosely speaking I use this lens, I only got it recently and other than the obligatory test pictures I haven't been able to do much with it. First impressions are its a big improvement over the 17-85 kit lens I had. I looked at all the options, but went for the Sigma because of the dock and the issue I had with the kit lens needing a large AFMA spread at opposite ends of the zoom range. I figured that this being the only lens that can be fine tuned at 4 points across its range it was the best option in my price range. It is much brighter than the kit lens enabling the f2.8 centre point at 17mm.
It appears to be bang on out of the box, I haven't done AFMA yet but I didn't feel the need to rush and by the dock!
It feels like a well built bit of kit, smooth zoom, smooth quiet focus and seems fast enough to lock focus.

I'm know there are better lenses but this one ticked all the boxes for me starting with budget! ;D

I think the 24-105 would be perfect IF you were using FF. I have heard the same as others have said here it is too long on crop sensors!

Cheers Graham.

vlim said:

Does anyone use that zoom lens ? I mostly use my two dslr bodies (40D and recently acquired 70d) for wildlife photography but i need an all around zoom mostly for portraits, landscapes and travels.

I know the 24-105 f/4 L IS is certainly my best option, but considering the low price of that Sigma lens, i'm curious to read opinions from photographers who utilize or can compare it to the 24-105 f/4 L IS or even the ol' 24-70 f/2.8 L (if it can be compared to these kind of lenses)...

I f you're fans of other third party zoom lenses that can interest me, don't hesitate !

Thanks.

Click to expand...

Zv said:

It was a rhetorical question. I know what the AA filter does.

Click to expand...

Sorry, I missed that (it's harder in writing, esp. in a foreign language).

Zv said:

As someone who shoots buildings I'd much rather not have to deal with removing moire, which Neuro has kindly demonstrated as being rather difficult. Also I don't know about you but removing moire from several hundred wedding photos of a brides dress might drive me insane.

Click to expand...

Fair enough - I freely admit I don't (and cannot) know how severe the effect of a weaker or missing aa filter is, and I can only read about it in the reviews of the d800e. Btw here's also an interesting part from the dpreview review of the d7100 regarding the removal:

"In short, even if you were willing to put the best glass available on the D7100 and shoot at a wide aperture, you're not likely, even with a lot of effort, to leverage visible benefits of the OLPF removal. While this may be a bit of a disappointment for some, the very good news is that to date we've seen no practical downside to the filter's removal for still photography. It is essentially neutral with regard to image quality."

There are also some interesting sample shots in this link: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-d7100/18

Krob78 said:

I don't know... I don't really find the "ancient IS" that much of a problem... Guess it depends what you're shooting with it but most of us are shooting wildlife and/or outdoor sports with it. I've also found the "awkward push-pull zoom" to not be that awkward at all. In fact when tracking a BIF coming in toward you, it's actually quite natural to slowly draw the barrel back toward you...

There is a reason that this lens is still relevant after all these years without an upgrade. Here's a few from the old 100-400mm with the "ancient IS" turned on...

At it's price range, I don't think it's a bad option, especially for a "hobbyist"... : But that's just me!

Click to expand...

I do not doubt that (a good copy of) a 100-400 in capable hands can deliver, and your shots prove that.
Still, I tried this lens a few times and cannot overlook the problems (some of them subjective, like push-pull zoom, others measurable like the IS). Add in that a replacement has been "just around the corner" for about five years now . This makes me somewhat hesitant to pay that price for something that might address many of the issues I have with this lens.


My dislike of the 100-400 is not

bluegreenturtle said:

Sigh. There is no "best" overall - you have to tailor it to the kind of shooting you do. It sounds like right now, you don't know, so buying the best will be of no benefit - most PAID video work has little to do with absolute best IQ. I have a documentary production studio and do well into 6 figures of profit a year in video work - I could "afford" any video camera on the market, including something like an F55 or the like. I choose to work with a 5DIII right now because it fits what I do, not because it's best. I don't want slow setups, I don't want people gawking at me when I am working on the street, I just want to get my work done quickly and the DSLR does that, while providing me control over the image in a way I'm comfortable with.

I look at my work just 3 years ago and now and it's worlds apart and it has nothing to do with the equipment I use - it's about understanding what I want to get and how to get it. You sort of hit a pet peeve of mine (common in some of my clients) that they can "buy" their way into video work by having the right equipment. I've watched documentaries that were shot on $500 handy cams that blow my work, shot with $25,000 worth of gear, out of the water - because they knew *exactly* what story they were trying to tell, how to tell it, and how to use their gear to the absolute best of its ability. Get a camera you can afford (the suggestion of the 70D is a good one) and start shooting. You'll start to figure out what works and what doesn't - then upgrade later. I did more than $150,000 worth of work on a Canon 7D ($1300), secured another $200,000 worth of work based on that previous work, and sold the 7D for $1100. Just get something and learn.

Click to expand...

Thank you for knocking some common sense into me.
You're dammed right about those words, and i must say, that during the last year or two, my handycam has just been laying of on a shell. It cost me 700 bucks when i got it in 2011, but the picture quality bugged me so intensely that that was what i ended up want to fix the most, and therefor maybe "forget" about why i picked up a camera, or bought that handycam in the first place. To shoot something awesome for others and myself to enjoy. I have absolutely no experience what so ever when it comes to leneses, glass, what does that refer to? (quick google search: it's the lens right?).
But there is something that i love about video making. It's like a sunset and the sea, mount everest and the achievement and the icing on the cake for me.

I would sincerely like to thank you from the bottom of my heart for your outstainding response, and reminding me about the core reasons why i picked up filming in the first place.
I'll go with the 70d and upgrade later.

Btw, i'm interested in your work. Could you leave a link to your website here, or send it in a PM?
Best Regards,
And thank you all for your awesome responses people!!
Especially bluegreenturtle!

I wonder if this is going to be like the Sue Bryce 28 Days where the first 2 and last day were free and the rest of the shows you can only watch if you paid for the show. Wonder what she can bring to the table that sue didn't

I've used the 1.4 iii on my 70-200 f/4 IS and it works pretty well. In good light, I've also had acceptable results with it on the 100-400. I've not used the ii version but for occasional use, it is a reasonable option.I have to agree that if you plan to use the 300mm range frequently, consider the 70-300 or a 300 f/4. Watch the Canon site for refurb sales to save some $ on the TC.

Pi said:

Here is a good read:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_vision#Mathematics_of_color_perception

Click to expand...

Proof that you haven't the foggiest idea what PBD is talking about.