Diko said:

When are all those tests taking place?

Click to expand...

A lot of these tests are done as component tests (i.e. unit tests in the S/W world). As soon as the tooling is done, they start running the tests on those items, but remember that many of the components are off-the-shelf (OTS) as in existing components from other camera models. The testing of the final, completed camera body would begin as soon as the first fully-assembled body rolls off the line. Some would go out for field testing (World Cup?), others would go into the automated testing with robots pushing the shutter 100,000+ times, weather simulation rooms, impact tests, etc. The automated testing takes much less time that you'd think with the robotics and specialized testing labs.

I got the clear mulit-coated glass protective filter from Marumi, not the UV, "Marumi 95mm DHG Super Lens Protect Filter ".

One thing in favour of the Melitta filter is that it is 100% guaranteed to remove all vignetting.

Regarding the CPL, doesn't it make the lens rather slow at 600mm with the light loss?

rs said:

And Canon previously released the EF-M 11-22 IS STM

Click to expand...

Don't I feel stupid, I had no idea the 11-22 had IS. I guess I just ignored it because it's not available in the US, but I hear it's a really sharp lens.

LOLID said:

This is the third review I read from Dustin Abbott. Great review once again. Very honest.

I was seriously considering the reviewed lens but got caught up by the announcement of the Sigma 50 1.4 Art (not sure I want to buy a 35mm AND a 50mm). Anyway I might end up just buying the 40mm instead, so here comes my

question: how does the 35mm f/2 IS compare to the 40mm f/2.8?

I understand the max aperture small difference, the 300$ price tag gap, and the former being a tad wider, but what in terms of:
- sharpness (@ 2v2.8 and 2.8v2.8)
- distortion
- bokeh rendering
- Dustin's "WOW" effect

Thanks in advance.
O.

Click to expand...

I own both. The 40, which I bought on sale for $150, was a splurge purchase. I bought it for the fun factor and justified the purchase because it is an incredibly sharp lens. I use it mainly as a grab shot, travel light lens and as a backup to my 70-200. On many occasions I'll shoot indoor sports and only expect to use the longer zoom. But, just in case I get in tight situation, I throw the 40 in a pocket and it has come in handy.

The 35 IS is my low light speed demon. Very sharp, great close up, fast focus, very bright, and very fast. With less glass, I think it lets in about a third stop more light at 2.8 than my 70-200 does at 2.8.

I have the 24-70 2.8 II, which covers most of my short focal length needs. But, if low light is a concern (such as a wedding reception) I grab the 35. What I have yet to do is explore the thin DOF more...definately on my todo list.

For what it's worth, I'm waiting for a new EF 50 IS at 2.0 or faster and plan to add it as a complement to the 35 for better low light coverage.

I got the 40 before the 35 was introduced. If I had neither, the 35 IS would be my first purchase.

You guys are incredible!

It's amazing to be able to tap into such knowledge and just learn!

Thanks everybody, I really appreciate the knowledge share

AlanF said:

neuroanatomist said:

Rarely.

Click to expand...

Neuro = 9.28 posts/day.
Come, on get your Impact Factor up to 10!

Click to expand...

+1 - Go Neuro, Go!

Hi everyone,

is there anyone recording the World Cup in HD? I am seeing tons of players' closeups. There are many Canon bodies (hard to miss with the white lenses and logo).

I bet at least one of those bodies are the next 1Dx. For 5/7Ds it would be hard to see, but who knows... :

Very nice..

http://www.cnet.com/products/panasonic-lumix-dmc-fz1000/

scottburgess said:

infared said:

Personally I cannot wait to purchase mine. I will when there is no backlog...no hurry.
Gee.. I have 30 days to return it at B&H for full refund. I am sure it will be a great lens tho.
One thing you can bet. I am not going to over measurebate it and spend the rest of my life here complaining about it...I will be out creating images!!!!! ;D 8)
...but hey...I loved my original Sigma 50mm f/1.4. Had a GREAT copy...just sold it for $500! LOL...$100 more than I paid for it.as they have been backorder for a while and I had a colleague who loved the lens and wanted my copy!!!!..Hated to see it go...but I cannot justify owning that and the new one....WHAH!!!!!

I would also like to read Justin's review before purchase, as I know that that should be coming soon!

Click to expand...

Oh, then you're gonna love this: Popular Photography apparently did a test on the new lens and concluded it was not as good as the last 50mm f/1.4. I nearly coughed up breakfast when I read about that!

Click to expand...

LOL! Scott ...THAT is pretty funny! The old Sigma 50mm "Edged it out"???? (In what parameter?? Size? Price?) Guess they got a lot of hits on their site?
What is even funnier is that Pop Photography included the old Sigma DG f/1.4 in the same sentence with the prized and worshiped (hear angels sing), Otus. quite amusing.
The old one is a cool "little" lens compared to these newer, pricier entries....apparently Sigma is going to keep producing it...the lens has gone up in price and the Canon version is quite scare lately....

Seconds are like half the price.... http://www.expoimaging.com/index2.php?cPath=21

The Rogue's are great for speedlights, I prefer them over the Fong's.

they should celebrate by releasing a 1Dx model without the integrated grip. like the great old 1V.
ah a guy can dream cant he?

i think it would be a big seller

Re: Canon Camera Museum Posts Technical Reports for EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM.

My point, though, is a perfect quality 16-35 III is still not a 14-24. With Canon already having an excellent quality f/2.8 16-35 II, and the great new 16-35 f/4 IS (plus the old 17-40) - I would think it would be more profitable to cover a focal length that they do not have yet in a rectilinear zoom, as it could win back some Nikon 14-24 users. Canon also filed a patent for an 11-24 but I believe it was an f/4 lens.

Also, aside from the doubt cast by the fact that the Zeiss is a manual prime and not an autofocus zoom, I am not sure a lens with a 95mm filter element will be acceptable to the target market of the 16-35 f/2.8L II. Wedding/event photographers already often truck around the 70-200 f/2.8L out of necessity (again for f/2.8 and flexibility), I doubt adding another monster lens in place of the 16-35 II would be appealing just for a little more corner sharpness that really is not needed for that type of photography.

Thus, increasing the size/weight of the 16-35 f/2.8L II may not be fully compatible with the market for this lens. I would be in favor of a 16-35 f/2.8L III, but frankly 82mm is already big enough and I don't think I would upgrade if it meant 95mm - there are other things that can be done to improve quality, although again it would probably just be an incremental upgrade and not a game changer. Another instance where a lot of people would probably just hang onto their 16-35 II.

Hence, I think this is why a 14-24 or something like that would be a smarter move. It opens up a new focal length for Canon and attacks a different market (those who want the sharpest, fastest f/2.8 regardless of size, weight, etc) than the 16-35 II which is really a wedding/event/pj lens.

There are a lot of much older lenses that are in more need of update than the 16-35 II anyway...

I could not help but notice and wonder about a 500mm being listed on eBay UK: "First of all please note that there is fungal growth within the elements which is quite common with Canon 500mm lenses." Is it really true that fungus makes a bee line for a 500?

wsmith96 said:

Canon has the 60D refurb on sale again and the price is such that it's calling my name. For those who own this camera, what do you think about it for $460 USD?

My usage would be for children's sports and general vacation type usage. I'm not shooting super models here.

-w

Click to expand...

I've owned the 60D since 2012 without any major concerns, although I only have 2 qualms: lack of AFMA and high noise above ISO 800...otherwise a great body I currently own the 6D now but still use the 60D with good results!

I've bought 2 canon refurb lenses - both were in new condition and I have not had an issue with them. Just bought a refurb body as well.

Guys, thanks to everyone who responded. All I can say is that you've given me exactly what I wanted which is a variety of insights and opinions and some ideas / combinations that I simply didn't think of plus the benefit of experience that I don't have for myself with these combos. I've read what everyone has said and can find few faults with it all.

What I would say is that if the 70-200 plus extender is not as good at the long end as the 70-300L as someone mentioned then it's not for me as most shots are at the very long end outdoors. I'm also very much hankering for that extra stop of light from the 135 for indoors. For example school plays my daughter is in.

The Tamron 150-600 calls to me, it really does, and I suspect that or the 400mm Canon could be next to tempt me once the piggy bank refills! I want to keep the 70-300 though.

One reason not mentioned much for not getting the 70-200 is that it is very "LOOK AT ME" and at family events etc like swimming galas or out and about I'm not sure I want that. I'd much rather my kit was subtler and more transportable to be honest so I can have a choice of lenses.

One day I will get the 70-200 I'm sure but to me I don't think I can lose. If I get the 70-200 I'll love the zoom but often as not regret the slower aperture on APS-C. If I get the 135 I'll love the extra stop of light and miss the zoom. Either way though I think I'll get much better pictures than today!

Thanks all!

PS Having re-read that it kind of sounds like I'm saying "Yeah I've listened to yer yacking on but I'm going to do what I first thought of anyway" . . . it's not meant to sound that way at all though ;D

Tried the Sony RX series, nex 6&7, the Fuji X-e2, x100s, and X-M1, finally just settled on the SL1
Saved me a bunch of money and still totally pleased with the results. My wife feels the same.
It'll be terrific until I get an SL2!

aznable said:

candyman said:

Looks like Sigma will have to deal with AF reports first and check this before release of the 85mm f/1.4 Art. This is not good advertisement for Sigma and their products.
My 50mm f/1.4 Art does not have AF problems. I am extremely happy with my copy.

Click to expand...

no one has problems with AF of this lens except the one that has a 1D series, like me

Click to expand...

Yeah, I've found that the focus on the 5D3 is really excellent with the new sigma, but unfortunately pretty bad with the 1D3 and 1Ds3.

Policar said:

Low budget indie crowd is generally shooting Alexa.

Click to expand...

And major big studio features and major episodic TV shows and even TV feature pieces….

I would say you see way more RED's on indie set's and Alexa's on major Hollywood features and TV show

It may not be a 4K camera, but the Alexa is the digital workhorse of features and TV shows.

wickidwombat said:

I still can't get over anyone liking the tamron 18 -270 ..... :-\

Click to expand...

Kinda makes you wonder why buy a 6D, when just a good lens would be such a huge improvement.

hangtime said:

And, just like that, I've taken it in for exchange. I really wanted to like the lens and not be "that guy" that is returning lenses because they're not sharp or whatever. But I took some photos of the moon last night (good tripod, 1/4s exposure, f/4, mirror lockup, 2s timer, IS off etc) and the stars showed some serious problems with coma or astigmatism with weird crescent shaped flares instead of points across the whole field of view. So, serenity shattered, it was returned this morning and I'm awaiting a replacement when stock arrives.

Sorry to waste everyone's time - I appreciate the advice.

Click to expand...

you made the right choice to return it....for $2k, you should have a brand new 2014 manufactured lens, not one that is two years old and probably has been handled by dozens of people in the shop over the last two years.

1. To me 18MP is plenty - I wouldn't mind more but only if there was NO compromise in ISO performance.

2. I am not having issues with DR, more is obviously better just not a particular issue to me.

3. I am finding the usable ISO range on my 1DX great, again more would be better especially below ISO 50.

4. Mirroless cameras are of zero use to me. When they can AF fast, have a viewfinder/screen that I can use in real world lighting conditions, balance properly on large lenses and have a decent size battery - then I will be interested.

5. Switch brand? Only Nikon offers the sort of lens range that I mainly use - tried a couple (with D800e and D4) - staying with Canon for foreseeable future.

6. Don't find much use for IS on my 800mm F5.6 - on a wide angle? No thanks - it just adds another (dead) element that serves no purpose for me and IS slows down AF..

7. No idea - so long as it works I am happy!

8. DSLR's have Video?

9. Err no.

clicstudio said:

I've been asking the same question for years. It's funny that I was just about to start a thread bragging about the amazing HDR capabilities of the 5DIII…

I did a furniture shoot yesterday. I didn't take my 1DX. Instead I took my friend's 5DIII because it has in-camera HDR which WORKS… Unfortunately, this only works with a tripod. Since the camera takes 3 images and then combines them into one. Also, there is a little bit of cropping on the final image, so u always have to frame wider...

I also wish for the day my camera can see what my eyes see. Even the most expensive cameras can't capture a perfect sunset or a backlit portrait without a lot of tweaking…

Magic Lantern has a hack for the 5D and I think 7D that enhances the DR but it makes the image noisy.
My suggestion? Dual or triple Sensors. One for highlights and one for Shadows.

IF one sensor could be calibrated to "see" only the top range of light and the other the bottom, it could work…

I attached one image of yesterday's shoot. Taken with available light only… This photo would be IMPOSSIBLE with my 1DX. I am very impressed with it and it looks great. Check out the white curtain. U can see the trees outside and not a washed out 100% white curtain. and the detail of the orchids against the backlit. Also, no noise or distortion.
So, to the OP, get a 5DIII and a tripod and it will change the way u see things…

Technical info: 5DIII, Canon 24-70 F2.8L II, ISO 320, 28mm, F8.0, 1/20



Happy Shooting.

Click to expand...

Wow. I want that house! NICE!!!

Makers for medium format IGNORE all the best glass produced by Zeiss since the 50's for the 'blad.

I have lens from 1957 that work just as well as my last lens, a 50mm FLE.

Make a drop in replacement for an A12 magazine that is digital, has at least 80% the size of 6X6 and works on a Hasselblad 500 series camera and a lot of people would pay for that