eli452 said:

Did not try it, but a short search on eBay brought "Touch up paint for Canon Lenses - "L" Series Ultrasonic Versions" http://www.ebay.com/itm/Touch-up-paint-for-Canon-Lenses-L-Series-Ultrasonic-Versions-/190846327452?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item2c6f53da9c state that the paint fits the 300mm.
Also has Canon black.

Click to expand...

The paint is a match for the older lenses and not for the 300/2.8 series II that the OP has.

Sony just released this video today, showing high ISO performance of this camera

Yeah I might end up keeping both for a while. Thanks for comenting Wickidwombat.

Maximilian said:

dancook said:

traveller said:

I see too much "street photography" that is either boring or that attempts to create interest through confrontation with the subject. Your shots, on the other hand really capture the moment without provoking it -great work! I particularly like the humour with the shop attendant and the mannequin, also the guy taking a picture of him and his family with a camera on a pole and the reaction of the bystanders.

Click to expand...

Thanks I'm glad my 'work' is well received.

Thinking about buying a mirrorless today, so I feel more confident when I'm in the street

Click to expand...

I see it exactly the same way as traveller said.
So thanks to you, traveller, to summarize it up so well.

And thanks for sharing to you, dancook. Nice work.

Click to expand...

Thanks

I have just ordered a 75mm 1.8 and OMD EM-1 - I hope I can continue to improve upon this standard with the new equipment

jeffa4444 said:

CarlTN
I never said the AF on the 6d is awful if you look I own one myself. Compared to the C300 or C500 the video IS awful compared to most other DSLRs its not.

The 6d has had a lot of very critical reviews most of them comparing it to the 5dMKIII why? The two are very different cameras and that was not a mistake of Canon it was addressing two different market segments and for its price the IQ of the Canon 6d is beyond reproach and comparable to the 5dMKIII in stills which is all Im interested in.

Click to expand...

Fair enough, and I agree. Why does it get compared to the 5D3? Well, because it costs less, yet has less noise...and that drives some people nuts. It's kind of like if a Jetta gets better gas mileage than a Lambo Countach with malfunctioning Webber carburetors. The Lambo is still faster, has more flash and pizazz, costs a ton more...has more bragging rights. But if you're suddenly in a group of "greenies", the Lambo owner isn't going to like their criticism about its poor gas mileage...as he simply must be adored by EVERYONE in order to feel adequate. Similar to the "peacock" syndrome exhibited by country hicks who buy a new red pickup truck every six months, who enjoy tail-gaiting, but never quite having the cojones to attempt passing the traffic in front of them. When that traffic taps their brakes to say "step off my butt, follow at a safe distance"...well then it's on! I digress, but you get the point.

Yup same here. Leave work to get home to a note. Three times. Finally wised up and has it sent to the store too. Works much better.

.
http://www.cpsc.gov/en/Recalls/2014/Canon-Recalls-to-Repair-Powershot-SX50-HS-Digital-Cameras/

expatinasia said:

Mr_Canuck said:

Really, really important!!! I was regularly texting or emailing photos to my extended family back in Canada each day. They became part of the experience in a good way. It was seamless and instantaneous with the camera/phone integration.

Click to expand...

You are absolutely right, there is a massive market for this. Just look at the Nokia Lumia and Samsung models. I have no idea how the three compare to an IQ perspective, but there is going to be a lot more cameras with phones attached than not in the future.

Click to expand...

Yeah, consider the size of a 3G/4G dongle, they can be made pretty tiny. They could be integrated into a DSLR with a SIM card slot. Altough you would need to pay for the data.

That is beautiful! Excellent Shot!!!

dcm said:

StudentOfLight said:

Here are a few lenses that I think you should consider:

...

Samyang has just announced a 12mm f/2 so it might be worth waiting to see if it's good before deciding on going for the 16mm f/2.

Click to expand...

The Samyang 12mm f/2 is only for mirrorless (EF-M) so it won't work with the 70D,
http://www.syopt.com/en/camera/photo-lenses-12mm-F2.0-NCS-CS.php

There is a Samyang 10mm f/2.8 for APS-C dSLRs if you want to go wider than 16mm,
http://www.syopt.com/en/camera/photo-lenses-10mm-F2.8-ED-AS-NCS-CS.php

Click to expand...

Apologies, didn't pick up on the EF-M.

Siggy all the way !

You will also need to first post several posts in order to open up some of the profile options. spammers were signing up and putting spam in their profiles.

I was getting to the T5, but thinking of the G1 X II caused me to doze off....

I don't have a pic of the setup with the FA-QREX2, but this shot of one of my macro setups will give you an idea of the amount of extension you get. I find that getting the flash as far as possible from the lens axis helps with steel-eye.

What is not mentioned in the article is that Canon did not develop or invent nanoimprint technology. A U.S. startup company called Molecular Imprints worked for 12 years to make this all possible. Please do not think for a moment that Canon invented this capability. They simply bought it. For years, Toshiba and Canon have forced Molecular Imprints to not disclose who they were working with. Now that Toshiba and Canon have announced the partnership, they seem to completely ignore the fact that Molecular Imprints even exists.

I would agree, but would also like to point out that there are already several threads on the Sigma 50.

See here:

http://photorumors.com/

Many thanks for the replies. I shall re-calibrate with the 50x lens focal length. I have done this for the 50 1.2 L already and have attached the results - a series of pics focusing on the same part of the chart with the most common AF points I use. The lens was calibrated to the center point. Positioned 2.5 meters from chart (50 x 50mm), camera on tripod with 2 second timer. Chart is mounted on a window so had strong back light. I ran this test twice and got the same results both times so I don't think it is a matter of inconsistent focus - it's consistent for the calibrated point and simply consistently out by different amounts on the other points.

The product advisory on AF sounds to be describing the issue. There are no painted dots in the battery compartment and the firmware is 1.2.0 so I'll upgrade that for the next tests too. I'm kind of wondering if one of those has more consistent AF then it may be better to switch rather than potentially always being unsure about AF point accuracy on this body. Even if it's fixed by Canon it may only take a slight bump to knock it out again? Does anyone know of any AF accuracy tests for the 5d3 or 6d using 1.2 lenses?

I've sure no definitive answer, several possibilities do come to mind, all may be hooey.

I'm liking mackguyver's suggestion that it might be vignetting, I think that would be easy to test.
With the same set up, change out the circuit board as subject with plain paper as subject, if lens/extension tube vignetting is the issue it should be readily apparent.

I'm thinking this one is way off the wall, but I'm thinking it anyway.
Wondering if light is reflecting off the solder pads, maybe bouncing around between the pads and the lens.
Try shifting the part that now shows brighter off to one side of the frame. If that part remains brighter, it's a light distribution issue, see Jim Saunders' radial filter in LR suggested fix.

Is it possible in your set up that light is coming through from the other side of the circuit board? If so, that should be easy to block. The central, green part of the board might well be able to pass light that would be blocked by the adjacent IC chips.

And, it's quite possible that the answer you seek is something else entirely, I freely admit I'm only guessing.



.

Northstar said:

mackguyver said:

Here's a comparison (with the 70-200 Mk I, at least) I found that may be of interest:
Canon 135mm f/2 vs Canon 70-200 I L Lens Review / Comparison Test

I think the differences are pretty subtle and with the Mk II (he also did a Mk I vs. Mk II comparison), I'm sure they are much more subtle. The 1-stop for speed is by far the biggest difference.

Click to expand...

thanks Mack. subtle indeed! i would guess that 9 out of 10 people wouldn't notice the difference and wouldn't have a preference between the photos.

Click to expand...

A matter of opinion. In the second and third comparison series of images, the difference really isn't all that subtle at all. The 135 at f/2, is just quite noticeably smoother in its bokeh, and also throws that de-focussed background into relief where the highlight details appear 40 to 50% larger. The difference, is going from f/2.0, to f/2.8...and the bokeh is slightly less smooth...that's all.

I'll grant you that the first set of comparison images, is more similar. But with subject distance the difference is going to decrease, because the background becomes closer to being in focus anyway. And again, the real reason most users think the 70-200 f/2.8 can have very good bokeh, is because they are using it at focal lengths longer than 135mm, at f/2.8...where the depth of field is that much more shallow...but also the angle of view is more narrow.

Longexposure said:

Thanks to all for your replies. I don't think i'll buy a 50 because i already have a 30 and i feel they're too similar. and I wanted to buy the 100 at fist but it's a little long on apse.
I think I'll wait a few month before settling on anything.

Click to expand...

maybe pick up a used canon 85 1.8 for the time being and use it then see what sigma come out with
while the canon 1.8 has alot of CA wide open its still an amazing lens for the money

This looks so cool

dgatwood said:

sagittariansrock said:

In fact, putting a filter on the 50 1.8 causes flare unless you are using a hood (not needed otherwise because the front element is set back.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure why it would cause flare on that lens any more than it does on any other, unless you got a cheap filter that wasn't multicoated (or not multicoated very well).

Click to expand...

Now that you mention it, I think I tried a Tiffen, and then dropped the idea. This was before I started investing in B+Ws.
But this brings to mind a more fundamental question:
What causes a flare? If it is simply bright light incident on the front element at an angle, then you are right- all lenses will be almost equally prone to flare when an uncoated filter is used. On the other hand, if it is bright light that is incident, but doesn't pass through to the sensor then any lens that has a lot of peripheral, redundant front element will be more susceptible (in this case the 50mm, because it will have a larger front element, in this case the filter, than passes through to the sensor).
It is not very eloquently described without illustration, I am afraid. But this might help: few days ago Neuro posted that the 24-70 II's hood isn't effective at any FL other than the widest, unlike the 24-70 I, whose hood-to-front element distance changed with the FL. I asked myself why, if the front element is equally susceptible to flare whatever the effective FL might be (the same question you are asking me)? Then I thought the peripheral rays aren't passing on to the sensor when the lens is zoomed in, so maybe it is this peripheral rays that causes the flare. Having a deeper hood cuts down these peripheral rays and prevents flare.
That brings us to the other question- are hoods of telephoto lenses deeper because they can have them (i.e., the angle of view is narrower allowing a deeper hood) or because they need the extra depth?
Do you know which one is the case? Maybe the experts can enlighten us?

wildlifeandmore said:

A Little Upset

These Moose in Grand Teton National Park were all hanging out together enjoying some willow along the creek bank when all of a sudden this guy had a little temper tantrum.

Click to expand...

wow...great shot!

Since I shoot exclusively through the viewfinder, which means my back LCD is never on while I'm shooting, I guess my case is worse than Radjan's. Maybe it's because of ambient temperature. Most of my extreme low light shots taken with the 5d mark iii were during carnaval in Rio, and according to what I googled (Thanks, neuro!) "amp glow" seems to be related to sensor temperature.

Does anyone here know if a software fix (or at least an improvement) is possible?