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

As a Cross Country runner and photographer, I've found that its good to shoot the start immediately after the gun, but avoid shooting anything in the first mile or so as the runners are all bunched up, and typically don't make very good photos (although there are some exceptions). I like shooting in places where you can see the crowd/route behind the runners, as it tells a bit more of a story. Remember that the last mile or so of a race, participants are often fighting down vomit and cramps, and it shows on their faces. this makes for some VERY interesting images. And, if you are the "official" photographer, I should hope you have direct access to the finish line, as those are some images that are often expected from the main photographer. Good luck!

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!

Great self portrait 8)
I do Like the frame.

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.

Ruined said:

But like the 24-105 vs 24-70 f/2.8, the 70-300 has some advantages over the 70-200 f/2.8, namely an extra 100mm in focal length.

The problem I have with the 24-70 f/4 is that it will duplicate the inevitable 24-70 f/2.8 IS which patents were filed for a while back. The 24-105 at least though would still have a spot in my kit for that extra range when needed.

Click to expand...

I would be very surprised if Canon ever brought out an IS version of the 24-70L 2.8II. I think the f/4 version was intended to fill that IS void but I think in a sense they kinda failed. I'm not saying the f/4 isn't sharp, I'm sure it is but not close enough to the f/2.8 IMO as we thought it was gonna be, like the little brother of the 2.8. Instead it seems to marginally improve on the 24-105, which isn't hard! If it had been as sharp or close as the 2.8 and without the gimicky macro Canon could have even charged $1500 and I would have likely paid it.

You see the 2.8 shouldn't need IS in theory. Canon's latest generation of pro cameras are able to shoot fairly clean shots at high ISO and the next gen will likely improve on that. Now, for those who NEED the IS there was the 24-105L but this needed an update so the 24-70 f/4 was born. Those who use IS will likely be using the lens for creating more dof for landscapes etc at sunrise or sunset, or traveling with it, which I think is what this smaller and lighter lens was intended for. Note how Canon improved the 24mm end especially over the 24-105.

The 2.8 is more of a studio / pro lens and likely those folk will use a tripod anyway.

Last thing to say on this topic for a bit ---part of this whole debate involves trends. Right now everyone loves the instant gratification of snap upload, watch as the comments and likes pour in. Who says this trend is the new tomorrow? Right now, everyone wants to share everything and everyone loves everything that everyone is sharing. But will that be the case in 2015, 2016, 2017...etc etc. this is whats happening now, but, what's happening now is a trend - maybe this trend will change. what happens when the likes stop for your duck face in the mirror photo? What happens when no one cares that you posted a pic of your dinner plate. What happens when instant upload is considered, "that's so 2013, gawd, no one does that anymore."

Also nice that it takes 77mm Filters by mounting them on the filter thread on the screw in hood.

If a shot was framed too tight and I'd like to add some space around it, for example for print and framing - what options are there?

Is there a plugin to extrapolate the edge of the frame a bit so that the extension becomes less visible than a plain color, or a plugin to do a non-linear stretch so that the outer sides of the frames are stretched while most of the inner part remains the same (I know for the latter there is a plugin with this idea for AviSynth video processor)?

How do you do it? Thanks for any insight

petefromzim said:

neuroanatomist said:

bereninga said:

I like the new look! Not sure about the blank horizontal gray bar though.

Click to expand...

That's a space for banner ads - if you have ad blocking, it'll be blank.

petefromzim said:

One thing that has always annoyed me is the highlighted forum posts on the right hand side of the Home page. If you click on one, I find it annoying that it doesn't take you to the first post, but to some random place down the thread, often the bottom post. Can it not be fixed that it opens at the top of the thread?

On the other hand, there may be a good reason for this that I can't figure out...

Click to expand...

It links to the most recent posts, not the first post in most recently active topics. An easy (and often overlooked) way to access topics starting with the post after the last one you personally read (which is the first post, if you haven't read that thread) is from the upper right corner of the forum pages.

Click to expand...

Well, I for one can't see the point of that - if it's a new thread, I want to read it from the top, not navigate all the way back. And "upper right corner" - darned if I can see what you're referring to - must be blind!

Click to expand...

If you click on the subject of the thread, you'll be sent to first posting. If you click on the "NEW" icon, you'll be sent to your first unread posting.

Personally, I would really appreciate if CR could go away from red-on-black, due to the bad contrast makes it difficult for me to read the text (esp. the "Show unread posts since last visit" and "Show new replies to your posts" lines)

Thanks, Michael! I will give this a download this weekend. Actually, the sample video provided in the link is what pushed me into getting the 600ex system from the start. This was the first video I saw that explained that you still needed a trigger for 5D MK3, there where alot of rumors about 5DMk3 having built in radio at the time. So thanks for that

Stars are very far away... at least a mile or two Set for hyperfocal and you don't even need to look through the view finder.

Also, if you're really into this type of work I suggest an Astrotrac mount. You'll never need to worry about star trails, unless you want them. A little pricey but it weighs so little, it's easy to setup and pack for travel... the results are superb! It's also great for time lapse work.

I had a Losmandy Starlapse set up but it weighed a ton and took a bit to set up, eventually sold it and went for the Astrotrac.