Thanks for posting the pictures...

Hello,

I read some discussions about UV / clear filters for the 17-40L and wanted to share my experience.

I recently purchased 5DIII + 17-40L + B+W Filter UV (010) XS Pro Digital MRC Nano D77mm.

Yes, though it's a slim filter you CAN still attach the original Canon lens cap provided with the 17-40L. But the lens cap does NOT fit completely. The front thread is not deep enough.

So there was a problem : the DSLR is stocked all day in a top loader bag, pointing down. And there was a pressure on the lens cap due to body + lens weight. 3 days ago, I found the filter completely broken. And I could CLEARLY see that the starting point of the broken zone is on the border where the lens cap pushed...

Now, I'll buy a F-Pro mount...

Just to share my experience...

Cheers,

Could be lens size?
is the 24-70 matches the length to 70-200 when you zoom in 24-70 to 70mm???

wild guess

Mikael Risedal said:

I'm waiting for the Sigma lens and test it out on a d800, Im going on a long work trip in Vietnam,Kambodja and Laos in march and decided to have Nikon gears with me this time instead of Canon. First time since 2006 I will rely on Nikon and maybe also a Sigma 35mm. Compared to Nikon 35/1,4 and Canon 35/1, 4, all tests looks stunning good so far .

Click to expand...

I think you will be impressed by the Sigma. I haven't found a weakness yet. It's sharp across the frame at all aperatures, fast and accurate AF and I haven't even gotten it to flare so far. I think the bokeh issue is silly and subjective. Is March the rainy season? I mention this because the fit and finish of the lens makes it appear to be weather sealed, but, for some reason sigma didn't put a gasket at the lens mount...

Looks like Canon no longer has to fear Sony, it has to fear Samsung.

FatDaddyJones said:

Diverman said:

I will definitely bring a CP with me, as well as a ND.

Click to expand...

A neutral density filter is what I forgot the last time I went to a national park... Yellowstone, in my case. NDs are a must for taking proper exposures of all the awesome waterfalls and rapids, if you want that soft, velvety water look. At glacier, you'll use it a LOT.

Click to expand...

Good point, but I kind of stopped using mine. A CP and careful settings seems to do just fine most of the time. Definitely not a bad idea to have one, though. Glacier is, IMHO, a water park at its heart.


-----------

http://michaelhodgesfiction.com/

michaelstringer said:

I think you may have misread my review (or I wasn't very clear). The 5D IIIs AF is excellent and fast in all situations - including low light. Very low light is obviously more of a challenge but mostly it locks fine. The 6D however has a slightly better centre point in near darkness - it locks a bit quicker and doesn't seem to hunt at all (yet).

Click to expand...

Thanks for the clarification, but it was actually others in this thread that were complaining about the 5D3's low light focusing performance. =)

my stofen fits on both my 550 and 580... don't think that much difference either with the 600

Just think about it.. if you use it at many gigs, the 5D mark III will basically pay itself off.

I own Tamron 24-70 lens and i am extremely satisfied with them. Actually it is my most used lens i read a lot of reviews about this lens and it is much bette4 tahm canon equivalent (mark I). Canon 24-105 has a didferent focal length and also it gives one F stop less. For me the obvois choice is Tamron

I think I found the lens - the new 24-70mm
Incredible base sharpness and the RAW files handle very well to even more sharpening.

This is probably the best lens I've tried to date and the fact it's a zoom amazes me.
I guess I need to see what the 12-24 is like if it is announced next week.

What I HAVE discovered is that only the very newest released lenses seem to bring out the best from the 5D MK3...

ET

Samyang is the only one with an aperture ring,but I'd really buy one lens than an array of primes
Just a personal choice

Absolutely nothing with regards to the 20mm on Voigtlaenderrumors.com

TexPhoto said:

The 600 II includes feet? Not just foot? Who knew?

If one of you guys owns a camera, why not post a photo. It's worth 1000 words from what I've been told.

Click to expand...

The TDP review of the lens mentions the monopod foot, and even has a nice picture of it...

RustyTheGeek said:

Well, if I count just the 2012 images, I get 27, 053. Wow. No wonder the wife has been bitching at me to get more done around the house! I guess it's possible she's right! Grumble.....

On the positive side, at least I have a few more years left on the shutters!

Click to expand...

Funny stuff Rusty

LetTheRightLensIn said:

dilbert said:

Many people (including myself) thought that the 5D3 would use 3x3 binning for video.

It doesn't.

Click to expand...

Then how come it doesn't have the nasty moire of the 5D2 and 6D?

It is a bit soft, but I'm guessing that is because the AA filter was designed for 1x1 single photosite sizes for stills and doesn't help any for 3x3 blocks so they do a little AA in software to mush away some of the aliasing from that??? Not really sure though.

Click to expand...

As a bayer sensor has 2x2 blocks to give the full colour info - one red, one blue and the two green, a 5D mk III 3x3 block downsampled into one video pixel, while better than what could be downsampled from a 21 or 20MP sensor (hence their use of pixel binning), it's not ideal. A multiple of 2x2 is theoretically much better, such as the 39.3MP 4x4 downsample.

I would have guessed some sort of of merging of the resulting pixels occurs in software, probably to do with compensating for the inconsistent colour info across each 3x3 block.

We have 2 5d2 bodies - love and will use them until they die

This isn't the sort of thing you hear every day. Surprise us big time, Canon!

Nice, considered review Ramon. I have the 85 f/1.2 II and had the 135 f/1.2 at the same time for a couple of years. My impression of the two was that the 85 had a little more "magic' that is hard to define, but that the 135 had a kind of relentless sharpness that was quite good for its speed and focal length.

As to build, my 85 came flawless out of the box and I haven't noticed anything negative - no mechanical weakness, unintentional disassembly or dust problems. As to focusing, yes, it's slow, but, as others have mentioned, the focus motor has to move a group of very heavy lens elements. In any case, hardly anyone seriously buys this lens for fast-moving low light sports (a few diehards to the contrary). Its best use is for slow considered portraiture and even some specially rendered product shots and other miscellany, all done in a style where ultimate focus speed is almost irelevant.

I find its bokeh to be impeccable, but I hardly ever shoot this lens tight at f1.2 (maybe for an occasional half- or full-body shot), due to its insanely narrow depth of focus; if your subject so much as twitches, your f/1.2 shot will be a mess of misplaced focus. I find that f/1.6 is a great aperture for my purposes with f/2.0 being not much less attractive. At f/2.8, you might as well be using less expensive glass, although this lens is still quite amazing through f/4.0, compared to most others. It's not just sharpness, it 's also the "character" of the image: a combination of designed-in flaws and aberrations from the purposeful trade-off demanded by such a wide maximum aperture, its bokeh, its color, its contrast and the super-high center resolution along with dimiinshed edge and corner results. This is supposed to be, above all else, a portrait lens, and all these characteristics make it a great one. For instance, when taking a good head and shoulders picture, it is the central area of the subjects face, around the eyes, that benefits from great sharpness, not the tips of the subjects' shoulders on the edge of the picture.

When I have to quickly shoot a lot of portraits of a lot of people, as in a day of corporate "gang" shooting on location at some headquarters conference room, I always use my brilliant 70-200 f/2.8 IS II. It get's the job done perfectly, and you can somewhat make up for f/2.8 bokeh by using a longer focal length when possible. But for those occasions when I can take my time to get a really impressive single "portrait" picture, I like to use the 85, and slowly vary the focus to see what I can make of the very narrow band of focus that it affords me. For this, there is absolutely no substitute.

All in all, a terrific lens I will keep indefinitely.

Regards,
David

Expect some new equipment announcements on the 8th. Their announcement of a presence at CES is carefully worded to avoid tipping off anyone about new products.

expatinasia said:

gkaefer said:

video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=A3PDXmYoF5U#

Click to expand...

Wow. Thanks for sharing that. Must be one of the very best marketing videos I have ever seen. It is long, but I watched it all, and I want one!! I have no idea what I would do with it, but it definitely has that cool factor! I am really looking forward to GoPro 4 coming out I can watch that marketing video.

Click to expand...

lol +1 - sure would have liked to have a gopro3 back when I was young enough to do crazy things rather than just document them
Granted, the OP might be trolling and granted, the GoPro is a one trick pony, but what a trick...
Only little more than 10 years ago, a 10$ dispossable camera seemed like such luxury faced with the alternative of absolutely NO way of documenting our epic failings in the alps...
oh well.... blabla and then some, when one resorts to reading these posts its too late or too bored better put the cap back on the bottle and hit the sack

Viggo said:

Well, it's not exactly the same, but I had decided I wouldn't buy another lens for quite some time, but saw a a 70-200 f2.8 L for $360 and just bought it, who would pass? ;D

Click to expand...

Where exactly did you find that deal? I'd cal that a "once in a lifetime" find.

Videoshooter said:

Then I'll see a tourist shooting video with their camera sideways, and I realise that everything is going to be fine!

Click to expand...

LOL

Axilrod said:

Use ISO's in multiples of 160 when possible

Click to expand...

I seem to remember something about this NOT being a fully reliable rule of thumb?
Anyways, Consider getting a picturestyle profile for video as well. When/If you get into more serious PP, you can benefit greatly from shooting with a flat profile (such as the CineStyle). Others (like the Marvell profile) are less flat and give a more pleasing result out-of-camera while still retaining some room for grading. It can be a little discouraging at first though, to browse through endless flat footage that youøll never bother grading
One of the perks of the Magic Lantern is that it alows you to use 2 profiles: 1 for what you see on the LCD, the other for the actual file. This can be very handy for ppl like me who lack visual imagination
Other than that, IS is great, simple accessories like shoulder rigs & LCD-VF Loupes are dirt cheap, ML rocks, convertible non-AF primes are cheap and so on and so forth - happy shooting!

dswatson83 said:

I just felt like Canon didn't even challenge themselves with the 35mm f/2. What prime doesn't look good at f/2, how hard is it to put IS in a prime if you can easily do it in zooms, and then lets charge double the amount as typically charged for this type of lens.

Click to expand...

How did they not "challenge themselves" with the 35/2 IS? The new lens is dramatic improvement over the original 35/2 —
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=824&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=122&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

What prime lens doesn't look good at f/2? How about the original Canon 35/2? How about the Canon 28/1.8? How about the Sigma 20/1.8? How about the Nikon 35/2? Just look at the fuzzy corners on those lenses. The new Canon 35/2 IS is a dramatic improvement over those lenses.

The new Sigma 35/1.4 looks outstanding, but it's a much bigger and heavier lens that offers an extra stop of light. It's a direct competitor to the 35L, not to the new 35/2 IS. Not everyone is looking for the biggest, heaviest 35mm lens they can find. Canon has a unique offering with the 35/2 IS.

My 1D X came with Canon's 'randomly-distributed narrow aperture diffraction test pattern', and they didn't even charge extra. A blower didn't help, but my Arctic Butterfly 724 Super Bright removed the 'feature'.