zrz2005101 said:

Are you able to handheld the 300 f2.8 IS or does it have to mount on a monopod to get through the entire game? Thanks

Click to expand...

I have only used it handheld. I use a OP/TECH Super Classic strap attached to the lens body and rest as needed. During the action it is very easy to track and capture images without feeling tired. With field sports you are not holding the camera lens still, trying not to move or shake. Most of the shots are tracking, following the action and firing off as needed. Whenever the whistle blows, I take the opportunity to rest.

My monopod head is too lightweight for the 300 f2.8. It worked fine for my 300 f4 IS and my 780-200 f2.8 IS, but I do not trust the 300 f2.8 on it.

I just acquired the Tokina AT-X 16-28, it's actually a pretty nice lens. As others have said, it is somewhat heavier than other lenses, but as far as build quality, I have absolutely no complaints. The first picture is a cell phone shot of the Tokina, with my 5DMKII. The front is a bit bulbous so as others have said...no filters. It does have a lens cap however that encompasses the entire front of the lens, so there are no worries about protecting the lens at all. The second shot is a photo taken with the lens at Caesar's Palace in Vegas...along with a little tweaking courtesy of Photomatix. I think I'm going to enjoy this new lens a lot.

Mendolera said:

G' Day All,

First time posting a new topic but wanted to get some advice if anyone wants to chime in. Ive been eyeing a couple WA's for months now. I had the 16-35 II in my shopping cart more then once now but decided against it as the extra cost savings in the following two lens will let me preorder the Mark III once available (Some budget concerns). Currently Im rocking my almost 4 year old XSi so I know the 10-22 would be better suited for it but like I said im making the full frame jump soon.

Im guessing a fair share of people on the forum have or have used the 17-40 but wondering if anyone has used the rather new Tokina and how they might compare. Prices are comparable new though the 17-40 has more of a used market currently. The Tokina doesnt accept filters which for me is a drawback but the extra stop makes it more appealing as I do anticipate the occasional handheld evening landscape shot.

Cheers

Click to expand...

sdsr said:

Assuming I needed the extra reach of the 70-300 L I bought one, but must have received a bad copy - sometimes it was no sharper (sometimes it was distinctly less sharp) than my 70-300 non-L IS, so I returned it.

Click to expand...

Even with Canon lenses, there are bad copies - look at the iso crops for the 70-300L @the-digital picture, they got another copy because the first one was bad: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=738&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=738&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=1&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

The 70-300 non-L actually is also ok iq-wise except for the long end, so maybe that's why you didn't see a difference. But of course the L has better is, faster & silent non-micro usm af and much better build quality.

Concerning the 70-200/4: It is certainly a good lens and a tad sharper than the 70-300L while keeping constant aperture - but whenever I see it I find it strangely long for something you also shoot at 70mm. Of course internal zooming is technically superior to the telescope design of the 70-300L, but handling & transport imho is simply better with a shorter lens.

K-amps said:

bdunbar79 said:

K-amps said:

bdunbar79 said:

There are subtle differences. The version II is sharper at all apertures and is lighter. That's about it.

Click to expand...

Guys that have Mark I or even the F4 version, don't know what they are missing. Can't say this enough.

Click to expand...

I haven't shot with the mark I, but comparing other photos, I cannot see a difference, if any I guess. Is it signficantly sharper?

Click to expand...

Yes it is sharp, but that's not the whole story. It makes colors pop, bokeh is beautiful, AF is fast but most importantly it has an unexplained magical quality that renders shots so well it's hard to explain. I struggled with its price for many months but now that I have it, it will be the last L lens to go and it's is the reason I am with canon.

The V2 also is brighter, lets more light in... this means quicker shutter speeds/less noise/lower ISO'd needed and ability to get more keepers in lower light. Some say it is 1/3rd stop brighter... effectively making it an f/2.5 lens (compared to mk.1)

The difference between the mk.ii and the f4 is like wearing silk pajamas vs polyester, they both do the job, but one does a great job.

Click to expand...

Heh, personally I would say it's like wearing silk pj's or none at all. 8)

Hello everyone I am in talks with a guy to buy a 500 f4 I would trade it for my 400 5.6 + cash for $3900 he says its in perfect condition and comes with everything. Is this a good deal?

What should I look for when checking the lens?

thanks

New review of this lens together with the the 1.4x and 2x TC IIIs has just been uploaded on juzaphoto - if any one is interested.

Not quite the 300 - 600 universal lens I thought it was!!

V8Beast said:

awinphoto said:

Very nice... I shot AF1 in northern nevada at the airport... Dear god almighty security was tight and I had to sneak a peak of the plane running down the runway through a door cracked open only 6 inches at best... and that's with secret service monitoring my every movement. Good shots.

Click to expand...

You should have distracted them with some Columbian hookers Works everytime ;D

Click to expand...

Haha just read your comment today, you know I didn't have any with me, lol. In the shot I did get of AF1 running down the runway, I could see secret service standing on top of the hangers/terminals in the distance... With my 7d at the time and 70-200, i guess it would be easy to assume its a rocket launcher or the like... Oh well... note to self, next time AF1 comes to town, hire hookers...

Infer what you want, it was just so left field iyam.

a good polarizing filter... it cuts 90%+ of uv and "polarizes" stray light.

for protection. use the lens cap.
canon's coatings are good.
well to admit my 90 TS-E needs a UV filter but that's for UV.

Very nice visually, some great material.

Needs:

Either to be half the length (lots of similar shots, longer cuts) or to have a narrative structure.
Lots of folk running about. Must have been lots of stories. Who? What? Where? Why? When?

Cut in tempo with the music. Sharper cuts.

I do appreciate this thread very much, as I am going FF 5D3 within the next few month. Will rent a body and test it, to get accquainted a bit with it.

I will be getting the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM soon.

"L" grade

I have 3 600's and a controller (now in hand). It's pretty slick and love the the control and ease of use - can control all flashes via the controller, as a group or each independently. Unless you're using multiples (which can be good for recycling time on fast shooting situations), I'll stick to 3 of these and invest in strobes and packs for bigger shoots or situations that require more/larger lights.

FunPhotons said:

KitsVancouver said:

Astro said:

why would you buy that?
buy a phottix odin instead.

ps: with the ST-E3 RT the sync time is down to 1/100s on everything except a 5D MK3 or 1D X when using radio.
otherwise you will have some shadowing on your pictures.

Click to expand...

I am in the same boat as the OP. I'm really curious as to why inventory is so limited. I might end up buying a 5th 600EX if the STE3 isn't available soon.

I was considering the Phottix Odins for my 580ex IIs but in the end I'm glad I didn't because the 600EX' are so easy to use. The Canon system has a very significant advantage in that they are a closed system and don't require as much set up as an IR system or a third party RF solution.

I still think they 600ex' are a tad expensive but I'm a believer. I sold 3 580ex II and bought 3 600ex. Very shortly after I bought a 4th and am considering a 5th (since I cant find an STE3).

Click to expand...

I absolutely love the 600 and have three. Also considered getting a fourth for on the camera control, but I really want the controller for light weight and low profile. I held off upgrading my flashes hoping that Canon would release a RF solution, glad I did. I have a single 580 which I keep in my outdoor bag as I don't want to take out a 600 while at the beach or camping.

What do you use your fourth flash for? Three plus the controller seems maximal to me, other than for ganging.

Click to expand...

I had a Wimberly for my 600mm f/4 and it was wonderful. However, it would be overkill for the much lighter 500mm lens. I'd go with Neuro's recommendation, or use it handheld or with a monopod.

Re: PowerShot SX160 IS & PowerShot SX500 IS

SX500: I'm impressed with the fact that they FINALLY moved that obnoxious frame-assist button away from the thumb grip, where I was ALWAYS hitting it by accident on the SX30/40.

I'm anxious to see the back, tho. Looks like they may have eliminated the viewfinder - which would NOT be cool.

Can't wait to see all the specs, whether it's enough of an improvement over the SX40 to lure me to an upgrade.

At a guess, Quantum or Metz or Canon/Nikon branded speedlites, possibly 2-3 of them on a single bracket with, as you said, the large reflector to concentrate all the light from them as much as possible.

Radiating said:

TrumpetPower! said:

Considering today's 35 f/1.4 is already superlative...what, aside from the price tag, will be different with the new one?

b&

Click to expand...

The 35mm 1.4 was spectacular when it was released, now it's just average. It's so average in fact that a third party 35mm 1.4 Canon EF lens you can buy for $350 brand new is much better than Canon's own $1350 35mm 1.4, which is ridiculous:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=771&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=1&LensComp=121&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2

Just from that comparison I see the following that could be noticably improved:

-Corner sharpness
-Mid frame sharpness
-Severe Color Fringing

Here are some other factors which could be improved:

- Flare resistance (better coatings)
- mid frame and corner sharpness for meridonial detail stopped down
- Color fringing stopped down, it's plainly visible even at f/8.0
- Purple Fringing (I notice this in my copy)

Don't get me wrong even with all these problems the 35mm 1.4L is probably my favorite prime of all time ever, the combination of pleasing quality, focal length and aperture are amazing.

However if it were as good as say this, well... we can only dream.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=121&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=2&LensComp=458&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

Click to expand...

I bought one of those SammyYang coke bottles you refer to, but the autofocus would not work on any of my cameras.

It looks like the uneven polarization you get with a CPL and a wide angle lens (a variable ND is just stacked and crossed linear and circular polarizers - that issue is why I done have a variND). The effect gets worse as the filter is darkened. I'm surprised to see it at 50mm, though, unless you've set it beyond the max marking.

jmanley said:

Has anyone seen anything new in the last few weeks? I have my preorder still "pending" at JR.com

Click to expand...

A few weeks ago I readon the "internet" that late Sep was a possible ship date... take it for whatever it's worth.

I got my 1DX from Norman's in the middle of July, Norman's is a great place to do business with!

As with any photography, there are often compromises to be made. I usually try to avoid f/22 on full frame, unless I really need the DoF (or I want to lower the shutterspeed) and am willing to sacrifice overall sharpness to get it, as overall loss of sharpness is often less noticeable than part sharp and part soft. With a natively sharp lens (like the 24L MkII), the effects of DLA results in less softness, so it may still be sharper than a lesser lens is at f/16 anyway (I have noticed this in comparison with the 24-105). I don't really notice any major problems at f/16 on either my 5D MkII or MkIII, but on the 7D the decreased sharpness is definitely noticeable. If I could get enough DoF at f/11, I'd use it, but for the type of landscapes in my area, it is rarely possible. It really depends on whether anything is blocking infinity or not, but you can get away with more at 24mm.
While DLA (which involves pixel densities and Airey discs, as well as light diffraction) may start around f/10 (or whatever the exact figure is) for the 5D MkII/III, but as the TDP article states, that doesn't preclude using narrower apertures and it is much lower before it becomes usable. What they don't state however, is that lens quality will also come into play, IQ on a higher quality lens will have to degrade much more before it is unusable than a lesser quality lens.

If its occasional wildlife I would crop, basically for the reasons given above. But mainly because I find that putting the 100-400 on a 2XTC is pushing it a bit on the 7D as far as IQ is concerned. And of course there is the AF issue, ie it wont.

This makes me think I must try the TC's and the 100-400 on the full frame.


EDIT
Having tried it, its a pain not having AF, my type of shooting tends to want a quick shot.

I love my 100-400. On my 50D, it's Ike 640mm, but I can't push the ISO enough sometimes. I usually shoot with my 5Diii because the high ISO and the insane autofocus, and I love it.

It seems like the answer to your question is obvious - 800mm, but I'm assuming you don't want to sell a kidney, in which case get a 100-400 or a 400 prime.

Peter Dawson said:

Richard, you genius. Not sure how you figured that out, but thanks for replying.
Peter

Click to expand...

Thanks Peter! So..., that makes 2 people that think so, you plus my Mother.

Rich

zrz2005101 said:

The one point of having primes is for the extra stops of light and their reliable performance. Yes the 70-200 II is more than outstanding but even with IS sometimes it cannot have the picture just because the object may be moving too. Turning up ISO means losing IQ so having the extra stop of light is very helpful.

Click to expand...

Yes but everytime you turn the aperture wider, you thin your focal plane. Much rather have to remove noise than have a completely OOF shot because I didn't get the focal plane correct. This is especially true on shorter focal length lenses when you're doing close ups.