Posts

pwp · May 10, 2012

The 17-40 f/4 is a perceptual match for the 16-35 f/2.8II from f/5.6-f/11. If your shooting style means you don't need f/2.8 in your wides, the f/4 17-40 delivers. Not only is it half the price, it's a lot lighter in the bag and takes 77mm filters which may match other Canon L glass that you might have. I shoot with the 17-40 f/4 for very technically demanding clients.

But if f/2.8 performance is genuinely important to you and you have the budget, the 16-35 f/2.8II is as good a wide Canon zoom as you're going to find. If you're considering pre-owned, steer away from the MkI version of this lens.

Paul Wright

wickidwombat · May 10, 2012

as others have said bokeh is the biggest downfall with the 1.8 but the 1.4 is not so great either as it doesnt have circular aperture blades so you can make out thee 8 sides on bokeh lights
(i really wish canon would re-do the 1.4 to match compete with the nikor G lens, or sigma redo their fifty to the same quality that the new 85 1.4)

another interesting problem with the 1.4 that the 1.8 doesnt have is if you want to shoot infrared the 1.4 is subject to getting hot spots (both mk1 and mk2 versions of the 16-35L also have this problem)

overall I like the 1.4 and use it more often than the 1.8 however for shooting landscapes or maybe street photography where you will use narrow apertures there will be almost no noticable difference between the 2

AvTvM · May 10, 2012

moreorless said:
Theres does seem to be a tendacey for those desiring maximum resolution to underestimate the value of other areas of fucntionality, I'd guess because they tend to mix with people who have similar needs?

I'm wondering if a good option for Canon might not be to release a higher MP body below the 5D mk3? lesser AF, video quality and FPS plus a few other professional features removed and a 40 MP sensor added. I'd guess alot of high resolution users would be more willing to work around such weaknesses that many event photographers.

I would be happy with 22 or 24 MP on FF.
I would love to have a stills-only camera with ZERO video fuinctionality ... except what is absolutely needed to drive Liveview for max. 1 minute at a time.
I will never again accept weaker AF than 7D/5D3/D700 levels. Actually, I would like to get Canon Eye Control AF improved to 2012 standards ... ON TOP of a top notch ultra-fast AF system, ideally a hybrid AF-system, with phase detect sensors embedded in the sensor plus fast contrast AF (as introduced in the Nikon 1 series, but for FF sensors) .. .THAT is the kind of innovation I would expect from Canon today ...
For SUCH a camera I would happily pay USD/€ 3.500

bchernicoff · May 10, 2012

Sorry, I can't resist

I can't believe how much better D800 tattoos are better than all of those!

Dart23 · May 10, 2012

Random Orbits said:
Pretty normal. The designed focal length of lens does not match what is printed on the lens/box exactly -- it is rounded. If you look on this site, you'll see it on the patent applications (focal length and f stops).

True - The recent 70-300 DO patent showed an actual length of 72.50-290.90mm...

May 10, 2012

Canon could do a lot of things. Why they choose to do what they do is another matter.

akclimber · May 10, 2012

alfas said:
Very interesting, I tough it would be less. It would be great if you could post a comparison in similar conditions without any noise reduction applied.

If we ever get a clear night again in Southeast Alaska and I haven't sold my 5D2 yet I'll go out and do some comparison shots and post them.

Cheers!

May 10, 2012

DEAR EVERYONE WHO POSTED ON HERE, I FINALLY BOUGHT MY 5D MARK 3.

Thank you for all of your help, got a brand new one, light leak issue fixed. With that said, here is my first image out of the camera that i deemed somewhat portfolio quality made the border myself with brushes, and secondly a picture of my family

Anyways, i'd love to shoot weddings with someone in the central nj area? Can anyone help me out here, put me in contact or recommend me to a photographer that'd be awesome!

Thanks for all he help guys much love!

May 10, 2012

dilbert said:
Dianoda said:

bkorcel said:

"Lots of initial praise for the lens, especially how light it feels in comparison to the first IS version."

Cool so maybe now I can actually carry it on my back instead of with my fork lift! ;D

Click to expand...

Who cares how light it is, I just want a chance to carry one

Click to expand...

I wonder if professional photographers need someone to carry it around from location to location?

They can just hire their golf caddie. Honestly, I'm not sure I want to carry around one of those 1) it's very heavy regardless 2) You will be an instant target for theives. At least my 300 will fit into a normal school backpack with a camera mounted on it. I dont think I could squeeze a 500 or 600 in there without it looking too obvious...though I bet the IQ will be just drop dead lethal...

MARKOE PHOTOE · May 10, 2012

We live in CA and the in-laws live in San Diego, in fact, some of them belong in the zoo....however, 100-400 is a very versatile lens for that zoo. You can always use the range regardless. Its light enough to carry all day.

The 70-300L is a stellar lens but you can not use a teleconverter as it just kills the AF.

Enjoy the warm and hilly SD Zoo and say hello to my in-laws.
If I recall, they have Panda's too in this zoo.

Narcolepsy · May 10, 2012

Slightly obscure/specialist question
I am looking for the best way to light animal eyes in macro shots of them...
Ring flash reflects in the cornea, and can obscure the area of interest (these photos are to show problems in the eyes for a veterinary audience)
Off camera flash works some with a single hand-held flash held almost at 90 degrees (get one reflection instead of a ring, obscuring less of the eye) - but multiple off camera flashes gets very clunky to try and get close to a moving target and can scare off the animals (and their owners)
So the question boils down to:
Is there a way to avoid reflections on a macro photo of a reflective surface, in a handheld solution?

Thanks for any advice

May 10, 2012

Invertalon said:
I wonder if the video theory applies to stills... The Canon rep Chuck Westfall in an interview confirmed that video was softer SOOC as people have noted... However, he said that is on purpose as it accepts sharpening very well and in the end, pulls out more detail then if it was sharper SOOC.

Canon's Chuck Westfall speaks with planet5D at NAB 2012

So I wonder if stills are the same? The sharpening is roughly the same IMO as the 5D II, I may use a tad more though by default (48, 0.9, 45, 5) are my settings now, versus (45,0.9, 45, 5) with the 5D2. Not much change really. But honestly, I feel the 5D3 images have a bit more detail, but that may be because the AF system locks on perfectly basically every single time... The tiniest front/back focus can really affect the sharpness of the image. The 5D3 is extremely consistent compared to the 5D2.

Maybe Canon is doing slightly less sharper images at the sensor level in order to gain more detail once sharpening is applied either by the camera or via LR, PS, DPP, etc... Not sure, it may just apply to video. In that case, who knows! ;D

May 10, 2012

I am very concerned, all the promises.... but no update or detail on what is happening with the leak issue and the AF highlight issue, I am in South Africa and there is not even a website for Canon Cameras, so can anyone please tell me from Canon, what can I as your customer buying your crappy product to solve this problem, I am tired to register at all these forums, and nobody knows, I want my money back, I am sorry I paid a lot for this Canon, I don't want any but no issue with it, but Canon is just silent, so if any person from Canon have the decency to call me, please do, here is my number +27797797718!!!! so I will wait...and I bet I will wait for years................

HurtinMinorKey · May 10, 2012

I think for sports, you can take it up to 30fps. It takes the edge off, but it still looks cinema-ish (at least to mee).

RuneL · May 10, 2012

rafaelsynths said:
What do you guys think?
Is the Canon 1D C able to shoot the same photos as the 1D X or is it just for Hollywood & Indie Film Makers?

The imaging, metering, focusing, etc part of the 1D C is exactly the same as the X, so yes, it will perform similarly to the 1D X.

MARKOE PHOTOE · May 10, 2012

1. Portraits, 85 1.2L II OR 135 2.0L. Both are stellar lenses.

2. Landscape, easily 24 TSE 3.5L II with ND filters. The 17TSE is superb but cannot use filters. Filters, IMHO, can tone down a burning sunrise and balance out the exposure.

3. Wedding, no experience here with weddings, but obviously the 70-200 2.8L II gives you a great range plus a 50mm 1.2L prime for closer shots!

All of the above if money is not a huge concern. Besides, who needs to retire? Put off retirement a few more years and get that lens.

RuneL · May 10, 2012

smithy said:
Tcapp said:

Ok. I get what you are saying. They sacrificed resolution for speed and iso performance. That doesn't help studio photographers who use 1ds3. I got cha. So what would you consider a good upgrade path? Is resolution the only benchmark you care about for a 1ds3 upgrade?

Click to expand...

As someone who has been torn between buying a used 1DS3 and a new 5D3, I'd say the things that made me NOT immediately buy the 1DS3 was the frame rate, LCD resolution and high ISO performance. These things have been addressed in the 5D3, but it still lacks the 1-series build quality, built in grip and lens drive performance. So... what I'm saying is if Canon were to update the 1DS3 with some of those nice little features that are in the 5D3, but keep all the good stuff like f/8 AF, etc, then that would be a great upgrade path IMHO.

As it is, I'm now looking at a used 1D4, but I'm not convinced I should go for a crop sensor. But that's another thread altogether and I don't want to hijack this one.

I use the 1D IV for some studio work and some products and what not, I'd really not go for it for those particular uses because of resolution. The crop sensor doesn't bother me but I'd not really care if it was full frame either. Either way is fine. I considered the D800 for a while till I realized that renting an MF and an IQ180 when I need it is cheaper and better in the long run than buying a metric S___ ton of nikon gear.

May 10, 2012

The digital picture have a good list of different sensor sizes.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EOS-Rebel-T2i-550D-Digital-SLR-Camera-Review.aspx

May 10, 2012

Very nice!

Random Orbits · May 10, 2012

50 f/1.4. You can always crop but you can't make the lens wider. The 50 f/1.4 weighs 5 oz more than the 50 f/1.8, but on a 5DII, you're probably not going to notice the weight difference much -- in fact, the 50 f/1.4 would probably feel more "balanced."

May 10, 2012

To much whining - lets have some good news ;D

keithfullermusic · May 10, 2012

I have the 100 non L and if I could only have a couple lenses that would be one of them. It is incredibly sharp, and I do mean incredibly sharp. It also has a beautiful bokeh, and almost gives a semi tiltshift look. It's not just used for macro shots, but that is why many people buy it.

I haven't used the L version, but I couldn't justify the extra cash for IS. In macro, IS is often times useless because your subject is moving - bug, flowers in the wind, etc.

In terms of sharpness, its incredible. Maybe the L is sharper, but the non L is so sharp that it doesn't even matter at that point in my opinion.

I use it all the time for portrait shots and general use. And having the ability to take macro shots opens new doors that are simply not possible with other lenses.

This set below is all with the 100mm, and every shot is at 2.8. I just did the entire set at 2.8 to give all the shots the same feel. They are sharp wide open, and believe me, at f/4 and smaller it is amazing how sharp the images are.

http://www.k2focus.com/cities/detroit/packard-plant/

My recommendation is the 100 macro non L.

KKCFamilyman · May 9, 2012

boracayangels said:
I read group photos. Twins, mind asking how old they are?

I suppose there will be plenty of family, group, portraits and yes scenery.

So unless you are into "covering" every FL the 70-200 will most likely end up in the bag and at best a distraction.

5d3 ISO range and 24-105 f4 will probably set you up well.

I would throw in a 50 f1.4 for the evening and low light and nice creamy portraits and a 16-35 or 17-40 oh yes the G1x if the dollar stretch. This is for the snap shots from your family members. You will be surprise plenty of emotions there when they are free to just shot.

Just my two cents worth.

Just came back from SFO- Montery- Carmel- LAX. Dont leave home without the 50 f1.4. The jelly fish will look really awesome not to mention the dinners shots.

They are 5 so big enough to smile but no patients. I am torn between the 50 1.4 or g1x/s100. I could only get one just not sure what I'll be happier with.

imkev · May 9, 2012

The 1.2L is awesome, I have never used the 1.8. Like everyone already knows, its heavy and slow, but oooooh man...the bokeh cant be beat...You said "some portrait work" so its probably going to be the 1.8 thats right for you, but I say rent them both and see what you think.

wickidwombat · May 9, 2012

PhilDrinkwater said:
wickidwombat said:

PhilDrinkwater said:

I just wanted to say how much I'm looking forward to receiving it!!

How are you all getting on with yours?

Click to expand...

My second one is a totally different camera to my first one
still havent taken it out for a proper run been busy
hope you get a good one

Click to expand...

Seem ok so far what was wrong with yours?

AF was completely screwed up couldn't get a sharp shot to save its life
I micro adjusted it for all my lenses (I even posted 50 raw files vs my 5Dmk2 up here)
and after MA the images were fine at that setup but took the camera off and shooting and the AF was wayyyyy off still also none of my kenko adapters worked all came up 00 error on top
AI servo produced maybe a 5% hit rate and even those were not sharp.

this new copy images look like AF is sharp out of the box and the kenko adapters all work fine
havent even bothered with doing any MA yet. i will do but its not critical at the moment

Posts

Posts

Attachments

Filter

Forum statistics

Gallery statistics