andrei1989 said:

that 14mm is HUUUGE

but the 100-400 will look good on my 70D

Click to expand...

yeah! in my opinion, its a good travel telephoto zoom.
the 14mm looks huge in the small hands.

:

Re: Comparison: Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 VC G2 & Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II

e_honda said:

Tony Northrup says the new Tamron has even more severe focus breathing problems at 200mm than the previous version. Says he won't even bother with a full review on it because of this. Says the MK 1 seemed like it was at about 160mm while the MK II seemed to be at about 135mm.

Around 4:08

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XP5-e4Q01Ac&app=desktop

Click to expand...

I got the memo, it said Tony is the new Ken.

Hi Crosswind, Most of the creak in my camera disappeared with only the large tab inserted, but I still had the same side creak you describe. My new, improved DIY fix seemed to stop that but, I only have a statistical sample of one . Using the clear plastic makes it virtually an invisible fix, so you are not reminded of it every time you change cards or the battery.

I agree that it is a very nice little camera and I will use it a lot on 6-8 mile hikes that are not specifically hikes taken for photography opportunities.

I have been thinking about getting a new lens for night photos. I thought when these lens came out that they were the same glass but different builds like declicking ect.
But I have been looking into it lately and it looks like they are a different in the glass. On the Rokinon website they have picture of how the elements arranged.
Does anyone know how these lens compare?

The top picture is 14mm f2.8 and the bottom is 14mm t3.1

infared said:

The IQ makes the output from my Micro Four Thirds camera look EXTREMELY professional!!!!!! ;D

Click to expand...

For Lomography users, the idea of IQ is very different from yours...

drolo61 said:

Short shout for advice.
Currently looking for a used copy of the 50 1.2 (buying in Germany).
On Ebay a re various good looking copies available.
Prices are slightly below 1000 e.
Copy age varies between 1987 to 2012.
Optically they look all equally good with genuine pictures.
Rather buy older or newer?
Thanks for feedback and have great days where ever you are.

Click to expand...

I think you're getting the 50mm f/1.4 and 1.2L confused. The f/1.4 came out in 87 but the L came out in January 2007, so the oldest one you can get is 10 years.

Something that is often overlooked, but is a real issue is shipping damage that throws AF out on lenses. Cameras are usually closer to being in spec, but can also suffer AF inaccuracies.

I found quite a variation from camera / lens combination from lens to lens and camera to camera. Generally, most lenses were well within specification but I had a occasional combination that was far enough out to benefit from AFMA. The adjustment amount is normally different from camera to camera, but some lenses were perfect on various bodies.

I attached a old chart which compares the AFMA settings originally obtained from using one of the commercial calibration tools to using Focal on my 5D MK II and 7D. I will not buy a camera which does not have AFMA unless its DPAF, which uses contrast detect as a final tweak to the autofocus, or it did originally.

9VIII said:

It would be really cool if Sigma would revise their 400f5.6 "Telemacro" lens from the 90's, which is said to have actually out resolved Canon's 400f5.6 Prime, and did it for less money.
Back then people wouldn't touch Sigma with a ten foot pole so the lens didn't seem very popular, but trying the same thing again with their modern lens designs would probably result in something both spectacularly sharp and usable (and that theoretically can't be totally botched with a Canon firmware update).
If they could make it 500mm all the better.

Click to expand...

Its one of the five EOS compatible lenses I owned when DSLR's arrived, and it not only turned out not to work, but Sigma could not fix it, so I sold it for peanuts to a film user, since I had totally switched to digital. In any event, it was junk compared to modern lenses, flimsy build, and mine never managed to get sharp images, I might have been the reason, but I managed sharp images with other lenses.

This paragraph in the article needs highlighting, many still think that a super high speed SD card is actually delivering the advertised high speed continuously, as opposed to CF cards which can write continuously near their advertised speeds.

This is why Canon puts CF cards or Cfast in pro level cameras, Pros find out the truth about card speeds pretty fast.

"we've not yet seen any cards that can promise to sustain writing of data at faster than the 30MB/s promised by U3 ratings. This means all the x-hundred megabyte per second write speeds promised on current cards are useful only for bursts of stills: any camera trying to record video at data rates of above 30MB/s (240 mbps) run the risk of stuttering during recording."

scottkinfw said:

Very nice! I'll add my South Africa shots to the mix.
These are also for my good friend Eldar, who ripped me a new one because I don't post enough for him. Eldar, enjoy!

Click to expand...

Beautiful pics! How far away was you when you took the shot?

SkynetTX said:

I think we need no likes. This page is about photography. If you like a photo someone shares here, you can tell him/her that it's great. If you don't like it, you can tell what do you think to be wrong with it.
And what if a rumor of a camera or a lens gets many dislikes? Will Canon change the specifications? If so, I will give a dislike for all posts about STM and NanoUSM lenses until Canon decides to mark them as EF-V, and returns to ring type USM for all EF(-S) lenses.
Some time ago I've asked for a 300mm IS USM Macro that has a Minimal Focusing Distance about 1 meter. If this post gets many likes, will Canon release this lens sooner?
And if my beetle photos get many dislikes? :'( I surely won't stop taking them, just won't post them here.

Click to expand...

The system is based on posts, to give a user praise for useful posts, and conversely, if a post is not useful ... Its not about telling canon to change their products. If you don't like a product, don't buy it, its that simple, and your vote will have more impact on what Canon does than a rating on a forum post.

So, ask yourself, was my post useful to members? They may decide to tell you by voting.

Personally, I don't like the negative aspect, I ban members or remove posts when I think they are inappropriate, not based on the voting. If they are using the rating system inappropriately, then I'll also take action.

BTW

The photo gallery also has a rating system built-in, posters have the option to ask for ratings and comments, or turn them off..

I think I agree with most of what's said, especially about theologial testing

I do have a query about Rogers methodology as his results reflect pretty badly on the 100f2.0 which I own and in my experience is very sharp wide open, and the TDP and other results suggest it's sharp too.

The difference?.. I believe his tests are at infinity and my usage is at portrait distance, TDP and others use test charts which are rarely if ever at infinity.

For me the jury's still out, I should take my copy and find a good test at infinity and compare to portrait focus distance, probably a shot of a full moon vs a white test disk held closer to the camera.

Lovely shots Glenn. Versatile lense the 100-400.

I'm a big fan of the 35mm F/2 IS. I put mine on my 5D3 just now and compared the autofocus speed to my 24-105 F/4 Mark I which was set at 35mm.

From MFD to infinity takes the 24-105 a bit over 1 second. The 35 F/2 takes a bit less than one second. Those are rough estimates of course. Both are more than fast enough for my needs, but I'm not a sports photographer.

If you can afford the 35 L II, go for it, but the F/2 IS is a very nice lens too.

I bet that the 135L is many peoples fastest AF lens. That alone, besides it's magical unicorn rainbow farting IQ would make many stay with it instead of going with a 1/3 stop faster and IS/OS.

privatebydesign said:

IglooEater said:

You wouldn't still happen to have your LR2? I'd love to see a high ISO shot processed in 2 and 6 side by side!

Click to expand...

You don't need to have an old version, all newer versions of LR contain the older one.
...

Click to expand...

Wow, very interesting. Thanks!

One more as I fight through ACR on the keepers this evening.

Haleakala again -- I believe this was the Halemau'u trailhead from one of the switchbacks on the main road in/out of the park (i.e. the road in from the main national park NW entrance).

Hiking above the clouds never. gets. old.

- A

Let me put it out there. I don't agree with Ahsanford view of the 6D / 6DMKII.

a. The Canon 6D aside from the sensor and 2AF points was essentially technology from the 5D MKII with wif-fi & gps thrown in. The cost to Canon was not a ground up fully fledged price and they had wriggle room which saw the price come down to attract people into FF and more expensive glass.

b. The 6D MKII could be introduced at a higher price point, in the UK the 6D sells for £ 1,449 body only, the 5DS £ 2,799, the 5DSr £ 2,999 and the 5 D MKIV 3,499. Gaps of £ 1,450 (double), £ 1,650 and £ 2,050.

The 6D is part metal body with weather sealing similar to the 80D, I do not see that changing and maybe getting better. With the specs. I outlined earlier Canon can keep the product differentiation from the 5D MKIV, improve the camera over the current 6D and leave room for a "rebel style" entry level FF camera and have a line that mirrors the 7D MKII, 80D and 77D in the 5DIV, 6D MKII & the 8D (Rebel entry level). The 1D series really is in a level of its own and not directly comparable.

The Canon CEO talked about more variation but longer replacement cycles this would fit with that. Equally Canon puts the current 6D in the middle of its range of cameras not at the bottom as entry level so this still fits that criteria.

NWPhil said:

Zeidora said:

The 15 has the fixed attached hood, so no possibility for ND grads. It has a 95 mm thread, so you can put pols and NDs on it, just no grads. The new Milvus has a regular bayonet hood, much preferred.

I have the 15 ZE fixed hood, great lens, but have been toying with the idea of an upgrade because of the fixed hood. Hmmm ...

Click to expand...

you might want to consider sending it to Zeiss and get the hood removed - not exactly cheap , but then you can get the milvus hood, which is not cheap either.
In the end, you have to consider the love for the lens and the cost to upgrade.....

Click to expand...

I know there was the option of having the hood removed. There was a downside to it. I think they did not have any hood option then. Not ideal either. It's not a heavy use lens to begin with, so a bit hard to justify the upgrade.

Jopa said:

Alex_M said:

Sigma 120-300 F2.8 Sports has no issue with AF consistency. literary none. I can confirm the lens AF performance is rock solid. you refer to AF inconsistency of first generation of Sigma Art lenses. Sport lenses never had such an issue.

chrysoberyl said:

Ick! Thanks for posting - again. One other option: the Sigma 120-300 2.8. It has a rather bad rep for AF, so it is not for me.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

The 120-300 is an awesome lens indeed. That lens was a reason why I switched from the A7r2 to 5dsr. The poor Sony couldn't handle AF via the Metabones adapter, so I decided to give a 5dsr a try. The AF performance was a huge surprise for me. A fantastic lens, very versatile, the AF is fast and accurate. The only downside for me was the weight - I was too WEAK to handle it and had to buy a 300 II instead. Today I would totally kept the Sigma.

Click to expand...

Good to hear! I distinctly recall what a writer referred to as the 'saga' in resolving the AF problems. After reading the time and effort put into it, I lost interest. It sounds like those problems have been resolved. Hmm...it is now at $300 off.

https://www.sigmaphoto.com/14mm-f18-dg-hsm-a
Ideal Use: Landscape Photography, Astrophotography, Documentary and Architecture


The MTF chart speaks of reasonably controlled astigmatism.

It might not be the ultimate astrophoto lens, but it'd surprise me if the astrophoto crowd is less than eager to try it out.

For all those interested: traumflieger.de published their (german) review of the 24-105L II

http://www.traumflieger.de/reports/Objektiv-Tests/Canon-Objektive-am-Vollformat/Canon-EF-24-105mm-4L-IS-USM-II-im-Test::1264.html

Conclusion: IQ is about the same between both MKI and II, with a slight edge to the MKI !! on higher res sensors (tested on 5D III, IV and 5Ds).
Microcontrast is better on II.
No difference in AF between both versions.
Better build of MKII, better coatings.

-Sebastian

PeterT said:

So did they spend on R&D just to finally expel me (and people like me) from the Canon brand?

Click to expand...

Yes. Not 'people like you'. Just you. For Canon, this is personal. Some sort of corporate vendetta thing. I feel sorry for you that Canon is targeting you like this.

The first camera I owned. I had no idea what I was doing!

I'd love to have it still and see what I can do with it 40 years later. Maybe I could load the film smoothly these days.....grind, grind, crunch crunch.....

I was also hesitating about the portrait orientation, but the only inconvenience so far is my NOSE sticking to the LV screen Thankfully it's not that big. The plus side - I can support the camera even better from the bottom holding the grip, and all controls and the shutter button are always accessible. I think it's probably just a matter of habit, a little bit of practice and it won't be noticeable at all.

You are completely right about the difference - it's huge. I was looking at so many different on-flash-on-camera modifiers, and none of them could deliver a satisfactory result (for me). I ended up using a bare flash outdoors (any modifier cuts the power significantly) and a small plastic diffuser indoors (or bounce when it's possible). Flash benders, micro soft boxes, etc. don't make much difference because they simply can't fool the physics. I'm so glad I found this solution and you were already doing it - it makes me feel I'm not crazy

3kg is actually not much. Put a 200/2 on a 1dx and you'll get 4. I doubt a few decades ago people would be complaining about such things as weight, as the new generation is doing nowadays