It is just sweat on the dial from your finger... just clean it off with some rubbing alcohol or water and a washcloth/toothbrush and your good to go!

Nate said:

Hello there,

I Have now a 50 1.4 and thats the length that I love most for portraits. I tried more 50L but I dont fell them that much better than my 50 1.4.

What do you guys think? When will a new 50 1.2 be released?

-Nate

Click to expand...

I don't think there will be anything like that any time soon. Others may know more details and history but it's my understanding that basically there are only a few lens designs really and most of them go back many decades. So the question is what exactly they should improve in your opinion. Touching the lens formula would simply result in a different lens which can be a good thing or not depending on what you like or do not like about the 50L. The rest is physics and I defer to the experts here to explain it. But from what I understand making some of the stuff go away that some users (or non-users probably) complain about, such as the "front focus issue" would result in a lens with different bokeh. Same with the CA from what I remember. These "flaws" are there for a reason.
If you don't like it then there is the very old and successful design that is also part of the 50 1.4 and others like it.

What else could be done? Better build quality perhaps. The 50L is very solid but there are probably a few little details that could be improved. Preferences there also will vary. I'd like to have it as an all metal construction for example and the front part where the hood screws on not just glued in. The 50 1.4 could use an overhaul in that respect. Not sure if that's happening though when the entire industry (with the exception of Leica I suppose) is moving towards more plastic not less.

Leaves us with better coatings or other glass types. Not sure how much room there is for improvement without totally breaking the bank.

In other words: I'm overall quite happy with my "old" lens and so will likely most users be. The situation I think is different from zooms. Zooms overall are still comparatively new and it's only been in the last 20 years or so that they perform really well. 50mm lenses on the other hand I wouldn't expect to change much.

Canon 1.4x EF Extender II

Having both the 1D2 and 1Ds2, you're going to want the 1D3. I loan out my 1d2 with my 100-400 for crew rowing, and it works great for their needs. If I were to purchase today, 1D3 all the way.

neuroanatomist said:

caruser said:

• Give ISO the same importance as time and aperture (e.g. put aperture on one wheel, iso on the other, and time in auto).
• Sometimes I want to simply change a custom-mode from e.g. Tv to M or similar, which doesn't seem possible (please correct me if I'm wrong).

Click to expand...

The first is possible now. Av mode, and Custom Controls to switch the QCD to ISO (see p. 341). With that, ISO is set during metering only. With that setting in M mode, you set aperture/shutter when metering is inactive, and once you start metering you can adjust ISO.

You can't change the base mode of a C# setting. Canon could fix that for the 1D X, it seems to be a legacy of having a mode dial (the 1D X is the first to have C# settings and no mode dial).

Click to expand...

Thanks for the hint regarding the ISO controls, that will be useful, and I'll read the manual again for other treasures that I might have missed. (All in all the customisability of the 1DX is really good compared to what I had before, and I'm glad to have made this upgrade.)

I haven't used the canon 1.4, but my sigma 1.4 is awesome - now that it's on a FF. On the 7D it was so-so, with some awesome shots, but too many soft or poor focus photos (about 30-70). Now on a FF, it's spectacular. Focus is spot on every time, maybe a little soft a 1.4, but even at 1.8 it's superb - like a completely different lens. I was always having to redo the AF cal on the 7D, but haven't had to touch that since going FF.
I also like that it's a 77mm filter size - since most of my other lenses are the same.

tomscott said:

Ye but you give a pro a 300D and he will make incredible pictures with it. What I meant was the best camera is the one you have with you as in being comfortable carrying and using it. Getting the shot is more important IMO. everything is a compromise and just because you can afford to doesn't necessarily make it a good value purchase for you. But then again life is short so do it while you can on the flip side.

Many pros work in this way, unless you are a sports or wildlife shooter it is cheaper to rent for when you need. I understand that shooting with the white primes is better but comparing the zooms to point and shoots just isnt correct. Although the MKI 70-200mm IS is the least sharp of the 2.8 70-200mm zooms its still a quality piece of glass. But the 24-70 MKII and the 70-200 MKII have many a time been comparable or better than their prime equivalents.

Again same with the 1DX it is more than twice the price of the 5DMKIII but the 5DMKIII is 90% of the camera. 6fps is nothing to be sniffed at either, 14 is incredible but in most situations overkill. As a gear head and lover of new tech I completely understand the want but what about the need? IMO the 5DMKIII is the best all round camera ever made and it surprises me everyday. Again it is a lot more useable and easier to travel with than the beast 1DX.

As a pro weight is a huge concern, with having two bodies and lenses that cover a broad range lugging it around can juts be inconvenient. But that is my personal preference.

If the best is all you can have then go for it, but there are other options that will create a similar result but cost a weigh a lot less.

Click to expand...

Yes, that is what I meant - I am fully aware that me with a 1DX would never shoot pictures as amazing as some pros do with much less sophisticated equipment. And it is certainly also true that not everything I could afford would make a value for me.

I guess my comparison with the iPhone was a bit silly - but I was trying to avoid the classic "VW vs. Ferrari"... But you get what I mean; when I first used the 300/2.8 (being the first time I was using one of the white primes) I really did feel that everything I had been using until then was cheap. But of course, "cheap" is at a very high level here. I started buying L-glass after having used a Tamron 28-300 (I think) on a 500D for a while and always being frustrated because the pictures never seemed focused. This is when I got the 24-70, and then also the 7D. While of course my qualities as a photographer did not change at all, it gave me way more pleasure looking at these pics than the one with the old combo. And then, when I mounted the 300/2.8 I had the impression that the difference in terms of sharpness and colors was again the same as with the first switch. That is basically what I meant when I mentioned the iPhone.

What you say about the 1DX and my lust for it is precisely it. I realize that the 5Diii delivers everything I need and then some, and the 10% extra from the 1DX would just be because it is cool. No, I don't need it. But then again, since I am not a pro I would not need any camera at all. I also still have a Canon F1 in a cabinet somewhere that I could use, and maybe the pictures would come out the same as with the 5Diii (even though I would have a hard time getting the pics developed, or taking any at ISO51k... ). And for the same reason - pro vs. amateur - I can to some extent adjust what I take pictures of to the amount of gear that I want to lug around, rather than the other way around.

Anyway, these are just some of my thoughts/reasonings. I will get a 5Diii now and keep on renting the 300/2.8.
And maybe donate some to charity - after all, my wife also has all she needs

Dianoda said:

AudioGlenn said:

I love my 40!

Click to expand...

Same here, it's such a perfect pairing for unobtrusive general photography on my 5D. I think it and a 6D would make a wonderful compact/stealth kit. Canon really needs to make an equivalent lens for EF-S mount, the shorty 40's just a bit too much telephoto for my tastes on APS-C.

Click to expand...

Felt the same with my 60D. I like it much more on FF

Is already released together with SX270.

...but Craig missed this one:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2013/03/21/Canon-announces-SX270-HS-20x-superzoom-and-SX280-HS-with-GPS-and-Wi-Fi

Interesting specs:

Self Timer
Approx. 10-sec. delay/approx. 2-sec. delay/custom*

*Delay time (0-15 sec. (in one-second increments), 20/25/30 sec.) and number of shots (1-10 shots (in one-shot increments)) can be specified.

Continuous Shooting
1) Normal: Approx. 3.8 shots/sec. (in P mode)
Approx. 14.0 shots/sec.* (in High-Speed Burst HQ)

2) AF: Approx. 1.0 shots/sec. (in P mode)
Approx. 5.1 shots/sec.* (in High-Speed Burst HQ)

- Under conditions where the flash does not fire automatically
- Differs depending on the zoom position.
* The maximum continuous capture is 7 frames.


...also it says that it works till 6400 ISO - but I wonder with which noise...

Has anyone used the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 for video?

For DSLR, the Zeiss 35 f/1.4 appears to be the reigning 35mm champion for video (with a price to match). The Sigma, on the other hand, is known to be an incredible bargain and top IQ/AF performer. But I haven't been able to find much on the Sigma, as it relates to shooting video.

It depends on the inventory that Canon has, and that the dealer has. If Canon has 5 months Inventory, and the Dealer has 2 months of inventory, the lens might be from last fall.

My 16-35mmL that I bought last July from Newegg had a October 2011 date code, or about 7-8 months old. I'd suspect that's typical for a high end lens that is not a popular new model.

I have bought new lenses that were only 3 or 4 months old.

It would be possible to find one with a 2013 date code, but unlikely, Canon makes lenses in Batches, so you'd have to hit a new batch where the dealer was out of stock and just received them.
For slow selling lenses, a year or two is not uncommon.

my new 16-35 in the real world tonight. the photograph was turned upside down as the reflection on the water was far more exciting....Cheers, Pedro.


Z96A3584b KELIN ALT2TLDEF by Peter Hauri, on Flickr

If you can only have one multi-purpose lens for the 5DIII, the 24-105 would have to be it. It's probably the best standard zoom combination ever made for any format, ever. Yes, it'd be nice if it was faster, but it's got a fantastic focal length range, image stabilization, and awesome optics.

As has also been mentioned, the original non-IS 70-200 f/2.8 is another superlative lens, probably second only to the new IS version amongst telephoto zooms.

You might also want to put some thought into your preferred holy trinity of primes. You could do a lot worse than to get either the 28 f/1.8 or the 35 f/2 plus the 50 f/1.4 plus either the 85 f/1.8 or the 100 f/2. It depends a lot, of course, on what, exactly, you're shooting as well as your style.

Cheers,

b&

neuroanatomist said:

My vote: None of the above - use both if at all possible.

Also, consider the lens - I can't see using a monopod routinely with a 'light' lens like a 70-200...

Click to expand...

This.

For me, a monopod is really only useful for a Great White, and then just to take the weight off my arms. I can hand-hold the 400 f/2.8 at 1/15s and not have any camera shake -- but not if I've had to hold it up to my face for any length of time!

It wouldn't occur to me to use the monopod for any other lens. Tripod, yes, certainly; the vast majority of everything I do is on a tripod. But not a monopod.

And, of course, when I am using a monopod, I'm absolutely going to want IS if the lens has it.

Cheers,

b&

axtstern said:

Sigma 30mm 1.4
really small, old school lens, not sure if the electronic works with anything newer than 60d

Click to expand...

They actually just updated this lens, so, while not as cheap, it should work with all newer cameras.

And I'd go with the Samyang 14mm over the Sigma, but, there's also the Tokina 17mm too. Not a lot of great wide options if you are going for small

wickidwombat said:

do you need the zoom or the reach?
considered just picking up a 200 f2.8L

no IS either but it is a stop faster and is smaller and less conspicuous

Click to expand...

Well, for shooting portraits and candids, the reach may be really useful. Likewise the IS in a lower light scenario. I went from the 70-200 f/4L IS to the 200 f/2.8 because it was faster and I shot a lot of action (and used it mostly at 200mm anyway). So, IS didn't help me, but the extra stop does.

Considering you already have a 50mm and 85mm prime, then I'd say a tele-zoom is probably a nice accompaniment to that. The 70-200's are both great, and the suggestion for the 70-300L is good too. If you want it now, the non-IS lens is a great value, and your 5dIII will allow you to get away wiht pretty high ISO's. If you can wait, both the L IS lenses are pretty stunning

VitorMachado said:

Skirball said:

I was starting to get worried, it took much longer than normal for all the gearheads to come out and start chanting their 5d3 mantra.

OP: I own the 6D. I almost didn't buy it after reading all the S___ on here about it. But I went for it, and realized that most the people on here obsess about gear WAY too much. Good on you for taking a good look at what you need, and what you don't. Yes, more is better, but cost is a factor for almost all of us. Get the 6D, you'll be happy with it.

Click to expand...

Lol, I have to agree with you. The 6D gets no respect whatsoever because of its specs on paper, rather than criticizing the camera in real-world shooting. Anyways, I'm glad I got a reply from someone in my situation. I just simply don't have the cash to throw down an extra 1K on a camera. I have done extensive research and I think I've made up my mind. The 7D has been returned and I'm waiting on my refund. Thanks for the advice. Hopefully I made the right choice!

Click to expand...

Glad I could help. I spent a ton of time on here researching and almost gave up on the 6D because of all the negativity, until I found Dustin Abbott's well written thread:

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=12847.0

It helped a lot to see a voice of reason in a sea of wankery. Once you start looking around, you’ll see the 5D3 gets recommended to everyone on here. Some guy shows up, says he’s been shooting around a year, has a 600D but wants to upgrade; everyone jumps in, get the 5d3! Some kid is going off to college to study photography, owns a point and shoot and wants an SLR; everyone jumps in, get the 5d3! I don’t doubt it’s a great camera, but it’s completely blown out of perspective here. Maybe I wouldn’t be so jaded if I saw some sort of correlation between cameras and the work people produced with it, but there’s none. The last couple profiles that I clicked on of people that frequently chant the 5d3 mantra had hardly any, if any, action shots. All this talk of the impotence of the 6D, and the portfolio that you’re showcasing is all stills.

Vitor, it sounds like you weren’t using any of the functions that make the 7D so great. I’m guessing you’re going to love the IQ and noise performance of the 6D. I am curious to hear your opinions on the build. The 6D gets slammed a lot because it “feels like a Rebel”. I’m coming up from a 400D, and I can tell you it doesn’t feel anything like it, but I like the slimness of it. You may not feel that way coming "down" from a 7D. That said, I think the ‘flimsyness’ of the Rebel is exaggerated heavily. I’ve dragged my Rebel through 30+ countries, crammed in the bottom of my backpack, changing lenses, filters and SD cards in dusty third world streets, caught in sudden tropical storms, and 7 years later it hasn’t failed me once. I cherished its small body and light weight every step of the way.

I bought the Hitech 85mm Graduated Neutral Density Kit 6 from B&H just to get started and do some experimenting. Have been very happy with them. Haven't noticed any color cast and they seem durable with reasonable care. Got a couple of Cokin adaptors and a holder to use them with.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/811176-REG/Hitech_HT85GKIT6_85mm_Graduated_Neutral_Density.html

dave_bass5 said:

Does no one read their manuals these days?

Its all written in the manual as clear as it could be. Wouldn't the manual for the camera you own be the first point of call?
Its on page 324 for anyone that is confused.

Click to expand...

I personally am of the opinion that the official 5D3 AF guidebook from Canon is some kind of manual, therefore I was a bit confused by the wrong information inside of it.

But you are absolutely correct, I should have had a look into the other manual as well. Thanks for looking up the page!

YuengLinger said:

polarhannes said:

Maybe this is of help for you http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=13269.msg238526#msg238526 this does not describe how to cycle through the AF points the way you would like it to be but at least you can quickly switch between 2 different AF points.

Click to expand...

Thanks! I'm going to try this ASAP. Wonderful to have an AF guide tailored specifically to the 5DIII!

Click to expand...

Its also on page 324 of the manual that comes with the camera ;-)

Since you mentioned you're planning to use it in low light conditions, I'd vote for 135 f2. I own one and it's a great portrait lens, not heavy, so you could carry it the whole day without the tripod/monopod. I've never owned 100 f2 but I've heard a lot of good stuff about it too. Although it's not weather sealed, it's much cheaper that 135 f2.

It may sound silly, but have you considered Canon 90 f2.8 TSE? Maybe some of its owners can comment on it based on their experience but I think it should add some creativity to your photography.

Good luck with your choice. I think all three lenses you mentioned are excellent!

I had a 50/1.4 which I loved on film & early digi's....
never thought it was up to scratch on full frame digi bodies

tried 50/1.2 and was much better

but bought and kept 35/1.4L - superb lens....
i upgraded 28-70L to 24-70L, and then went to 24-70L II

but nothing replaces 35L - it's a fantastic piece of kit

ok,so Canon lens codes let us see year of manufacture - e.g. Z denotes 2011

my question is what's "normal" for a new lens ?
i.e. if I go into a store to buy a 85L II , what should I expect to see as the code - 2013 or is 2011 normal ?

I know it doesnt REALLY matter for the lens use, but I do notice when it comes to selling/trading people will try haggle a lot saying the lens is x yrs old etc

answered your own question... you need a back up...

If 35mm cameras don't make you happy,... you should consider MF. And, pentax D645 is a good option.

But, your third choice is as good too. Buy the best lenses n wait (or be happy with what you have)