As to the choice between 100-400mm (current or a vII) OR getting the 70-300mm L, it really depends on how much of your shooting is going to really require 400mm. Obviously with most birds, the more mm the better - so it seems that a 100-400mm would be better.

BUT one must always consider the other factors, eg the 100-400mm L lens IS significantly heavier and bigger, and it makes a huge difference to me in that I can keep my 70-300mm L in my Lowepro shoulder bag with my 7D and 15-85mm attached (or the 70-300mm L attached to my 7D and the 15-85mm next to it).

If I owned a 100-400mm L, I wouldn't be taking that as often on my walks, drives, travels, etc, just because it's much longer and heavier. And I expect a vII of the 100-400mm L would be quite a bit more expensive (at least $2500 my guess). So having 300mm 'on tap' is better than 85mm!

So many 70-300mm L users love its portability and extremely good IQ. But it's really up to you what you'll want. I still think my earlier advice of getting rid of your 70-200mm f/4 nonIS and the 70-300mm nonL and replacing it with the 70-300mm L is a good strategy for you.

Then later down the track consider the Sigma 8-16mm if you really like ultrawide.

Regards

Paul

I seem to recall that there are about 3 Canon lenses that it does not work with. This is assuming that AFMA is set to adjust by lens.

I have Canon TC's, I bought the Kenko specifically to get more magnification from my 100L. It worked fine with 100-400L, and 70-200L plus several others I had.

Right now, I don't think there is a TC that will work completely with the 100L unless you turn the AFMA off. You can tape pins, but that's another level of complexity.

and no more street photographers need to cry about using long lenses exposes them too much

now I have moved to the southern hemisphere does anyone know if there are any meteor showers that we can see from here as I assume we cannot see perseisus from here?

chimpmitten said:

... The 50 1.8 hood might be an option for more extreme situations (mosh pits and the like). Can the lens cap be used while the hood is attached? I assume the hood can not be reversed like the bayonet types can be?

Click to expand...

I have the Vello ES62 hood (pretty much identical to the Canon version) for the 50 f/1.8 II and it does indeed work on the 40mm. Yes, the lens cap can be used while hood is attached. And yes, the hood can be reversed.

Mika said:

Sorry again about the delay, I was on a vacation trip.

I have not said that the MTF computed using the slanted edge method isn't useful. However, I have said that the MTF calculated with this method isn't scientifically accurate if you want absolute accuracy. The problem with the averaging is that it tends to lose information of the spot itself, while the average along two orthogonal directions is computed with sufficient sampling, pretty much nothing is said about what happens between the orthogonal directions.

For this reason, I don't believe it would be possible to reconstruct an accurate PSF with the slanted edge method and thus the measured MTF must be slightly invalid as well. You can think of this from the dimensional reduction point of view; it is generally not possible to recreate a 3D function from two 2D functions. Higher order aberrations do give rise for all sorts of interesting spot shapes and orientations with element decentering.

Click to expand...

We are getting here to more philosophical questions. In science, we use modeling. We make some a priori assumptions, ignore this and that, and then build a model which we analyze. That model is never perfect, and it can't be. We must be aware of its limitations. But saying - you can never have a perfect model, so why bother with science at all - is not the right thing.

Long time ago, Riemann suggested to model anisotropic phenomena by a quadratic form. The level curves (in 2D) of that form are ellipses. 2 measurements then are enough. In some sense, this is equivalent to taking a truncated Taylor expansion of a more complicated function.

Going back to photography - when the PSF is well concentrated, approximation by a quadratic form is OK. When it is not, you can see it, no need of sophisticated methods (like my 35L at f/1.4 in the corners, wide open). Those are some of the limitations in this case.

So when I say - you can get the the PSF from the MTF, I always assume some reasonable model in place. Also, I do not mean that you must use the DXO test, necessarily. If you are curious enough, you can rotate your target, and get get more directions.

It is relatively easy to think that there isn't differences between the behavior of rays when shifting from a wavelength range to another. I hear this argument quite often, and this may sound like blasphemy for some, but I disagree with that.

Click to expand...

In the good old times, DXO published MTF charts on each of the (RAW) RGB channels. They were different enough, indeed. Actually, sometimes, too much. They reported some kind of average, weighed heavily towards greens, if I remember well, because people want simple answers. If you dig deeper in that, the spectral decomposition of the light in the test would play a role, too, etc. In principle, the camera projects an infinitely dimensional color space to a 3D one, so full spectral information is lost anyway.

Danz said:

$369 seems a bit much! That's like 1/3 of the lens price!

michaeltruong said:

Er01 on EF 24-105m is the lens problem. I had the same issue. Shoot wide open >f22 will result in consistent Er01. Got the lens fixed from Canon for $369. The lens' diaphragm needed to be replaced.
Good luck.
-mt

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Definitely more than half of the price. :-\

Step out from home with your 860$ cash, gear, a bag for clothes and stuff, no car. Only come back when the cash is all spent on living expense wherever your pictures take you. Gonzo!

Hi all! I am selling my backup camera, a canon rebel t3i, for school finances and thought to put it here because i hate all the ebay and paypal fees. I do also have the kit lens, though i never used it because i have a few l lenses. Info on the camera, I bought it back during september of last year (2012) as a backup to my older rebel that i have now parted ways with so it is still relatively new. I can include a generic battery because I lost the original, battery charger, original canon strap, body cap, both lens caps and the 18-55 stabilizer kit lens. If anyone is interested, shoot me a pm. I am looking for about $440 but am willing to negotiate. Can meet up in person in Illinois somewhere or ship using paypal assuming you have history trading or purchasing through this forum. I believe it has 4,100 shutter clicks but am uncertain if it is the true number. Here is a shot i've taken with the body (different lenses)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/erikerodri/8566343379/#
there are a few more pictures i've taken with this body on my flickr if you want to see the camera in action. Feel free to message me

Re: 24-70 II cracked focusing ring.

Viggo said:

With old lenses off warranty I have done quite a few fixes like gluing af/mf switches, replaced mounts and screws, even fixed a crooked barrel. But this is an expensive and new lens, and I do not want to use the wrong glue so it never can be removed again and have Canon say, "Oh, its been tampered with, sorry no warranty".

Click to expand...

Just to be clear, they weren't saying to glue the rubber ring on. They were saying to put glue in the crack, let it dry, and then put it back on

Glad you were able to easily obtain a replacement band.

cayenne said:

Ugh...

I just wish ML could get a good, solid page set up in one spot, to tell you everything, step by step to set up and use the video RAW from the ML set up, to export for use by Davinci Resolve (which as of 9.15 version will take the RAW straight in)....

I've read through hundreds of pages of the forums, and as soon as I read one instruction set...that seems comprehensive, I read 2-3 more posts down, and someone says it blows up, and that you now have to get build #37 from server xyz, follow half the directions from post #222 from a month ago, and then download and replace this one file on the camera to get it to work....do the hokey pokey....etc.

It seems they are SOOOO close on the 5D3 to being more ready for primetime or at least an easier to install and use Beta version, I wish they'd concentrate on that, get that out the door for the masses to more easily use, and then concentrate on the other cameras that are next closer to being ready.

Then again...I'd like a pony.

Click to expand...

Finding out how to install the last version of ML on the 5D MKIII it's actually still quite hard.
Here is the last Alpha build:
https://bitbucket.org/hudson/magic-lantern/downloads
And here are the last updates:
https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B7QlH_BH2m32SnFObTh1dE1PNjQ&usp=sharing

To record RAW, you just have to activate "RAW Video" from the menu. From the same menu, you can change the settings. It's all very easy, if you've already used ML firmware. The only issue with ML in the MKIII is that, for safety resons, there's still no autoboot, so you have to boot the firmware everytime you turn on the camera. Apart from that, everything works fine even at 1920x1080 24fps.

As you wrote, Resolve can handle ML RAW, so there's no problem. On the other hand, if you prefere to create a proxy file, you ca use Rawanizer (freeware).
You can also extract the DNG's from the RAW files (with raw2dng, also freeware) open the DNG's with Camera RAW or something like that, make the adjustments you want on the first image, apply the adjustments on all the others DNG's, export everything in the format you prefere (I use TIFF) and import everything in Resolve for the final color grading.

In DC, the Calumet that is downtown (near Gallery Place metro stop) also rents gear. Consider picking up the 70-200 on rental for a day and try it out. Or rent both the 5D3 and the 70-200 and mix-match for a day before buying. You can reserve ahead of time to ensure they have the gear you want when you want it.

In NYC, B&H Photo has been an outstanding source of information and service is excellent.

Loaded question to reply here.
I am willing to skype with you on this and tell you all I know. Inbox me if interested.

meadowfresh said:

kaihp said:

Overall, I'm very happy with it. I has worked like a charm for all the things I've used it for (basically touristy photo outings). Since I carry a lot of small accessories, I would have appreciated more/smaller pockets internally to organize things. YMMV.

Click to expand...

Cheers makes me want the bag even more now. Have you ever used it as a carry on for a flight etc?

Click to expand...

Sure, that's how I got my gear between China and US - both ways
Also had it on a trip to Singapore recently - no problems here.

I wouldn't want to put lenses nor bodies through the wringer downstairs. If in doubt, take a look at United Breaks Guitars

Congrats...you'll love it.

PS: oooops..... did not see the penultimate post by the OP.......

It is always better to compare the like with the like. Comparing EF 70-200 f/2.8 II with Tamron 70-300 VC USD is like comparing the Rolls Royce Phantom with a Toyota Camry - and yes there is nothing too wrong as such with a Toyota Camry just as there is nothing too wrong as such with the Tamron. Yes as you can understand by now I have it and love it. I bought the EF 70-300 non-L along with the Tamron and compared them together and decided to return the Canon. The Tamron is optically better than the Canon non-L. I have some photos here on the image gallery
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=15606.msg286408#msg286408

The rest is in my facebook and Flickr account. If you want to see go to my flickr page (in my signature)

In conclusion my suggestion is get the Tamron.

cayenne said:

I enjoyed the video...very informative, and I love it when folks show the diagram describing the lighting and model placement!!

One thing that struck me, and is just constructive criticism (coming from a total noob mind you), is that the B&W pic you showed, to me...seemed to have an almost plastic, unrealistic look...and you then mentioned you'd used a bit of skin softener.

I wonder what that shot would look like with less skin softening? Maybe do a version with a bit less and post them side by side on this thread?

Anyway, that was the only thing that caught my eye as a little odd looking..but again, enjoy the video and showing the shoot over all!!


cayenne

Click to expand...

thanks for the feedback champ
once i get home from work, ill post up a before and after. Now that you say it, i think your probably right (and i hate the look of plastic), but when i look at the full res version, it does show a little skin texture.

But thanks again for the feedback, and i will post up the pics

Happened to me once out of 80,000+ photos I took with my 5D mk3. I shot raw+jpg and the artifact only showed on the raw file. The jpg file was perfectly fine. I would upload the files but I don't remember which photo out of the 4tb of files it is.

I am going to be picking up one tomorrow!!!

Hi, I hired the ef-s 10-22 to do a specific job, this lens is awesome. Almost wish I never saw it as it immediately went on my wish list!
I would say you would not go wrong with this lens despite it not being your preferred prime! I keep waiting for the used price to drop, but I don't see that happening until they launch a MKII which i dont see happening any time soon. It would be hard to do as I don't think there is much they could do to improve on this lens except perhaps constant aperture with a lower f stop!
I would suggest you hire or borrow the most often recommended lenses to try for a few days then you will know which one suits your needs / wants.
Good luck with your quest.

Cheers Graham.

That is the closest to a consesus I've ever seen on the Canon Runors forum! Thanks to all who gave me their input, the 15-85 will be it. The 50 f1.8 will be faster in low light and the 70-200 will have the required reach for my needs.
Thanks again.
Patrick

Pi said:

CarlTN said:

That's a tad presumptive, you don't know what I consider sharp or not.

Click to expand...

Aliasing does not exclude sharpness, it is just not a sharp image of the original, it is something else (some call it false detail). Add noise, for example, and it will get even sharper (it will increase the high frequency component).

I never argued about what you, or somebody else, should like. I just call it what it is. Liking aliased images is perfectly legal in this country.

Click to expand...

I didn't say I liked aliases images, I said I couldn't see aliasing in the image. Obviously to you it sticks out, to me it does not. Since you're saying the image "fails", what is it it fails at? You're saying it couldn't be printed larger than 4x6 or something? Or even postage stamp size?

On a side note, you're probably not the one to ask (since you seem to think most people other than you are complete idiots...again something you share with your counterpart)...Anyhoo...in images that don't have enough pixel resolution, but still have "detail" (as in those I've done with the Foveon Generation "1" DP2 camera I used to own)...what is the correct technique for removing the "pixel blocking" that is still apparent after I scale up the image (either in PS or Perfect Resize 7)?

You will probably say there is no way, but it seems like there ought to be.

Tgara, it already went back to the shop, so I could not check your assumption.

By the way, just to mention that before returning the faulty 5D MkIII I had to send for replacement also the 24-70 f2.8 II. There was a little artifact, either on the inner side of the front element or within the glass of the front element. Could have been a dust speck which got in during manufacturing. Opened the box, saw it, packed it and sent it back. The replacement seems fine.

Thank you, SIR, Dear Mr. Pi.
Wow, Wow, Wow-----Just First try and great Photos like that---Wow.
I must take a time to learn to use this Lens---May be a long time to get the Goods one like your.
THANKS.
Surapon

Add away! I'm always happy to see other peoples work!