Mt Spokane Photography said:

Wow, that first one had some severe problems. I hope the 2nd one holds up better. Keep us informed.

Click to expand...

Yeah, it sure did. This new one is working brilliantly - no more focus issues, no more soft images, and overall just a joy to shoot with.

Thank you again for your help on the matter, as always! I'll post again if anything should go wrong with this copy of the lens.

JESUS, guys! Thank you! It was because my noise reduction was turned on! Thank you! I'm glad it was a simple fix!

Glad to help!

These are shot with a Canon EF 100-400 L IS USM and Canon 1.4 X TC combo. Canon 7D.

It is indeed a strange issue..i wonder if Canon has some QC problems. So far all the 5D3 owners that i know of don'thave sharpness issues....although we all wished it has more resolution...22mp isn't enough sometimes...not often...
BUt we never had issues with sharpness. Maybe it's because you're shooting with wideangle lenses wide open? You mentioned center is ok but nor corners..maybe thats why....if the corners are still soft at f8 and up then you do have a camera or lens problem.

Nick Gombinsky said:

g.

As for which super zoom, the Tamron 18-270 VC seems to be the best of the bunch.

EDIT: The 18-270 VC weighs almost the same as the Sigma 17-70, it is also the lightest super zoom.

Click to expand...

Well, I asked her about this weight question and she said she wants something that won't be cumbersome for me in my backpack (-.-)

Weight really isn't a priority for us. It's mainly more of a convenience for when we go backpacking this summer. She wants to pick up any shots that I miss. It's kind of like having a backup photographer. I'll be packing an UWA and a TELE (2 zooms).

sdsr said:

What range is included in your "does it all"? As you doubtless know, no superzoom lens goes really wide, and the longest zooms don't go wide at all (barring point-and-shoots such as the Canon sx50). And what does "best quality" mean? (If she likes low light photography, aps-c + superzoom = inferior quality.) What's more, if she "hates the gear", she should see how such a lens feels when attached to that little camera - it might be quite unbalanced and unpleasant to use....

But are you sure she wants a dslr at all? If she doesn't need to zoom in terribly far, a Sony RX100 might make more sense - near-dslr quality, tiny, no lenses to change and easy to use (if you like handling point-and-shoots, that is). Or, if her dislike of the gear relates mainly to size and weight, what about micro 4/3, where the cameras and lenses are all much smaller and lighter than dslr gear?

Click to expand...

I've tried to tell her that the Sony RX100 will be fine for her use but she's been accustomed to using DSLRs after I've let her play with mine. It's more of a personal preference for her. Although her hands are tiny and cute, she loves feeling in full control.

I'm bringing my S100 if she needs it haha. The Sony NEX C3 is something that she's looking at too. Thanks for the heads up

AlanF said:

For sheer quality, the EF-S 15-85. It's a much better lens than the 17-85, as well as being significantly wider, and is of L quality. The 15mm at the wide end is more useful in many ways than the loss of length as the better IQ allows you to crop. Also, its size is suitable for the small camera

Click to expand...

That Canon EF-s 15-85mm is actually a good choice, but she wants to see if theres any other choices before she pops $700 for a lens. haha

fosterscape said:

My 7D body has been shipped and should be delivered tomorrow, hopefully. So for now it will be the 18-55 kit lens I have. But since my full frame camera purchase is years away, I'm going to take the suggestions/advice of sticking to EF-S for the near future.

I'm still flip-flopping between the Canon EF-S 17-55 and the EF-S 15-85 as my "walkabout" lens. I know the 17-55 is better for low light and the 15-85 has more range.

Either way I hope to pair the "walkabout" with an ultrawide, either the Canon 10-22 or the Sigma 10-20.

My budget is limited so, I may only be able to get one lens for now and maybe another next year, in that case I'm leaning towards the Canon 15-85.

Thanks for all the input.

Click to expand...

I have only one suggestion based on my own experience.
Considering the fact that you are losing both exposure and shallowness of field (at equivalent FoV) with a smaller sensor, I'd recommend the fastest zoom you can get. In this case it is the 17-55, which incidentally is very sharp even wide open (won't compare it with my 70-200 II, but let's just say I spend a lot of time blurring skin in PP unless it's a child's portrait ).

learncanon said:

thank you very much guys.

I have decided to turn it off against all the recommendation of switching it on for astrophotography on the net. Will do a manual dark frame separately.

Click to expand...

I shoot with a 60D..... exact same problem..... I leave noise reduction off.

I'll admit to using a small fraction of the capabilities of the 600EX-RT, but I can say that what I use hits the mark more often than the 580EXII.

I don't know if it is the extra power or something in the metering, but I have noticed a difference for the better.

I am afraid that Canon might redesign the 35LII after the Sigma release. The weakest point of the 35L is the bokeh. The Sigma bokeh is worse but the sharpnes wide open is better. I guess, it was a design choice for Sigma to appeal to the chart shooters. This seems to work, and Canon is in the business of selling lenses, so ...

I would prefer a Zeiss-like approach. Make bokeh matter, increase contrast with new coating (they will do this for sure) and exotic glass (the 35L has none), improve the comma in the corners wide open. Do not be afraid if the 35LII scores worse than the Sigma on PZ. If they do that, I will pay $1k upgrade price and will replace my 35L with the II. If they do not improve the bokeh, they will save me $1K. Win-win.

privatebydesign said:

AdamJ said:

Just to confirm what others have suggested, an ST-E2 (Canon or Yongnuo) or a 90EX will give you full manual or E-TTL II control of your two 270 EX II flashes, complete with ratio control, FEC and 1st/2nd curtain sync, all through your 5D II's flash menu.

The 90EX can be set so that it doesn't contribute to the exposure when used as the on-camera master.

Click to expand...

Adam, how do you assign groups to the 270EX II's? On all other Canon flashes you have to do that on the flash, even when you control them via the camera, there is no way, that I can see, that you could assign one 90EX to group A and another to group B. Further, no Canon flashes do remote second curtain sync. Once you go to remote triggering you can't select it, you can do HSS in remote, but not second curtain sync.

Click to expand...

You're right - my bad. I didn't take into account the 270EX II's lack of group selection. It's a pity as it would make it much more useful.

I am in a similar situation, though perhaps looking for something a bit more compact. My criteria in rough order of importance are
1) Able to support a full frame camera with a pano head and 24-105-size lens, or a 70-200 2.8 without a pano head
2) Tall enough for me to use comfortably (I am about 6'2")
3) Short enough folded and with ballhead on to fit in carry-on or inside a regular backpack (<18" preferred)
4) Price
5) Weight

My current top contender is probably a Feisol 3442 (http://reallybigcameras.com/Feisol/Tripods). I would probably get a PhotoClam 44 ballhead with that (which is currently cheaper than the 40mm head) and the optional center column. The legs on this tripod fold "backwards" over the head, which reduces the folded length. Feisol also has other travel tripods with the backwards folding legs; the 3441T is tall enough for me, but has a permanently mounted center column and not take as large of a head, the 3441S is too short without the two-stage center column.

I am also considering the Gitzo Traveler and Ocean Traveler lines (http://www.gitzo.us/photo-tripods-traveler and http://www.gitzo.us/series-1-6x-ocean-traveler-kit). The legs on these also fold "backwards" over the head, and the storage length is a bit less than the Feisol; however I would have to raise the center column to use these, and I am a little worried about affecting stability.

The Really Right Stuff TQC-14 looks interesting, but it seems that the legs can not fold backwards over the head to reduce stored length (legs + head overall length of 20.5", which is a bit too long). However, if its easy enough to remove the center column or head to reduce the folded length, this tripod might be an option. This tripod is also a little short for me without the center column extended, which raises the same issue as above.

Hope this helps the original poster and, if anyone else has any input, it would be greatly appreciated.

thanks everyone for the messages.

I've sent an email to the shop. I'll definitely return if for another copy. I want it for use @ 1.4 and if the AF is not perfect out the box. I'm not interested. (particularly for £1200!)

It's probably easier to produce compelling "astro" images from close up abstracts of something else like strawberry jam, than it is to do the real thing. A LOT less costly, as well...Did anyone not try to save the image and see if any exif data showed? Perhaps there was none. But if there is, it should show a 100mm lens was used, in which case you would have to look closer to earth for an explanation of what the shot portrays.

Certainly art is in the eye of the beholder, but I wonder what would have happened if GuyF had tried to sell prints of the image (or even just digital copies) and pass it off as a real astro pic? Assuming there would be buyers, of course...I presume it wouldn't have taken long for someone to debunk it.

It also seems he was trying to provoke Nikon lurkers just a wee bit...hahaha...I can imagine them immediately going out on a sunny day to try to capture a planetary transit with magical "universe shine" on the shaded side, which is somehow comparable to the sun's relative close-proximity light output...hahahahaha!!! Fried eyeballs and big melted black lenses might result, but no "universe shine" :-D...

Albi86 said:

I went FF with a Nikon D600 and I'm very happy. While Canon can still hold an edge in the pro segment, Nikon offers much more in the enthusiast segment. I experienced that first-hand.

However, I'm still in the market for a fast crop body for my wildlife shooting. I would be happy to buy a Canon body to pair with the 70-300 L or the 100-400 L. However, if Canon keeps going on offering less for more money, I'll switch completely to Nikon. The D7100 is a hell of a camera at a very reasonable price point; the D5200 is even better value for money, and the flip screen is nice for macro shots and a couple other things. I'm also interested in Sony: their 70-400 is a great lens and the traslucent mirror thing allows them to reach 12 fps on the a77.

If you need a good camera now, buy a D5200 or a D7100. You're hardly going to regret it. I'm planning this purchase in around 1 year from now. We'll see how the situation will look like...

Click to expand...

+1
ditto Pentax. Excellent enthusiast cameras, pro-capable certainly, tho a smaller overall ecosystem of accessories.

Marsu42 said:

Mt Spokane Photography said:

Its a good idea to understand what the settings do before turning them on.

Click to expand...

:-> btw: With Magic Lantern there's an option to enable mlu on self-timer only and a feature (if you want it) for "handheld mlu" - the camera releases the shutter after a very short time, but long enough to take away some shake from pressing the shutter button by hand.

Click to expand...

With Focal, save your settings before starting a test. Then you have a backup and can restore from the backup if it crashes.

Enough of this. Brand new: 400 f/2.8 11,489, or 10,999 grey market. 300 f/2.8 is 6799 both USA and grey market. These lenses are aimed at pro sports photogs and you won't find them cheaper than those right now. I still have the version I's of each lens so I don't really need the version II's yet.

The canon 14mm is a gem. Auto focus, wider the either the 17 TS-E or the Zeiss 15. No filter though

dolina said:

200mm & 800mm do not have Power Focus. I have both and the feature is not present. I use 300/400/500/600 Series II Super Teles and they have this feature. In fact the 400's in my drybox with the 200/300/800.

Click to expand...

You and I may be thinking of other features. When you say "Power Focus", I am thinking of the focus preset feature. Set a certain focus, save it, then have the ability to return to that focus with a twitch of the focus preset ring. The lens will return to your saved focal plane automatically. I believe this setting can be set with fast or slow focus return, allowing for nice, smooth focal transitions when recording video.

The 800mm f/5.6 L IS DOES have that feature. I know for a fact the Mark II 300mm, 500mm, and 600mm lenses have that, too, as I've used all of them as well. The only one I have not used is the new 400mm II, however based on photos of these lenses, it appears to have all the same controls as well. According to the US manual for the EF 200mm f/2 L IS lens, it also has the focus preset feature. See page 8 in the following manual:

http://gdlp01.c-wss.com/gds/0/0300003440/01/ef200f2lisusm-en.pdf

If this "focus preset" feature is not the same feature as "Power Focus", then I am not sure what you are talking about.

dolina said:

Printed user manual states 5-stops of IS.

Click to expand...

I think there are differences between UK and US markets. On the US web site for Canon, it clearly states 4-stop:

This ultra-fast telephoto, a new member of Canon legendary L-series lenses, has totally new optics to provide better image quality. It uses fluorite and UD lens elements for excellent chromatic aberration correction and consists of 17 elements in 12 groups. The built-in Optical Image Stabilizer gives it up to 4 stops of stabilization correction. The inner USM and optimized AF algorithms result in fast and quiet autofocusing, and the circular aperture can even produce beautiful out-of-focus images. This ultra-high-performance lens also improves its durability - better dust- and water-proofing. The EF 200mm f/2L IS USM is outstanding for many available-light applications, including indoor sports, theater work, fashion, and candids at events.

Click to expand...

The exact same lens on the UK site is listed as 5-stop:

Five-Stop Image Stabilizer

Canon’s five-stop compensation Image Stabilizer technology allows the use of shutter speeds up to five times slower with no perceptible increase in image blur. Automatic panning detection automatically turns off the Image Stabilizer in either the horizontal or vertical direction when following moving subjects. Tripod detection automatically switches off IS when the camera is supported.

Click to expand...

Either way, I don't believe Canon has DIFFERENT IS systems for both markets. It is the same IS system, regardless of whether it is marketed as 5-stop in the UK or 4-stop in the US. It's all just marketing. It is also very likely that the chances of getting up to five stops of hand-holdability at 200mm on a system designed for four stops at 800mm is just a happy coincidence. At 200mm your angle of view is much wider, so camera shake is magnified by a much lesser degree. As I've mentioned, most reviewers seem to get around 5 stops or more of hand-holdability anyway with ALL of Canon's lenses that use the 4-stop IS system. It's all just marketing...but that isn't my point.

My point is, Canon's current IS system was originally designed for the EF 800mm f/5.6 L IS lens. The technology was innovated with that lens. It is now simply being propagated to the rest of Canon's line of modern white telephoto and supertelephoto prime lenses as part of their current refresh. There haven't been any significant advancements in image stabilization systems in the 3-4 years since it was first introduced. It was over a decade since Canon first introduced their 2-stop IS system before they first introduced the 4-stop IS system.

dolina said:

You are taking about exposure. I am more interesting in freezing a football player in full run vs having a slightly blurred football player in full run. You obviously do not shoot action photography where a fast aperture is ideal and often required for shutter speeds of 1/1000 or faster.

Click to expand...

Your now claiming you are talking about exposure in terms of quantity of light on the sensor. I know what your talking about, and I am saying it does not matter. Not when we are talking about a third or a half or even two thirds of a stop. It would matter if we were talking about differences in exposure of over a stop. If we were debating the merits of exposure value (as determined solely by shutter and aperture, i.e. quantity of light at the sensor), the difference between an f/2.8 and an f/5.6 lens is very significant. But we aren't talking about that.

What you are actually talking about, and the point I was always discussing, is the ability to achieve a faster shutter speed. The argument was that only an f/4.5 lens would allow you to achieve an additional two thirds stops faster shutter speed. I'm saying that is wrong. ISO is one of TWO factors that affect shutter speed (which is what we are really talking about here, not exposure value.) I shoot birds, which most is most definitely action, and most definitely requires high shutter speeds. I'd argue that I need higher shutter speeds to freeze the constant micro-motion of a bird than is necessary to freeze a running baseball player or leaping basketball player. Even at 1/1600th, I often capture motion blur of small passerines...even just turning their head, they can move half a centimeter or more in a tiny fraction of a second.

When I need a high shutter speed, I either open up the aperture, OR I increase ISO. BOTH allow the use of a faster shutter. In the context of the current discussion, your statement is that you would only buy a new 800mm lens if its max aperture was bumped up by a third or half a stop, so you could get faster shutter speeds. If THAT is your argument for a new lens, then you don't understand the purpose of high ISO, or why Canon put more effort into achieving cleaner high ISO settings in the 5D III and 1D X instead of improving DR at the lowest ISO settings. Increasing the ISO setting by a third or half a stop is TRIVIAL...you won't notice any additional noise, especially with one of Canon's newer DSLRs. If you are at 1/1000s at ISO 1600, and you need 1/1250s or 1/1600s, you don't absolutely require a lens with an f/4.5 aperture. You can jack up ISO to 2000 or 2500, and achieve the necessary shutter speed. Your EV will be different...lesser by a one or two thirds of a stop...but again...trivial difference, it doesn't matter.

If you were arguing for an 800mm f/2.8 lens...that is a significant difference. Bumping ISO up by two stops will probably have a visible impact on noise, and your EV would change by a significant amount. But we aren't talking about that. We are talking about changing the max aperture of an 800mm lens from f/5.6 to...f/5, f/4.8, maybe f/4.5? Not worth it. Not worth the cost, when you can get that extra few thirds stop shutter speed with a trivial increase in ISO (which, for all intents and purposes, is free...or maybe requiring the sale of a current camera and the purchase of a 5D III or 1D X.)

dolina said:

High-end white telephoto prime lenses with fractional f-number stops.

http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/lens/ef/data/telephoto/ef_200_18l_usm.html
http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/lens/ef/data/super_telephoto/ef_500_45l_usm.html

Click to expand...

You keep bringing up decades-old lens designs. I mean, 20 years or older. I don't see how those are relevant to a discussion of MODERN prime telephoto lenses...or even the last generation...? I mean, you might as well drudge up some old FD lens designs while your at it...I'm sure we can figure out a way to blend them into the conversation somehow...and you could probably find some f/6.3 max aperture ones...

dolina said:

If you can't afford a $80,000 lens then you're not the market for it.

Click to expand...

Erm, its not an $80,000 lens...its a $13,500 lens. And, as it stands, I AM in the market for it. Actually, I'm in the market for the EF 600mm f/4 L II and a 2x TC, which is just as good if not better than the 800/5.6. Which is also a $13,000 lens. You get what you pay for. I WANT the EF 600mm f/4 L IS II. It is pretty much the pinnacle of lens design right now, in my opinion. Superb IQ wide open, very light weight, optimally balanced for excellent hand-held usability, incredible image stabilization (which seems capable of at least five stops in my personal experience with this lens and the and 500mm f/4 L II, and over five stops in my personal experience with the EF 300mm f/2.8 L IS II).

I'm honestly not sure of the practicality of an 800mm f/4 L IS...the thing would be a beast, would be very heavy, would be difficult to balance with such a huge front element, etc. etc. I'd be curious to see how an 800mm f/4 DO lens performed...I believe such a lens might be hand-holdable and decently balanced. I'm not sure a DO lens can perform as well as a standard L series lens...but, maybe 15 to 20 years from now, we might all get a chance to try one out.

x-vision said:

My crystal ball tells me that the 70D will be a lighter, slimmer 60D - and will be announced at $999 body only.

And that the 7DII will be a 7D with a new sensor and the same 19-point AF system - but with higher sensitivity and accuracy.
Announced at $1700 or maybe even $1600.

Those hoping for a 1DIV replacement will be disappointed.
That's what the crystal ball says, don't shoot the messenger. 8)

Click to expand...

Based upon Canon's recent price history (some what driven by the formerly strong Yen) prices are likely to be higher. I would not be surprised if the 70D comes in at least $1299 and could be as high as $1599 with the 7D M2 could easily approach, if not top $3000.

rmblack said:

try cleaning off puke from your 5dmkII from an early aviation expedition gone wrong

Click to expand...

Cleaning puke is child's play compared to removing paint stain off your camera :

atvinyard said:

Also, it's my understanding that with video, since you're recording at a resolution of 1920x1080, sharpness isn't such a big deal. The samyangs are pretty nice too. and it takes great pictures. It's huge though.

Click to expand...

+1

polarhannes said:

I see, so the Sigma USB dock enables you to AFMA non-AFMA bodies, but you can just use the regular AFMA on the 5d3 and forget about Sigma's solution.
Thanks!

Click to expand...

No, it adjusts the lens. Since not all bodies are identical, the best match will come with the body that you set the lens to match.

Canon's AFMA adjusts a body, and it does not care which brand of lens is on it, as long as the lens is a autofocus lens that works on Canon.

This means you can tweak a Sigma lens and still fine tune it on a Canon body.

Nice!

I sold the 60D I had in hopes of getting a decent amount for it before the 70D came out. I love the additional reach of crop but the mediocre high ISO performance (above 1600) was really becoming a drag. That's when I decided to spring for the FF 5D. I haven't gotten to use it too much (winter, etc.) but when I did, the IQ was amazing. The last straw with the 60D was shooting an outdoor nighttime sporting event - I had the 5D at the time but elected to take the 60D for the extra reach (I knew it would come in handy). I put the 70-200 2.8 lens on it and the show lighting was absolutely atrocious. This resulted in vastly underexposed/ISO 3200 shots at the shutter speeds I needed to freeze the action, and the resulting noise stripped so much detail out of the photos that I think I may as well have taken the 5DIII and cropped after the fact...and my hit rate probably would have been higher too. (this is noise that's visible even in 640x480 crops!)

Anyway, I still want a decent APS-C camera to supplement the 5D. I'm hoping for a beefed up 70D (7DII probably will cost too much/have to wait too long) that will have better AF tracking for sports. Still cheaper - and lighter! - than one of those massive 400mm or 500mm behemoths...

Excellent info. Thanks, neuro!