I just bought an 85 1.2. Can anyone explain to me why the bokeh is clipped off on sides of the discs? My 135L doesn't do that.

From what I have read online it sounds like it is related to the mirror box. But then why don't my other lenses do that? Not sure I like the shape of the bokeh...

I was offered a Canon T3i Rebel because I want to shoot jewelry, but I don't feel like spending much at the beginning.

Are lens essential for jewelry shooting? Can I get good results with the solo camera, without other types of lenses?

(currently I run tests with iphone camera + photoshop)

Not scientific at all but shot under identical conditions using the same 100-400 lens at 400mm with identical processing, f/8, 1/1000, and iSO 500. The first image is the 1D MK IV, the second is the 7D MK II. Make of it what you will. I used auto-ISO by the way, on both cameras. Distance to the subject is around 10-feet.

Sigma refurbished site has this lens in Canon mount for $679.

Hi,
I have the 7D MKII for 2 weeks, and yesterday started testing the GPS functions.
I have GPS enabled, Logger enabled, Update intvl every min.
The Geotag function works fine, all images have the GPS data and LR places them on the map accurately.
But EOS Utility just cannot find the tracking log, tried it a number of times.
I downloaded EU 3, thought it would be better, still no tracker log file.
When I use the in-camera function to copy GPS log to card, it looks like there is a log file there, but still EU does not recognize the file, either in memory or on the card.
Can anyone help with this issue - many thanks in advance.

EDITED FOR CLARITY 12/10/2014 00:33 EST.


Note (12/12/14), I've posted my own chart shots on pages 2 and 3 as per request, and have also posted additional images that may be relevant in answering this question.

The Digital Picture has crops of an ISO 12233 type chart shot via the 70-200/2.8 IS II. Link Here (pictures included inline below)

My chart shots look nowhere near that level of sharpness, especially at the corners. It does however look just like the chart shots taken by Martin Bailey and posted on his site (link here - images also posted inline with post below)

I'm just trying to figure out what I am supposed to be seeing, and whether my lens needs to go back to Canon again.

The Digital Picture unfortunately don't have a 5D3 body option, but I imagine my 5D3 should be as good as far as sharpness is concerned. The Martin Bailey pictures were shot on a 5D3 as far as I understand.

Here are the images from The Digital Picture

@70mm







@200mm








Here are the pictures (or rather animated gifs) posted by Martin Bailey on his site:



This is the part that's been bugging me as it looks perfect on the TDP chart shot, but this is much closer to what I'm seeing:



The Problem between the two: TheDigitalPicture shows me crisp clean corners at 70mm and 200mm, a tiny bit less so at 100mm and 115mm, but still WAY sharper than the gifs from the Martin Bailey Photography website, which show more or less what I'm seeing, which is very different from the crops TDP is displaying.

Which is closer to what I should be expecting?

This is not yet another of the endless crop vs FF (famous last words) but a focus on a particular situation, which is of interest to some of us nature photographers who slap TCs onto our telephotos and plug them into a 5DIII or 1DX. How well would we do if we use the 7DII or 70D instead of a 1.4xTC, or a 7DII or 70D + 1.4xTC vs 5DIII + 2xTC?

The answer will depend to a large extent on how sharp the bare lens is because the crops are very intolerant of soft lenses. So let's do this for really good lenses. The addition of a 1.4xTC will cause a small degradation of image but cut the light for a factor of 2 on the FF, compensating for the smaller pixels in the crop sensor. First is a photo (100%) crop of my favourite medieval brick chimney. The 300mm/2.8 II + 1.4xTC III on my 70D at iso640 is at least equal to my 300mm/2.8 II + 2xTC III on my 5D III at iso1250.

Below, are centre crops from the standard chart (printed out on rough photocopy paper). Again, The 300mm/2.8 II + 1.4xTC III on my 70D at iso640 is at least equal to my 300mm/2.8 II + 2xTC III on my 5D III at iso640.

Two further points. The 300mm/2.8 II + 2xTC III on my 70D has lost some IQ, and it is probably worth sticking to the 1.4xTC. The Tamron at 150-600mm at 400mm on the 70D is quite good and is much better than at 600mm on the 5DIII.

So, these tests have made up my mind for me. I am going to use the 100-400 II on a 70D or 7DII as my hiking/birding lens. I think that the new 400 DO II on the 7D II will be better than the 300/2.8 + 2xTC on the 5DIII for hiking/birding. Let's wait and see.

I'm selling the (backup) 6D today, not because the camera is a dud (it isn't) but the user-interface is nowhere near what I would like.

I'm now looking at the 1DX while retaining the 5D3 as backup. Quick question here - does the fact that the 1DX is only 18mp bother you or limit you in any way?

Cheers!
J.R.

In everyone's opinion, what are the chances of a high end 1DX mark II or another top of the line DSLR being available next year? The reason why I ask is because I am close to spending $4,000 on the new 5K iMac if a new camera won't be available until 2016. However, if we are talking early to mid 2015, then I might hold off on a new computer so I can get the camera instead.

There was a premature, fairly information-thin thread on this subject recently, http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=23071.0 but now that the 7D MkII has actually been in the hands of working photographers for some weeks now, I'd be very interested to hear real world viewpoints from 1D MkIV shooters who now also have worked with a 7d MkII.

My very high mileage MkIV has over 500,000 actuations now, and replacement time can't be too far away. Another lightly used MkIV isn't out of the question! But a gripped 7D MkII could be viable.

I like having one good quality crop body along with the FF bodies. The MkIV has functioned superbly in that role. The 7D MkII will clearly do some things better, notably AF and particularly low-light AF. I frequently work in the 1600-3200 iso range, but rarely above 6400 iso.

-pw

Hi All,

Perhaps this has been asked before, if so please point me in the right direction. I looked and did not find the comparison that fit my needs.

Which do you think is a better all around camera? 7D mark III or 5D mark III


I know this answer varies on situation, so here is what I am working with.

• Can only get one
• Price is not a major factor (since they are getting closer in price)
• Camera will be used to create basic videos for the web Think quality business video and youtube product reviews
• I am a Web Designer / Developer 1st / Photographer 2nd. Occasionally I take photos for clients, if it is real high end stuff they hire a professional photographer
• Family Camera. (Two kids 3 & 6 who play soccer, basketball, dance, go fun places, etc...)
• Maybe set up some simple video stuff with kids
• I am a former college newspaper photographer who enjoys carrying a camera and taking all kinds of shots.

I currently have a 60D with a few lenses including 70-200 f/2.8L IS version 2

Now that the 5d3 prices are dropping I was thinking of getting a 5d3 (I have always wanted one), as I researched it looks like the 7D2 might be a better fit.

To me it looks like if I go with the 7D2, I will be giving up a full frame and better low light images (not to say that the 7d2 has poor low light functionality)

Full frame might not be a big factor other than just bragging rights.


Which do you think will be a better fit?
Any reason to go with the 5D3 over the 7D2 for my situation?

Thanks in Advance! -- Steven

So, when the Canadian dollar got larger than the American a few years back, it pulled the pants down on the publishing and auto industries' price gouging of Canadians. Seems that camera/lens makers got the message too in large part. But why not filter manufacturers? Why are most filters two to three times the price in Canada what they are in the US? Anyhow, I'd never, ever buy a new filter in Canada. It's ridiculous. Rant over.

Hi everyone,
not sure this would be in the right category but I have written a small review of the Surface Pro 3 being used in a photographer workflow and especially in the mindset of travel photography. I am leaving soon on a rather big trip for a long time and I have to be able to process my images on the go without carrying a heavy laptop.
Maybe what I think about the Surface can help you make a decision! Also, it's one of my first gear reviews so do not hesitate to give me comments or suggestions on how to improve, cheers!
here it is:
http://blog.fredericseguin.com/blog/2014/11/10/review-of-the-microsoft-surface-pro-3

Frederic

Interesting sales technique - offer 46 lenses but have only the 5 most boring in stock. Very disappointing.

John

I have been using the Sigma 35 mm f/1.4 Art Series lens over the last year. Sometimes it produces really sharp keepers and on other occasions every image is out of focus. Recently I have undertaken AFMA calibration on a variety of lenses using Focal in order to investigate this. I was not surprised to get these results for my Sigma 35 Art.

Distance to target AFMA required Focal result confidence
1 metre -3 Excellent
2 metre +4 Good
3 metre +2 Good
4 metre 0 Good


In contrast all but one of my Canon lenses when tested with my EOS 6D require a very consistent AFMA setting at different subject distances.

Having researched the Sigma USB dock, I thought that it allowed AFMA calibration of the lens at up to 4 different distances. I thought that this could solve the problem. BUT on trying my lens in the dock it appears that it is not possible for the user to select what these distances are ?!

In the case of my 35 mm lens this will make the dock calibration process of little benefit. If for example I use optimization pro to set AFMA at infinity and at 0.75 M then the calibration will be correct at these distances and off in between 1 and 4 metres. I am struggling to understand the logic of optimization pro since with a 35 mm lens if you are using it for photographing people then you are going to need to work within this distance range. Why have three of the four AFMA distances for this lens at less than 1 metre when any close up/macro type work is likely to use MF anyway ?

At present when shooting wide open I have AFMA = 0 and use the 35 mm exclusively around 1.5 metres distance to subject. At other distances then I have to change either the AFMA setting or use MF or stop down significantly. Hardly an ideal arrangement!

I would appreciate any help as regards:
1) Is there a way of adjusting the lens AFMA calibration distances in the Optimization Pro software?
2) Has anyone had a similarly performing lens and had any success with sending it back to Sigma for calibration – did this improve the AFMA consistency with distance ?

Do any Canon cameras (or any other manufacturers' cameras for that matter) have an option to provide the user with the hyperfocal distance for the camera's current lens focal length and F-stop settings? I would find this to be a useful function, and even better if the camera could, on operator command, set the lens to the hyperfocal distance (don't know if lenses are sufficiently calibrated to allow for this). If a smart phone app can calculate the hyperfocal distance, I see no reason why the camera manufacturers couldn't program their cameras to do it.

I'd love to hear user's/owner's thoughts about their 300mm f/2.8 prime lenses, version I or II. I would be buying version II, but I'm most interested in learning more about this particular FL. Note I currently shoot with a 5DIII, and my go-to portrait lens is the ef 70-200mm /f2.8 IS II.

I'm a sucker for fast primes, but I'm mainly a portrait photographer who occasionally shoots weddings. For passionate fun, I do as much landscape as I can find time for.

I know only what I've read on the web and heard in Arthur Morris workshops about the 300mm's.

To me, the focal length seems too short for nature and most sports, while being too long for portraits. I could see it useful at weddings where natural light is all that is allowed, but don't see any examples of such use...

I've read Justin's very helpful review, and I see his examples of portraits as reasons to be wary. Note that I'm not intending to get into bird photography, but would be doing some "citizen journalism" from time to time.

Also, I've read a couple of good threads here about using TC's and the options of going longer, so please don't talk much about those tangent topics.

I'd really like to read your thoughts about the ef 300mm 2.8 lenses--and see some samples. Thanks!

Hi Guys... in a quandary. I have a 7D with 10-22mm lens, etc. Getting on now after 3 years of reasonably heavy use and generally happy but hitting the limit with noise/wide aperture lens. I do nightscapes, sea/landscapes but also some action shots (not published). Going full frame was the next step especially for low noise with wide angle/wide aperture so the 6D was the obvious next step for me but 7D mark II sensor seems to be as good with noise and has all the new goodies as well. 1 body would be nice rather than 6D + current 7D.

6D pros => more expensive as need new wide angle 16-35mm f/4 (options for 14mm samyang f/2.8, 8-15mm etc), wifi, better DoF
7D mark II pros => keep same lens set (10-22mm is the best one), very good AF (+f8 centre)/burst, much better video, wifi only with eyefi, SD+CF, very good weather sealing, flash

Thoughts?

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS => horses for courses. totally different end user market.
6D best for landscape/portrait with low light/high ISO/depth of field but low ISO dynamic range is not fantastic. Lens range is best for FF
7Dii best for AF/action/video. 7Dii should be better than 7D for everything.
Worth the wait for 6Dii?

Thanks
David.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/davidmarriottsydney/
7D, 10-22mm, 24-105L, 70-200L II, 50mm f/1.4, 1.4xIII, 600EX-RT

Has anyone tried this?
Thoughts on Yongnuo expanding into lenses?

http://www.amazon.com/Yongnuo-EF-YN-50mm-1-8/dp/B00QGHSGPW/ref=sr_1_11?ie=UTF8&qid=1417977023&sr=8-11

So I've outgrown my kit lens (still having fun with my zoom tho). I"m looking for a good prime. I would do general stuff with it, but I like taking candid and/or portraits. I would like something that does well with low light. I had a 35mm with my Nikon that did that well. I'm reading the 50 f/1.8 is cheaply built, might look at the f/1.4 or even the 40mm pancake or even an 85mm?

Dear Friends.
I try to not spend the big money for Canon Flash ring light =$ 650 US Dollars for Canon MT 24EX Ring Light/Macro Flash.
Yes, One day after go to Advance Auto Parts store and see Chinese made LED pocket flash light = $ 2.50 US Dollars, Yes, I buy 6 of them for $ 16 US Dollars, and try to create the LED Ring/ Flash Lights.
Here is my DIY , and so bright for 6-8 feet Portrait Photos too, Not only Macro Photos which I can turn on just 1 flashlight to 6 Flash Lights.
Yes, Sir/ Madam = It work for me.
Have Fun.
Surapon

Hello all-

I'm at a bit of a purchasing impasse and I'm hoping you can help. I'm looking to make a big purchase or two between now and mid-January, with a mind to use it/them on trips I have scheduled throughout the year.

I'm photographing snowy owls in Canada in January, Iceland in February, eagles in Utah followed by mammals in Teton in March, an abandoned prison in April, Glacier NP/Yellowstone NP in June, storms in AZ in July, whales/puffins in Maine in August, and 9/11 in NYC by helicopter in September.

My current gear is Canon 5D3, 17TS-E, 16-35L 2.8, 24-70L II, 70-200L IS II, and a 50 1.8 II. I have both the 1.4 TC III and 2.0 TC III, and 3x600EX-RT, as well as the SR-E3-RT. I'm in the process of selling the 16-35 for the new 16-35L IS (I don't find myself needing 2.8).

I enjoy nature/wildlife photography, landscape, portraiture, and travel.

So with that said, I'm looking at the 300 IS II or 500 IS (ver 1) refurb or lightly used respectively, and a 7D II. I could also consider the 500 IS II if I forgo a 2nd body. I'm torn. The 300 II option would see use for more stuff, no doubt, but I feel I'd need the 7D II for reach (?). For the cost of both I could get the 500 IS II.

With either 500, it's a purely wildlife lens. With the 300 I can see portrait, some sports, even tele landscape stuff too. Of course, I'm also looking at the 85L, 135L, and 100L macro, so portrait use isn't critical.

If anyone can offer some advice, it'd be much appreciated.

Side question: I was looking at MTF charts. Is 16-35L IS looking sharper than 24TSE? I'm no good at those charts.

(CR Forum admin, please don't tuck this into the currently running TR thread again -- this is a NEW video from a couple days ago about what gear to buy. It's not the same video about switching from Canon to Nikon. Thank you!)

Our favorite camera pundit is at it again:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=subDtZIRmnE

Best witty comeback to his latest opus earns my undying respect.

...annnnnnd Go!

- A

Hello All,
In the last couple of days I have had the 7d Mark ii I have twice had it freeze on me and the display said F00. Both times with the 400 5.6 attached. Anyone else having problems? I've never had a problem with the lens before.
(I'm also finding a lot of shots look soft and a little bit like motion blur, even for static objects at 1/1600. I'm hoping it's an AFMA issue. But it's not a problem I ever had with my 600d with the same lens, which were always crystal clear.)
Thanks!