Just curious, I have seen that several 7D Mark II owners have stated that they also own the 5D Mark III.
Has anyone done any "higher" ISO, starting at say 1600?
If so , can you post the results?
I am at the point of making a purchase, to upgrade my 7D, and love the APS-C reach for shooting Airshows etc.

I know the argument that Full Frame is "Always Better", but really curious to compare the 5D M III with the new 7D MII as reasonably higher ISO's.
Thanks

Hello, all. I will be releasing a series of reviews over the next month or so. Up first is the Samyang Rokinon 24mm f/3.5 Tilt-Shift.

Text Review: http://bit.ly/1xPLbAo
Video Review: http://bit.ly/1qs5RPi
Sample Gallery: http://bit.ly/1vsNH1N

Larch Season by Thousand Word Images by Dustin Abbott, on Flickr

Reviews in the pipeline: Sigma 50mm f/1.4 ART (next week), Zeiss 50mm f/1.4 Planar T, Metz 64 AF-1 flash units, Vanguard ABEO Pro 283AT + GH-300T head, Zeiss Otus 85mm f/1.4, Canon 24-105mm f/3.5-5.6 STM, and Zeiss 50mm f/2 Makro-Planar.

NOW we're getting somewhere! A machine like this will temp even me to try out a Sony body... with lots of lens adapters.

www.sony.jp/ichigan/products/ILCE-7M2/

translated at SAR forum:

www.sonyalpharumors.com/sony-a77i-officialy-announced-in-japan/

for those who haven't experienced IBIS in a Pentax or Olympus body, it can work very well. Makes nearly every lens you have stabilized, even classic old primes.

This is a product I wish Ricoh-Pentax would have put out... 2 years ago.

Higher-end A-9 model still rumored for early 2015, Hmmm...

I apologize now, as this question has probably been asked many times. I am looking at getting a new zoom lens, I currently have the 5dMKIII, 24-105 kit lense and the 100mm macro

I am thinking of either the iconic 70-200 f2.8 (with either 1.4X or 2x convertor), or the new 100-400

Now, this is just a hobby for me and I take an assortment of pictures, landscapes, few portraits etc, but I would like someting with a bit more reach to start taking wildlife i.e. birds etc, the occasional BIF

I like the thought of the f2.8 on the 70-200…and also the range 70-400 (if you include the convertor) this gives me flexibility as I will not always be taking wildlife pic’s

But, the new 100-400mm has thrown something new into the mix and the thought of all that reach is tempting, but with f4.5 – f5.6 this would be make it mostly an outdoor lens

i know there is the 300, f2.8 prime, but this is only a hobby and i cannot justify the big $$$

So, If you had the option what lens would you go with, ?

The GAS is so bad today that I thought I needed to call a gastroenterologist! The pain started when I received my Canon evaluation loan today, a 300mm f/2.8L II. The attached x-rays, I mean pictures, summarize the pain. The image, in both full and cropped version, was shot right out of the shipping box on a 5d III with a 1.4x teleconverter. I have been looking hard at a 400mm f/2.8 II, but I do believe this prescription, I mean lens, may take care of my GAS for a while. A lot of money, probably more than it would cost to check out normal gas symptoms by the gastroenterologist. But, this lens will be a lot more fun than a colonoscopy, so well worth the $$.

A recent article from Petapixel about the fastest f-number theoretically possible inspired me to make the following observations about the relationship between f-number and light-gathering ability.

Recall that the f-number is defined as the ratio of the distance between the image plane and the exit pupil, to the diameter of the exit pupil. For an idealized thin lens, this is equivalent to the focal length divided by the aperture diameter.

Also familiar to most of us is the idea that light-gathering ability doubles for each full stop increase in speed; i.e., f/1.4 gathers twice as much light as f/2, which in turn gathers twice as much light as f/2.8, etc.

When I read the Petapixel article and the commentary therein, it seems that this doubling/halving notion of full stop increments was overlooked and not fully understood. That is to say, while this relationship between f-number and light-gathering ability is true at relatively slow f-numbers, it is most certainly NOT true at fast f-numbers, because it is an approximation. f/0.5 is not, strictly speaking, twice as fast as f/0.7, nor is f/0.35 twice as fast as f/0.5, even though the area of the pupil is twice as large.

The true light-gathering ability of a lens is measured not by the f-number but by the square of the angle of incidence of the marginal paraxial rays to the optical axis. If we think of a light source at infinity, its rays enter the lens (which is also focused at infinity) parallel to the optical axis. Off-axis rays get refracted to form an image of the light source, and the angle of the cone of light that forms that image point determines the intensity.

In the small-angle case, the tangent of the angle is a good approximation of the angle itself: theta = tan theta for "sufficiently small" theta. But if the angle is large--as in the case of very fast lenses--this approximation breaks down, and we can no longer use the f-number as a reliable indicator of how much light is being gathered. For example, compared to f/1.0, an f-number of f/0.7 is only 1.76 times brighter; f/0.5 is only 1.63 times brighter than f/0.7; and f/0.35 is only 1.48 times brighter than f/0.5. Of course, it is extremely rare to see even the first case, and we certainly don't see the others, but in the theoretical discussion of the fastest possible lens, it is important to point out that even a theoretical f/0 lens (for which the lens diameter is infinitely large, and the marginal rays somehow manage to make a 90-degree refraction and strike the image plane with no loss), the light-gathering ability is finite. f/0.35 does not get us 32 times the light-gathering ability of f/2, but only about a 15x increase, even assuming an ideal lens and sensor. And this is even true at slower f-numbers, though to a much smaller extent: f/1.0 is really only 13.9x as bright as f/4, not 16x brighter as you would expect just by counting full stops.

I had to send my lens in for a minor issue. After it came back, I noticed that the IS seemed surprisingly loud. I had never heard the IS system before on that lens (at all), but I've not owned it for very long, so I've considered the possibility that was never in a quiet enough environment to hear it until yesterday.

It sounds sort of like the noise your computer hard drive makes with the motor that controls the read/write head - except, it's louder than your average HDD.

I don't hear anything banging against the sides of the lens barrel, just this loud motor noise. I hear it once when I half press the shutter release, and again about a second or two after I've released the button and the shutter has closed. There is no noise aside from the AF ring motor during the period in between each of the sounds.

I did some reading on this forum and others and I've seen a split - some claim that it's abnormal and that there copy makes no noise, while others claim that their 70-200 IS II is one of the loudest lens they own and operate. I found at least one thread with somebody posting what sounded like a similar sound to mine, except they were also claiming that their copy was exhibiting a ratcheting type sound too. Mine is not.

I called Canon's repair center in Virginia, where I'd sent the lens for the repair, and they claim that this model lens does make a decent amount of noise with the IS system and that unless I hear "clunking" - I shouldn't worry... BUT... they would be happy to get me a prepaid shipping label if I wanted to be sure, so they started a case number just in case I wanted to send it in to get checked.

Before I pack the lens up and send it off again, which I'd rather not do unless I should, I wanted to ask here first and get some opinions and advice from other owners of this lens.

Hi everyone! What's your favourite focal length?

Mine is: 600mm, on 7D, and 300mm, on 7D also, 24mm, on 5D, and also 35mm on 7D.

Hello guys! I hope you're doing just fine and getting ready for forthcoming holidays I keep reading reviews on how great Zeiss 135 f2 lens is, and this made me think whether or not I should get one. I'm definitely not a professional and once in a while take pictures of my girlfriend/sister and some friends, which are 99% portraits. I have 5d and few lenses: 70-200 2.8ii, 85 1.2ii and 200 2.0. If you were me, would you get Zeiss 135 f2 in addition to these lenses? Would I gain anything special by having this lens? Or would you sell any of the lens I have to get Zeiss? I don't really mind doing manual focus and as I've said, I shoot almost exclusively portraits and not an action. Thanks for your suggestions!

They've just announced results at http://www.senscore.org/

Hi all. I think I might be in the market for a 6D, having recklessly and somewhat regretfully sold my 1DSIII. I'm in the UK, well, Guernsey (VAT benefits, yay!) and wondered if any of you think it's worth holding out for the end-of-November Black Friday craziness? Do you think such an item will receive any deals and where do you think it's worth watching?
Thanks for your replies!

One night in Costa Rica I woke up really early (3:30am) and couldn’t fall back asleep. Off in the distance I could hear the call of a Spectacled Owl and decided to go out and see if I could find it. I wasn’t very optimistic as I have tried to photograph this species at least a dozen times with no luck. I wandered down into the forest to see if I could get a look at this stunning owl. I knew the bird was close by so I decided to give him a call. Unbelievably, the bird cooperated and flew right in. He even perched for me in a great spot and I was able to snap a few pics. What a rush! I haven’t been so excited to photograph a bird in a while and it was a great reminder for me of what I absolutely love about bird photography.

Camera Model: Canon EOS 7D
Shutter speed: 1/60 sec
Aperture: 5.6
Exposure mode: Manual
Flash: On
ISO: 1250
Lens: EF600mm f/4L IS II USM +1.4x

I am looking to buy an extender for my 70-200 2.8L and have found a solid used 2x extender (version 2) for sale. It will be used on my 5D Mk III.

Thoughts on this purchase?

I have a 6D + 70-200f/2.8 II + 2X III TC. As discussed elsewhere, AF is not very good. Do I change the body or the lens? Regarding lenses, I would like to be at 560-600mm with converter. So I see three options: Sigma 120-300 + 2X III TC, Sigma 150-600 or Canon 100-400 II + 1.4X III TC. But the Canon 100-400 II + 1.4X III TC will not AF on a 6D.

So what move is recommended for BIF?

And on another note, what is GAS?

Thanks.

Going to the Zoo this weekend and hiring a Canon 6D and some lens. Will also take my 50D. Unfortunatly no 7d2 for hire.

Forecast is for cloudy. How much better off will I be with the 2.8II than the F4 Non IS?
If I get the f4 I can also get a 24mm 1.4 to play with over the weekend.

I could get a longer lens but I will be doing some portrait stuff so I need the 70mm

Hey all,

I caught this story doing the rounds on PetaPixel and SLR lounge:
http://www.slrlounge.com/lightswitch-tries-change-nd-filter-game/

Watch the video. Besides being a wretched sales pitch (zero details on filter size or reasons why this is better than anything else), this idea appears to be an alternative for the Lee SW150 holder, which is made for non-front-threaded lenses like the Nikon 14-24. It has the added upside of automagically not needing any threading or assembly -- it's a pretty simple one-piece push-on usage.

Commenters on the stories are calling BS over a $265 asking price for just the holder, but upon further review, the Lee SW150 holder is a solid $400 in comparison (I had no idea!).

I'm a happy Lee 100mm (standard/foundation) user and am invested in that setup. So this new product certainly isn't for me. But I was curious what I'm missing with this idea -- what (besides the push-on use, which I am not convinced is a net positive thing) is the point of this system, and what might it offer over the Lee SW150 or Wonderpana setups?

- A

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Comparisons/Canon-EOS-7D-II-1D-X-5D-III-AF-Comparison.aspx

Very helpful comparison, I think.

Wondering how many of you have seen this: Using rechargables in my 580EXII. Also use a few Yongnuo's (YN560III). The Canon, however, drains 1 of the 4 batteries MUCH faster, however, and I've started to see poor performance from that battery over time. The Yongnuo's don't ever do this.

I noticed the problem when I started putting the four batteries into my hi-dollar charger/discharger and the amount of remaining charge was always extremely lopsided when compared with the other batteries from the same flash. Seems like a very uneven draw. Hmmm...

Like I said, Canon only. Yougnuo's don't show this. Ever.

Thoughts? This actually worries me and I'm less likely to buy another Canon flash if this is common.

TIA!

I have a canon 60d and recently purchased a yn568ex ii... now I want to do off camera flash, so which YN receivers should I use yn622 or yn603... 1 light stand with a shoot through umbrella will be the set up

Hey all, I am considering upgrading my current body. I have a t2i. I am thinking of making the switch to the 6D, but I am not sure if this would be the best thing to do. Would it be better to invest in glass and wait it out to the 6Dii? My current glass is 35mm f2, 50mm 1.8, and sigma 17-50mm f2.8/canon 75-300mm which I am planning to sell because both are not compatible with full frame. I considered the 7Dii because it would support my sigma 17-50 but I mostly shoot landscapes. Let me know your thoughts!

I bought a 7D as my first DSLR mainly because of what I read about the 70-200. I loved the idea of the 2.8 plus it allowed me to add a 2xIII for what I thought would be occasional use. Well, with 4 kids and my wife all in sprint canoe and kayaking the 2x is on more than not, and frankly still not enough lens often. I love using the 70-200 alone, but find that if it isn't at 200, it is mid-range wide open and has made many of my favorite candids of the family.

The announcement of the 100-400 II has had me constantly in deep thought about my entire lens line-up (wouldn't my employer love to know that). Ultimately owning both these zooms would be great, and it isn't so much a financial decision, but if I ever want my wife to smile at me again, there is only room for one of these in my house! So I'm going with the advise I've read over and over here, buy the lens for the focal length you need, and for me that is the 100-400.

At the other end of things, when I have the 24-105 mounted I more often than not wish I could get wider, and when the 10-22 is mounted I always wish I could reach a little further. Also, 90% of the time the 10-22 doesn't get below 16.

Before:
7D, 70-200 2.8 IS II, 2x III, 10-22, 24-105L, 35L, 50L

After:
7DII, 100-400 II, 1.4x III, 17-55 f2.8, 50L, 85 f1.8, 135L

The process has already begun, the 7D is sold (at an obvious loss, but not bad as it was a used purchase), the 10-22 is sold and I replaced it with a 17-55 for even money. The 35L will be tough to let go, but it is mint and I should be in money when I swap for a used 135. The 17-55 is obviously no 35L substitute, but with IS it can actually get non action shots in lower light, and I need the 135L to not miss the 70-200 soooo much.

Am I making crazy moves? I see it as a reduction in flexibility, but covering more of the range I need with zoom, while covering the remaining areas I gravitated to with the current zooms with quality primes.

All comments or suggestions welcome.

Hello everyone

The 400mm f4 DO lens is something of a mystery to me. I have personally never seen one in action and if you look for tests and reviews (e.g. on youtube) the offer is quite limited. And from the few sources I found the opinions on the lens were mixed, so that one could get the impression that the 400mm F4 DO lens was overall not very popular. If so, I don't know if that would be because of real, noticeable technical disadvantages compared to other lenses or because of the price (or both).
Still Canon found it reasonable to announce a newer version of the lens at photokina, so they expect an demand for this lens.

Compared to the 400mm F5.6 is the image quality (sharpness) of the 400mm f4 DO Mark I better, equal or worse? I would expect the AF and IS to be better (most certainly the IS ).

Is there anyone here in the forum who uses the 400mm f4 DO Mark I and/or would be interested in the Mark II version?