http://www.canonpricewatch.com/blog/2014/08/breaking-news-canon-price-drop-tomorrow-on-26-lenses/

This has been a long time coming!

So I'm an absolute macro nut and I'm very seriously considering ponying up for the MP-E 65. Thing is, I don't know much about it.

So a quick Google search says this lens was released in September, 1999. How does this lens hold up vs the 100L when it comes to sharpness, bokeh etc? I shoot handheld, with the MR-14EX ringlite in manual, for the record.

This lens is 15 years old, still brilliant or due for an upgrade? And if you feel it is due for a reboot, what would you change about it?

Thanks guys

Just got one for my MFT mount Oly E-M10. I'm really looking forward to making some images with this thing.
For a mere $220, delivered, this has to be the undervalued lens deal of the year!
It's corner-to-corner sharp, wide open, on MFT. Not sure how it fares on the NEX.

I thought the moderate 2.8 aperture would be a bit of a bokeh handicap but it's likely to be just fine for most of the shots I'll use it for and the bokeh is looking pretty smooth on the few scenes I've composed with it so far.
Min focus distance is about enough to make a bit more than the palm of my hand fit the whole frame.
It even includes a nice nylon carrying case and a hood.

If you've been craving the impressive performance of the Olympus 75mm f/1.8 but balk at the cost, this is a lot more affordable and darn near as sharp if you check the charts on DxOmark.

Some outlining and a bit of onionskin on out of focus highlites is the worst thing I can see about its performance.
AF is quick and almost silent, likely suitable for video even with in-camera mic's.

It's not very large physically either, tho it is a bit odd looking with the smooth finished barrel, all of which is an MF ring.

I recommend it, good value for the money, especially at this price.

www.sigmaphoto.com/product/60mm-f28-dn-a

on a late evening drive home in Alberta, conditions were right for a lovely ground fog to form. Wasn't equipped for night shooting, tripod was at home, but still managed to get a few variations of a fog-shrouded pastoral scene with enough color left in the sky to create an interesting silhouette of a lone tree. This was my favorite of the group.

The camera direction was NNW almost an hour after sunset.
Hand-held, 200mm with VR, 3200 ISO, 1/6 th second at f/4.5 = sharp enough.
Minimal processing via ACR from raw.
Full EXIF is included in the image.

rumors about the NX1:

aps-c
28MP
over 10 FPS
EVF
fastest AF on the market (PR blahblah?... is there a new camera that does not claim to have the fastest AF? : )


i was not a big fan of samsung cameras in the past and there is still the lens issue... but im curious.

http://www.slrlounge.com/sony-announce-new-50mp-high-resolution-a7x-photokina/

Take this rumor with a grain of salt, but that would make a heck of a splash...

- A

ook this in Katoomba in the Blue Mountain region in Australia back in 2010 with a 50d. Probably should have kept more of the instrument in the shot for context.....but I was more interested in the face and texture of his hair etc


Didgeridoo Player by petach123 (Peter Tachauer), on Flickr

So, let's fast forward 10+ years to where we have achieved the perfect sensor. It can do the following:

-Record nearly infinite numbers of photons and scale to whatever pixels you want
-Expose and record every detail in any light over 0.01 LUX
-Record in 256-bits with DR surpassing anything our own eyes can even see
-Correct any and all optical defects in any and all lenses

So...if I had this sensor, you know what I would be?
BORED.

Why? Because photos would look just like real life and be limited only by our own eyes.

Photos are an interpretation of reality, not reality. Light and shadows give photos depth and meaning, which is why so many HDR photos are just dull and flat. The limitations of film are why so many film photos are better than most digital photos in all regards other than sharpness.

The unconstrained mind is not creative.

-Jack Handy
(these are my Deep Thoughts for the week)

Here's another beauty from Brazil. What a colour palette these guys have!



Camera Model: Canon EOS 7D
Shutter speed: 1/100 sec
Aperture: 5
Exposure compensation: -1/3
ISO: 400
Lens: EF600mm f/4L IS II USM

Hello, all. Just completed a review of the new crop sensor all-in-one lens from Tamron, the 16-300mm f/3.5-6.3 Di II VC PZD. This lens has a massive 18.8x zoom range, and on a Canon crop has an 35mm equivalent 25.6-460mm range. That is both wider and longer than all previous lenses of the type. If you would like to read more about (or watch the video review), you can click here:

http://dustinabbott.net/2014/08/tamron-16-300mm-vc-pzd-review/

Tamron 16-300mm f/3.5-6.3 Di II VC PZD Review by Thousand Word Images by Dustin Abbott, on Flickr

P.S. I have previously reviewed the 28-300 VC for full frame bodies, and B&H is currently sending me the 18-200 VC for EF-M mount that I will be reviewing (alongside the Samyang 12mm f/2 for EF-M and the 16-35mm f/4L IS). Full plate for a bit, but the new reviews should start coming in about a month. Somewhere in there Zeiss will be sending me the two Otus lenses for review (55 and 85mm).

Is there anything out there that hasn't been reviewed much that you guys want me to request in the future? At this stage I can get just about anything for review (although some of the higher end superteles are a little more work to get).

Back in 1987 I bought the Canon film EOS 650 the launch camera along with the EOS 620 of the EF system, it came with a 35-70mm zoom. I quickly followed this with the EF28mm f2.8 and I still retain all three today but only really use the EF28 f2.8 lens.

This lens in over 26 years has never left my camera bag and for its size & weight and for the great pictures it has produced will remain there. Yes the EF28 2.8 IS lens introduced two years ago is supposed to be better but Im not filling street posters so for my prints which are no bigger than A3 its perfect. A true testiment to the designers of its day.

I loved this video. Do not get me wrong: I love great gear but this video made me smile…

http://petapixel.com/2014/08/25/7-quick-simple-tips-interesting-creative-smartphone-photos/

Took this a while ago with a 5d mk3


Willis Coroon Building London by petach123 (Peter Tachauer), on Flickr

So... it's all over the community web, and it puts yet again focus on the manufacturing ethics surrounding cameras and what potential they really hold.

For some years now, we seen several Canon Eos cameras delivering a lot more than Canon wanted them to in the Magic Lantern hacks.

Now it's Sony's turn. While it's not per say a hack but more of a tweak, it does raise the question what we really pay for when we pay for "better" and "newer" tech, in fx firmware upgrades.

It turns out that cinematographer Paul Reams have by chance enabled internal 4K in the Sony F5 camera, something which only it's bigger brother (and 12.000 dollars more expensive) F55 was able to until now.

In short, the F5 contains preference file that you can adjust because it's simply a .txt file. Reams found out that by fiddling with the resolution setting the F5 would suddenly allow him to record internal 4K XAVC without having to spend money on the add ons like the Odessey 7Q.

So what was Sony's plan with this camera? Were they going to offer paid "upgrades" a year from now, magically turning the F5 into a native 4K camera? The same way they messed up with the paid F3 upgrade (that suddenly became free).....

It begs the question if manufacturers in their chase for profit have stepped over their ethics to such a degree that it has become embarrassing and down right disrespectful.

But what do we do about it?

At the moment, I just have the deepest respect for Reams actually sharing this info with us......

D800 -> D810

The 5dm3 is looking really old.

On the list of things I hope to acquire in the near future is some macro equipment. The 100mm Canon with IS is a no brainer, when I will buy it - I have no idea. Maybe in 5 minutes... maybe in 5 years. However, I've seen the amazing bokeh that the 180mm is capable of... all I can say is... SCHWING!

I'm surprised though. It came out in 1996. It's been 18 years. The only rumor I found about a refresh involves a DO version. (http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/07/patent-canon-ef-180mm-f3-5-do-macro/)

What is the obstacle to IS and making this lens faster? What are the chances of seeing a refresh any time soon?

I know there's a rumor that next year there will be a bunch of primes released, but there was also a rumor that this would be the year of the lens... so I don't want to get my hopes up.

Is this lens just not worth the investment to Canon because of poor sales or something along those lines?

Hello all:

I'm leaving for NYC in a little over a week, and am having difficulty deciding which lenses I should bring with me, as I'd like to bring no more than four (at the absolute most). To make this even more fun, I'd prefer to bring nothing but primes, but if you can present an argument as to why I should bring one of my zoom lenses, please do. I am always, sadly, open to persuasion. The list is:

Sigma 35mm f/1.4 ART
Canon 50mm f/1.2
Canon 85mm f/1.2
Canon 100 Macro f/2.8
Canon 135mm f/2.0
Canon 16-35 f/2.8
Canon 24-70 II f/2.8
Tamron 70-200 VC f/2.8
Canon 8-15 Fisheye

Let's assume that my preference for prime lenses is a foregone one, so as not to get sucked down the rabbit hole of prime vs. zoom. Thanks all.

Sorry for another thread on this, but it seems to me that there are different definitions of what "extra reach" means as it relates to cropped sensors. For my own education/clarification, this is what I think, but I would welcome any corrections. These are imaginary scenarios to help define the parameters.

1) Extra reach = "I take two pictures of a bird from the same spot on my porch, one with a 7D, one with a 5DIII, both of them with the same lens. When I pixel peep on my computer at 100% resolution, my 7D "zooms in" further, i.e. the bird appears larger. (I'm ignoring how "good" the bird looks in either shot.) In this case, the larger image of the bird on my computer monitor has nothing to do with the 1.6 crop factor; rather, it has everything to do with the increased pixel density of the 7D as compared to the 5D3.

2) Extra reach = "I'm going to frame a picture of some non-moving subject in my viewfinder exactly as I want to print it off (using the Quick Print button, of course). So, I take the photo from X feet away from the subject using the 7D, and I take a picture of the same subject with the 5D3 from X/1.6 feet away i.e. move in closer. In this case, the "extra reach" of the 7D in terms of where I need to stand to properly frame the photo has everything to do with the 1.6x crop factor of the sensor. Also in this case, I believe that the background will be more blurred with the 5D3, but I don't know if that has anything to do with sensor size or if it's just because I'm 1.6x closer to the subject with the 5D3.

3) Extra reach = "I'm going to take a picture of a shy bird, so I'll stay 40 feet away when taking the photos. I want to print an 8x10 photo with the bird being the same size in the framed picture on both photos. If the bird happens to be the right size in my frame using the 7D, I'll need to crop the photo that I take with the 5D3. The amount that I need to crop out (as a percentage) is based on the 1.6 crop factor of the sensor.

One other point for scenario 3 - if I was hoping for the same resolution in both photos, then the FF sensor would need to have 1.6 * 1.6 (i.e. 2.56x) more pixels. I don't know the numbers offhand, but if the 7D happend to have a 20 MP sensor, then a FF sensor would need to have a 51.2 MP sensor for me to crop it down to the APS-C size image and still offer the same resolution (pixel density) as the 20 MP cropped sensor.

I know that I've ignored important variables like how well I can hand-hold the camera (shaky hands will be amplified in the 7D), AF accuracy, keeper rate, lens resolving power, etc. I'm just trying to clarify how "extra reach" comes into play with APS-C cameras.

Again, corrections to my assertions are welcome, as are use cases that I missed.

Thanks

Hello, All,
I'd be interested in hearing your opinions and experiences regarding the grey market Canon cameras sold by a certain New York retailer I won't mention by name here. There's a pretty good deal available on the Canon 5D Mk III at about $2550. What are the drawbacks of going this route over a USA model? Anybody here taken advantage of this deal?

Thanks in advance for your comments.

Hi - I have 5D 3 and 7D and at the long end 70-300L. Waiting for a new 100-400L to appear but..... keep on waiting. In the meantime would the 200 2.8 L be a good addition for well lit sports stuff? Love the 135 L. Any 70-200 zoom seems like a lot of money for not much more than I have at the moment. 200 f 2 too pricey and too big. But the prime 200 on the 5D3 and the 70-300 on the 7D or various combinations look quite nice. In due course a 100-400 lens with 1.4 TC would be great but the 200 is not so pricey that other combos get ruled out for the future

thoughts?

So I've been interested in shooting the moon. So there is the context, static object, tripod, don't mind manually focusing, etc.

Unfortunately I've put my energy and efforts into what I use on a regular basis, and that is focal lengths under 100mm. Now that I am very happy with my kit in that regards, I'm looking to invest some funds on the tele end a bit. I currently own the 70-200 f/4.0L but know I want to upgrade to an f/2.8 model.

So I was wondering how well it would work to just stack a 1.4x and 2x teleconverter? It looks like I could get the Kenko Pro 300s for a little north of 300 bucks for both. So that would give me 560mm @ f/8.0. Would I be satisfied with the results? Or am I just wasting time at this point and should consider spending the $1k on the new Tamron 150-600?

Keep in mind, the 70-200 upgrade will occur. And that I don't really have a need for anything greater then 200mm as I'm not into wildlife, etc. Oh, and I shoot on a crop sensor (70D) if that makes a difference.

Thanks in advance!

Some silly o'clock shots with 6d 17/40L combo in the city of London around the River Thames aea.

Tower Hill This Morning by petach123 (Peter Tachauer), on Flickr

London...... On Reflection by petach123 (Peter Tachauer), on Flickr

Tower Bridge 190814 by petach123 (Peter Tachauer), on Flickr

Tower Bridge 190814 by petach123 (Peter Tachauer), on Flickr

PLA Building, London 190814 by petach123 (Peter Tachauer), on Flickr

PLA Building, London 190814 by petach123 (Peter Tachauer), on Flickr

The Shard 190814 by petach123 (Peter Tachauer), on Flickr

The Shard, London 190814 by petach123 (Peter Tachauer), on Flickr

The Shard, London 190814 by petach123 (Peter Tachauer), on Flickr

Question for all you BIF fans. When I was using my 7D with the 100-400 mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM, I was taking relatively great shots of the hawks that hang around in the canyon behind my house. I sold that and got the 5dMk III and I have never been able, even with cropping, to get the same quality of sharpness. I’m assuming it’s all technique but I’d like your opinions. I typically hand held the 7D at 1/1250 in good light. The hawks are usually gliding on the thermals and not fast. The 5dIII is perfect for me otherwise. The discussion about FF and crop bodies reminded me about this and why I’m bringing it up. I just saw someone else with the same sort of query. Any ideas or suggestions would be appreciated.

It took me years to buy my first dSLR, and I suspect that it will take me another bunch of years until I buy my first serious flash.
I had my first experience with a Metz "hammerhead" on a Nikon F-something back in the mid 80's, and it had a colour consistency like no other flash and it was extremely reliable. Does anyone of you have any recent experience with Metz? Quirks and oddities? Hardly known flaws and so on...