i just purchased a ZPro with a 82 mm adapter ring for my 16-35 mm and so far been happy with the way it fits except the vignetting at 16-20 mm.. I am thinking of returning it and get a XPro filter kit. seems crazy expensive to get the adapter and filters but question is will the XPro universal adapter ring fit any lens ?

also will the 100 * 100 filters fit the adapter ring for ZPro ?

how do you like this filter kit against the Lee filter kits ? issue is availability of Lee and hence the reason why i m looking at Cokin..

Please share any information if you have used these kits before..

TIA

with all the complains about canons 6D autofocus why is no website, that cares about canon in one way or the other, writing an open letter to canon... demanding a statement?

i mean.... dpreview wrote it´s a rather dissapointing camera and i have yet to read a preview that is not puzzled by the low-tech AF.

if we complain here in a forum .. canon cares a sh*t.

but if a popular and frequented website writes something and is not afraid to tell the truth... maybe canon will take notice and feel obligated to react?

or maybe it´s to late here and im just bored and tired.....

let's assume you have non of these or any equivalent lenses. He will give you one, but only if you give him the reason why, which one would you choose?

(Sorry got a little bored trying to make this question interesting , basically which one would you choose if you would not look at the price and not asking me what I shoot the most, just tell which one would be more handy in what situation)

Canon's been pretty quiet on this one ever since CR reported that a fix that "might not be ideal for everyone" was in the works.

This has been annoying me more and more shooting with a 1D3 as a backup - with those wonderful autodimming bright red AF points...

Trevor

Hey everyone,

I am looking for some advice on my photography work. I am still new to it all. Bought my T3i at the beginning of March. I started up a small blog just over a week ago and have been posting one photo per day on it. Please let me know what you think of my photos if you have a minute. Thanks for any advice/tips!

http://loganhickle.wordpress.com/

Hi I'm new here so sorry if this has already been discussed.. But I was wondering if the new Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 is actually available yet, and how to tell if you're ordering a new or old one? I read the thread here about the announcement and people were talking about specs for the new one, but everything I can find online seems to be selling the 2011 version and can only find specs for that. Sigma doesn't list it as a new lens like they do with the 50-150 f/2.8, so I'm just wondering about it.

Anybody has used this lens? On paper it is 1 stop faster than canon's equivalent, and on APS-C has a nice 90-95mm equivalent field of view for portraits. Any experience?

Hi! I just bought a new 24-70 last night. At 1st I was very impressed and it seemed very sharp on all apertures. However, this morning i wanted to take a closer look and Pixel peep a little. I was shocked to find that the right edge of the frame was completely blurry from top to bottom. I took a lot of test shot at various apertures and it happened all the way from 2.8 to 22 !!!!! I dont know if im overreacting or if I should return/exchange the lens. I will post the JPEG's that i converted from raw no NO ADJUSTMENTS. Can some please help me out with this. I dont think is normal or maybe im just spoiled from using primes. Look up close on the building on the right

This one is @ 2.8

EDIT: ALL GONE

They have one - you are going to pay a premium but if you are desperate

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0076BNK30/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B0076BNK30&linkCode=as2&tag=mapsdpr-20

Mine arrives today - ordered last week from PC Nation, The lovely Pearl who works in their Camera/Optics department was wonderful to work with!

I'm looking for suggestions for lens filters that don't affect the picture -- want them to protect my lens. What are your favorites?

It seems the further I delve into photography the more there is to learn, gone are the days of just Pointing and Shooting and accepting what the camera chooses...
These were the days I would look at photos taken by pros and hope that one day I could achieve similar.

Everyday I try to learn something and then attempt to put it into practice...

My latest reading is in relation to the "Zone System"...at least the simplified for digital version of it...

As much as I enjoy using this system for obtaining the correct (subjective exposure) it doesn't seem to be "everyday practical" (again subjective, as it depends on your everyday needs).
Spot Meter, choose your tone, Spot meter, choose your tone...the system seems to work best if you have the time to take numerous meter readings, to determine where your shadows and highlights will fall.
Obviously this system is dependant on choosing and knowing where your tonal values fall, and for colour, knowing which colours are Zone 5 (18%)

Then there is the ETTR school of thought, push the exposure to the right but avoid clipping the highlights (or at least the highlights that matter), this seems to be the quickest method, quick look at the preview and histogram and adjust...

Even though it seems quickest is it the best, my luminance histogram will show clipping based on the JPEG, not the raw file, so I need to know how far I can push ETTR, but this luminance histogram doesn't show the possible RGB clipping.

Questions:
1. Am I over thinking this
2. Is there a preferred method.

What got me thinking about this?....I live in a tourist town, I watch people all day everyday taking photos, from camera phones through to 1Dx, rarely do I see anyone consider composition or exposure, everything is left to AUTO mode (yes, even on some of the very high end cameras I see people use)

So I started thinking, was I better off knowing less about photography and never understanding 18% grey....or am I better off knowing more but always chasing the "Perfect exposure"...

Photography and Golf, both pursuits that drive you crazy seeking the perfect game ( I gave up golf early on, realising it would drive me mad)

Anyone know which Ultra Wide Lens is best out of this group:

Tamron 10-24mm
Sigma 10-20mm
Tokina 12-24mm

I'm thinking of getting an Ultra Wide lens. I like shooting wide for some reason, but I also would feel bad if I got an ultra wide, because I'd like to replace my kit lens too. Should I replace my kit lens with something like the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 or go wider like the Tamron 10-24mm.

200mm F2 - oh so sharp, portrait heaven

600mm F4 IS USM II - I know I'll never own this in my lifetime @ 13k but it would be incredible I'm sure for wildlife (came close with a 400mm 5.6 and a 7D = 640

TS-E 17mm - the bokeh on this lens is fantastic, presently don't own a TS-E lens but would make this a first.

Is it worth participating in photocompetitions supported from P.S.A. and FIAP for a semi-pro photographer or is just for amateurs.
Do they help you attracting more customers, or improve your image as a photographer? Defenitely they need a lot of money (the participation in each competition costs 20-70 USD) and they need a lot of preparation time.
What about other competitions lika IPA or Tpoty are they better concerning recognicion and image development?
Thank you

I like macro prhotography and until now I have some nice photos of flowers and insects that move slowly (spiders) using an 60mm canon efs macro lense. I want to go full frame so I would like to hear your suggestions. Is it worth going for the 100mm IS which is the double price from the non IS? I am also considering the 180mm but although is an L lense is not IS. Do I need IS in order to take a moving subject (i.e. a bee, a flower under wind) without a tripod with these magnifications. If so why the 180 lense is not IS and is the most expensive? Also what about image quality?
Please I would love to hear the expert advise.
Thank you

I just wanted to write a little review on this lens, comparing with past lenses and being as honest and humble as I can be about this new Canon offering... I will throw in some pictures at the end taken this weekend at the Aviary... Click on the image to view at full resolution at my Flickr page.

When announced, I was really excited... But the lack of IS was a worry, especially for the price. Once reviews start coming in (mostly LensRentals article) it got me really intrigued, to say the least. I was able to find one at PC Nation on Thursday last week in stock (no pre-order) and had it overnighted to me. I got it Friday along with all my gear back from CPS for check/clean and calibration (great timing to say the least!). In case you are wondering, I am selling off my trusty 24-105L and the 35L I had to fund this lens.

Pulling it out of the box I was surprised at the weight, or lack of. After reading so many complaints about the weight and all that of the old one, although I knew they did weight reductions, I was really shocked to feel how light it was compared to what I was expecting. It honestly feels nearly identical to the 24-105L... No longer will weight be a factor for this lens, IMO.

Build quality is excellent, as you would expect. Very smooth focus ring and a very smooth, fluid zoom ring. Very well dampened with a slightly different feel than the 24-105L. The large use of plastics does not bother me one bit and it still feels very high quality. The zoom-lock is a very nice feature for me, as I generally walk with my lenses hanging downward. It does not 'cheapen' the lens one bit. It is actually a very nice feature.

The lens simply put, performs incredible. I was really not expecting it to be as good as it is! From 24mm to 70mm wide open, the level of detail and contrast is extremely impressive. Colors are beautifully rendered requiring very minimal post work. The images taken this weekend required less than 30 seconds of edit time each. Out of focus areas are extremely smooth and pleasing, even with busy backgrounds... Unlike the 70-200 II which can get 'harsh' and busy looking at times, this lens did not show this one bit. Backgrounds really melt away at longer focal lengths and near MFD at 24mm.

Compared to the 24-105, the images simply pop more, for one. Less distortion, much less CA (if not non-existent) and vignetting. Many images taken this weekend give a near 3D look you only get with amazing detail and microcontrast. I really enjoy the 24-105L, but it does not reach the type of detail this lens can render. In fact, compared to my 70-200 II, I find the 24-70 just as good, if not superior in terms of sharpness. I think the 24-70 II and 70-200 II combo will be my workhorse combo for many years to come, no doubt.

Edge sharpness is really good... An image at f/8 below shows the entire image and extreme 100% crops (photobucket compression here may lower the resolution a little... The rest are on Flickr)... Not the best image (poor actually, but the only one I had stopped down to show!).



Right:



Left:




I also found the lens to have probably the quickest AF I have used. Regardless of the light level, it zips right into place and locks on extremely fast. Even in very dark conditions it has no problem what so ever.

Overall, I am more than impressed with this lens. Even given the steep price point given the lack of IS, I don't think I will really miss it... The image quality alone makes you forget that one downfall this lens has. The prime IQ from 24mm to 70mm wide open is stunning, the build quality is top notch and the AF speed is extremely impressive... There is nothing not to love about this lens (minus price for some). It has become my favorite lens in the very short time I have owned it. It just may top my "Canon's Best List" for those I have used, including the 35L, 85L, 135L, 300/400L and a few others. It really is that good.


6M3C0602 by invertalon, on Flickr


6M3C0625 by invertalon, on Flickr


6M3C0626 by invertalon, on Flickr


6M3C0649 by invertalon, on Flickr


6M3C0651 by invertalon, on Flickr


6M3C0672 by invertalon, on Flickr


6M3C0721 by invertalon, on Flickr


6M3C0741 by invertalon, on Flickr


6M3C0788 by invertalon, on Flickr


6M3C0799 by invertalon, on Flickr


6M3C0635 by invertalon, on Flickr


6M3C0659 by invertalon, on Flickr


6M3C0719 by invertalon, on Flickr

I am just starting to get my head around my 5D III after a 60D. I have been to a few photography courses and have LR4.1 and PSE10. I shoot raw & L JPEG. My confusion is that some recommend sRGB however other people recommend Adobe RGB. The 5D III manual recommends sRGB but the LR books are divided. I only shoot for my own enjoyment at this stage but may join a club later when I get a little better. Any thoughts very much appreciated.

Hi I am going to a wedding and want to bring my 5d3, 24-105 and 600ex only in the smallest bag possible. Any suggestions?

Having recently upgraded to a 60D, I became curious about front/back focusing after reading numerous complaints that the 60D doesn't have auto focus micro adjustment.

I haven't noticed any focusing issues with any of my lenses, but I thought it might be noticeable if tested really carefully. While I am interested in having my equipment properly dialed in, I thought that accurate tests seemed tedious. Apparently one would need to test different focal lengths, have the right measuring targets and light conditions, and what have you.

So instead I started googling reviews and other's experiences, and found lots of people testifying both front and back auto focusing with their 50D's and 7D's combined with all sorts of lenses. But even after hours of searching, to my surprise I found zero reported front/back auto focus issues with the 60D!?

So, anyone here who has experienced front or back focusing with a 60D, with whichever lens, or at least read about any such case?

I consider to buy Pixel vertax battery grip for my 5d3, and I heard that there is a battery draining issue.

Did they fix it?

If they fixed it, how I can know it? I am about to buy it from the Amazon.

Also, there is new version of Meike battery grip. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0093Y0CXE/ref=ox_sc_act_title_1?ie=UTF8&smid=A2Y9R0VEAYJBWE

Which one do you recommend?

KK.

Hey everyone,

I'm looking for a new lens for my 5D Mark II and I'm having trouble deciding. I'm in the market for both a wide angle and a telephoto, and I'm trying to figure out whether I can swing to get both or not.

My camera funds are capped at $1,400, so I have two options--get either the 70-300 IS L alone or the 70-300 IS non-L and 24-105.

I currently have the 50 1.8, 70-200 2.8 non-IS and the 2X extender. I need an IS telephoto as camera shake has always been an issue for me.

The 70-300L is really attractive to me, but price is one drawback. In addition to price, another drawback to the L series lenses for me is the filter size. In addition to photojournalism work, I enjoy aviation photography--and that entails a lot of photography through chain link fences. I've found that the 56mm filter-sized lenses fit into the openings in the links almost perfectly, but anything larger will not and results in shadows from the wires in the corners of the frame.

I was using the cheap 75-300 III lens, which I recently sold. While it sometimes made terrible images, I was able to get some great shots with it when the stars aligned. My only complaint about it was its lack of sharpness.

Any thoughts on what to do? Has anyone here ever used the 70-300 non-L IS on a 5D?

I'm not interested in the 100-400 (I've used it and wasn't impressed), and can't afford the 24-70.

Thanks!

Hello all,
I'm exploring currently for my 5D3 of using the cine or flat styles for shooting, in order to retain as much sensor information as possible for color correction/grading in post.

It occured to me that I'd not see any real discussions for stills, and I'm wondering if there are similar settings to use, or not? If not...why not for stills, but so much attention to it for video?

It seems to me, more and more, while you do indeed try to get as much as possible correct in the original exposure (exposure, composition, etc)....that pretty much everything else like color and all, is done 99% in post production.

It seems to me the same is the case for both video and stills, and I was wondering with that being the case, why there were not recommended 'flat' settings for stills...?

Thanks in advance for any explanations on this!!


cayenne