News For camera nerds only

[old.user4556]

The build quality improvement from xxxD to xxD then xD really is enormous. It's good that there are multiple price / entry points.

 

[old.user4556]

Auction about to end! Tempted!

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Canon-TS-...ters_Lenses&hash=item3cc60d42d9#ht_500wt_1413

 

[Wazzerphuk]

Did you? I clicked the link as it ended.

 

[old.user4556]

Nah, went for a good price, £400 saving over Digital Rev's price brand new.

That would have been a 5D Mk2 and 24mm TS-E II for about £2400 all in if I had pushed the "fuck it" button.

 

[Wazzerphuk]

Where's the Coward button in the bottom right of your post? :/

 

[Wazzerphuk]

Woot the exact panel I wanted was still off at Bank this morning, might go back during lunch/quieter hours and find more while they're still exposed.

Thank fuck for the decent high ISO performance as the light in the underground without a tripod is quite paltry.

 

[old.user4556]

Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 is now discontinued. WEX, park cameras and Jessops showing no stock.

I'm a bit pissed because I'll be fucked if I'm paying £2200 for the replacement. I did consider selling my 17-55mm f/2.8 and "trading up" in advance of a potential 5D Mk2 purchase, but that's not likely unless I get a second hand one.

Oh well.

 

[milou]

The new Canon prices are comedy. Pretty much the same with other stockists: http://camerapricebuster.com/Canon_EF_24-70mm_f2.8L_USM_pc.html

I bought my 70-200 from OneStop and even they are showing out of stock: http://www.onestop-digital.com/index.php?dispatch=products.view&product_id=33307

24-70 for £750: http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=408498 (bought from Jessops Feb 2011).

 

[old.user4556]

I was playing fantasy full-frame today, and I think I know what lenses would be the ones for me.

Requirements:

- need an ultra wide angle f/2.8 for milkyway shots
- need an ultra wide angle zoom for landscapes (something in the 20mm to 30mm range)
- need a walk about lens that will also do for landscapes in the 34mm range, but also for general holiday snaps

I've decided a 16-35mm f/2.8 II L would be the lens for me as it ticks two of the above boxes and it's very cost effective given it's "around f/8 landscape aperture" performance. Here as some comparisons:

16-35 II L @ 20mm against Zeiss 21mm @ 21mm, both f/11 - pretty damn close to the Zeiss (bit of a yard stick for a wide angle lens), aberrations very well controlled, sharp into the corners on full frame

16-35 II L @ 24mm against Canon 24mm L f/1.4 II, both f/11 - absolutely nothing to separate them, infact it looks like the 16-35mm has marginally better aberration control in the corners

16-35 II L @ 24mm against Canon 24mm L f/3.5 TS-E II, both f/11 - without a doubt the best wide angle prime on the planet, so it's naturally sharper across the frame but the 16-35mm is not far away at all in the corners

16-35 II L @20mm against Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8, both f/11 - a very highly regarded Nikkor, great sharpness, one of best Nikkors available. Perhaps more aberration on the Nikkor, but a very small shade sharper in the corner but given this is taken on a D3X then it's hard to tell given the image is larger.

16-35 IIL @20mm against Nikon 17-35 f/2.8, both f/11 - that Nikon is shite

Then there is the 24-105L:

24-105 L @ 35mm against Canon 35mm f/1.4 - very little between them, the prime being a touch better.

So, a lot of performance out of only two lenses. Ultimately the primes are a bit better in the corners, but they're also significantly more expensive to buy and a lot less flexible being a fixed focal length. Ideally I'd have preferred the 24-70mm f/2.8 but in all honesty I rarely use my 17-55mm f/2.8 at that wide an aperture.

 

[Wazzerphuk]

I'm deffo getting 24-70 mkII. Fuck it. PRIME.

 

[old.user4556]

Too expensive. I'm not spending that on a lens. If I was a professional selling a lot of work, then I might do, but even then.

 

[Wazzerphuk]

Meh, it's pretty much all I'll need tbh so I can't really see myself getting more lenses after it. PRIME.

 

[caLLous]

NOT A PRIME.

 

[Clown]

Pancake. http://www.petapixel.com/2012/05/22/canon-going-the-way-of-the-pancake-40mm-f2-8-coming-in-june/

 

[Wazzerphuk]

Pretty much every shot I've taken so far with the 5dmkIII with AWB has been almost spot on when I come to PP it. Very minor adjustments, doesn't seem to get the type wrong, although I haven't tried all scenarios yet. Suspect it might stuggle more with daylight/cloudy but otherwise it seems bloomin' clever.

 

[old.user4556]

Aye, AWB on the xD is very accurate, although I find it too warm for my taste under tungsten.

 

[Wazzerphuk]

Yep I agree it's very slightly warm but a lot of the time I like that in Tungsten lighting.

Those panels at Bank station are covered now. Looks like I snapped them just in time \o/

 

[old.user4556]

Quoting so you get an alert

Sell the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 for an EF 24-105 f/4? What do you think?

Reasons:

- primarily, anticipating a move to full-frame eventually
- it's L glass, seems to yield very similar results as the 24-70mm and I won't lose quality from the 17-55mm
- it's lighter than than the 24-70mm and has image stabilisation
- it's weather sealed (the 17-55 is not)
- trading wideness for length (I have the 15-85mm as backup)

Ya think?

 

[milou]

The 24-105 is very capable. Good range (there is extension when zoomed). Excellent copies around second hand.

 

[caLLous]

I have no experience with the 24-105 but on paper (and in reviews) it looks excellent. I don't know if I would rather have it or the 17-55 if I was on a crop but if I was sure I was going up to FF then I would definitely look into it. I rarely use the 17-55 wide open so I don't know that I'd miss that extra stop either. I think the length is a definite plus with the 24-105, I currently don't have anything between 55mm and 70mm and that nice bit of overlap with the 70-200 would make it a very flexible solution overall.

 

[milou]

My friend Russ - http://definedlight.com/ - uses his a lot. I've had a go a couple of time and if I didn't have lenses that cover the range, I'd probably acquire one.

 

[old.user4556]

Thanks gents, I'll take a look into a possible ebay this week.

 

[old.user4556]

What the fuck is with Flickr, this new "larger photo on the main page" seems to render the image softer, it looks like it's resized or blown up a lower res image. It looks shite.

 

[milou]

It resizes according to the viewer's browser >> http://blog.flickr.net/en/2012/05/15/big-big-bigger-photos-on-the-photo-page/ See the 22 May edit >> http://www.flickr.com/help/forum/en-us/72157629743256454/

But yes, it's pretty bad. View in the lightbox to see a non-Flickr blurred version.

 

[old.user4556]

Oh by the way, this:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/milouvision/7269262764/in/contacts/

Jesus lord, that's a bloody awesome photograph mate. Glad you got the conditions, I am so "hnnnngggggg!" about my Skye trip being 90% rain.

 

[TdC]

awesome pic Milou

 

[old.user4556]

Fantasy full-frame:

Nikon D800 with Carl Zeiss 21mm f/2.8? Landscaper's dream?

BOOM.

 

[milou]

awesome pic Milou

Cheers.

 

[milou]

Fantasy full-frame:

Nikon D800 with Carl Zeiss 21mm f/2.8? Landscaper's dream?

BOOM.

Sounds excellent. I looked at the 21mm for soooo long. This might be going cheap >> http://www.alamy.com/forums/default.aspx?g=posts&t=13069

 

[Wazzerphuk]

How much?!