Wake 101
Home   Articles   Pics/Video   Gear   Wake 101   Events   Community   Forums   Classifieds   Contests   Shop   Search
WakeWorld Home
Email Password
Go Back   WakeWorld > Video and Photography

Thread Tools Display Modes
Old     (richd)      Join Date: Oct 2003       03-18-2007, 8:40 AM Reply   
After reading all the glowing reports about this new lens I really started wanting it. I owned the regular f4 version in the past as well as the f2.8L. The f2.8L I had was a good lens but I was never that impressed with the f4L. I guess I didn't have the best copy of that one as this lens is crazy sharp compared to it.

That being said I'm getting a little tired of the XTi, it constantly underexposes, it's noisey even at ISO400 and focus is just hit and miss. Maybe it's operator error but I've shot enough with the other Canon bodies I've owned to know how to avoid those issues.

Anyhow here are some shots from the f4 IS taken at full zoom with a Kenko 1.4X TC on board. This thing works as good with a TC as without. (like the 300 f2.8L IS). This lens is as sharp at f4 as it is at f8 - good job Canon!

Old     (lka__supra24ssv)      Join Date: Jan 2007       03-19-2007, 3:51 AM Reply   
Very nice pictures.

I am placing my order today for my camera. I started to place it on Friday, but they asked if I need filters. I am going with the Tamron 18-250 Lens, so I can learn a little about shooting. Do you think I need a filter and if so what type?
Old     (wakeboardertj)      Join Date: May 2005       03-19-2007, 10:10 AM Reply   
just get a uv filter for the purpose of protecting the lens.
Old     (richd)      Join Date: Oct 2003       03-19-2007, 11:24 AM Reply   
Get a decent multi coated UV either Hoya or B&W. The cheaper ones can mess your images up and in ways hard to detect.
Old     (deuce)      Join Date: Mar 2002       03-19-2007, 11:37 AM Reply   
What are you protecting the lens from with a UV filter?

Sorry for the ignorant question.......
Old     (swami)      Join Date: Apr 2006       03-19-2007, 11:38 AM Reply   
From scratch gremlins. :-P
Old     (swami)      Join Date: Apr 2006       03-19-2007, 11:43 AM Reply   
Rich, how does single coat UV filter differ from multi coat? The price diff for 77mm filters is about $20-$30. I actually saw a UV filter for $110 at the local camera store and was wondering what could possibly make a UV filter worth $110?

Old     (richd)      Join Date: Oct 2003       03-19-2007, 6:19 PM Reply   
Multi coat means you shouldn't get any inner reflections off the filter or lens/filter combo. Weird flare can rear it's "ugly head" so to speak at different times. I like the Hoya SMC's myself, not that expensive if you get them off ebay. When you spend a grand on a lens it doesn't make sense to stick a $10 piece of glass in front of it.

If I'm shooting something where I'm looking for the best quality I'll take the filter off and put it back on when I'm done.

Supposedly the front element is replaceable on L lenses and is there for replacement as much as anything else but obviously a filter is cheaper.
Old     (Walt)      Join Date: Jan 2003       03-19-2007, 6:53 PM Reply   
How are reducing the size of your shots ? The reason I ask is I see some strange artifacts in both shots.
Old     (Walt)      Join Date: Jan 2003       03-19-2007, 6:56 PM Reply   
There's banding in the sky gradation too.
Old     (peter_c)      Join Date: Sep 2001       03-19-2007, 8:40 PM Reply   
The filter is only on for lens protection. Digital cameras do not need a UV filter, and will actually take away available light from the sensor. A multi coating is mandatory on the filter. The lens is multi-coated to reduce glare etc, so anything less is going to detract from the quality of the lens.

Personally I use B + W 007's.

Edit: Some filters do have a place, by changing light colors etc. or using something like a polarizer. If you have two sizes of lenses, but your special filters in the larger size and use an adapter.

(Message edited by Peter_C on March 19, 2007)
Old     (scott_a)      Join Date: Dec 2002       03-19-2007, 9:28 PM Reply   
"Digital cameras do not need a UV filter"

Where are you getting your info from? Is it the same place that told you that IS will degrade image quality?
Old     (richd)      Join Date: Oct 2003       03-19-2007, 10:11 PM Reply   
I don't think you lose enough light with a UV to be concerned with but I know you lose a stop with ND's or a polarizer.

As Walt pointed out I pushed the compression a little too hard given the 150kb limit and all of a sudden the image goes to hell but hopefuly you can see the detail the f4 IS is capable of.
Old     (scott_a)      Join Date: Dec 2002       03-19-2007, 10:36 PM Reply   
rich- maybe next time post 100% crop of one of the corners (like the dock at lower right of the pic w/ the house) to show the sharpness at the corner along with the crappy resized version?
Old     (peter_c)      Join Date: Sep 2001       03-19-2007, 10:48 PM Reply   
Scott, why does a digi need a UV filter?

FWIW I tend to fact check things from more than one source, and much of the info comes from, along with a host of other places...including books.

Edit: I ask the first question seriously, because if there is more information please share.

(Message edited by Peter_C on March 19, 2007)
Old     (richd)      Join Date: Oct 2003       03-20-2007, 5:59 AM Reply   
Good idea Scott, here is a 100% crop with the default sharpening in aperture. You can just see the gaps in the decking on the dock ramp. Remember with the 1.4X TC and 1.6 crop this is equiv of 450mm on a 5D or your 1D2.Upload
Old     (swami)      Join Date: Apr 2006       03-20-2007, 8:18 AM Reply   
Hey Scott, I actually am experimenting with the IS off on my 70-200.. it just feels like since I've started using it, many of my shots aren't quite as sharp as they should be. I'm also going to try a different UV filter as well, and maybe a few with it off.

This past weekend the water was a bit rough and IS wasn't doing me any good anyhow. LOL
Old     (richd)      Join Date: Oct 2003       03-20-2007, 10:34 AM Reply   
I'd be real surprised if it was the IS, if you're getting some really good shots and some not it's probably AF.
Old     (swami)      Join Date: Apr 2006       03-20-2007, 10:42 AM Reply   
Oh I have plenty that are AF.. I've been enjoying the joy of AI Servo. :-P however, the locked on shots, that I know *should* be in focus are soft.. and I have the parameter sharpness a notch below max in the parameters (and also have noticed this in RAW as well)

I could be WAY off base, but I'm shooting several thousand shots and it's just a gut feeling that maybe it's the IS.... anyhow, after a few thousand shots more I'll have more info.

It also could be my single coat UV too...
Old     (richd)      Join Date: Oct 2003       03-20-2007, 11:55 AM Reply   
Which 70-200?
Old     (swami)      Join Date: Apr 2006       03-20-2007, 12:53 PM Reply   
the 70-200 2.8L IS.

IS=image shakey! LOL jk, I use it for weddings just fine though. :-)
Old     (clubmyke)      Join Date: Aug 2004       03-20-2007, 3:35 PM Reply   

i ran into the same exact problems with the xti (the focus was a big issue on action was fine on non moving objects but really bad on anything moving)..

btw, what are your thoughts on the 70-200 f2.8 non IS ? i am really looking hard at that lense..
Old     (lka__supra24ssv)      Join Date: Jan 2007       03-20-2007, 5:09 PM Reply   
I have not ordered the XTI yet as I was at working again late. Now you guys have me wondering if I should get something different with the underexposing issues, but since this is my first SLR I probably would not know the difference.
Old     (richd)      Join Date: Oct 2003       03-20-2007, 6:14 PM Reply   
I'm a big fan of IS although good technique can neutralize some of it's advantages at high tele factors.

Here is my new deck duck, shot at 200mm 1/50th. I would have had a hard time handholding the lens at that shutterspeed personally.

The f2.8L I had was better then the regular f4L I had (I think I got a bad one of those) and this new f4L IS is better then either of them.

Swami maybe you should send it into Canon. When Buffalow got his 1D2 he had both his 70-200 f2.8L IS's recalibrated, said he couldn't get a sharp picure for the life of him until Canon tweaked them.

CW you were right when you talked in that earlier thread about problems with the XTi, I'm starting to see them now, not that it's a useless body, it's very good given it's price. But coming from 1D, 5D and 20D it's limitations are starting to bother me. (actually I just needed an excuse to order a 1D3 and the XTi gave it to me, real or imaginary! hahahah).

I just automatically dial up +2/3rds of a stop of EC now as it underexposes everything. I thought maybe it was my non Canon glass but the 70-200 has the same problem. The shot above only had +1/3rd, shouldn't have needed any EC and has more noise then I ever saw with the 5D.

(Message edited by richd on March 20, 2007)
Old     (swami)      Join Date: Apr 2006       03-20-2007, 8:35 PM Reply   
Good idea Rich! I just sent in my 24-70L 2.8 because the focus was WAAAAY off. They fixed that, it's better now.

Regardless, the 70-200L F2.8 IS is my favorite lens to use. I've gotten many awesome shots with it. The shot in the last issue of WBM of Ruck at Surf Expo (on the Roam) shot with the 70-200 with AI Servo autofocus.

It's an awesome lens.. at weddings it's even more awesome.

Old     (clubmyke)      Join Date: Aug 2004       03-20-2007, 8:47 PM Reply   
thanks for the info..much appreciated.

lka- i would hold out out for a 30d with canon rebates...way better than the xti..
Old     (swami)      Join Date: Apr 2006       03-21-2007, 12:28 PM Reply   
Canon prices are coming down. 20Ds are getting sub 900 and the 30Ds are getting round $1000. I bet when the MkIII hits the shelves, prices will be coming down more.
Old     (clubmyke)      Join Date: Aug 2004       03-21-2007, 3:55 PM Reply   
i got my 30d with double canon rebate for $850 from b&h...
Old     (lka__supra24ssv)      Join Date: Jan 2007       03-21-2007, 4:34 PM Reply   
I talked with a rep from Cannon and he said there were some underexposing issues, but they have been fixed. I went ahead and purchased the XTI.

If you are having problems with the XTI, send it in for an update.
Old     (cmawsr)      Join Date: Nov 2002       03-21-2007, 8:23 PM Reply   
"Digital cameras do not need a UV filter"
I don't know how much truth there is to this, but I see it all over the internet. I personally dont use them, as I don't feel I need to spend good money on something I have no use for. In 15 years I have never damaged any lens or anything photo related. I'm very careful with my equipment.


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 6:51 PM.

Home   Articles   Pics/Video   Gear   Wake 101   Events   Community   Forums   Classifieds   Contests   Shop   Search
Wake World Home


© 2016 eWake, Inc.    
Advertise    |    Contact    |    Terms of Use    |    Privacy Policy    |    Report Abuse    |    Conduct    |    About Us