Maurice, the thread on the 029 is actually thicker than the 141RC. About 10mm diameter on the 029. I can find the bolt from places like Blackwoods OK but it's just the handles that go along with it that I need as well. Don't worry about it if it's a hassle. I still can use the 141RC without any problems so it's not an issue at the moment.
Suit yourself mate but if you like I can make you or rebuild your head and handle if you like.
I was aware of the thread difference but that isn't a problem.
If you want me to rebuild it thats cool I am more than willing to do so, Fabrication and the like is my original trade as such .
Thanks for you offer. How much notice would I need if I was to go ahead. I was just thinking that if there was going to be a gathering down south that I might as well go and have a squizzy at the whole job.
I'm just having a read about the 16-35 f2,8 and the 17-40 f4. Apart from the image quality differences, how important is that 1 stop? There's very little noise between ISO 100 and 200 so why the hype? Also how much of a difference is focusing speed going to make between f2,8 and f4?
I'm just having a read about the 16-35 f2,8 and the 17-40 f4. Apart from the image quality differences, how important is that 1 stop? There's very little noise between ISO 100 and 200 so why the hype? Also how much of a difference is focusing speed going to make between f2,8 and f4?
I am no guru, but I find that I use the aperture larger than f4 quite a lot when I have a choice. I love low light and I think the 16-35 preforms well in low light
There are time when you wish for a larger aperture (that's why I bought the 28-70 2.8), and it depends on how desparate you are. I dont think you need it as your have a good 28-75 2.8...
Focus speed is the same between the two lenses - both lightning fast
28 on the 28-75 is not wide enough. It's quite a joke to try to take a whole object but be so far away. My hands aren't itchy for a 16-35 but it's just a question I've got from reading the canon section here. Of course it'd be nice in low light where some of my shots have been taken with. More often than not, I have to crank it up to 400 with the 17-40L to get any decent shutter speed with it.
I've heard that as well. The 16/17mm isn't really all that wide on 1.6x so some people like using it as their standard lens. Personally, I like going long, which is why I don't have a 16/17 zoom (yet).
The question of whether I'll buy one depends on whether I think I'll ever need it. So far the answer has been no.
oh, I've also heard that both lenses vignette noticeably wide open, but only on full frame. I don't think either vignettes on 1.6x, but maybe Zane would know.
No, my 16-35 does not vignette on my full frame EOS, even wide open at 16mm and even when I have a UV filter attached, I've got a slim 77mm CPL for it so no vignetting as well (never tried a CPL and UV stacked) ....time to go for a 1DS MkII
I had my 10-22 for about 2 weeks now, I really love it. It's contrasty, sharp and has nice bokeh (for a WA). I am feeling that it's just as sharp as the 17-40 (no direct comparison unfortunately), which is sharper than my 16-35. Not bad at low light performance with the 20D. It's just like using the 16-35 on a full frame...
It's got a 77mm filter thread, so all my filters and adaptors are useable
In relation to vignetting, with either the UV filter or my slim CPL, no vignetting at 10mm. However when I used it with Cokin P series filters, it vignettes badly as expected at 10mm. But when you zoom out to around 12 - 14, say 13, it becomes ok. So with 1.6x. it really becomes a 20-21mm lens when I use Cokin filters (just like using 16-35 on 1D2). I am thinking of getting another Cokin Adaptor and trim it down by cutting on of the filter slots so that it's an adaptor which only fits 2 filters which is 90% of the time sufficient and I can have more wide angle (but I doubt I need anything wider than 20mm for landscape - I only use Cokin grad NDs for landscape).
I will see, I am not good at doing lens tests, especially with lens chart etc. 10-22 and 16-35 are two different range, how to compare? unless I have a full frame 1DS
Why don't I shoot more and then give a more comprehensive review on the Review section here?
I am thinking of doing a sunrise this weekend, but looks like it's going to rain
For testing, I don't think we need to go to an extreme with test for pixel to pixel. It's more real life test that really makes it a good lens or not. Taking photos of walls or something static using the same settings would tell a lot.
