December 19, 2014, 10:14:39 AM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - bholliman

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 54
I just use my phone as a emergency option when I don't have anything better available.  Its handy at times since its always with me  but I'm always disapointed with the IQ.

Lenses / Re: Buying a EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM
« on: December 18, 2014, 08:08:02 PM »
Watch for deals on the MK II, its visibly better.

+1  The Mk2 is an incredible lens.  Well worth the money.

Lenses / Re: Buying a EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM
« on: December 18, 2014, 08:06:10 PM »
I never ownwd the Mk1, but I read there is a lot if copy variation.  I think a new 24-105L for about the same money would be a better deal if you are ok with an f/4 lens.

Lenses / Re: Review: Canon EF 24-105 f/3.5-5.6 IS STM
« on: December 17, 2014, 02:46:18 PM »

I know video is much more important these days, so STM is a nice get, but as a strictly stills shooter this trend is alarming.  The has-to-happen-eventually EF 50mm f/wehavenoidea IS that will replace the 50 f/1.4 USM had better retain USM focusing or I'll have to buy that Sigma's blasted pickle jar as my next 50.  Focusing speed is a big deal!

+1  I don't plan on ever buying an STM lens, but I certainly hope Canon doesn't expand STM application beyond entry level consumer lenses.  I'm really hoping for a EF 50mm >f/2 IS USM this year.  Surely, Canon will see the fallacy of making the next 50 a USM lens.

Lenses / Re: What would you choose to compliment a 50mm prime?
« on: December 16, 2014, 11:26:41 PM »
i voted for the 24-70 2.8 II since its such a superb lens, but later read you are planning to sell yours.

Personally, I really like having F/2.8 zooms, even with faster primes in the same focal range.  Much more flexible.

Lenses / Re: Sigma 35 Art and the USB dock - calibration tips appreciated
« on: December 16, 2014, 07:29:52 PM »
Thanks for posting this, I had the same question for the 50 Art that I rented for 8 days around Christmas.  I'll have more time to work with it however.

Lenses / Re: Buying Advice: What First Lens for a Full Frame?
« on: December 16, 2014, 06:55:19 PM »
What do you like to shoot?

The EF-24-70/4 IS is a nice lens at a reasonable price.  If your budget is higher the 24-70/2.8 II has prime quality IQ and is maybe the ultimate standard zoom available now.

Lenses / Re: Canon 35mm F2 IS image quality
« on: December 16, 2014, 02:18:52 PM »
I have both lenses, they are similar in IQ: excellent.  Did you perform AFMA on your 35/2 IS?  What specifically are you unhappy with in the images?

Lenses / Re: Review: Canon EOS 7D Mark II
« on: December 14, 2014, 08:24:32 AM »
There is much more to a photo than IQ. Many who can't afford the 1dx or longer telephotos will find 7d2 ideal for their needs. They will know it is not the very best IQ in the market, but the very best IQ that they can afford.
And MANY MANY times the 2nd best IQ is just FINE. And difference visible only to pixel peeping photographers.

+1 I fully agree.  I am often guilty of being a pixel peeper myself.  Often the subtle differences in IQ that we make such a big deal about are imperceptible to 99% of the people viewing the picture.

Lenses / Re: 24-70 2.8L mark II image quality
« on: December 13, 2014, 09:30:15 PM »
I just did a quick test shooting large jpegs with my 100L and 24-70 2.8II at 70mm, f/2.8 on a tripod.  Very close, both pretty sharp in the corners.  I might give the 100L a slight advantage, but its close. 

Lenses / Re: Help me decide: should I buy an EF 135L
« on: December 13, 2014, 08:55:15 AM »
just stumbled upon a special offer for an EF 135L (brand new) for ~710€. Regular price in my country is 900€.
I know that it is a great lens, so I am really tempted. But do I need it?
I have a 7D with a number of lenses, at least three of which would really be competing for a space in the bag with the EF 135L: 70-200 f4 IS, EF 85 1.8, and the EF 100L 2.8 Macro.
I am afraid that the 135mm FL will be a bit too long for interior shots on APS-C (I find the 100L Macro too long most of the times...)
So is it justifiable to add this lens?

I own both a 100L and 135L that I use on a 6D and would not part with either!  The 100L is great for macro and the short MFD often comes in handy.  Its IS is also very useful at times as it allows me to use a fairly show shutter speed in low light for slow moving targets.  The 135L is what I use for 70% of my non-studio portraits.  Its ability to blur out backgrounds and foregrounds with awesome bokeh make this a terrific value.  I also use the 135 for indoor sports (wrestling, volleyball and basketball when I can get fairly close to the court).  f/2 vs. f/2.8 really makes a difference in low light for sports. 

For a crop body, the 135 becomes pretty much an outdoor lens as its just too long for most indoor shots at home or studio.  For me the relative closeness of focal lengths is not a big deal, I use both lenses frequently.

I was just about to start new thread with exactly same question.

I used to have 135L when I had crop body, and it was awesome. I took so many awesome shots. I had to sell it after one drunken night I accidentally ordered 70-200 IS II, so it was either sell the 135L or sleep on couch.

Now I have FF body, and I'm really thinking I should get the 135L again. Quite often I shoot indoor sports with the 70-200 (typical settings: 1/500, 2.8, ISO6400), so I could come down one stop on ISO if I get the 135L, although I'd lose the zoom-capability.

Especially if I find good copy used, I could use it for couple months to see how I feel and if I don't like, I'm sure I'd lose less than $100 selling it again. So better option than renting IMHO. And if I like, I can keep it.

At some point I probably want also the 100L macro, but I'm not sure if I like that so 135L is first on the list.

I think the 135L is awesome on a FF body.  Since you often shoot indoor sports, I think you will find as I have that this lens rocks for that purpose, as long as you can get fairly close to the action.

Lenses / Re: Review: Canon EOS 7D Mark II
« on: December 12, 2014, 05:36:26 PM »

If your shooting with the 600 f4 I would guess you would not be using the 7D... Honestly I would rather use the 5D and crop than the 7D. The IQ will be better in most cases.

Granted, most 600/4 owners also own a 1DX or 5D3, but I imagine a good number also own or will buy a 7D2 for the added reach. 

In reach limited situations, as wildlife photographers often are, more pixels on target usually equals better IQ.

Lenses / Re: Tamron 24-70 or Sigma 24-105?
« on: December 11, 2014, 01:13:50 PM »
I've avoided Sigma lenses due to on-going auto focus issues, even with the newer Art lenses.  From the reports, Tamron has done a much better job of reverse engineering the Canon AF system and the AF with the Tamron 24-70 2.8 is pretty good.

It really comes down to the Tamron's better AF and wider aperture vs. the Sigma's extra 35mm of reach.  My choice would be the Tammy as f/2.8 give you much more options for low light and ability to blur backgrounds than a f/4 lens can.   

Lenses / Re: What prime should I get?
« on: December 07, 2014, 08:05:30 AM »
I agree with those recommending the EF 35mm f/2 IS lens.  I've owned one for four months and its become one of my favorite lenses, over several much more expensive lenses with red rings around them!

I assume you have an APS-C camera, the 35mm focal length will give you a "normal" field of view that is great for general shooting.  Long enough for upper body and wider portraits (you don't want to get too close with this or shorter focal lengths or it will distort the facial features in an unflattering way), but short enough to be very useful indoors.  The 35/2 IS is terrific optically, not quite as sharp as the Sigma 35 Aft, but very close:

Compared with the Sigma 35 Art, the Canon lens is also has image stabilization (S35A does not), much better autofocus accuracy and speed and weighs 1/2 what the Sigma does (335 grams vs. 665 grams) and is $300 cheaper.  For me the 35/2 IS was the clear choice between these two lenses, but if you really want/need f/1.4 (another full stop of light gathering) and the best image quality available in a 35mm prime, and can live with potential autofocus issues, then the Sigma would be a better choice.

All of that said, what is your budget?  The Canon 35/2 IS cost $550 to $600.  If your budget is half that, I would suggest the Canon 50mm f/1.4 instead.  Its an older lens (introduced in 1993), very small and compact (290 grams) with decent image quality.  Its autofocus is slower and less accurate than newer USM lenses, but its built better than the nifty fifty (50/1.8 )  and sharper.  At this price point you have to make some compromises.


I'm transitioning to FF across most focal lengths (will keep my EF-S 15-85mm lens though), and just ordered the 16-35mm f/4.  While I know it to be true, I keep telling myself if it's as good as the 10-22mm I'll be a happy camper.  Love that lens!

I used to own an EF-S 10-22 that I used with my T2i and 7D before I moved to FF.  I have hundreds of terrific pictures with it.  If you compare the 10-22 (on 60D) with 16-35/4 IS (on 1Ds Mkiii) its a night and day difference in favor of the newer EF lens on a full format body.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 54