March 03, 2015, 02:55:45 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 - rmfagan

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 7
Lenses / Re: Next Lens Purchase...where is the gap in my gear?
« on: December 23, 2014, 10:07:07 AM »
My 17 TS-E is SHARP!

On the other hand I have some reservations about my 24TS-E extreme corners...  (I admit thought I do not remember if it was shifted or not)

I'll admit, I might be being unfair to the 17 TS-E. Its not like it wasn't was. Partly, I'd expected a little more, closer to the legendary sharpness of the 24 TS-E, and partly, I probably should have purchased the 24 TS-E to begin with. I found 17 was wider than I really needed, and that the effects of tilt weren't as noticeable as I'd hoped. So that's on my poor choice, and not on the lens.

Lenses / Re: Next Lens Purchase...where is the gap in my gear?
« on: December 23, 2014, 09:56:34 AM »
As already stated, when needing a big tele, I rent the 500 II, and will continue to do so until I buy one next fall. Considering most sports I shoot don't require a $10k tele, because I'm shooting hockey, basketball, and the like, then yes, I consider myself set for sports and birds.

Would the 100-400 be useful? Yes, no doubt it would. But when I shoot wildlife it is either birds (rent 500II) or large mammals (in which case the 70-200 is often sufficient, occasionally with 1.4x). I don't like the notion of giving up 2.8 as I do a lot of shooting at dusk and dawn for these animals, and can't see myself carrying both a 70-200 AND 100-400. And since 70-200 is useful for other things, I wouldn't sell it.

While I do have a lot of coverage at wide focal lengths, they are fairly task specific. The Rokinons I use almost exclusively for wide-field starscape or Milky Way photography. The 16-35 is great, no argument. As is the 24-70, though I find for my purposes, I'd simply bring the 16-35 as I prefer wider and don't often go past 35 on the 24-70 for landscape. So yes, I am limited in that the 16-35 is my "landscape lens". I was hoping to ascertain whether the 24 TS-E might be a viable candidate to augment my capabilities for that use.

Lenses / Re: Next Lens Purchase...where is the gap in my gear?
« on: December 21, 2014, 11:10:54 PM »
I'll admit the 135 is darn tempting, given it's comparative price advantage over the 85, and it's ability for indoor sports, and potentially street. No one yet seems to think my landscape capability is lacking. How are straight up comparisons between 16-35 IS vs 24 TSE, negating tilt/shift?

But then again, there's tilt and shift...

Lenses / Re: Next Lens Purchase...where is the gap in my gear?
« on: December 21, 2014, 10:47:11 PM »
Ok. Rephrased, I get it. What I suppose I should have asked is given my present gear, which lens would increase my utility the most, ignoring superteles bc I intend to buy later.

What do you want to do with your supposed new gear?

Landscape? Sport? Portait? Bird? Underwater? They are all valid 'utility' yet the gears required are vastly different.

Sport I feel I have fairly well covered, as well as bird. Portrait and landscape are areas of my kit I'd like to see improved upon.

Lenses / Re: Next Lens Purchase...where is the gap in my gear?
« on: December 21, 2014, 10:34:44 PM »
dcm- fair question. I'd appreciate the ability to create portraits that truly pop, which is what leads me to the 85L. I like narrow DOF, but mostly I love the color, contrast, and (relative) light weight and size compared to my only other portrait alternative.

With the 24TS-E, I'm curious to experiment with the darn near infinite DOF that tilt provides for landscapes, especially on my trip to Iceland in February. I could, I suppose, focus stack the 16-35. But that sharpness! And living near NYC grants extra utility to architecture shots.

I'd also entertain other options, but those are the two areas I isolated as biggest areas of need.

As far long, I'm set on the 500 II, when I get it next fall, and have and will continue to rent it until then.

Lenses / Re: Next Lens Purchase...where is the gap in my gear?
« on: December 21, 2014, 10:24:31 PM »
Ok. Rephrased, I get it. What I suppose I should have asked is given my present gear, which lens would increase my utility the most, ignoring superteles bc I intend to buy later.

Lenses / Re: Next Lens Purchase...where is the gap in my gear?
« on: December 21, 2014, 09:44:27 PM »
Thanks for the input. I'm a bit confused though by the first half of your response.

I enjoy photography, I'm not half bad, I have high expectations of my gear, I can afford to buy what I want for the most part, and I make a small bit of money on the side at it--hopefully more in the future. Is that not purpose enough?

In any case, none of my gear "just sits". I do 6 or so trips a year, and photograph locally for small businesses, and some rec leagues, as well as some portraits.

I'm certainly not a "pro" by any means, and my experience and results pale in comparison to many on this forum, hence my appeal to the collective knowledge of you and others.

Lenses / Next Lens Purchase...where is the gap in my gear?
« on: December 21, 2014, 06:13:01 PM »
Title says it all... I'm planning to purchase another lens and I wanted to get opinions on where I might gain the most.

At present:

Rokinon 14
Rokinon 24
16-35L IS
24-70L II
70-200 IS II
50 1.4
100L Macro
TC III 1.4 and 2.0
600EX-RT x 3 and SR-E3-RT

I had a 17 TS-E but sold it as I felt it lacked the sharpness I'd hoped for and while shift was great, tilt wasn't as noticeable at 17.

I recognize a gap in telephoto coverage at the long end, and debated the 500 II, but got a 1Dx instead, and will get the 500 next fall, and rent that for now when needed.

I'm most strongly considering the 85L II and the 24 TS-E. The 70-200 is great for portraits, but can be unwieldy for more intimate settings or when my primary focus is portrait. Also, 1.2 would be sweet. As for the TS-E, I love landscape, and this is bread and butter for the TS-E. I also have enjoyed playing with architecture, but mostly outdoor thus far.

Is having so much wide coverage contraindicating the TS-E? Is the 100L and 70-200 a knock on the 85? Would there be other suggestions? Basically, where does my gear stand to gain the most?

Before it's suggested, I have 2 Gitzo tripods, RRS Gimbal/Pano/Macro set ups.

I tend to agree, but I don't know enough about the physics to be certain. The reason I ask is I am torn between buying a 300 IS II  plus 7d ii or a 500 IS VER 1 for wildlife. Really tough call and this talk about only 1.2x advantage in reality is confounding.

Hello all-

I've seen several posts lately which have left me confused. My understanding of the crop factor (1.6x in Canon's case) is that FOV is decreased by 1.6x, effectively cropping the photo. It doesn't replace focal length in that you do not gain additional telephoto compression. However, this crop effect could still be useful to the focal length limited photographer (let's say 300IS II + 2x TC III as opposed to a 500 or 600 prime) because to crop a FF image in post throws out pixels, while a sensor forced crop puts relatively greater number of pixels on target (ie a 7d2 vs a 5d3).

Now I've read posts alluding to a "real" benefit of closer to 1.2x due to increased camera movement. Why? Would this camera movement not also occur at a comparable FOV on FF? Would a 300 + 1.4x not have roughly the same movement as a 400?

Thanks in advance for clearing this up.

Lenses / Re: 300 or 500I or 500II or 7D2... HELP!
« on: December 06, 2014, 03:05:07 PM »
I am indeed concerned about the IQ as compared to what I am used to from the 5D3, but I am also quite wary of bringing only one camera on these trips. Most of them are in fairly harsh elements where a failure of a body spells the end of my trip and renders a 500 II quite useless.

I have of course entertained the idea of renting a 2nd, but 6 rentals would have me at the same cost as buying something essentially.

Would it be more useful to just grab a 2nd 5D3? In that case, I'd be in either 300 II or 500 I territory, in which case I'm uncertain which is a better move. I've heard great thingsaot the 300 with TCs...enough to offset the reach off 500 native?

Lenses / 300 or 500I or 500II or 7D2... HELP!
« on: December 06, 2014, 01:55:51 PM »
Hello all-

I'm at a bit of a purchasing impasse and I'm hoping you can help. I'm looking to make a big purchase or two between now and mid-January, with a mind to use it/them on trips I have scheduled throughout the year.

 I'm photographing snowy owls in Canada in January, Iceland in February, eagles in Utah followed by mammals in Teton in March, an abandoned prison in April, Glacier NP/Yellowstone NP in June, storms in AZ in July, whales/puffins in Maine in August, and 9/11 in NYC by helicopter in September.

My current gear is Canon 5D3, 17TS-E, 16-35L 2.8, 24-70L II, 70-200L IS II, and a 50 1.8 II. I have both the 1.4 TC III and 2.0 TC III, and 3x600EX-RT, as well as the SR-E3-RT. I'm in the process of selling the 16-35 for the new 16-35L IS (I don't find myself needing 2.8).

I enjoy nature/wildlife photography, landscape, portraiture, and travel.

So with that said, I'm looking at the 300 IS II or 500 IS (ver 1) refurb or lightly used respectively, and a 7D II. I could also consider the 500 IS II if I forgo a 2nd body. I'm torn. The 300 II option would see use for more stuff, no doubt, but I feel I'd need the 7D II for reach (?). For the cost of both I could get the 500 IS II.

With either 500, it's a purely wildlife lens. With the 300 I can see portrait, some sports, even tele landscape stuff too. Of course, I'm also looking at the 85L, 135L, and 100L macro, so portrait use isn't critical.

If anyone can offer some advice, it'd be much appreciated.

Side question: I was looking at MTF charts. Is 16-35L IS looking sharper than 24TSE? I'm no good at those charts.

Technical Support / Re: DIY. How to shoot the bird from the car.
« on: November 09, 2014, 03:28:07 PM »
Great post Surapon! Bonus point for making me laugh. Almost spit out my lunch when I saw this title! Thought this tutorial was gonna look a bit more like...

Canon General / Re: Slick City Kit?
« on: October 27, 2014, 04:25:35 PM »
I'll certainly look. Anyone have feedback on the rest of the kit? Solid choices? Swap 135 for 85? Bring flash? Is a nodal slide needed/worthwhile for the TSE? Would I be better off leaving the 24-70 at home and grabbing a prime?

I suppose a better question would be: What is the perfect kit for shooting architecture, people, cityscapes, night and the like that I might encounter in NYC (or Paris, Rome, Bucharest, etc) that is easy to carry and includes a light tripod? If you were doing it, with a 5D3, what would you bring if you could use anything?

Canon General / Re: Slick City Kit?
« on: October 27, 2014, 02:21:19 PM »
The incase bags look intriguing. I wish there were more photos of DSLR gear loaded in them, and that they provided an illustration of the tripod attachment.

My true wish would be if Ona would incorporate loops on the bottom of their fantastic leather bags for lashing a tripod, but alas it does not appear they do. I wonder, could a leather shop attach d-rings or loops, and whether the ransom for such a service would rival the already lofty prices of the bags themselves.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 7