August 01, 2014, 09:18:50 PM

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 - cdang

Pages: [1] 2 3
1
Wow F1.8 with OS ? Just imagine what you could do with this at a wedding at a low light reception.
Get lots of blurry and/or OOF shots?
Quote
With the sigma and OS, assuming you have a few stops of OS, you could easily be shooting at 1/30 ish providing the subject is stationary. That could easily be 2 stop of noise. I have both the 135 F2 and 200 F2 and with the 200 and IS you can easily shoot 1/30 or 1/50 all night long
When are humans ever stationary enough to shoot at 1/30, especially at a wedding reception????
[/quote

Yes 1/30 is pushing it but I usually shoot at 1/50 mostly. If they are dancing now that's obviously going to need a little faster SS.

2

Sorry, how are this calculations done? To me, I agree, it's a little brother to a 200 f/2 - if it's sharp enough for the cropping.
[/quote]

Sorry it's late and I just assume everyone knows what I'm thinking..

For example, if you were to use the Canon 135 F2 at a low light reception/wedding, and following the rule of 1/shutter speed, 1/125 to avoid camera shake. So say its dark enough for it to be F2, 1/125, ISO 6400 but with OS (stabilization) and assuming we get a few stops of it, you could be shooting at F2, 1/30 ISO 1600 instead provided the subject is quite stationary. So you could get shots the Canon cannot get.

I said a 'mini' 200mm F2 because if you had the 200mm F2.8 at a dark reception, at 1/200, F2.8, ISO 12800.. but with the F2 having IS and an extra stop of light, you could be shooting at 1/50, F2, ISO 1600 instead.

3
I have both the 135 F2 and 200 F2 and with the 200 and IS you can easily shoot 1/30 or 1/50 all night long and if Sigma can do this, it would be like a mini 200mm F2 (and probably a lot lighter).

Actually, it'd be a mini 200mm f/2.8.

135 / 1.8 = 75
200 / 2.8 = 71
200 / 2.0 = 100

A mini 200mm f/2 would be a 135 f/1.4. And that would not at all be small, lightweight, cheap, or discreet. Imagine the bastard love child of an 85 L and a 200 f/2.

But this rumored lens, if it becomes real, would still quite impressive nonetheless.

b&

What I meant by 'mini' is the 200mm f2 smaller brother. Going to weddings and shooting a 135mm at 1/50 SS could save you a couple stops of noise. From your example, the 85 / 1.2 = 70 could be the smaller brother to the 200mm f2.8 ?

4
Wow F1.8 with OS ? Just imagine what you could do with this at a wedding at a low light reception. With the 135L, you would be shooting at 1/125 to avoid camera shake. With the sigma and OS, assuming you have a few stops of OS, you could easily be shooting at 1/30 ish providing the subject is stationary. That could easily be 2 stop of noise. I have both the 135 F2 and 200 F2 and with the 200 and IS you can easily shoot 1/30 or 1/50 all night long and if Sigma can do this, it would be like a mini 200mm F2 (and probably a lot lighter). If it's as sharp as the 135, this could be very interesting indeed !

5
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 200 f/2L IS & EF 800 f/5.6L IS [CR2]
« on: March 13, 2013, 10:55:37 AM »
The 200 f2L IS is definitely coming.. Since I just bought it.

6
Lenses / Re: 5D3 + 50 F1.2 L
« on: February 23, 2013, 12:34:49 AM »
Have you tried sending it to canon yet ? I seem to have the same problem with all my fast prime lenses though not as bad as the 50L. It exhibits similar behaviour with my 85L and 200L. I think I will send the camera and lenses to canon and keep my fingers cross.

7
EOS Bodies / Re: 6D Top Focus Point Light Bleeding Issue
« on: February 05, 2013, 08:57:14 AM »
I remember my 5D2 did it too.

8
Lenses / Re: Help me choose between the two: 70-200 f2.8 IS or 17 TS-E?
« on: February 01, 2013, 08:59:09 AM »
I had to make that choice a while ago. I decided to go with the 17mm tse. It is such an awesome lens and fun to use.

9
PowerShot / Re: Canon Announces The PowerShot N
« on: January 08, 2013, 05:27:38 AM »
I know I would probably never buy this camera but then this camera is not aimed at the likes of me but more for people like my fiance and her friends. They don't care for the IQ or noise level or full frame sensor, they want photos of friends they can edit and make it 'funny' to upload on facebook. For every friend I have that has an DSLR, I bet I will know five others with the N.

10
Lenses / Re: 5D3 + 50 F1.2 L
« on: December 30, 2012, 05:19:30 AM »

I had the exact same experience with that combo. Only the centre points nailed focus every time. Ran it through Reikan Focal and manually made sure with the Sypder Lenscal and it was perfect with the middle points. But as you go to use the outer points, it's badly OOF. I got so fed up I was shooting F2.8 and smaller every time I used the outer points. In the end, I just got rid of it. Weird because my 50 1.4 was perfect. I hear someone mentioned field curvature but I don't know if it was this lens they were referring to.

11
Does this item not ship out of the U.S ?

12
Lenses / Re: 1Dx or lenses
« on: November 22, 2012, 09:33:26 PM »
I have similar lenses to you plus a 5D3 and had a decision to either get the 1dx or a 200L F2. It was driving me nuts, but in the end I got the lens. I think you will be happy either way.

13
Lenses / Re: Have $2200 budget which lens(es) to get next?
« on: November 22, 2012, 05:53:50 AM »
70-200 2.8 IS

I don't get why people are afraid of the weight. I carry the 200 F2 around all day and I'm not a big guy (65 kg, 140 pounds?). I own both and the versatility of the 70-200 is awesome for weddings. And if you have the 135 + 70-200 F4 in your bag, then it's the same weight as the 2.8 but you don't have to change lenses.

14
When I'm talking to my photog buddies, I don't even say 'f'.. So 1 point 2, 2 point 8 etc.

15
4x the price does not mean 4x the camera. Im a bit of an audiophile having headphones ranging from $300 to $1400. Is the $1400 headphone 4x better sounding than the $300 ? More like 20% max. Obviously they're many features in a camera. That being said, the mark III is a joy to use. My mark II has become a very expensive lens holder.

My 2 cents. :)

Once you go FF, you'd never go back.

Pages: [1] 2 3