1
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: To anyone waiting for a new 100-400L...
« on: February 18, 2013, 06:23:01 PM »
The A58 looks nice, too. 20MP and 8 fps for $600...
May 22, 2013, 04:21:49 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.
2
Lenses / Re: 70-200 f2.8II + 2xIII on 7D vs 300 f4 + 2xIII on 5D3
« on: February 11, 2013, 08:30:14 PM »
The next logical step beyond the 70-200 II + 2x or 300mm f/4 + 1.4x or 100-400, is the 300mm f/2.8 + 2x. But that's over $7k. Or you can wait for the 200-400.
3
EOS Bodies / Re: Camera (Body Only) or Camera with Bundle Kit
« on: January 03, 2013, 09:54:20 PM »
+1 on visiting http://strobist.blogspot.com, specifically read the "Lighting 101" article.
+1 on the 50mm f/1.8 and 85mm f/1.8. But I wouldn't bother with the EF-S 18-55mm lens. Instead, get the EF-S 15-85mm or the EF-S 18-135mm STM for better image quality (and video, if you get the T4i and the STM lens).
+1 on the Canon 430 EX II flash.
+1 on the 50mm f/1.8 and 85mm f/1.8. But I wouldn't bother with the EF-S 18-55mm lens. Instead, get the EF-S 15-85mm or the EF-S 18-135mm STM for better image quality (and video, if you get the T4i and the STM lens).
+1 on the Canon 430 EX II flash.
4
Lenses / Re: Selling 70-300 IS - Suggest Replacement?
« on: December 21, 2012, 08:21:38 PM »
If you want to go beyond 300mm, then sell not just the 70-300mm IS but also the 70-200mm f/4L IS, and get the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II + 2x TC. Then you'll have the best of all worlds: 70-200mm at f/2.8, 98-280mm at f/4 (with your Tamron 1.4x TC), and 140-400mm at f/5.6 (with the 2x TC).
5
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8L Non-IS to Be Discontinued in 2013 [CR2]
« on: December 17, 2012, 05:35:45 PM »
I'm not surprised. An updated version of this lens would cost around $1600-1700. If you're paying that much, you might spend the extra few hundred for image stabilization.
6
Lenses / Re: Which lenses will match a 40+MP camera?
« on: December 13, 2012, 04:31:00 PM »...the center of the image is where you need the most resolution anyway, especially when you're using wider apertures.It is okay for portrait, but not for landscape, city scape or interior of buildings.
Why would you be shooting those wide open?
7
Lenses / Re: Which lenses will match a 40+MP camera?
« on: December 13, 2012, 03:33:28 PM »All lenses have better resolution in the center area of the image.
Which is fine because the center of the image is where you need the most resolution anyway, especially when you're using wider apertures.
8
Lenses / Re: Which lenses will match a 40+MP camera?
« on: December 13, 2012, 02:41:26 PM »
46MP on a 36x24mm sensor has close to the same pixel density as 18MP on an APS-C sensor. So you can test your lenses now. My 85mm f/1.8 stopped down just barely outresolves my 550D's 18MP in the center of the frame.
9
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 50 f/1.4 IS in 2013 [CR2]
« on: December 13, 2012, 12:23:38 AM »
A Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 IS USM, with ring USM, 9 aperture blades, sharpness exceeding the 24-70 II, and build quality equal to the 85mm f/1.8, would be awesome. The f/1.4 would suddenly become a niche item.
10
Lenses / Re: Lenses for Interviewing Suggestions
« on: December 11, 2012, 07:35:37 PM »
Just the 24-70 II, because it's at least as sharp as everything else you listed.
11
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x TC Information
« on: December 03, 2012, 07:40:45 PM »Am one who's still hoping for a replacement for the 100-400 L that's a bit sharper, better IS(a given) and lighter weight(I doubt it).
To avoid cannibalizing sales of the 200-400 lens, maybe they will announce a new 100-400 after sales of the 200-400 start to dwindle.
12
Lenses / Re: standard zoom upgrade
« on: November 27, 2012, 04:42:04 PM »
There's no doubt that the 100L will give you better quality than the 15-85, or any zoom. So one strategy is to collect a set of prime lenses.
But what I'm wondering is why you find you get fewer keepers with the 15-85 than the 100mm. The 15-85mm is still a great lens, if you don't mind allowing the ISO speed to rise as necessary in order to obtain an appropriate shutter speed, and if you use something like Lightroom to apply lens corrections.
But what I'm wondering is why you find you get fewer keepers with the 15-85 than the 100mm. The 15-85mm is still a great lens, if you don't mind allowing the ISO speed to rise as necessary in order to obtain an appropriate shutter speed, and if you use something like Lightroom to apply lens corrections.
13
Lenses / Re: Don't want to make a rookie mistake
« on: November 27, 2012, 12:00:15 PM »100L would be the way to go considering his budget
The 135mm f/2L will give him more pixels on the subject than the 100mm f/2L at the same aperture, so it depends on which focal length he finds more useful.
The 70-200 f4L is a very good lens and will provide much improved clarity and sharpness and speed over the 55-250 (especially at the long end).
The 70-200mm f/4L IS is even better, even if you don't use image stabilization.
14
EOS Bodies / Re: First Round of EOS 7D Mark II Specs [CR1]
« on: November 26, 2012, 05:27:17 PM »
Maybe the 7DII will have the rumored new revolutionary sensor with better high-ISO performance and more dynamic range than its predecessors and anything else on the market.
15
Lenses / Re: Don't want to make a rookie mistake
« on: November 26, 2012, 04:53:37 PM »
If you can afford $1,600, I'd get a refurbished 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM. While it won't stop action as well as the 135mm f/2 lens except at 190-200mm, it's much more versatile and almost as sharp. Also consider the 100-400mm ($1,087) and the 300mm f/4L ($927) lenses, if reach and/or price is more important to you than aperture.
The next step up from these lenses is the 200mm f/2L lens ($6,000).
The next step up from these lenses is the 200mm f/2L lens ($6,000).