Messages

1

Lenses / Re: 24-70 f/4L IS vs 24-105L

« on: Today at 01:51:53 PM »

Just got my 24-105L today, had a little play about with it. Too early to tell but I reckon it will make a fine addition to my collection!

Thanks again!

 

YES! It is a fine addition.

2

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 28mm F/2.8 IS USM $399 from Adorama !!

« on: Today at 12:16:53 PM »

If only it didn't have the silly IS...

I still want a fast, sturdy, high optical quality 28mm lens at some point.

Here you go. Problem solved. 

And a cheaper solution follows:     

Funny. Thing is that my "problem" would more be solved by this:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/655186-REG/Zeiss_1762_849_28mm_f_2_0_Distagon_T.html

And that I wish Canon had some kind of equivalent for that.

I agree. I have the Zeiss 21mm f/2.8 ZE

I would like to have the Zeiss 25mm f/2 ZE for landscape astrophotography but it's too much...

3

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 2nd Body - your thoughts?

« on: Today at 12:01:15 PM »

Thanks everyone. After a well rested night, I decided to pick 5D III as my second body

Just ordered a 5D III as 2nd body through Crutchfield...it will arrive this coming Thursday. Thanks everyone.

No more purchases for 2013....I think I'm DONE

Let me know if you fall out of love with that 85mm... it is  on my to do list  because of that stupid picture of a chair.

? ? ?

4

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 2nd Body - your thoughts?

« on: Today at 12:00:20 PM »

No more purchases for 2013....I think I'm DONE

OMG! I'm shocked

 

It's only June, plenty of time to realise he's spoken in error.

   
It's not over till it's over (Dec 31st 23:59:59)

5

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 28mm F/2.8 IS USM $399 from Adorama !!

« on: Today at 11:37:30 AM »

If only it didn't have the silly IS...

I still want a fast, sturdy, high optical quality 28mm lens at some point.

Here you go. Problem solved. 

And a cheaper solution follows:     

6

Lenses / Re: What is the next Canon lens you want or covet and why...

« on: June 16, 2013, 07:39:27 AM »

The 500mm f/4L IS II.

Up to now I have the 300mm f/4L (non-IS) and 100-400L

300mm f/4L non-IS with 1.4 is superb (better that 100-400 at even more stopped down aperture!)
However I do not like it with my 2X II.

I have not used yet 100-400 with the 1.4X II but it can't be that great and  I am afraid for flare (when I shoot sunsets).

I am thinking also of a 400mm 5.6L that it will be decent with the 1.4X and will get me to 560mm f/8.

But in that case I will have both 100-400 and 400 5.6 which is a little too much considering how old they are.

Next experiment: 100-400 with 1.4X... (Until I get a 500mm)

7

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 1DX and 5D3 RAW files

« on: June 16, 2013, 07:32:20 AM »

1DsIII and 1Dx is just better sensor than 5D II and III
the 5D had the closest looking IQ 200-400iso daylight/strobe to 1D series...

Since a picture is worth a thousand words do you have example pictures for all that?

8

Reviews / Re: Can we have a 16-35 2.8L II review next please?

« on: June 16, 2013, 07:29:45 AM »

In my opinion we need a fast replacement for the 17-40L and 16-35 II L with an image quality like the 24-70 II L.

And that would be 12(14)-24 f/2.8?

Replacement of 16-35 II L = 16-35 III L
12(14)-24 f/2.8 = new lens (welcome of course but still new lens, not a replacement)

Some people replace their 16-35 2.8 II with a 12(14)-24 f/2.8. For them, that's a replacement     

For them anything can be a replacement like a fixed wide angle lens 
For Canon it's certainly not 

9

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 2nd Body - your thoughts?

« on: June 15, 2013, 11:11:36 AM »

To avoid swapping lenses, I’m thinking getting 2nd body to pair it up with my 5D III.

My thoughts:
1. I’m 100% sure that I DO NOT want crop sensor. I want to shoot in low light without flash

2. I’m @ 60% on 1D X – due to high price tag, size, and I’m not shooting anything @ extremely fast.

3. I’m @ 80% on 5D III – just perfect for my needs.
 
4. I’m @ 90% on 6D – due to lower price tag. The price tag between 6D Vs 5D III is $1500 -$1700 dif. That $ can be easily go to my next DREAM lens, 400mm f2.8 IS.

Would love to have your inputs, especially from 5D III & 6D owners

Thanks
Dylan

Thanks everyone. After a well rested night, I decided to pick 5D III as my second body

Will need your guys helps on sling bag that can carry 2 bodies with lenses soon

Congrats! Make sure you take a lot of photos of your kids with both cameras 

10

Site Information / Re: CR wobbly

« on: June 15, 2013, 08:26:00 AM »

Problems continue...

11

Reviews / Re: Can we have a 16-35 2.8L II review next please?

« on: June 15, 2013, 08:21:05 AM »

In my opinion we need a fast replacement for the 17-40L and 16-35 II L with an image quality like the 24-70 II L.

And that would be 12(14)-24 f/2.8?

Replacement of 16-35 II L = 16-35 III L
12(14)-24 f/2.8 = new lens (welcome of course but still new lens, not a replacement)

12

Lenses / Re: 24-70 f/4L IS vs 24-105L

« on: June 15, 2013, 08:14:27 AM »

And  finally, the 24-70mmf4L is a much smaller lens than the 24-105mm f4L.

Earlier in this thread Jack noted:
"What drives me since getting back into photography after many years of absence is all the commentary based on personal attachment or brand bias".

I too value unbiased advice.

From Digital Picture:

Canon EF 24-70mm f/4 L IS USM Lens   21.2 oz   (600g)   3.3 x 3.7"   (83.4 x 93mm)   77mm   2012
Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM Lens   23.7 oz   (670g)   3.3 x 4.2"   (83.5 x 107mm)   77mm   2005

Frankly, 1 1/2 ounces and half an inch does not make it "much smaller".  Its about 1/10th lighter and 1/8th shorter.

Yeah I've handled both lenses and "much" is a bit of an over statement! "Little bit" would be accurate. However that little bit makes some difference when carrying your backpack of gear around as well as around your neck. Always nicer to carry less weight. Length wise it's not that big of a difference, not really going to matter in real life shooting.

The main pros for the 24-70 right now for me are -
Sharper corners at 24mm.
Fluorite coating on front element.
4 stops of IS (biggie - I rely on IS as I travel without tripod).
It's newer (ok that one makes no sense really).
Macro (meh not bothered but sure, I'll take it).

The only con is range and price. Range is not that big a deal as I have the 70-200 and traveling with 2 lenses isn't so bad. And price is well within what I can afford.

Yet I still think the 24-105 might be more useful overall.

Seems I want a 24-105 f/4 v2!!

Difference in size and weight: indifferent, so little to be of any value. Others may disagree.

Sharper corners at 24mm: Yes but the advantage is only at 24mm. Nowhere else according to the-digital-picture

Fluorite coating on front element: No big deal at all. I use good quality UV filters (mostly Hoya HD UV).

4 stops of IS (biggie - I rely on IS as I travel without tripod): 24-105 has 3-stop I believe. No big deal either

It's newer (ok that one makes no sense really): Useless (I agree).

Macro (meh not bothered but sure, I'll take it): Indifferent. It's not real macro anyway.

The only con is range and price. Range is not that big a deal as I have the 70-200 and traveling with 2 lenses isn't so bad. And price is well within what I can afford:

Overlapping is nice unless you have to cameras with 24-70 and 70-200 all the time.
Price is serious. Why someone should pay more for something that is not worth it?  It's not a 24-70 2.8 after all.

Yet I still think the 24-105 might be more useful overall.

YES! I do agree with you

P.S I want a 24-105 II too 

13

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8L Non-IS Discontinued?

« on: June 14, 2013, 10:16:17 PM »

I consider it a legendary lens. It was the first zoom I got with fixed lens quality. Plus, its price is reasonable.
I had one until it was stolen

Now I have a 70-200 f/2.8 IS II but I will feel sorry if this lens is discontinued.

14

EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS

« on: June 14, 2013, 10:02:52 PM »

You know I am thinking of a 400mm f/5.6L that I will combine with a 1.4X II (or even 2XII) for sunsets, sunrises, ducks, etc.

But my sunrise/sunset lens is a 300mm f/4L (non-IS) with the above mentioned teleconverters.

Also my "duck" lens (yes I have given it this nickname!) is a 100-400L.

So it would be too much. (The reason for fixed 400 is IQ wise  I do not wish to use the 2X).

A new 400 (either as a fixed lens or as a 100-400 zoom) would be the best for me (and I guess thousands more...)

15

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 1DX and 5D3 RAW files

« on: June 14, 2013, 09:56:07 PM »

Hey, how about the most simple thing (sort of):

Since we (are supposed to ) discuss 1DX and 5D3 raw files does anyone have both cameras?

I would like to see the same picture taken with the same lens, same ISO (and hoping the ISO ratings are the same and not say 10% apart...) , Av and Tv by both cameras.
Also the picture could be taken during the day and/or the night.