Messages

1

Canon General / Re: refurbished Canon 5d mk iii

« on: January 13, 2013, 10:39:07 PM »

I would think the impact on resale value will be slight over time.  A year from now the market value of a used refurbished MK III will probably be very close to that of a used MK III, provided the number of actuations and condition are equal.  However, the market for used, refurbished MK III’s may be thinner, i.e., some folks won’t be willing to buy a refurb.  It sounds like you have a good deal in your hands, so congratulations.  That said, I would use the one-week return period to verify that everything works as it should on the camera- things like light metering, focus-point sharpness, HDR, and whatever other features you plan to use.

2

Lenses / Re: questions~

« on: December 12, 2012, 11:08:00 PM »

I have had no issues with 3rd party lenses, mostly Sigma and Tamron.  Most of the problems I’ve heard with 3rd party lenses tend to be around quality control.  If you do find a lens from someone other than Canon that appeals to you, I would suggest that you get it from a seller with a good return policy.

3

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Crop vs FF for landscape photography

« on: December 12, 2012, 10:55:06 PM »

I prefer my 5DII to my 7D for landscape photography.  You mentioned possibly getting a 10-22, and another poster provided feedback on the 16-35.  From my limited experience I think the 16-35 is a better lens, but there’s a value proposition that’s unique to everyone.  The bigger issue for me was that next lens up, i.e. what’s my walkabout lens that can go fairly wide and still give me some flexibility with zoom.  Using a 24-70 or a 24-105 on a crop camera gives you a lens no wider than 38mm.  The best options for the walkabout lens with reasonable wide angle capabilities on crop cameras are the EF-S 15-85 or the EF-S 17-55.  Just as with the 10-22, both of those lenses are good to very good, but now you’re really invested in a crop system.  If landscape is the top priority, it’s probably a good time to move over to full frame.   

4

Lenses / Re: my second lens?

« on: July 21, 2012, 05:53:23 PM »

The EF-S 17-55 is a great lens, but its range is so narrow that it really limits your options.  If you do decide to go to a longer zoom for your third lens, the most logical choice will be one of the 70-200 L lenses, leaving you a gap between 55-70 mm.  The EF-S 15-85 f/3.5-5.6 might be a good solution.  It would work well in conjunction with a 70-200 and would be within your budget without having to sell your current lens.  I have both, and while I would prefer to use the 17-55, the 15-85 gets a lot more use.

5

Lenses / Re: 28-300 L lens- thoughts?

« on: July 21, 2012, 05:18:45 PM »

I researched the 28-300 and the discontinued 35-350 last year when looking to upgrade my EF-S 18-200.  The 28-300 positive attributes of IS and better IQ did not surpass the negatives of weight and price.  If I had found a 28-300 on Craigslist for $1,500 (as an earlier poster did) I would have probably gone for that lens instead of the 35-350.  As far as dust issues with the push-pull zoom, even on my very old 35-350, it has not been a problem.  Finally, if you like to shoot long, 350 mm on a crop camera is equivalent to 560 mm on FF. 

6

Lenses / Re: sigma 30mm f1.4... anyone used?

« on: July 21, 2012, 04:54:16 PM »

I bought one a couple years ago because I wanted to mimic the FF look of a 50 mm lens on my crop camera.  I had heard many stories of back-focus on the lens, so I did a lot of testing on my copy to ensure that wasn’t an issue, which it wasn’t.  I found the lens to perform well in very low light.  If you get a good copy the Sigma 30 mm is a nice value for the money.  That said, I would suggest that you buy it somewhere with an easy return policy if you encounter any focus issues.

7

Lenses / Re: Ultra-Wide options for APS-C Body

« on: June 21, 2012, 11:10:29 AM »

All lenses mentioned are good options from what I`ve heard. I bought the sigma 8-16 last week, and it rocks! Very very wide, and amazingly sharp. The reason I bought this instead of the alternatives, is that it is the widest. If you are gonna be a bear, be a grizzly!

The only downside with the 8-16mm is that it does not take filters, and it is APS-C only.

+1 I love my sigma 8-16 + 7D combo especially for landscape pix and vids. Super wide. I actually use it on my FF 5dmarkiii also but only at 16mm anything less and you'll get really bad vinetting.

Another +1 for the Sigma 8-16.

8

Lenses / Re: Canon EF-S 18-200MM IS slow to auto focus

« on: June 21, 2012, 11:07:14 AM »

Yes, I’ve noticed that on mine.  The versatility of that lens at its price point comes with compromises.  It’s good for a lot of things, but great at none.

9

Lenses / Re: Best general purpose lens?

« on: June 03, 2012, 10:46:45 PM »

If you plan to shoot in lower light situations the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 would be a good choice, but with your current lens you’ll have a 15mm gap between 55 and 70.  The EF-S 15-85 would be my choice for daytime shots.  If you plan to move to FF soon, the 24-105 L is a good choice, but it left me dissatisfied with my T3i and 40D as it wasn’t wide enough.

10

Lenses / Re: Used Lenses

« on: June 03, 2012, 10:37:13 PM »

I’ve bought several used Canon lenses, including a 135 L from B&H a month ago.  So far I’ve had no issues with used purchases, however I have stayed away from third-party lenses and Canon models repudiated to have QC issues (admittedly, none come to mind).  Also, be aware that with some used items, the original packaging or user guides may be missing, but the listing will generally state when this is the case.  Finally be sure to check the warranty length and inspect the lens within that period.

11

Lenses / Re: Suggestions for Full Frame Lenses

« on: May 22, 2012, 11:43:06 PM »

I just picked up a 135 a couple weeks ago and am shocked at how well it performs on my 5D ii.  I have yet to do any serious work with it, but some of my spontaneous shots have justified the purchase.

12

Lenses / Re: canon 35-350L

« on: May 22, 2012, 11:16:25 PM »

I can’t compare it with the 28-300 because I’ve never used one of those, but I’m very happy with my 35-350.  My primary reason to get the lens was for daytime sporting events, and for that it has worked very well.  I’ve had no issues with dust being sucked into the lens via the push-pull zoom.  The one area that might be of concern would be the push-pull.  I can see where that mechanism could get sticky or not stay locked down.

13

EOS Bodies / Re: is the 40D still a good one for 400$

« on: April 05, 2012, 03:46:26 PM »

The 40D is a good camera, and $400 is a pretty good price.  You're getting very good bang for the buck.

I wouldn't call the 40D the "pinnacle" of the xxD line.  However it's the camera where sensor technology became mature.  Earlier cameras had great leaps in technology between models, and later cameras have features that are perhaps beyond the point of diminishing returns.  Returns, but diminishing returns.  The 60D is a slightly better camera than the 40D.  But the 40D is vastly superior than the 30D.

+1

14

EOS Bodies / Re: Used 50D, is it worth it?

« on: April 03, 2012, 10:58:57 PM »

Adorama is selling a 40D plus Canon grip for $499.  $50 more for the 50D is not bad.

15

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Confused! Upgrading my camera.....Advise Pleasssssssse

« on: April 03, 2012, 08:44:49 PM »

After taking about 1,500 shots at spring training this year I’m very happy with my decision to pick up a used 35-350 f/3.5-5.6 L.  On my 40D it gives me remarkable reach and is versatile if I want to zoom in a bit.  Of course it’s utterly useless with indoor lighting on a 40D.  I purchased my copy for around $1,100, but I’ve seen them selling anywhere between $1,000-$1,400.  For the few indoor shots you take, an 85 f/1.8 will give you 136mm reach on the 40D.  That combination would compliment your current kit nicely and fall within your budget.