December 19, 2014, 03:16:16 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 - sunnyVan

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 18
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: I'm getting impatient for the new 5D 4.
« on: December 17, 2014, 12:46:31 PM »
The ugly truth is that photography is an expensive hobby. If you are not ready to spend at least a few thousand dollars, you don't have to read any further and you should stop spending time on this forum. And forget about what brand to choose from. They are all expensive. If you are on a budget get a canon eos m and be happy. The eos m is lightyears better than your g6.

Lenses / Re: Canon 35mm F2 IS image quality
« on: December 16, 2014, 02:55:28 PM »
just recently i got 35mm f2 IS. it is a bit disappointing that the images do not have a "pop" effect that i get from 24-70 Mk II. I am thinking of returning it and saving money for 35L MkII or some other lens. Can anyone share experience with this lens?

I got the 35 f2 recently. I noticed quite a bit of coma towards the edge when shot wide open. This is not unusual but I don't see that with my 24-70. This is not to say the 35 is bad. It's just that the 24-70 is too good, and too hard to beat. the prime has the advantage of an extra stop and IS. But putting them side by side, 9 out of 10 times I grab the zoom.

I sold my sigma 35 to purchase the canon version and I don't regret this part of the decision at all. The canon is so much more portable and more realistic to bring along with the zoom. The real question is whether I need a 35mm prime given how excellent the zoom is. The debate is ongoing but I don't have much choice here because I already cut the box for rebate purposes and can't return. I might have been happier if I had gotten a refurbished one and paid $400 instead of 550.

Only you yourself know whether you need a 35mm prime. I can't imagine how expensive the 35Lii will be when it's launched. Maybe $1800?

EOS Bodies / Re: Using full frame lens on crop body cameras ?
« on: December 13, 2014, 10:19:58 PM »
From the video I've posted below, it looks as though it's a (big) waste of money to purchase high rent full frame glass for a crop body including the all new 7D mark II.
I'm disappointed with this as it "was" my intention.
So, I hope someone will clarify this for me but it seems that with the new 7D mark II will actually produce better results/sharper images with a cheaper lens that is made for a crop body? To my knowledge, Canon doesn't produce any high quality glass for their crop sensor cameras?

I wanted the 7D mark II with a Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM Lens. If what I'm seeing in the video below is correct and I sure would assume so, that this combination is a total waste of money.

Perhaps I should wait to see if Canon is soon to release a new version of the 5D mark III?

I didnt watch the video. I'm no expert but I will share my unbiased view. Full frame lenses are very difficult to design and expensive to produce. It's difficult because full frame area is so large and it's hard to make the corners as sharp as the central area. With a cropped sensor and a full frame lens, only the area towards the center is being used (maybe 80%?), so the corners are not being used, in a way wasted. However, there are not that many high quality efs lenses ( although the ones coming out seem pretty good). They cost less to produce and are cheaper for us consumers. Some people (most of us on this forum) get picky over time and move on to full frame bodies. It's wise to have full frame lenses to begin with because they should serve you well for many many years.  Even though you don't use the corners now, down the road when you upgrade you will need ff lenses. They are better constructed and generally hold value well. But it all depends on your needs. I know I need full frame because I need high iso performance for indoor use. You may have different needs and may be happy with a cropped sensor. 7D mk2 is a great camera but it's not suitable for everyone. I don't your needs. You have to figure it out. Using full frame lenses on cropped body is not necessarily a waste of money. It depends. Just remember that ef lenses can fit all canon cameras and efs is dedicated to cropped body. Once I realized that fact I stopped investing in efs. On the other hand, efs lenses are typically cheaper and lighter. Again, for uncompromising image quality you will need full frame sensor and lenses eventually.

Lenses / Re: Help me decide: should I buy an EF 135L
« on: December 13, 2014, 11:02:48 AM »
 There's little to lose buying the 135L at a good price since three almost a market for it. The only problem foreseeable is that you will struggle over which one, the 100L or the 135L, to bring with you. I often bring my 70-200f4 along with 100L because I love macro shots. If I know I'll be shooting portraits I bring 135L. The bokeh produced is just too amazing that I have hard time parting with the 135L although it's not as versatile as the 100L. I see the 135L as the ultimate portrait lens that a regular joe can afford.

I have b+w f-pro mrc which is not the slim version. It works fine without vignetting.

I got a lot of flare with a hoya filter on 17-40 which I previously owned. Then I got b+w for my 16-35. No difference. Flare!! Then I learned to take the filter off when shooting straight into the sun. Problem solved. I just have to remember to put the filter back on afterwards. As for the slim version, I don't see the point.

They're having a little price war on ebay for this most coveted and pricey camera. Four respectable sellers are offering one for under $2400. Personally. I think this should have been the release price, but that's another matter. Anyone care to guess how badly these retailers need to be rid of their wares? I was not willing to pay original price and so I kept my 5Dll and picked up a 6D for $1500. In the interest of full disclosure I also have a 7D (among other bodies). If they go to $2300, I may have to pull the trigger. I intended to wait and see what Canon intends to charge for the 5D4 as well as what offerings Sony comes up with by that time, but this little price drop is putting my feet to the fire. Anyone else in a similar spot?

I've been waiting for the price of the mk3 to come down to somewhere between 2200-2400. Now that it's so close to that range, I see the 6D coming down to about 1300. So the mk3 is always $1000 more expensive than 6d. I personally don't think I need that extra AF capabilities so desperately that I'm willing to shell out one grand. What I did in the end shocked myself given how unthinkable it'd be just a few months ago. I got myself a sony a7 for $1150 brand new. Iwanted to see what this fuss about extra dynamic range is about. And my conclusion so far is that I'm keeping the a7 as my wideangle body. I'll hang out around my neck with my canon 16-35. I handhold my 6d for long lenses. My plan next is to wait for 6d mk2. I believe it's going to inherit the capabilities of a 5dmk3 plus a newer sensor. I stop looking at mk3 now because in the end it's still the same generation as my 6d and it's always one grand more expensive. Until the next full frame body comes out, I'll enjoy shooting with two full frame bodies at a much more manageable weight(and cost).

I don't believe the price of mk3 will climb back up much. Maybe you should wait longer and see what canon announces next year.

Lenses / Re: Yongnuo EF YN 50mm F/1.8
« on: December 07, 2014, 02:06:40 PM »
I suppose the whole point for the company is to gain experience and develop production capacity. I don't see any point from a consumer's point of view given such small price differential. If they have the know-how to copy premium lenses, that'd be a different story. It's not a bad thing for consumers though, for more choices.

Abstract / Re: Silhouettes
« on: November 30, 2014, 01:07:31 PM »
While having 40 stops of DR someday might be great, one of the things I love about photograph is exploiting it's limitations, and I enjoy creating silhouettes. I didn't see a thread for it, so I thought I'd start one, and here are a handful to get it started:

Nice pictures

Abstract / Re: Silhouettes
« on: November 30, 2014, 01:06:55 PM »
Early morning ride near Spearfish, SD


Post Processing / Re: Post processing opinion/advice
« on: November 30, 2014, 08:09:35 AM »
_73O8016 by Yeung Wen Photography, on Flickr

_73O8016-2 by Yeung Wen Photography, on Flickr

My take. There are two things I found difficult to fix. The sun was quite blown out in my opinion, and there was some flare on the foreground. These are the two versions I'd use if these were my pictures, (although in this lifetime I can never afford such gear.) 

I think if the emphasis is the lions, then it's not necessary to show the whole sun. I'd show just part of it to cue the time of the day. The eyes will be less drawn to the sun and will instead go to the lions.

If the emphasis is the sun itself, then there is not enough form to do silhouette.

I wish one day I could travel to this place. I'm jealous. =)

Lenses / Re: 70-200 2.8 II or 100 2.8L and 135 2 and 200 2.8
« on: October 17, 2014, 08:29:27 AM »

I am getting 70-200 f2.8 II for the same price as the following set 100 f2.8L, 135 f2 and 200 f2.8. I currently own a 60D and am planning to purchase the 7DII once it is available here in my country. What do you think is a better buy - the zoom or the set of primes? I love to shoot my kid (a very active toddler, her ballet recitals, outdoor sports, etc) and wildlife.

Would love to get opinion from folks here.


I use 135L for indoor events. For outdoor events I love my 70-200f4 IS for its light weight. I think 200 2.8 is too limiting. You may as well add teleconverter to the 135L to give you extra reach. I have a very active 2 year old. IS doesn't do much good since he moves constantly. The 100L focuses very fast though not as fast as the 135L. The 135L gives better bokeh. In my opinion you should get the 135 first, then expand gradually.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: siggy 35 1.4 Art
« on: October 03, 2014, 02:47:04 PM »
I liked it very much. It has had zero problem. None at all. I still like it but find it redundant now that I have a normal zoom at 2.8. I am selling my sigma 35.

Lenses / Re: Inexpensive standard walk around lens question
« on: September 24, 2014, 03:21:09 PM »
Is there any reason why you don't want to carry an expensive lens? Do you live in an area high risk for robbery? I am not mocking you but I don't understand the logic.

I bought the same lens for almost 2 grands. I use it as much as possible to get the money's worth.

If you are bothered by the weight, that's a different matter but you didn't complain about that.

You are spot on- it is the high risk of robbery especially for street photography. My 5Dc+40mm costs ~$ 500. Not cheap, but not something I will claim insurance for.
I am not particularly strong, but the 24-70 doesn't feel heavy. It is actually an extremely balanced lens. Nothing wrong with wanting to use it as much as possible. I rarely never find a reason to keep it home other than security.

I bought the eos M because I want to hand over a cheap camera to strangers when I need to be in the picture. It proved to be a great idea after a recent vacation. People have no problem using it and were surprised by how fast the camera shoots. Yup, people who are used to p&s and phone camera have no idea the M can shoot so fast.

I think you should keep your 5d mk 3 and your standard lens in your bag. Then shoot with your M. When you see something you really like and you know you're safe, you use your 5d. That's what I'd do if I was in your situation.

I don't think getting a cheaper lens would solve any problem other than relieving GAS. As long as you have something big around your neck, it draws attention. If you use M, which you shady have anyway, you can keep it in your jacket or your pocket if you have baggy pants.

That's my honest opinion.

Lenses / Re: Inexpensive standard walk around lens question
« on: September 24, 2014, 08:37:24 AM »
Is there any reason why you don't want to carry an expensive lens? Do you live in an area high risk for robbery? I am not mocking you but I don't understand the logic.

I bought the same lens for almost 2 grands. I use it as much as possible to get the money's worth.

If you are bothered by the weight, that's a different matter but you didn't complain about that.

Lenses / Re: Help deciding on going full frame
« on: August 26, 2014, 12:19:58 PM »
Hi All,

This is my first post, although I have spent quite a bit of time looking at older threads and gained some very useful information.  I am currently considering going full frame and would like some input from those that have gone before me.  I currently own the following equipment:
Canon 550D
Canon EFS 18-55
Canon EFS 55-250
Canon EFS 10-22
Canon EFS 18-135 STM
Canon EF 50 1.8
Canon EF 85 1.8
Canon EF 70-300 L (on order awaiting delivery)
Canon 430EX flash
Manfrotto Tripod
Sounds like a lot when I write it all down.  So a bit of background.  I started with the 2 kit lenses (18-55 and 55-250) and quickly found that when I was out walking around on holidays taking pics I didn't want to be carrying multiple lenses and swapping them out all the time (also the wife doesn't really like hanging around whilst I swap gear adjust settings etc - sounds of "can't you just take the picture and lets get going").  So I got the 18-135 which suits me just fine in terms of a walkabout lens.  This lens is on my camera most of the time for holiday type pics (50%) and the other 50% of the time if I go out to spend some time doing creative photography (without the wife in tow) I will take additional lenses and will use them as needed.
With the current setup I have been a bit disappointed with the sharpness of the 18-135, think the 10-22 is a good lens, don't use the 18-55 and 55-250 really, and use the 50 and 85 when I want to do shallow DOF or low light stuff (not often). 
I also tend to take a fair bit of low light stuff with my 18-135 when doing holiday pics - an hour either side of sunset - usually when doing these pics I am not wanting to carry multiple lenses.
So my current issues are:
1)  I want a general improvement in the sharpness of my pics as I tend to like having them printed reasonably large and I think the current EFS lenses just won't give me the image quality I would like.
2)  Shooting around dusk with my 18-135 walkabout (even in dark shade sometimes), I am either getting blurred photos due to having to drop the shutter speed to low (even with IS) or bumping the ISO too high and getting unacceptable levels of noise.
I have been purchasing my recent lenses with a view to eventually going full frame (can't wait to play with the 70-300 - my first L lens)
My thoughts have been to upgrade to a 6D with a 24-105 as a walkabout, use the 70-300L as my long lens, a 16-35 F4 as my wide angle and keep the 50 1.8 and 85 1.8 for portraits and shallow DOF as well as low light.  The 6D will solve my issues with noise and ISO whilst the L series lenses will solve my sharpness problems.  I have read about the 6D AF issues, and don't think that will be an issue for me as most of my shots are static and for the odd shot of action I can use the centre point and crop later.

The area I want some feedback on is the 24-105.  From all that I have read the newer 24-70 is lots better, but I won't go with that lens as that would give me a similar range on FF to the original 18-55 on crop that I found too limiting initially.  I know that the 24-105 will be shorter than the 18-135 (equivalent approx. 216 mm), but I think I could live with 105, but definitely not 70 on the long end.  I have read plenty of reviews and opinions on the 24-105 to believe that as an L lens it is pretty average and has a lot of distortion at around 24mm. 

So my questions are:
1)  Will the 24-105 provide a significant IQ improvement when used on FF compared to using the 18-135 STM on a crop.  I am not interested in using the 24-105 on a crop camera, so many of the comments I have read which compare using both on a crop camera are not applicable to my scenario as in that case they would only be using the centre of the 24-105 not the full view.
2)  Should I stick with the 18-135 STM and wait for the 7D mkii which I expect will also have significantly improved noise / ISO and will solve that problem for me, but will then still leave me with the image quality issues from the EFS lens, as I don't see any better quality walkabout lens that will suit me if using a crop sensor.  (The 24-105 would not be wide enough for me on a crop).

So what do you think - 6D, 24-105, 16-35 F4, 70-300L or 7D mkii, EFS 10-22, EFS 18-135 STM, 70-300L.

I can't see any other scenarios that would give me the walkabout options that I want and also achieve the IQ I want.

Sorry for the long post - I thought too much info is better than not enough.  I look forward to hearing your thoughts especially if you have been down the same path as I am going.


I don't see any disadvantage in getting a 6d and 24-105 kit. You can always sell the lens easily. It's better that you compare the IQ yourself rather than relying on other user's opinion. My guess would be that you'll like the 24-105. Build quality alone is a huge difference from your EFs lenses. IQ is average or above average depending on who you ask. You need to see for yourself whether the IQ meets your needs. It may be good enough for you.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 18