March 06, 2015, 01:19:53 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 - Random Orbits

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 97
1
Lenses / Re: Could you comment my future upgrade path?
« on: February 28, 2015, 04:58:56 PM »
Randon Orbits,

I can trade the 24-70 and the 24-105 for the 24-70 II or the 17-40 for the 16-35 f/4L IS.

I live in Brazil and the lens I choose will be bought in the USA.  Due to the Brazilian customs restrictions, I can only bring one of these lenses each time I go to USA (we have quota of US$ 500,00 free of charge and whatever is over US$ 500,00 pays 50% import tax up to US$ 3000,00 and you can´t bring goods over US$ 3000,00 on the simplified customs procedures for travellers). So, it´s either 16-35mm f/4L IS (US$ 1199,00) or 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS II (US$ 1999,00).  Both lenses would cost me US$ 3198,00, which is US$ 198,00 over my quota.

Take a look at canonpricewatch.com.  They're expecting prices to drop.  The 24-70 II is expected to street for 1699 and the 16-35 f/4 IS for 1019.  I don't know when you plan on going to the US, but it might be something to look into...

2
EOS Bodies / Re: The State of the Camera Industry in 2014
« on: February 28, 2015, 02:31:35 PM »
Type20122013+%2014+%2012-2014
Mirrorless4%5%+20%7%+40%+75%
DSLR16%21%+21%24%+14%+50%

The growth in mirrorless shipments rose, the growth in DSLR shipments shrank.

Yeah, although if you planned your sales based on 2012's IDC prediction, then you'd be in a world of hurt.  Actual mirrorless sales are less than 1/4 than predicted.  Oops!

3
Canon General / Re: Spartans, What is your profession?
« on: February 28, 2015, 02:28:23 PM »
Aerospace engineer working in the helicopter industry.  Used to play with my dad's film Pentaxes back in the day, and my first SLR was a Pentax.  Loved Canon's lens selection, so switched to Canon with the 20D.

4
Lenses / Re: Could you comment my future upgrade path?
« on: February 28, 2015, 02:22:11 PM »

Still, even without Antartica I would unload those three wide lenses and get the 24-70 II. Maybe you use your 17-40 and need something that wide, I had a 16-35mm II for five years and hardly used it. I find 24mm is wide enough for most landscapes. If you just have to have wide, unload the two 24-xxx lenses.

Takesome,

I think that the 24-70mm and the 24-105mm will be traded for the 24-70mm II this year.

Does this mean you can do both the 16-35 f/4 and the 24-70 f/2.8 II this year then?  Then you can unload the 24-70, 24-105 and the 17-40.

5
Lenses / Re: First Tests: Canon EF 11-24mm f/4L a Winner
« on: February 28, 2015, 02:16:55 PM »
I wonder if this will quell the complaints about the price?

IMO Canon has been very good at creating class leading lenses of late and in some cases creating the class and setting the standard.
The price of this lens is eminently fair considering the balance of performance and the limited volume it will enjoy.
I know I can make money with it.

Nope, price complaints will always exist.  I'll be waiting to see where the price settles in about a year. 

6
Lenses / Re: I'm Torn Between...
« on: February 27, 2015, 09:05:14 AM »
The 24-70 will be used a lot more on FF than a 16-35, plus you have already have a 11-16, so I'd opt for the 24-70.  Plus crop sensors can use all the light they can get, so faster lenses are preferable.

If you do choose to go with the 16-35, then you should also consider picking up a fast 50 prime.  Then both lenses will be able to migrate to FF, and you'll have a better lens for lower light environments.

7
Pricewatch Deals / Re: Deal: Canon EOS 5D Mark III Body $1999
« on: February 26, 2015, 02:40:09 PM »
Ebay is far from perfect. Sure you can return an item. But you're on the hook for return shipping. Even if the seller sent you an obviously broken item. You'll have the sale fees refunded to you, but only AFTER you have paid to return it to the seller with money you will never see again.

The biggest concern with grey market is not a broken item though. It is an item that fails eventually. Not only will you not have a warranty that covers it, Canon may refuse to even touch it even if you're willing to pay for the repair.

I have taken the risk with bigvalue before and got lucky. They offered an after market warranty to go with the camera. Sadly, that warranty was from a worthless company that does not honor their terms or even really respond to emails.

And that is why gray items sell for less.  CPW currently lists this for 2399 after rebate as a street price from an authorized dealer.  For 400 less, you take on some additional risk.  CanonUSA has been pretty good about servicing gray items unlike some other Canon servicers in other regions and compared to some other brands.  400 would go a long way to fixing typical failures or you can choose a different aftermarket warranty provider, and I'm pretty sure it'd cost less than 400 for covering the first year.

8
It was good to see some data on the Tamron, after seeing the ISO crops on TDP.  I'm surprised that the Tamron 15-30 can not categorically beat the much-maligned 16-35 f/2.8 II.  The TDP results showed weak corners on the Tamron and LR confirms it.  Would have loved to see the 16-35 f/4 IS in the same dataset though, even if it is not a f/2.8 lens...

I don't believe in TDP results. Look at my sample pictures:

Canon 16-35 2.8 II at 2.8:
http://www.kubacichocki.pl/test/tamron1530/can16.jpg
http://www.kubacichocki.pl/test/tamron1530/brzeg_canon.jpg (focus on the top of the frame)
http://www.kubacichocki.pl/test/tamron1530/corner_canon.jpg (focus on Tamron box)

Tamron 15-30 2.8 VC at 2.8:
http://www.kubacichocki.pl/test/tamron1530/tam15.jpg
http://www.kubacichocki.pl/test/tamron1530/brzeg_tamron.jpg
http://www.kubacichocki.pl/test/tamron1530/corner_tamron.jpg

And a lot of my sample pictures from Tamron 15-30 (full size):
http://www.canon-board.info/testy-sprzetu-25/recenzja-tamron-15-30-2-8-vc-usd-99121/

Then you also don't trust LensRentals either and they test multiple copies (and the point of this thread).  I only checked the first two of your links for each and the focus quality are not the same for the comparison shots.  The Canon has motion blur everywhere for the trees and it's AF point for the walkway is significantly closer than the Tamron's.  You might have a bad copy of the 16-35.  Personally, I trust TDP and LR much more than your examples. 

9
Lenses / Re: 16-35 f/4L IS with EF 35 f/2 IS
« on: February 25, 2015, 11:40:56 AM »
Wait until you move to the 6D and get used to the lenses you will have (16-35, 35 f/2, 70-200).  Your 35 f/2 is two stops faster than your zooms and will have a definite edge indoors.  You might find that you will add another fast prime rather than trading in the 35.

10
It was good to see some data on the Tamron, after seeing the ISO crops on TDP.  I'm surprised that the Tamron 15-30 can not categorically beat the much-maligned 16-35 f/2.8 II.  The TDP results showed weak corners on the Tamron and LR confirms it.  Would have loved to see the 16-35 f/4 IS in the same dataset though, even if it is not a f/2.8 lens...
I wish he'd included the 16-35 f/4 IS as well, but I think the 16-35 f/2.8 II results are in line with my copy.  I really liked the low distortion and other than the horrible CA in the corners, I found it pretty good at 16 and 35mm.  When I compared it at 24mm against the 24-70 f/2.8 II, it made me cry, however.  It was soft mush in comparison.  Now it makes more sense given the 23mm results they posted.  It also lacked something, the very something the 16-35 f/4 IS has in spades, even if it's more distorted and has worse vignetting.

Agreed, I never liked using the 16-35 f/2.8 II much either.  I didn't mind as much that it's 24mm was weak, because I usually carried other options at that focal length... and as a walk-around lens, it's fine.  I think the real competition will be the 16-35 f/4 IS.  The 16-35 f/4 IS currently streets for a little less, has better optical performance, weighs significantly less, takes filters, has better AF.  The Tamron has a one stop advantage, gains 1mm at the wide end but loses 5mm at the long end.

11
It was good to see some data on the Tamron, after seeing the ISO crops on TDP.  I'm surprised that the Tamron 15-30 can not categorically beat the much-maligned 16-35 f/2.8 II.  The TDP results showed weak corners on the Tamron and LR confirms it.  Would have loved to see the 16-35 f/4 IS in the same dataset though, even if it is not a f/2.8 lens...

12
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 11-24mm f/4L Shipping This Week in United States
« on: February 23, 2015, 04:50:50 PM »
Okay, so I've got a 6D. I shoot a bit of everything. Events, sports, landscape.
I've got EF 8-15mm, older EF 15mm, TS/E 24mm, Sigma 24-105, and so on... Had 16-35 2.8 II cause too soft.
Was gonna get the 16-35 f/4. But now I don't know. Which would you get? Can't see getting both. Love the idea of 11-24 with straight lines, but 16-35 generally more useful, lighter and less expensive. Could anybody justify owning both?

Sure, if you have enough money.  If you were to ask which one to get first, I'd suggest the 16-35.  It has a more versatile focal length range, takes filters, weighs less, etc.  Plus the price premium is less for the 16-35.  You can purchase it for less than MSRP, whereas you won't be able to do that for the 11-24 for a while.  It'll also take a while before the accessory filters/filter holders are designed/made for the 11-24.

13
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 11-24mm f/4L Shipping This Week in United States
« on: February 23, 2015, 10:00:31 AM »
any reason all the new canon lenses are F4 ?

Explain why you need f/2.8 at these focal lengths please. Please don't say "low light capability" because if you are using a lens like this indoors in professional use you will almost certainly be using a tripod. And upping the ISO nowadays by one stop isn't a big a deal as it used to be. The 6D works nicely even an ISO 6400. I don't even use that for stars in the middle of the night so unless you are shooting in a cave in complete darkness, handheld, with an older generation camera - the reason is pretty clear why f/4 is good enough.

If not - 14mm f/2.8 is your friend.

What experience do you have shooting events?  And though you may be satisfied with ISO 6400 images, there is no arguing that lower ISO looks significantly better.  I'd rather have a non-IS 2.8 for shooting typical indoor and under-tent events than 4.0 with IS.  People move!  Colors, bokeh, contrast, and, of course, sharpness all look better at lower ISO.

I would have bought a Canon version of 14-24mm f/2.8, but not this one at f/4.  I'm sure it will test/review just fine in terms of IQ for landscape and still-life,  but for people photography, f/2.8 is still the standard, especially for $3000!

This isn't the max aperture of choice for photojournalists, sports, or wedding photographers.

Enjoy it for what it is, but why berate those of us who do value 2.8?

At over 2 lb for an f/4, how much would a f/2.8 weigh?  Before, the 16-35 f/4 IS came out, I did use a 14 f/2.8 and the 16-35 f/2.8.  There are other choices to get what you want if you need f/2.8.  The 11-24 gives you another choice; it does not reduce the number of choices currently available to you.  Would I have preferred a 16-35 f/2.8 III as good as the 16-35 f/4 IS?  Absolutely, but for now, I've sold the 16-35 f/2.8 II for the 16-35 f/4 IS.  Take the new lens for what it is.  It is something that gives the widest FOV for a rectilinear lens for FF.  It happens to be f/4.  It is what it is.

14
Lenses / Re: Gear for upcoming trip to Italy and Greece
« on: February 23, 2015, 09:18:13 AM »
I'd suggest the 16-35 f/4 IS, 35 f/1.4 and 70-200 f/4 IS.  The 35 f/1.4 can be used as a indoor lens for people shots and as a walk-around at night.  The 85 and 135 are more standard portrait lengths, but for vacations, I'd prefer something wider to show where you are.  A 35 works well for that.  The 16-35 f/4 IS is better for museums and static shots, but I tend to use faster shutter speeds and larger apertures more because I take more pictures of people rather than things.

I have both the 35L and the 35 f/2 IS, and I use the 35L a lot more.  I got a refurbed 35 f/2 IS when it was on sale as a travel lens, but I find myself opting for the additional stop rather IS more often.  And if you are bringing the 16-35 f/4 IS, then the situations that you'd opt for a f/2 IS are even fewer.  I'd stick with slower zooms with IS and complementing them with the fastest primes.

15
Lenses / Re: Which Lens to buy for Portraits
« on: February 18, 2015, 01:52:33 PM »
Indoors, I tend to use the 24-70 II the most and outdoors, it's the 70-200.

I would suggest renting/borrowing a FF camera and trying it with your 24-70 compared to using your Nikkor 50 f/2 on your 650D.  You might find the IQ improves enough with going to FF than spending more on lenses.

I generally don't like using the 70-200 on a tripod for indoor portraits because it's cumbersome to change lenses when you are switching from a single person shot to multiple people.  It's much easier switching a 24-70 out for a 100 or 135 prime when you don't have to take the camera off the tripod.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 97