November 26, 2014, 07:48:47 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 - growler

Pages: [1] 2
1
Canon General / Re: Buying refurbished from Canon
« on: May 30, 2014, 10:48:43 PM »
I've had nothing but good experience with Canon direct refurbs, including a 6D, 24 F2.8 IS, 70-200 F4L IS, and 50 F1.8 II. The nifty had some very minor cosmetic issues. The 6D did have about 300 clicks, but was otherwise indistinguishable from new. The 70-200 and the 24 seem perfect in both look and function.

2
Lenses / Re: Seeking quick advice
« on: May 14, 2014, 05:18:08 PM »
How much do you think you'll need a telezoom in the future.  If you get a 70-200 or a 70-300, you will end up with a fast 85.  If you decide that you don't need a telezoom, you could go with the 135L and 1.4x III.  I think in many ways the idea lens does not ideally fit your landscape/portrait concentrations.

If you decide to go prime, then the 85, 135 and 1.4x III make sense.  If you decide  to go zoom, then a 70-200 or a 70-300 will match a 85 well.

Thanks Random. I agree that the above suggestion for an all prime kit would make a lot of sense. For the price of the 1.4x III, I could almost buy the 200 f2.8L. I guess the reason I'm interested in a tele-zoom for landscape is that being able to frame things how I want them at those focal lengths can save a lot of hiking to get a shot. Seeing your response, it is now clear to me that it would be most useful for me to get the 70-200 f4L IS zoom and one of the following portrait lenses: 85 f1.8 or 100 f2. The 135L, while very alluring, doesn't really fit the need as well. Now I should determine whether the portrait lens or the zoom will be needed more over the next several months.

3
Lenses / Re: Seeking quick advice
« on: May 14, 2014, 04:23:03 PM »
I should also add that in option 1, my hiking kit would be Rokinon 14 f2.8, Canon 24 f2.8 IS, Canon 40 f2.8 and 70-200 f4L IS.

For option 2 it would be same except swap the 70-200 zoom with either the 100 or 135 prime.

4
Lenses / Re: Seeking quick advice
« on: May 14, 2014, 04:20:30 PM »
Thanks Mt Spokane. While 14 - 24 seems like a big gap, I'm actually happy with the wide end of my kit. It is the lack of a portrait lens capable of nice bokeh and a high quality tele-zoom that is limiting. I know that many people think highly of the 70-300L. It is more expensive than the 70-200 f4L IS, but maybe if I get more than I think for the Sigma 70-200 + teleconverter....

5
Lenses / Seeking quick advice
« on: May 14, 2014, 03:58:35 PM »
While I realize I will probably get a lot of different answers, I appreciate feedback from CR members about gear purchases. Here is my situation. Late last year I switched from crop to full frame (60D -> 6D) and am still in the process of changing my lens kit. Here is what I currently have:

Zooms:
Canon 24-105 f4L (not going to sell this no matter what anyone says; it is a great walk around lens)
Sigma 70-200 f2.8 EX APO HSM (2001 vintage, bought when I was shooting 35 mm film, no OS)
Sigma 1.4X EX APO

Primes:
Rokinon 14 f2.8
Canon 24 f2.8 IS
Canon 40 f2.8
Canon 50 f1.8

Interests: Landscapes and portraits, roughly 50-50 in terms of number of shots for each.

Situation: I will be spending a couple of weeks wit family in the pacific northwest in late July/early August and will be hitting North Cascades, Rainier, and coastal areas between Seattle and Vancouver. A few good quality Canon refurbs are still available (e.g. 100 f2 (not macro), 135 f2L, 200 f2.8L), but today is the last day. I can spend up to $500 over and above the proceeds I'm likely to get if I sell any of my current lenses. Because I will be hiking and want to travel light, I'm looking for lightweight but high quality lenses.

Option 1: Forget about the lure of the above highly discounted refurbs, sell the Sigma 70-200 & 1.4 teleconverter, and buy a Canon 70-200 f4L IS with the proceeds + cash (with rebate, this lens goes new for $1150 until later in the month). Not interested in 70-200 f2.8 (any version) because I won't hike it around due to weight/size. Also not interested in non-IS version of 70-200 f4 both because I want IS in this zoom range and because sharpness is noticeably better on the IS version. Down the road (probably around December) when I can afford it, purchase a good portrait lens such as Sigma 85 f1.4, Canon 100 f2, or Canon 85 f1.8 (no, I won't spring for a Canon 85 f1.2).

Option 2: Purchase either the 100 f2 or the 135 f2 refurbs and face the fact that I won't have a hikeable 70-200 zoom for the Pacific Northwest trip and will have to wait to buy later. Advantages of the 100 f2: much less expensive, nice focal length for portraits. Advantages of the 135 f2: Better IQ (especially wrt to chromatic aberration), more reach.

Thanks for reading and for your thoughts.



6
Lenses / Re: Affected with GAS, Gear Acquisition Syndrome
« on: March 03, 2014, 06:25:41 PM »
Had a severe case of GAS right before the holidays and bought a 6D. Thought that would get me through for a while but then 24 f2.8 IS showed upon on Canon Direct refurb, so had another bout. (Great lens by the way). Thought I was done but still had some residual GAS, which I treated using mild medicine, namely picking up a shorty forty and Rokinon 14 f2.8. GAS has subsided now, and hopefully it won't return until at least December...

7
Lenses / Re: Affected with GAS, Gear Acquisition Syndrome
« on: March 01, 2014, 01:39:19 PM »
What more is there... :(

24 f3.5 TSE
300 f2.8L
400 f2.8L
500 f4.0L
600 f4.0L

for starters. Also, 1.4x III and 2.0x III.

8
Lenses / Re: zooms vs primes for landscape
« on: January 26, 2014, 02:52:46 PM »
As the OP, I sure got more than I bargained for, but I do appreciate the info here - lots to think about. If money were no issue, I would gladly get the 24 TSE. The consensus here is clearly that it is the best tool for serious landscape work. If my livelihood depended upon getting the absolute best IQ then there would be no question. However, I am an amateur and while I have pixel peeping tendencies, the fact is that I make prints for framing very rarely for myself or others. That being the case I am going to first try out the 24 2.8 IS and see how it goes. If it doesn't work out, I think I will be able to get most of my money out upon resale. I'm still settled on the 70-200 f4L IS and the 100 f2.8L IS.

9
Lenses / Re: zooms vs primes for landscape
« on: January 25, 2014, 01:16:00 PM »
Thanks for your feedback. Most of the time I will have a tripod. In cases where I don't I will probably take the 24 f1.4 and 24-105 IS with me. Using Lightroom and looking back at the focal lengths that I shot with my old 60D and converting them to full frame focal lengths, I can see that I seem to like 24 mm. The reason for buying the 17-40 is to give me the flexibility of other focal lengths and the convenience when needed of not having to move my position to get a shot. As for the 70-200 f4L IS, I certainly noticed the huge price difference between the IS and non-IS version. I guess that my rationale is that there may be times where IS would be handy for candid people shots. On the other hand, the 100 2.8L will probably be good enough for that job, so saving $500 on the non-IS version may make sense.


If you're going to use a tripod for shooting landscapes, 17-40 and 24L are redundant, i'd advice you to pick one only. The zoom will save you a bunch of money and give you several focal lengths, the 24L will allow you to shoot handheld in low light, and will give you some subject separation, if you need. You can also halve the expenditure for the telephoto lens by picking the 70-200 without IS, which you're not going to use on a tripod.

10
Lenses / Re: zooms vs primes for landscape
« on: January 25, 2014, 10:17:45 AM »
Thanks to all who have responded. Many very good points have been made. I'm going with the 70-200 f4L IS to take care of the longer focal lengths, the 100 f2.8L IS for macro/portrait, the 17-40 f4L and the 24 f1.4L for wide angle/landscape. On longer hikes where weight is a big concern, I will only take the 17-40 and 24 f1.4. I appreciate all of your insights and comments.

11
Lenses / Re: zooms vs primes for landscape
« on: January 24, 2014, 11:04:10 PM »
Thanks takesome1 for the advice. I agree 24mm is the best general landscape focal length. The recommendation for the 1.4L over the 2.8 IS is based upon IQ I presume?

Landscapes?

Take the money you were going to spend on the 24mm IS, 35mm IS and the 200mm f/2.8L and put that money toward one of these three, Canons 24mm f1.4L, 24mm TS or Zeiss 21mm distagon. Keep the 24-105 for a walk around.

Still buy the 100mm macro. That gets you in to macro and can cover portraits as well.

IMO the 35mm f2.0 would be a waste on the FF. The 35mm f/1.4 L is a great lens on FF, what makes it great is what it can do at f/1.8. For general landscape I always seem better served with a 24mm.

Those are my thoughts, but my vision of landscape may be different than yours.

12
Lenses / zooms vs primes for landscape
« on: January 24, 2014, 10:38:57 PM »
Hi. I'm hoping to prevail on the collective wisdom of CR regulars for advice on building my lens kit after making the change from crop sensor to FF (I've got the 6D - great camera). I got rid of the last of my crop sensor lenses, leaving me with the following lenses: 24-105 f4L, 50 f1.8II, and an older Sigma 70-200 f2.8 APO HSM (no OS) that I've had since my Elan IIe days. I shoot landscapes, occasional portraits, and I would like to get into macro. I don't shoot sports and don't plan to. I see two possible paths forward: go mostly with primes or rely mostly on zooms. In either case, I plan to keep the 24-105 because of its versatility as a walk around lens.

Plan 1. Add the 24mm f2.8 IS, 35mm 2.0 IS, 100mm f2.8L IS, and 200mm f2.8L. Sell the Sigma. Perhaps add a Rokinon 14mm manual focus later. On hikes when I want to keep the weight down, I could go with the 24, 35, and 100 and have most of the bases covered.

Plan 2. Add the 17-40mm f4L, 70-200mm f4L IS, and 100mm f2.8L IS. Sell the Sigma 70-200 f2.8. I don't want to buy the Canon 70-200 f2.8L (IS or non-IS) both because of the weight and the fact that for most landscape I don't need shallow DOF. Similar comments apply for the 16-36mm f2.8L. On hikes when I want to minimize weight, I would go with the 17-40, the 50, and the 70-200 f4L. I suppose that I could add macro ability by swapping the 50 1.8 for a 50 2.5 macro.

Any thoughts about either of these plans or other recommendations? Thanks.

13
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 6D: Should I wait or not?
« on: November 08, 2013, 07:52:42 AM »
I finally jumped on it the other day when it was $1215.  Mine arrives tomorrow.  Although everyone has said over and over it's not a sports or wildlife camera, I ordered it with the 100-400 lens and plan to put some extensive work in to exactly those two areas.  Hopefully I don't venture too far into the land of the "I told you so's...".

Temptation got the better of me on the last day of the sale and I was able to get one of the last ones at $1215. I shoot mainly landscape and portrait, and the opportunity to move from a 60D up to full frame was just too irresistible. The camera arrived yesterday, and the first thing I did was check the shutter count, which was 309. Not complaining - I actually expected it to be higher and was pleased that it wasn't. Just posting this as a point of information for others who might be contemplating buying refurbished from Canon direct. It would be interesting to see other data from refurb buyers in terms of shutter count. I haven't had much chance to shoot with it yet, but the difference in IQ and high ISO performance was immediately obvious, and I am very pleased.

14
Landscape / Re: Panoramas
« on: August 08, 2013, 05:25:27 PM »
Hope Lake near Telluride, Colorado. HDR image created with Hugin and edited in LR4. Can't figure out how to even out exposure in the sky.


Nice shot growler ... And welcome to cr.  :)

Thanks!

15
Landscape / Re: Panoramas
« on: August 08, 2013, 05:24:25 PM »
Hope Lake near Telluride, Colorado. HDR image created with Hugin and edited in LR4. Can't figure out how to even out exposure in the sky.

If you have access to Lightroom, use a digital graduated filter.

Thanks RobertG. I do have LR4, but the part of the photo that bothers me is the darker patch of sky above the clouds on the right, which is an artifact of the stitching process. If I use a graduated filter, won't that still be a problem?

Pages: [1] 2