July 25, 2014, 10:05:30 PM

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 - Joes Dad

Pages: [1] 2
1
Lenses / Re: What are Canon's sharpest lenses?
« on: February 25, 2013, 04:29:11 PM »
I do not yet have experience with the Mark II big whites mentioned by some in reply, so with that caveat, in my experience/view:

(1) 200 f/2.0L (clear winner)
(2) 85 f/1.2L
(3) 70-200 f/2.8L II

2
I have experience with these lenses.  In my view, the Canon 85 f/1.2L is a phenomenal portrait lens - the best for this purpose Canon makes (unless you include the 200 f/2.0 - but that is a different discussion and not suited to street photography as mentioned by the OP).  At night, the 85 f/1.2 AF will hunt, but the lens is worth that frustration.  The 50 f/1.2L is also a very good lens, but in my view I would choose the Zeiss over it for street photography, especially at night when you will want to shoot wide open.  Good luck.  (+1 AliPaul - great shots.)

3
Lenses / Re: Announcement on January 8, 2013? New Lenses [CR1]
« on: December 23, 2012, 10:52:34 AM »

Except that you won't be able to use filters with the 14-24 because of the curved front surface.

Lee makes a filter holder for the 14-24.

4
Lenses / Re: Announcement on January 8, 2013? New Lenses [CR1]
« on: December 23, 2012, 10:40:29 AM »
I will promptly welcome the 14-24 into my home.  Happy holidays.

5
Lenses / Re: Finally got my dream lens- 200mm F2 L
« on: October 03, 2012, 02:59:28 AM »
Welcome to the club - the sharpest lens in the arsenal.

6
First, the last two questions.  In LA, I recommend Bel Air Camera in Westwood. www.belaircamera.com.  About 20 minutes north of LAX unless you hit it in the afternoon rush hour.  There is one camera store - Sammy's - in Culver City which would be about 10 minutes from LAX, but Bel Air Camera is a more extensive shop.

Lenses.  If you could replace the 24-70 with the 24-105 you won't regret it for this trip.  You can use a tripod in Upper Antelope, but in Lower it can be very difficult.  The IS of the 24-105 is very welcome in that instance.  Otherwise, you are on the right track.

Parks.  I think you can already see from the replies there is no right answer.  We all have our favorites.  Mine are Yosemite, Page area (but not only for Grand Canyon), and the Grand Tetons.  In my view, of all of these, Yosemite is the treasure.  Six hours from LAX by car.  I can't imagine missing it.

You can do the slot canyons and Horseshoe in Page all in one day.  At that time of year, I think you should start with sunrise at Horseshoe.  Only bring your widest lens for that trek -  you will not need the others and won't want them on your back on the walk back up to the parking lot.  It will take you about 20 minutes of a walk on an open but sandy and incline path each way from the parking lot.  It is just 5 minutes outside of Page.  Then absolutely hit Upper Antelope Canyon between 11 and 1 - which is about 10 minutes from Page - for any chance of the sun shafts.  The canyons are two experiences - one with direct light and one without.  From Upper, go across the road to Lower.  You can spend more time in Lower if you pay an additional fee.  (When in Lower - pay attention to the rope ladders when framing your shots - they lend an interesting perspective.)

The other replies have covered a bunch of other great ideas so I won't repeat them.  I would say, however, if you can find a way - long drive, plane - to get over to Jackson, Wyoming from the Southern Utah area, you will not regret it.  The Tetons are stunning, the area is unbelievably gorgeous (any time of year), and Yellowstone is unique in this world.

Good luck.

7
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Eye-fi card and 5D3 experiences
« on: August 22, 2012, 10:22:04 AM »
I use cards on both my 5D Mark III and 1D Mark IV.  I shoot in RAW on the CF card and simultaneously shoot in small JPG to the Eye-Fi SD card.  The JPGs are then transferred to my iPad for immediate review of how the shooting is going.  In my experience these things work great for this purpose.  I would not use it for file transfer of the files intended for future use.

8
Landscape / Re: Post Your Best Landscapes
« on: August 14, 2012, 04:36:46 PM »
One of my best.

9
Lenses / Re: If you can have ONLY 3 lenses, what would they...???
« on: August 14, 2012, 01:30:37 PM »
Including those that exist but not yet generally available:

24-70 f/2.8L II (This is the hard one - would have difficulty not choosing the 24 f/1.4L instead)
70-200 f/2.8L II
200-400 f/4.0L

Thankfully, not my problem though.

10
Lenses / Re: Another I need advise on a lens thread......
« on: August 13, 2012, 10:12:42 PM »
The 16-35 f/2.8 II is a good lens, but not truly great as previously posted.  The 24 f/1.4 II is phenomenal.  I think only my 200 f/2.0 is sharper of all of the lenses I have below.  You mentioned nighttime sky photography - the 24 f/1.4 is the leader of the field in that regard.  You can also create some pretty special shallow depth of field shots of your family with it.  If I was faced with your decisions, I would get the 24 now, the 24-70 f/2.8 II when released and then the 14-28 f/2.8 when released (depending upon reviews).

11
Lenses / Re: 24mm F/1.4 II vs new 24mm F/2.8 IS
« on: August 07, 2012, 05:01:03 PM »
I do not have any experience with the 24 f/2.8 IS, but I imagine despite all of its qualities, it cannot remotely shoot the night sky as well the 24 f/1.4 II.  For timelapse purposes, I think the same would be true.  This is one of my favorite lenses from Canon.

12
Had to order one - like most things gear I see.

13
Lenses / Re: Keep 70-200 f4 IS or go for f2.8 IS II?
« on: July 25, 2012, 03:23:13 AM »
For what its worth, in my view, the f/4 is fantastic.  The f/2.8 II is fantasticer. :)  The weight is worth it in every respect. I only consider my 200 f/2.0 to be sharper.

14
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Packing list for trip of a lifetime
« on: July 19, 2012, 03:30:51 PM »
Congrats on the trip.  Seems like everyone is generally on the right track in my view.  I am about to do you a huge favor though.  FORGET ANY AND ALL IDEAS ABOUT THE 28-300.  It is a tank and it shoots soft.  I tried and tried again to make it work because I wanted it to so badly, but the weight factor becomes stupid after a while and images at the long end I found disappointing. (When I say weight, understand I am 6'1" 250 - and I still found it too heavy for comfortable use.).  As a single shooter, I would carry the 16-35, 24-105 and 70-200 with 1.4x.  To give you perspective on my true feelings on the 28-300 weight v. value ratio, I would likely also carry my 300 f/2.8L with 1.4x instead of the 100-400, but I understand why you might take the 100-400 instead.  I think dry bags in lightweight non-waterproof backpacks work great for these kinds of conditions.  Given there is four of you, I would bring the tripod.  Gotta be a shot there.  Also, I have become a huge fan of the RRS little $99 pocket-pod.  Check it out.  Good luck.

15
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS-1D X Availability in North America
« on: July 04, 2012, 01:56:48 AM »
Here's the beautiful beast.

Pages: [1] 2