Enjoyed each of these. Nice captures.
Just bought the 6D with EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM ..... also 270ex ii and RC-6
is this flash good ? or shall i replace it with 320ex
the seller give good deal for these flashes ......
now i think i need good tripod and EF 135mm f/2L USM
To save you time and money in the long run, I would skip the baby stuff and go straight to big gun 600EX-RT. It's a powerful flash, you can always reduce the power level if need to.
You can add more more speedlite later, plus the 600ex transmitter can trigger 600ex-rt speedlites from 200ft distance. YUP....200 feet
Bringing back my question, I still debate upgrading my 50mm f.14, but now there is a Sigma 1.4 that may surprise...
Sell it and use that money toward 70-200 f2.8 IS II or 135L
I have x2 5D III. Guess what lenses I have on both bodies most of time? 24-70 II + 70-200
I have owned three copies, because I couldn't decide between the 85 L and the 70-200.
I have had one copy that was completely useless, I had it in for repair, they changed TWO AF-moduls and TWO IS-units, they took out the front end, and three glass-elements and re-aligned the glass and when it came back the AF worked perfectly, but the IS was still not starting as quick as the previous copy, and it jumped, and often worked only one direction, and made a very weird, loud noise. It was VERY soft at 200 when I sent it in, and after all the re-alignment of the glass and front end it came back exactly the same. I sold it for cheap and had the buyer try it to see if if he liked it, and he bought, so I got a third copy, which like the two others had the issue of IS not being perfect, sometimes too slow to start, sometimes only one direction stabilized. But the AF and sharpness and overall image quality and build is as good as it gets. Wonderful lens. Just not as good as the 200 L, which is the reason I no longer have it
I had a ef 200mm f2.8 II L and it was a stunning optic, slightly sharper than my 135L. When I got my 70-200 f2.8 L IS II, I compared it to my 200L and found that the zoom had better contrast and colours. Sharpness tthere was littel between them, manybe a slight nod to the prime wide open. But with teleconverters, the zoom was a lot better. The Zoom has the latest IS unit, faster and quieter AF and it focusses closer too. The bokeh of the prime and general flare control was better than the zoom. The prime is a lot lighter and less obtrusive.
I felt that for my needs, the zoom was a better optic.
If you have rechargeable batteries, this charger is a no brainer.
If you have eneloops, how is this ~$60 charger better than the ~$6 charger from Sanyo?
depends on your usage i guess if you would see a difference in performance over time.
i have sets of powerex batteries that i killed over time due to the amount of usage they got. even rechargeables dont last forever. the maha charger i have has multiple charge modes that allow for quick charge, slow charge (better for long term health of the batteries), and a refresh charge that can actually improve the performance of older sluggish batteries. a standard charger may not offer these extra features.
the 60.00 higher end chargers can increase the life and performance of your batteries. they can prevent you from having to spend on additional batteries over time at a clip of 30-40.00 per set. my charger has saved me a ton of money.
but again...it depends on your usage. i use my batteries heavily and have seen the difference of charging modes 1st hand.