August 29, 2014, 04:33:50 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 - bdunbar79

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 171
1
Lenses / Re: 400 f/2.8L II IS: Took the plunge...
« on: August 27, 2014, 10:36:51 AM »
I sold my 300 f/2.8L I IS and 400 f/2.8L I IS lenses (because I don't really need the 300 anymore) and bought a 400 f/2.8L II IS for sports all next year.

May I ask what was your rationale? I would never have gone from the 400 f/2.8L mrk I to II myself.

I did this with the 300mm f/2.8 L and while its nice in many ways - weight, handling, faster IS etc - it was really a luxury upgrade as IQ differences are so negligible that I doubt anyone who has not owned both would be able to spot the difference.

I don't regret my upgrade as I can easily afford it and splash a little extra on my hobby. But for a working tool I would not even have considered it.

That's just it.  It's going to be a working tool for me, and I could not handle the excess weight running around at football games and track meets anymore.  The was my first consideration.  The second was that I don't need my 300 anymore.  I want to use the 400 and 70-200 combo.  I had to crop too many times with a 300 lens on FF.  Those two things coupled together made the price worth it to me.

As for Northstar's question, I absolutely considered the 200-400 lens.  However, many of my venues require f/2.8 to keep the ISO down low enough (some places just to get to 5000) so I didn't purchase that.  I do agree, however, for daytime/sufficient light, it could potentially eliminate even using a 2nd camera and shorter lens if you can get back away from the end zone and can shoot at 200.  That would be an excellent point.  But there are just too many night games/events for me right now.

Again, thanks everyone for the comments/contributions.  I will be able to produce photos the weekend of 9/6-9/7.
 

2
Lenses / Re: 400 f/2.8L II IS: Took the plunge...
« on: August 26, 2014, 09:43:13 PM »
Thanks so much for all of the input guys, I really appreciate it.

My back and abs couldn't take running the sidelines with the version 1 anymore and I noticed it AF'd slower than my 300.  I did also notice the IS making the AF jumpy at times.  I'm glad I made the right decision.  Thanks guys, great forum.

3
Lenses / 400 f/2.8L II IS: Took the plunge...
« on: August 26, 2014, 07:12:45 PM »
Well, it's time to upgrade again.  I sold my 300 f/2.8L I IS and 400 f/2.8L I IS lenses (because I don't really need the 300 anymore) and bought a 400 f/2.8L II IS for sports all next year. 

Anyone using this lens currently?  I was really amazed how much lighter it felt vs. the version I and I'm also expecting slightly faster AF with the 1Dx.  It'll arrive about September 2, just in time for my first weekend of sports this fall, 9/6-9/7. 

Thanks for any input.

4
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DXO uh-oh?
« on: July 27, 2014, 07:48:03 PM »
<She wrote that as tongue 'n cheek, and it actually represents a sign of humility and willingness to be open to contrary points of view, signs of a good engineer/scientist. As for her credentials, if you follow her posts on dpreview you'll see she one of the most informed technical minds for camera sensor info. To cite a specific example, she reverse-engineered Nikon's long-exposure noise algorithm, identified serious problems with it, devised a much improved alternate algorithm which was relayed to Nikon by Thom Hogan and then later adopted by Nikon in subsequent camera designs.>

Right.  Scientific GARBAGE.  There are many scientists on this forum, myself included.  This doesn't count, sorry.  In science you don't get to "tongue 'n cheek" or get it right the majority of the time.  Either you do good science that's meaningful or you don't.  DxO mark does NOT.  We've all read that link and they do NOT disclose how scores are done/derived from the measurements. 

Besides, DxO mark isn't relevant.  Despite them scoring Nikon/Sony higher and higher against Canon product head to head, Canon still went from a 4% market share lead 4 years ago to a now 20% market share lead.  Nobody cares or nobody believes because of just that:  The garbage "science" they are doing.

5
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DXO uh-oh?
« on: July 25, 2014, 10:25:03 PM »
I'm going to use this example again:

When the 70-200 f/2.8L II IS lens came to the market and was tested, it got a lower score than the version I lens.  Later, DxO mark used a different CAMERA to test them, then the v2 finally scored higher.

 

6
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DXO uh-oh?
« on: July 24, 2014, 08:48:43 PM »
Congrats to Nikon for another world class sensor.

You mean Sonikon?

7
Lenses / Re: How many years before we see a 50L II
« on: July 24, 2014, 03:55:58 PM »
I sucked  :-\

 :) :D ;D

8
Lenses / Re: How many years before we see a 50L II
« on: July 24, 2014, 01:47:28 PM »
many years.
there is nothing wrong with the 50L.

it's a people lens. it's plenty sharp.
it's f/1.2 - so if you're not nailing focus, you need to work on your technique.

Can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not...

Exactly.  It's not the f/1.2 aperture that causes the focus problems on this particular lens.  It's actually the field of curvature and is especially prominent at close distances from about f/2.8 to f/4.5.  The lens will back-focus and there is pretty much nothing you can do about it.  I thought it was pretty underwhelming for $1699.

9
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Where do you buy 5D Mark iii?
« on: July 21, 2014, 05:45:23 PM »
My sincere advice to you is to wait.  If you are cutting it this close with budget, just put some money away and save up to get a $3399 with $200 rebate deal.  This way it's only $3199 and you get a full USA warranty.  If you have to wait several more months than I'd do that.

10
Lenses / Re: Something with 50mm L lens that make it different
« on: July 21, 2014, 04:34:18 PM »
I'd like the chime in with a neutral stance.  I owned the 50L for over a year and also own the nifty fifty and the 50 f/1.4.  Love all 3 of them.  The 50L was brilliant from f/1.2 to f/2.8.  Absolutely brilliant.  After f/2.8 though, it was the worst of the 3 lenses.  In fact, at f/5.6, the 1.4 lens looked much better and was much sharper and if I were shooting stopped down I always went for the 1.4.  Now of course I go for the 24-70 f/2.8L II because I don't shoot wider than f/2.8 anymore.

Should I take up photography again at razor thin DOF then I'd definitely consider buying it again, probably refurbished.     

Depends on which aperture for sure on this issue.  This is a weird case where the 50L is good at one aperture range while the 1.4 is best at the other.  Odd situation.

11
Lenses / Re: New Canon 16-35 f4 IS not listed in CPS directory
« on: July 21, 2014, 11:50:08 AM »
The lens is on my amazon wish list.  Feel free to log in and purchase it for me :)

12
Lenses / Re: Something with 50mm L lens that make it different
« on: July 20, 2014, 11:43:27 AM »
Unfortunately I never really had a great comparison.  Most of my 50L shooting days were before the 5D3 was out, and so most of them were done on a 1Ds3.  I got the 5D3 and that was consequently about the time I sold the 50L and began shooting with the 50 f/1.4 a lot more.  Oh well...

13
Lenses / Re: Something with 50mm L lens that make it different
« on: July 20, 2014, 10:48:22 AM »
PBD,

I agree with your point in the other thread.  What is truly interesting, and there are tons of people claiming it has a unique look vs. the other lenses and yet NO ONE has risen to the challenge and identified which lens for which photo.  In the other thread one person claimed that there was "clearly a unique look of color and contrast that sets it apart from the other 50mm lenses" yet that person had no attempt or answer of identifying which photo was taken with which lens. 

Very interesting.

I think it's the internal sense of justification of purchasing something.  When I buy something for $1699 or whatever I need to internally validate the purchase and I need to hear from others that yes, it was worth it, especially if I'm insecure about the purchase.  It's the same as recommending gear.  People tend to think that the gear they bought is best for everyone else, because it was best for them.  I did buy the 50L and used it for over a year and was trying to pry at my photos to justify it.  I admitted that I couldn't, sold it, and kept the 50 f/1.4. 

14
Canon EF Prime Lenses / Re: Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L USM
« on: July 19, 2014, 05:19:13 PM »
I owned and shot with the 50L extensively for over a year. 

It is a specialty lens specifically designed to be used primarily from f/1.2 to f/2.8.  Narrower than f/2.8 there are better 50mm lenses, namely the 50 f/1.4.  I didn't shoot wider than f/2.8 enough so I sold it and kept the 50 f/1.4.  TO ME, it wasn't worth the $1699 vs. $399 price difference.

If you love f/1.2 to f/2.2ish and you love the 50mm focal length, then I'd say it would be worth it.  If not, no way.

15
EOS Bodies / Re: Eos7D mk2, How EXCITED will you be if . . .?
« on: July 19, 2014, 11:07:19 AM »
If interested here is a quick informal test I did yesterday. Crop cameras are the best birding cameras IMO beating a FF pretty handily. Especially with the new crop sensors from sony.

Interesting that Art Morris (of who's website your URL is seemingly a parody, and who actually shoots birds instead of posed pooches) uses the 1D X and 5DIII with Canon 500/600 II lenses and delivers impressive images. 

I must say, your opinion smells like birds that fart.  :-X

  Non sense.  I personally do not like his pics that much, but many do.  Many others that use Canon equipment I like much better.
Just went to your site. Looks like you use the 1dx and 5D III & 600 II.  Birding photography, you are not very good IMO. Very poor.  Jrista, on the other hand is very talented IMO. But, I don't have to agree with him for sure.

  Great hobby though.... all the best.

 

Good job man.  You should be proud of yourself.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 171