July 28, 2014, 11:33:40 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 - LetTheRightLensIn

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 220
1
Lenses / Re: Canon 24-70 f/4L IS disappointing?
« on: Today at 10:23:06 PM »

I was simply stating that any of those lenses would be a wiser choice unless you absolutely needed whatever little benefit the 24-70 F/4L has. 24-105L, Sigma 24-105L, or Tamron 24-70 VC. Doesn't matter but until canon wakes up and lowers the price on it, You won't see the 24-70 F/4L thread get very much bigger.



What little benefit?? I never kept a 24-105L longer than a week they left me so disappointed at 24mm. I kept the 24-70 f/4 IS until swapping it for 16-35 f/4 IS (which is less redundant to the 24-70 II). So much better at 24mm for landscapes.

Way smaller and lighter than the sigma 24-105 and better stopped down for landscapes and barely costs more. I don't even see the point of the sigma for a canon shooter (24-105 costs less, 24-70 f/4 IS barely costs more and is better and much smaller and lighter, 24-70 II is the same size and much better and f/2.8, tamron is same size and better and f/2.8).

Way smaller and lighter than the tamron 24-70 vc and a few hundred less expensive, although tamron does give you f/2.8 so it's an either or decision.

2
Lenses / Re: Canon 24-70 f/4L IS disappointing?
« on: Today at 10:17:16 PM »
Clearly this forum is not the place to hang out if you're trying to avoid buying more stuff (sigh)

Anyway, yes, I have seen the reviews of the 24-70 f4 and remain confused. I was wondering why so many gave such a high impression of this lens (with the exception of TDP which shows awful performance at 50mm)...I went to my local store to try one out and it confirmed the mediocre performance at 50mm f4 (ok, trying to be nice - it simply sucked at 50). It was very good at 24mm (much better than the 24-105 and close to the 24-70 2.8 II)...got worse as I zoomed in. At 35 it was just ok...at 50 no part of the image was sharp. Center was just barely passable, toward the edges - I thought my 24-105 was meh at 24, but (!!!)...and then it improved again at 70mm but it's still not as good as it was at 24. Macro mode seemed cool but gimmicky at the same time. Performance wise the macro mode seemed to be fairly good (of course, not in the league of the 100L but WAY better than anything in its class).

Basically, with the exception of 24mm f4, this seemed like a step DOWN from the 24-105 which really surprised me given reviews I've read singing its praises. Then, finally I stumble upon some reviews docking it for its performance at 50mm (and threads like this)...I wonder if that was just a bad copy that the store had. Unfortunately it's the only copy they have too...I'd like to try out another one to see if it's any better.

So...sounds like it's normal to see a drop in performance in that lens at 50, but it shouldn't be a dramatic one?

My second copy definitely was better than the first. But your copy sounds super bad at 50mm.

Anyway 24mm area performance had always been the hold grail for FF. 50mm was trivial, even a cheap 50 1.8 delivered that fine corner to corner. 24m was challenge, also people tend to shoot standard zooms most often at the wide and long end, so I way preferred the design decision to make the 24-70 f/4 IS peak at 24mm (and 70mm) as opposed to the 24-105 which chose to be best at the trivial and less used 50mm and much worse at 24mm (and 70-105m).

24mm f/4 IS also fights off nasty longitudinal CA much better than the 24-105L as well.

3
Lenses / Re: Canon 24-70 f/4L IS disappointing?
« on: Today at 10:10:59 PM »
Now, If you want to make me spend more money for yet another lens you will not make it ... yet :-)

Earlier this year I got the 24-70 2.8 II and immediately before leaving for vacation I got 16-35 f/4L IS (by giving my EF24 2.8 ) and 100L 2.8 Macro (by giving my old non-usm non-L 100mm 2.8 macro).

Plus, I knew I needed my 2.8 zoom due to an event that takes place at low light.  ;D

So I will think about it next year if I there are no announcements for 5DMkIV, 14-24 2.8, 16-35 2.8 III, so many ifs...  ;D ;D ;D

Wow nice set 16-35 f/4 IS, 24-70 2.8 II and 100L! Same here. Only plus 70-300L  ;D and 300 2.8 IS  ;D ;D. BUY BUY BUY  ;D ;D ;D.

4
Lenses / Re: Canon 24-70 f/4L IS disappointing?
« on: Today at 10:09:24 PM »
It shouldn't be that unsharp buts it's no surprise you find the lens disappointing. For the same price, you can get the better sigma 24-105 or a Tamron 24-70 VC. I can see the f4L version being a value until it's sub-800$.

The better sigma 24-105????????

The sigma is larger and heaver than the 24-70 II! And, other than right at f/4, it's performance isn't that far off the 24-105L!
Right because at 5.6-f/8 all lenses look sharp. So being able to shoot wide open sharp photos matters more with a slower lens like 24-105's because you'll be there more often.

It still makes the 24-70 F/4L look like an overpriced toyota at it's current price.

No, all lenses do not look sharp at f/5.6-f/8. Compare a 75-300 IS to a 70-300L at even f/8. Compare a 24-105 at 24mm f/8 to 24 1.4 II or 24-70 II or 24-70 f/4 IS. And contrast and longitudinal CA and distortion and such can vary too even stopped down.

The Sigma barely costs more than reasonable street price of the 24-70 f/4 IS (I see it on sale for $999 all the time and a couple times for $950).

5
Lenses / Re: Canon 24-70 f/4L IS disappointing?
« on: July 27, 2014, 09:21:53 PM »
I too have both 70-200 f/4 L IS and 70-200 f/2.8L IS II for the mere reason that when I bought the first the second didn't exist yet!

However there are cases where I need the 2.8 and cases where I don't so I can do with a lighter lens.

So I keep them both!


Indeed...  I bought the 70-300L as a travel telezoom, after owning the 70-200/2.8L IS II for a while.



I bought the 7-300L first - as travelzoom (occasionally sports in good daylight) and only after that I bought th 70-200 f/2.8 IS II - what a great zoomlens with wonderful IQ. It came very handy when shooting indoor musicals with limited and changing lights.
I have a few lenses in the same focal length but all for different reasons and pusposes....ok I suffer - a bit - from GAS  ;D


I've got the 70-300L for travel too. It collapses to a very manageable size and has excellent image quality too  :)
Can you please stop mentioning how useful for travel the 70-300L is?  ;D


70-300L on travel:

6
Lenses / Re: Canon 24-70 f/4L IS disappointing?
« on: July 27, 2014, 09:20:45 PM »
I too have both 70-200 f/4 L IS and 70-200 f/2.8L IS II for the mere reason that when I bought the first the second didn't exist yet!

However there are cases where I need the 2.8 and cases where I don't so I can do with a lighter lens.

So I keep them both!

Indeed...  I bought the 70-300L as a travel telezoom, after owning the 70-200/2.8L IS II for a while.


I bought the 7-300L first - as travelzoom (occasionally sports in good daylight) and only after that I bought th 70-200 f/2.8 IS II - what a great zoomlens with wonderful IQ. It came very handy when shooting indoor musicals with limited and changing lights.
I have a few lenses in the same focal length but all for different reasons and pusposes....ok I suffer - a bit - from GAS  ;D

I've got the 70-300L for travel too. It collapses to a very manageable size and has excellent image quality too  :)
Can you please stop mentioning how useful for travel the 70-300L is?  ;D

It's pretty much the best. NO photographer can be without one. Not one!  ;D

(seriously though it's one of my most used lenses, for me 24-70 II, 70-300L and 300 2.8 IS L and 100L get the most usage by far and of those the 70-300L might even be #1)

7
Lenses / Re: Canon 24-70 f/4L IS disappointing?
« on: July 27, 2014, 09:19:19 PM »
It shouldn't be that unsharp buts it's no surprise you find the lens disappointing. For the same price, you can get the better sigma 24-105 or a Tamron 24-70 VC. I can see the f4L version being a value until it's sub-800$.

The better sigma 24-105????????

The sigma is larger and heaver than the 24-70 II! And, other than right at f/4, it's performance isn't that far off the 24-105L!

8
Lenses / Re: Canon 24-70 f/4L IS disappointing?
« on: July 27, 2014, 09:16:56 PM »
My first copy was better than the 24-105Ls I've tried but it did seem a bit extra dodgy at 50mm and the edges in general. I ended up returning it and trying a second copy and it definitely did better at the edges all around and it seemed, in a weird way, to have a lot more DOF at 50mm. Not quite as good as the 24-70 II stopped down, but not bad at all, although the difference even more at f/4, but all the same very good and the second best general zoom I've ever used on FF and FAR better than any 24-105L copy I have ever used.

9
Lenses / Re: Canon 24-70 f/4L IS disappointing?
« on: July 27, 2014, 09:14:44 PM »
I can't understand why Canon would persist to make F4 lenses, specially ones that are designed to be upgrades (Fisheye 8-15mm f4).

Probably the most pointless aperture setting there is.

????

So someone has to pay twice as much to get f/2.8 lens and lug more weight just for landscape shots?

What is wrong with f/4??

10
Wow, Parsippany.

Anyway it is a tricky scenario. Often while on the clock anything you do can be taken, fair or not, so there is a chance you may be out of luck. It does seem a little questionable the way they went about it morally though regardless of whether the law ends up saying that the photos are still 100% your own or not (and I'm not a lawyer so I can't be sure).


11
sorry to say, but a bad shutter

12
EOS Bodies / Re: 7D now marked as DISCONTINUED at Amazon
« on: July 26, 2014, 05:22:54 PM »
donkey kong

13

That doesn't make sense. Do you not have an upload/sell account set up (subscription required).


Of course.  You can't post items for sale without one.  But even then, it did not let me PM with a 'you have less than 25 posts' error message. 

Non-issue in this instance, though.  Lens just sold for a good price and is on its way.  Thanks for everyone's advice!

- A


Must be some bug in the site. FYI, I have posted several PMs when I had less than 25 posts.
If this happens again, you can contact the moderator.
Anyway, congrats on the sale.

I think it's a new rule on FM to help fish out robots/scammers/trouble-makers a bit.

14
In the early 2000's I used to use Ebay...a lot.  I gave up on Ebay around 2007 as the fees for listing/selling were too high and shipping is a pain in the butt.  Since then I have used Craigslist exclusively.  I usually get what I want for my gear and have sold numerous cameras this way including: Leica M8, Canon 1DSII, 7D, G12, 20D and numerous lenses.  In addition to selling, I have bought countless gear on Craigslist too which is a nice way to meet other photographers, not to mention try the gear before you hand over your money.

The thing on Craigslist is to sort out the flakes from the people who are serious...also, for Craigslist to be viable you need to live in a populated area (Vancouver, BC is where I am).  No matter what, do not ship to anyone on CL....cash deals only, in person, usually at a coffee shop.

I actually did much better on CL in a somewhat less populated area. Buyers were apt to pay a lot more. In a very large market the buyers seem to be very much wanting to find mega-bargains or else just buy new.

+1.
I found it easier to sell in a college town with 171,000 people than in a city with 2.5 million people.

Yeah CL near NYC is a pain (although now and then you can get it to work out best, but only very now and then), but down in triangle area of NC it was a breeze.

15
Lenses / Re: 24L MkII focusing problems
« on: July 24, 2014, 02:20:09 PM »
I've heard stories of claimed terrible problems, mostly when paired with the 7D.

My copy was great on 5D2/5D3 and pretty good on 7D though.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 220