1
Lenses / Re: Sigma 14mm 2.8 (Canon mount)
« on: May 18, 2013, 10:03:35 AM »
This is a VERY good price. I've only seen it once around ebay somewhere and they wanted nearly 600€.
May 21, 2013, 06:45:14 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.
2
Lenses / Re: Can the 70-200 2.8L II IS replace my 100L and 135L?
« on: May 18, 2013, 10:02:53 AM »
I guess the 135L isn't weather sealed. I didn't realize that.
Yup it ain't for some reason, that's also the only negative thing I can say about this lens. In every other aspect it's great.
3
Lenses / Re: Can the 70-200 2.8L II IS replace my 100L and 135L?
« on: May 17, 2013, 02:12:12 PM »
Yeah, I also loved my 100L, but only quite until I got the 135L 
it is simply another tad sharper and of course way faster. I did not pull out that 100L anymore except that one time when it snowed so hard it would've killed my 135.
it is simply another tad sharper and of course way faster. I did not pull out that 100L anymore except that one time when it snowed so hard it would've killed my 135.
4
Lenses / Re: Can the 70-200 2.8L II IS replace my 100L and 135L?
« on: May 16, 2013, 02:36:16 PM »
Cheers guys, thanks for all the replies.
I'll have you know that I decided to ditch Macro, sold the 100L, kept the 135L and bought the 70-200 2.8L IS II.
I'll have you know that I decided to ditch Macro, sold the 100L, kept the 135L and bought the 70-200 2.8L IS II.
5
Lenses / Re: Can the 70-200 2.8L II IS replace my 100L and 135L?
« on: May 11, 2013, 03:18:30 AM »Of course, if you do not use your 100L for close ups or macros, then you could have bought something less expensive to begin with.
Of course I used it for macros in the beginning, but that magic runs out sometime. I still wanted IS and weather sealing, so no alternative there.
6
Lenses / Can the 70-200 2.8L II IS replace my 100L and 135L?
« on: May 10, 2013, 09:51:16 AM »
Hello there,
having that thought in the back of my mind through the last days... That 70-200 2.8 II IS. We got Cashback from Canon at the moment (300€ for that lens, which is quite a chunk) and I've been thinking about this monster. I put very much emphasis on sharpness and I am satisfied with the performance of my Sigma 35 1.4, the 100L and the 135L. I feel there is something missing between 35 and 100, 50mm is too close to 35 and 85 too close to 100 so I would've wanted something 70-ish.
I don't shoot macros that much anymore and only use the 100L in bad weather conditions or if there is not enough space to use the 135L. The latter I only use from tripods for portrait work, because of its lack of stabilization and I quite don't like that it is not sealed.
The 70-200 2.8L II IS now could provide me with that 70 focal length I miss plus it would probably outperform the 100L, which I could get rid off then. I am not so sure about the 135L though. I really love this lens, but can't really say how big the difference between it and the 70-200 2.8L is. My pouch would probably stomach keeping both, but I find myself thinking if the 135L would become unnecessary.
Any thoughts on this?
having that thought in the back of my mind through the last days... That 70-200 2.8 II IS. We got Cashback from Canon at the moment (300€ for that lens, which is quite a chunk) and I've been thinking about this monster. I put very much emphasis on sharpness and I am satisfied with the performance of my Sigma 35 1.4, the 100L and the 135L. I feel there is something missing between 35 and 100, 50mm is too close to 35 and 85 too close to 100 so I would've wanted something 70-ish.
I don't shoot macros that much anymore and only use the 100L in bad weather conditions or if there is not enough space to use the 135L. The latter I only use from tripods for portrait work, because of its lack of stabilization and I quite don't like that it is not sealed.
The 70-200 2.8L II IS now could provide me with that 70 focal length I miss plus it would probably outperform the 100L, which I could get rid off then. I am not so sure about the 135L though. I really love this lens, but can't really say how big the difference between it and the 70-200 2.8L is. My pouch would probably stomach keeping both, but I find myself thinking if the 135L would become unnecessary.
Any thoughts on this?
7
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: iPhone5 or 1Dx
« on: May 10, 2013, 01:23:56 AM »
I don't get the point of this thread.
8
Lenses / Re: Canon 40mm vs 50mm f/1.4
« on: May 07, 2013, 02:48:15 PM »
Quite a bit difficult to compare a 2.8 lens to a 1.4 lens. That's two stops. The 40 basically is a real bargain, offers great quality for its size and weight and just has style somehow. I owned it for some weeks and was quite satisfied with its performance. Of course if you own a Sigma 35 1.4 like me, you won't put on such a 40 2.8 that often, except if you want to go ultra light.
10
Lenses / Re: Poll: Most Wanted New Lenses of 2013.
« on: May 07, 2013, 12:47:58 AM »
I'd like Sigma to add a 50 1.4 and 85 1.4 to their Art line.
11
EOS Bodies / Re: Download Firmware 1.2.1 link for 5DIII
« on: April 26, 2013, 10:07:27 AM »
Also updated, everything went fine.
12
Lighting / Re: Speedlite Remote Trigger Question
« on: April 26, 2013, 12:22:13 AM »you'd be better using the 430 as the master...
Um, the 430 can't be used as master.
I also got the Yongnuo 622C two weeks ago, they work flawlessly.
13
Lenses / Re: 135mm vs. 100mm macro
« on: April 25, 2013, 04:40:08 PM »
I also own both of them, I had a 100 non-L at first but wanted the IS, so got the 100L instead. I bothered quite a time if I'd need the 135L. Though they are not far away from each other regarding their focal lengths, they are both useful in their own ways. I used the 100L for macros a lot in the beginning (obviously) but also as a portrait lens. Also I have it with me, next to a wider lens, when I am only hiking around or so because it got an IS, and it's weather sealed while the 135L is not. Keep that in mind for snow or rain, I had a shoot with a girl when it snowed heavily and I could have cancelled that without the 100L. I use the 135L almost only for portrait work and then from a tripod.
The 135L is a bit better regarding sharpness and image quality but they are still both very, very sharp, probably the sharpest lenses in that price segment. If you can afford it, get both, unless you only plan indoor use or in very good weather conditions / at daylight, then I would consider the 135L.
The 135L is a bit better regarding sharpness and image quality but they are still both very, very sharp, probably the sharpest lenses in that price segment. If you can afford it, get both, unless you only plan indoor use or in very good weather conditions / at daylight, then I would consider the 135L.
14
Lenses / Re: 17-40 F4L or Wide Angle Prime?
« on: April 25, 2013, 04:23:40 PM »3 is wrong. Once focused, you can zoom as much as you like and it's still sharp. And sharp it is!
well as long as you only look at the center at least....
Right that is. Mid-frame is still quite okay but the corners quite suck, even when you stop down to f/8 or f/11. I sold mine and got a Samyang 14mm again, it's another world.
15
Lenses / Re: Do you still love 24-105L?
« on: April 25, 2013, 04:22:19 PM »
Received my Sigma 35mm 1.4 Art today, what a lens. I have minor focus issues on my 5D Mark III but it's no focus shift, only a slight front focus which I corrected in the body settings and now it sits. Really sharp at 1.4. I had the 50 1.2L before and that was quite a bit too soft for me, now I am satisfied. Still it's not 50mm which I wanted at first, but hey, there has to be a new 50mm 1.4 by Canon or Sigma sometime in the near future anyway.