January 31, 2015, 12:48:45 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 - sunnyVan

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 19
EOS Bodies / Re: A Sony & Canon Sensor Partnership Mentioned Again [CR1]
« on: January 28, 2015, 11:49:52 AM »
Too good to be true. Therefore just a wish

EOS Bodies / Re: Purchase 5DIII now, or wait for 5DIV?
« on: January 22, 2015, 09:18:04 PM »
I'm waiting for the release of the next full frame camera whether it's 6dmk2 or 5dmk4 or something else. I just want to see what new technology is being offered. At which point I'll decide whether the new cameras are worth the high launching price ($2500 for 6dmk2, and $3800 for mk4. Just my random guess.) However, it's more likely that I'll get 5dmk3 at that time at an even lower price than now. That's my plan.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Preparing for the switch
« on: January 14, 2015, 12:42:09 PM »
Actually, I'm mostly considering the Tamron due to the sharpness it delivers. It sure beats the Nikon's 24-70; as for the Canon I see it as a tie, based on the reviews and users experiences. It's almost twice cheaper! That's unbelievable! I even started to doubt the 70-200.
I hope it's not wishful thinking... but still the tests for the 24-70 are real:)

I didn't read every reply. I did read that you were originally a nikon shooter. If you don't mind the switching cost to canon, you shouldn't forgo the opportunity of trying the best of the canon lens lineup, namely 24-70 2.8ii, 70-200 2.8ii, etc. These are keeping certain canon users from switching to nikon. Well, my two cents.

EOS-M / Re: Why do I keep my Eos M?
« on: January 09, 2015, 11:11:47 AM »
I too was attracted by the great price and was pleasantly surprised by the build and image quality. Like you I tend to use my ff as my main camera. I decided to sell my M lenses and keep the adapter. So now I bring the M along such that my 16-35 sort of behave like a normal lens. Meanwhile I have my 6d with a tele lens attached. I kind of like this setup. I know that one day I will IR convert the M. Any other cropped bodies are too large to bring along with a main body. A converted M can be tagged along as a "just in case."

Lenses / Re: Canon 35mm F2 IS image quality
« on: January 07, 2015, 11:40:57 AM »
I think this review would be a great read for everone (it's not my review).


It's for the 16-35mm f4 IS but the review compares it to the 35 IS and the 35 IS actually does considerably well in comparison!

Can't compare a sedan with an suv. Just because they both have 4 wheels doesn't make it a fair comparison.

How is it an unfair comparison? Considering the 16-35 is double the price of the 35 IS and is also a L lens, it just shows the great quality of the 35 IS. I'm not saying the 16-35 is a bad lens either, I actually still plan on getting it!

I bring both with me quite frequently. They're for different purposes. The zoom is great for landscape and indoor architecture. It's useable at 35mm for portrait but the look is very different from what I'd get with the prime. I mainly use 35 prime to photograph my toddler son indoor. It has the classic magical look of a prime lens. The zoom I like to use 24mm for landscape and 16mm to get insanely close to foreground.

Having said that, I've used the zoom to shoot portrait and the prime for landscape. It's just not the primary reason I got them for.

Lenses / Re: Canon 35mm F2 IS image quality
« on: January 07, 2015, 11:08:42 AM »
I think this review would be a great read for everone (it's not my review).


It's for the 16-35mm f4 IS but the review compares it to the 35 IS and the 35 IS actually does considerably well in comparison!

Can't compare a sedan with an suv. Just because they both have 4 wheels doesn't make it a fair comparison.

EOS Bodies / Re: Expect Higher End Products at CP+ in February
« on: January 05, 2015, 06:13:08 PM »
<p>I have received a lot of emails, tweets, and Facebook messages about the lacklustre announcements from Canon today. Canon generally doesn’t make a big splash at CES, which is a very broad consumer electronics show. You get lost in TV’s, software, phones and every other gadget one can think of.</p>
<p>I’d expect we’re going to see higher end products announced for <a href="http://www.cpplus.jp/en/" target="_blank">CP+ in Japan</a>, which runs from February 12, 2015 until February 15, 2015. Announcements for different types of products may trickle out in the weeks prior to the show.</p>
<p><strong>What could we expect for CP+?<br />

</strong>I expect we’re going to see the rumoured/confirmed large zoom, large sensor PowerShot. <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2015/01/new-powershots-for-ces-next-week-cr1/" target="_blank">The specs from the other day</a> could be this camera.</p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/11/did-canon-leak-the-ef-11-24mm-f4l/" target="_blank">EF 11-24 f/4L</a> could also make an appearance, this lens has been all but confirmed. We will probably see a new Rebel in the next month or two, so that could appear for CP+.</p>
<p>As for the high megapixel camera? This could be a show we get at least a development announcement as I do expect an announcement for this camera to come before NAB in April.</p>
<p>More to come….</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>

Lacklustre? You're being too polite. As I read the news, I muttered garbage.

Lenses / Re: Canon 35mm F2 IS image quality
« on: January 05, 2015, 09:34:28 AM »
Back to the subject of the original post...has anyone on this thread compared the 35 IS with the Sigma 35A extensively?

Maybe not extensively but my friend and I compared his 35A to my 35 IS. The IQ wide open is the same for sharpness, but the Sigma is somewhat better since it has less vignetting (if that even bothers you).

In reality the main comparison comes down to preference. Do you like a heavier build and f1.4 or IS, lighter and cheaper.

Totally agree. Between A grade sharp and A+ sharp there's just no significant difference. I gave up my sigma, which had zero AF problems and was extremely sharp, and settled for canon 35is instead mainly because of smaller size.

Lenses / Re: 24mm - Digital Photography's magical focal length?
« on: January 05, 2015, 09:08:23 AM »
35mm on full frame sensor is great for photojournalism. This is my favorite focal length to photograph my toddler son. One word to describe the special look is intimacy. Because of the wide angle I can shoot from 2-3 feet away from him. Not too far, not too close. Just right. And because I'm so close to my subject, the picture will come out showing closeness.

24mm on your cropped body approximates the same look. But not quite the same unless you have 24 1.4. You go to Flickr and search for 40mm pancake, sigma 35, canon 35, and then you'll see what it looks like on full frame.

When shooting wide open on my 6d, the 35mm prime does give a magical look.

Hi guys

I'm trying to decide on a telezoom that I will be using for landscape photography.

I shoot on a tripod whenever possible, and mostly stopped down to the lens' optimal aperture. The lens will be with me in my backpack whenever I go out to photograph, so size and weight is also of concern. It will be used in foul weather so it must have weather sealing.

The lens will for now be used on a 5D Mark III and a 6D, but when Canon release their high resolution body I will most likely jump on that wagon.

Most important factors:
- Image quality, especially stopped down
- Resolution (for when I upgrade to the high resolution body that is rumored, but not sure if this really should be a concern)
- Weight and portability
- Weather sealing

Less important:
- Fast aperture
- Super quick auto focus
- Image stabilization (will be used on tripod in most cases)

So far I'm considering the 70-300 F/4-5.6L IS USM, 70-200 F/4L USM and 70-200 F/4L IS USM.

I don't have any first hand experience with either one of these, so I really don't know how they compare in terms of image quality, which is my main concern. The extra reach of the 70-300 is very tempting and the maximum aperture does not worry me. However if the 70-200 F/4L's provide better image quality then I would rather go for one of those.

So what do you guys think, pro's, con's for either one? Any other lens I maybe should consider?

Any input is greatly appreciated.

Been using 70-200f4 IS for several years. The weight is just right for my 6d. Great color and sharpness. Like you I typically stop down but I won't hesitate to shoot at f4. while it's a great outdoor lens, it's far less useful indoor, hence not great for events. I fill that gap with 135prime.

Heard a lot of good things about 70-300. But I personally prefer a lens that doesn't extend.

5D MK III Sample Images / Re: Missions Travel Photography
« on: December 29, 2014, 08:10:20 PM »
Nice pictures!

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: I'm getting impatient for the new 5D 4.
« on: December 17, 2014, 12:46:31 PM »
The ugly truth is that photography is an expensive hobby. If you are not ready to spend at least a few thousand dollars, you don't have to read any further and you should stop spending time on this forum. And forget about what brand to choose from. They are all expensive. If you are on a budget get a canon eos m and be happy. The eos m is lightyears better than your g6.

Lenses / Re: Canon 35mm F2 IS image quality
« on: December 16, 2014, 02:55:28 PM »
just recently i got 35mm f2 IS. it is a bit disappointing that the images do not have a "pop" effect that i get from 24-70 Mk II. I am thinking of returning it and saving money for 35L MkII or some other lens. Can anyone share experience with this lens?

I got the 35 f2 recently. I noticed quite a bit of coma towards the edge when shot wide open. This is not unusual but I don't see that with my 24-70. This is not to say the 35 is bad. It's just that the 24-70 is too good, and too hard to beat. the prime has the advantage of an extra stop and IS. But putting them side by side, 9 out of 10 times I grab the zoom.

I sold my sigma 35 to purchase the canon version and I don't regret this part of the decision at all. The canon is so much more portable and more realistic to bring along with the zoom. The real question is whether I need a 35mm prime given how excellent the zoom is. The debate is ongoing but I don't have much choice here because I already cut the box for rebate purposes and can't return. I might have been happier if I had gotten a refurbished one and paid $400 instead of 550.

Only you yourself know whether you need a 35mm prime. I can't imagine how expensive the 35Lii will be when it's launched. Maybe $1800?

EOS Bodies / Re: Using full frame lens on crop body cameras ?
« on: December 13, 2014, 10:19:58 PM »
From the video I've posted below, it looks as though it's a (big) waste of money to purchase high rent full frame glass for a crop body including the all new 7D mark II.
I'm disappointed with this as it "was" my intention.
So, I hope someone will clarify this for me but it seems that with the new 7D mark II will actually produce better results/sharper images with a cheaper lens that is made for a crop body? To my knowledge, Canon doesn't produce any high quality glass for their crop sensor cameras?

I wanted the 7D mark II with a Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM Lens. If what I'm seeing in the video below is correct and I sure would assume so, that this combination is a total waste of money.

Perhaps I should wait to see if Canon is soon to release a new version of the 5D mark III?


I didnt watch the video. I'm no expert but I will share my unbiased view. Full frame lenses are very difficult to design and expensive to produce. It's difficult because full frame area is so large and it's hard to make the corners as sharp as the central area. With a cropped sensor and a full frame lens, only the area towards the center is being used (maybe 80%?), so the corners are not being used, in a way wasted. However, there are not that many high quality efs lenses ( although the ones coming out seem pretty good). They cost less to produce and are cheaper for us consumers. Some people (most of us on this forum) get picky over time and move on to full frame bodies. It's wise to have full frame lenses to begin with because they should serve you well for many many years.  Even though you don't use the corners now, down the road when you upgrade you will need ff lenses. They are better constructed and generally hold value well. But it all depends on your needs. I know I need full frame because I need high iso performance for indoor use. You may have different needs and may be happy with a cropped sensor. 7D mk2 is a great camera but it's not suitable for everyone. I don't your needs. You have to figure it out. Using full frame lenses on cropped body is not necessarily a waste of money. It depends. Just remember that ef lenses can fit all canon cameras and efs is dedicated to cropped body. Once I realized that fact I stopped investing in efs. On the other hand, efs lenses are typically cheaper and lighter. Again, for uncompromising image quality you will need full frame sensor and lenses eventually.

Lenses / Re: Help me decide: should I buy an EF 135L
« on: December 13, 2014, 11:02:48 AM »
 There's little to lose buying the 135L at a good price since three almost a market for it. The only problem foreseeable is that you will struggle over which one, the 100L or the 135L, to bring with you. I often bring my 70-200f4 along with 100L because I love macro shots. If I know I'll be shooting portraits I bring 135L. The bokeh produced is just too amazing that I have hard time parting with the 135L although it's not as versatile as the 100L. I see the 135L as the ultimate portrait lens that a regular joe can afford.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 19