November 21, 2014, 09:50:26 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 - Random Orbits

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 93
1
Lenses / Re: Really bad GAS
« on: November 20, 2014, 09:38:12 AM »
I've been mulling this over for a while, but I'm considering the 200 f2.  Attach a 1.4x and I'm at 280 f2.8... not quite 300 f2.8, but not bad either.

With a 70-200 f/2.8 IS II in tow already, why the fascination with the 200 f/2?  The 300 f/2.8 IS II is so much better than either 70-200 or 200 f/2 IS at 280.  Just curious...

2
Lenses / Re: 70-200 or 100-400 conundrum.....
« on: November 20, 2014, 09:30:52 AM »
Get the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II first.  f/2.8 is the maximum that you would want for indoors and it matches well with the 600ex-rt.  I'll be a better portrait lens and more useful for kids at play/sports.  Plus you won't be paying a premium because it is not a new lens.

Most of us that have both 70-200 f/2.8 IS II and the 70-300L or 100-400L will generally say that the 70-200 is more versatile and would be the first lens to get unless you know you will be predominately at 300mm and beyond.  If you do develope a more keen interesting in birding in the future, then you can evaluate your options later.  I'd wait for the reviews to come out comparing the new Sigmas to the existing Tamron to the new 100-400 II.

3
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: How long until the next FF body? Or buy now?
« on: November 18, 2014, 11:59:32 AM »
Remember that the vast majority (around 95%) of people never buy another lens after their original purchase of a DSLR.

I'd love to know how someone can generate such statistics.  I mean, you can't correlate sales figures, because you have no idea whether people are buying a body to replace an existing one or buying one fresh.  And you can't even assume that people who buy one with a kit lens are new buyers, because they might turn around and sell the lens on eBay at more than the difference in price between the kit and the body-only price, or they might be buying the kit lens to have as a "beater" lens for when they go to the beach or whatever.

Also, even assuming the whole "people don't upgrade" thing is true for entry-level bodies, the main reason for that is because lots of people buy them, try them, conclude that they can't deal with the size and bulk, and go back to shooting photos with their cell phones.  That doesn't mean that someone who actually plans to shoot for more than a week with a DSLR shouldn't choose a camera based on what lenses are available.  :)

Also, to the extent that the "never upgrade" thing is true, it means that the manufacturers need to improve their kit lenses, because a lot of folks won't upgrade, and will be daunted by the low-quality images that they get compare with what they were expecting.  This leads to people giving up before they find a reason to buy a better lens.

Probably not 95% if Canon production statistics can be used as a guide.  In April 2014, Canon surpassed 100 million EF lenses.  In February 2014, Canon produced its 70 millionth EF camera (film and digital).

4
Lenses / Re: MY GAS. ILLNESS COME TO VISIT ME AGAIN.
« on: November 13, 2014, 03:31:20 PM »
Depends on whether or not you'd use it as a walkaround setup.  I started with the 70-200 II and got both TCs for it, but in the end, I preferred getting a 70-300L for zoos and as a lighter travel solution because the 70-200 II with TCs is harder to handle and carry on a strap.  I see the 100-400 II in roughly the same vein.  I like the pics from the 70-200 better than the 70-300L, but I prefer the portability of the 70-300L more in these situations.

I had a similar situation at the other end of the focal length spectrum.  I had a 16-35 f/2.8 II but I never liked it.  So, I bought a bunch of primes and the 16-35 II was left unused.  Then the 16-35 f/4 IS came out, and I swapped the f/2.8 II for it, and now I use the 16-35 f/4 a lot.

5
Lenses / Re: Critical View of 70-200 f/2.8 mkii+2xTC III
« on: November 13, 2014, 03:14:14 PM »
OK, so here is my dilemma, buy the 70-200 f/2.8 mkii+2xTC III or the new 100-400 4.5-5.6. I have a 5dII and will be using the setup to shoot cheerleading at night football games or cheerleading competitions is a gym. I’m concerned with having to set the iso too high in order to get a good shutter speed at night or in the gym. I wouldn’t need the 2xTC all the time, it just depends on how close I can get to the action.

+1 to what others have said already.  I've used the 70-200 II indoor at 3200 and 6400 ISOs at f/2.8.  Being focal length limited may affect the types of shots you get, but it's a good trade most of the time.  And if you really need the FL, then that is when the TCs come into play, but at least you have that choice.

6
Reviews / Re: G7X Review by Dpreview
« on: November 13, 2014, 08:41:52 AM »
i have sony gear for years. TV and hifi... never had any issues.
so i am pretty confident in sony gear.

but in 15 years i had 2 canon bodys die after the warranty periode.
canon was not a big help either in these cases.

Look up Sony XSRD.  Their reliability was awful.  The projector lamps didn't last and the color modules broke.  4 lamps in 2 years, and the the screen developed a stronger green tint as time went on.

7
Lenses / Re: Did Canon Leak the EF 11-24mm f/4L?
« on: November 12, 2014, 11:59:55 AM »
Maybe because Canon can't get around Nikon's patent to produce a competitive 14-24.  Nikon's 14-24 decreased the demand for its own 14 f/2.8. 

Very unlikely IMO.

Then why hasn't Canon done so, IYO?

8
Lenses / Re: Did Canon Leak the EF 11-24mm f/4L?
« on: November 11, 2014, 12:20:31 PM »
...

So I don't think it's as cut and dry as people are making this out to be.  But everyone on this thread -- today -- seems to be on the same page that this is a focal length driven need.  Perhaps the release of the 16-35 F/4L IS put the sharpness 'want' to bed (for now), and now the reeeeeally ultrawide folks want their need addressed, i.e. perhaps all the 75% from my poll aren't reading this thread because they are out happily shooting with their new 16-35 f/4 IS lenses.   :D

- A

Agree that the 16-35 f/4 IS solved a lot of UWA issues in the Canon camp.

9
Lenses / Re: Did Canon Leak the EF 11-24mm f/4L?
« on: November 11, 2014, 12:16:32 PM »
I'm just starting a conversation here.  Why is Canon making a 11-24 f/4 lens?  What segment, issue, reason, gap would make this light up to Canon's marketers as an opportunity to them?

- A

Maybe because Canon can't get around Nikon's patent to produce a competitive 14-24.  Nikon's 14-24 decreased the demand for its own 14 f/2.8.  I like that Canon is not matching the competition step for step.  Perhaps its market research found that 11-24 f/4 would do better than 14-24 f/2.8 .  Want the widest fast ultrawide?  14 f/2.8 .  Want a UWA zoom?  16-35 f/4 IS or 16-35 f/2.8 II.  Want something even wider?  11-24.  The asymmetry would also give Canon claim to the widest rectilinear lens on FF, and I'm sure photographers will use that newly-available focal length for some unique/compelling images.

10
Lenses / Re: First Image of the EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II Lens
« on: November 06, 2014, 09:16:37 AM »
I think performance is a gimme, the price is what will dictate when I'd upgrade from the 70-300L (unless I can convince myself that both lenses can live together   :P )

They get along just fine, right next to to the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II!

11
Lenses / Re: DO you correct lens vignetting when sot wide open??
« on: October 29, 2014, 10:45:35 PM »
For the normal workflow, I use the corrections.  There are some shots that I like better without it (when the background is bright relative to the subject), so I uncheck the box, but corrections is the default.  For me, sports shots tend to be cropped asymmetrically, so the natural vignetting will look uneven/odd.  In those cases, if I want to add vignetting back in, I use the post-crop option.

12
Lenses / Re: Canon Refurb Store
« on: October 29, 2014, 09:21:44 AM »
Not really.  The refurbed equipment used to carry a 90 day warranty.  Now that it is 1 year -- same as new, the risk is pretty much the same.

I've purchased a EF-S 10-22, 5DII, 35 f/2 IS and 24 f/2.8 IS and a couple 600EXs from the refurb store, and I've been happy with all the purchases.  The lens selection has expanded over the years, which is nice.

13
Lenses / Re: More EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II Talk [CR2]
« on: October 28, 2014, 02:59:14 PM »
I'm not saying I like it, but I'll have to see in person if I could get used to having the zoom ring on the "wrong" side, compared to my other three zooms - the 17-40L, 24-105L, and 70-200/2.8L.

It will also probably have the same extreme focus breathing.

As a trade-off I'm happy to accept those things in exchange for a very sharp, reasonably compact 100-400L. The only real problem is what it will do to the value of my 70-300L on the used market...

Not much.  The 70-300L will still be smaller and lighter.  The question I have is how well it will perform at 400mm.  If its sharpness improvement can compete with the Tarmron near 600, then Canon's smaller and lighter lens with native AF algorithms will do well.  And if the IQ is improved that much, how much better can a prime 400 f/5.6 do, even if it is a 400 f/5.6 IS?

14
You won't be wrong with the 24mm f2.8 IS, IQ is fantastic

+1.  Bought it from Canon's refurb store while on sale for ~410 including tax.

15
Lenses / Re: More chatter on an EF 11-24 F/4L coming soon
« on: October 24, 2014, 10:53:09 AM »
I would still miss a coma free 16-35 2.8L III for astrophotography...  :(

The reason being is that anything wider has a bulbous element which cannot be protected much from light (in contrast to a flat front elememt lens with a hood...

That and the need for a 2.8 aperture...

+1.  I'd love the see a 16-35 f/2.8 III.  I'd rather bring a 16-35 and a 14 prime (or this 11-24).

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 93