Messages

1

Canon General / Re: Do you feel your photos have improved proportionally to the cost of your gear?

« on: August 30, 2012, 01:18:06 PM »

I would answer yes.  But I feel only a small portion of my improvement is because of the new glass and cameras.  I think the real reason for improvement is because, as I acquire better gear and become more invested, I spend a lot more time learning how to PP.  I think the sole reason for my improvement is continuously learning how to use LR, and next, PS.

That's where my improvement comes from.

2

Pricewatch Deals / Re: Huge SanDisk Sale at B&H

« on: May 18, 2012, 02:05:55 PM »

Ok, I ordered those two CF cards, one of the UH-1 SD card and a Sandisk card reader.

WOOT WOOT

Thanks for posting the link to these sales!!  It was in my cart but wouldn't have thought to check it today!!

3

Pricewatch Deals / Re: Huge SanDisk Sale at B&H

« on: May 18, 2012, 01:02:58 PM »

Thinking about getting the 128GB UDMA7 CF cards for my Mark III and the 7D.  Worth it?  Compatible?

4

Lenses / Re: 50 1.4 and 24-70 2.8 II later on versus 24-105??

« on: April 23, 2012, 05:59:43 PM »

I tend  to use my 70-200mm f/4L IS for most concert photography (granted Im shooting at 3200 ISO). I also use the 16-35mm 2.8L II (on a crop) occassionally for the wider shots. I like the lens combo but will be upgrading/changing the 70-200 VERY soon. Hopefully to replace with the 70-200mm 2.8L IS II...

Are you using the 70-200 on the same crop body?  That would be too long for my purposes I think.

If I didn't have the 17-55, I would've bought the 16-35 for my crop because the FL is perfect.

5

Lenses / Re: 50 1.4 and 24-70 2.8 II later on versus 24-105??

« on: April 23, 2012, 05:41:24 PM »

Eventually, I may get the 16-35L II and the 70-200L IS II and the 24-70L II for general purpose type stuff haha

6

Lenses / Re: 50 1.4 and 24-70 2.8 II later on versus 24-105??

« on: April 23, 2012, 05:28:17 PM »

The 5DIII would be much better than the t2i in low light.  Having moved from a crop body to a 5DII, I find that I have a 1-2 stop noise advantage with the 5DII (LightRoom processed RAWs), and the 5DIII is better than the 5DII.

If you can wait, don't buy the 5DIII until the after the 24-70II comes out.  If you're happy with the IQ and shutter speeds with your t2i, then wait for 24-70II.  If you find that you'd prefer faster shutter speeds then, I'd suggest looking at a 24 or 35mm f/1.4 prime if you can handle the thinner DOF.  I'd avoid getting the 24-70 I or 24-105 as stop gap measures.  Keep using your current setup for the meantime.

My initial post was written with the assumption that I would sell the crop in favor of the FF.  However, I think I'm just going to keep both bodies so that changes my needs a bit.  I probably won't even get the 24-70L II since I already have the 17-55 for the crop, and there would too much FL overlap.

Since I'm keeping the 17-55 on the crop most of the time, the only decision is what to put on the FF.

1) 50 1.4 / 85 1.8 / 135L
I will probably use one of my existing primes (probably the 135) and see if the FL fits my needs.  If it doesn't, I can work my way down to the 85 if need be.

2) 16-35L II
I was thinking of getting this for the FF but that would be as pointless as getting the 24-70L II because there's too much FL overlap with the 17-55 on the crop.  The only way I would get this for the FF is to have that UWA and then put one of my primes on the crop body for the reach.  But I think the costs outweigh the benefit in this case.

3) 70-200L IS II
I was thinking of getting this for the FF but I'm wondering if it's too beastly to carry around with me along with another body.  Walking around a venue, bumping into people.  I would have the entire 27-200 FL covered though, which is nice.

I'm leaning towards keeping the 17-55 on the crop and using one of my primes on the FF.  The reason being is that I'm not quite sure what FL I would need on a second body as of yet.  Also, I only have one flash, the 580EX II.  I'm kind of wary on using the 70-200L IS II on my FF without a flash because I'm just not sure how 2.8 will do for low-light event type stuff.  That and the whole beastly nature thing lol

7

Lenses / Re: 50 1.4 and 24-70 2.8 II later on versus 24-105??

« on: April 23, 2012, 04:10:59 PM »

After some thought, I am going to keep both the t2i and the 5dm3 for my low-light events.  On the crop, I'll use the 17-55.  On the FF, I'll use one of my primes.

An alternative for me might be to get the 16-35L II for my FF and use one of my primes with the crop.

Who knows.

Thanks!

8

Lenses / Advice on Upcoming Camera/Lens Combos

« on: April 12, 2012, 11:40:06 AM »

Currently, I own the Rebel t2i with the 17-55, which fits my needs.  However, I'd like to delve into FF.  I am pretty much dead set on getting the Mark III.  Question is whether I should get the body only or the kit.  I currently own the 50 1.4, 85 1.8 and 135L.  I mainly shoot indoor, low light type concerts but also bring it out for family events, vacations, walking around during the day type situations.  For the low light shows, I don't really take many pictures of the actual show.  During the performance, I'm usually video taping.  The pictures come into play before and after when the artists need their pictures taken.

1) I was leaning towards the kit because I figure I can sell the 24-105 if I don't like it.  I hear the lens is pretty decent all around but it's a slower lens so it probably won't work for my indoor, low light concerts.  However, I do tend to use flash at these shows so maybe the fact that the lens is relatively slow won't matter at all since I have an available light source in the flash readily available.

2) On the other hand, I can just get the body and use my existing primes on the Mark III until the 24-70 II comes out.  And I can keep my Rebel with the 17-55 and use two bodies for the concerts.  Also, with this setup, I was thinking I could pick up a UWA/WA prime like the 24L II or 35L, or something versatile like the 16-35.  Or maybe even take a chance and leave the 17-55 at home and use the 24L on the crop body and use the 85 or 135 on the FF.  As I said before, I guess at these concerts, I'm taking more portraits of the artists and others more than the actual performance.  And I know the traditional portrait range is like 70-135 or something like that.  However, I feel that in an interior area, the portraits I take are usually in the 25-45 range, hence why I would use the 24L or 16-35L on a crop to take the portraits and the 85 or 135L on the FF for long-range type circumstances that might pop up.

Sorry for the long-winded post.  Does this seem logical?  What would other people do, especially low light concert photographers.

9

Lenses / 50 1.4 and 24-70 2.8 II later on versus 24-105??

« on: April 02, 2012, 09:17:26 PM »

I currently own a t2i and use the following glass:

17-55 2.8
50 1.4
85 1.8
135 2.0

I mainly shoot concerts in pretty low light and the occasional travel photography.  Some portraits here and there too.  Many times, the portraits I take are at these low light and cramped shows so it's nice to have the flexibility of a zoom rather than a prime.

I am looking to purchase the Mark III soon and wondering if I should go with the kit or just the body.

My plan was to get just the body and use the 50 1.4 until the 24-70 II comes out.  However, with the rumored delay, it seems like it might be a while.

1) Should I go ahead and get the 24-105 and sell it when the 24-70 II comes out, after making sure the reviews are good?

2) Still torn between the 24-70 Mark I and the 24-105.  Numerous reviews and discussion boards go back and forth over which one's better.  Ultimately, I like the 24-70 Mark I because of the 2.8 aperture.  However, I also want to have the sharpest pictures so not sure which one would fall into that category.  Thoughts??

3) What's the likelihood that I am able to sell the 24-105 for the price I got it for (e.g. roughly $800 in the kit)?

4) I guess another option is for me to purchase the 24-70 Mark I and sell it when the Mark II comes out but that just seems like a waste of money when I have the primes to fall back on.

What does everyone think?

Thanks!!!