August 01, 2014, 09:10:02 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 - charlesa

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 21
1
I know the feeling, but unless you will be getting a commercial/financial return from the investment, it does not make sense.

2
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: D810!!!
« on: June 26, 2014, 04:28:59 AM »
Damn Canon are taking their time with new sensor technology... having the better lens lineup will not be an excuse for long, as having tried the black ones from the opposition, not lagging too far behind there Nikon either.

3
Lucroit already have an adapter ring and filter system for this lens...

4
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: How do you carry your tripod?
« on: June 27, 2013, 05:12:48 PM »
Long treks, tripod in its own bag slung over shoulder, short treks tripod over shoulder bare +/- camera attached firmly to it.

5
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 1D X Product Advisory
« on: June 24, 2013, 12:20:19 AM »
I'm on 50K actuations, been with me over a year, never got issues and mine seems affected going on serial number and lack of markings...

You've had the 1Dx since before June of last year?

Yep, got mine May of last year, had been on pre-order for a long while, got one of the first in my country apparently. Do not regret it!

6
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 1D X Product Advisory
« on: June 23, 2013, 02:23:21 PM »
I'm on 50K actuations, been with me over a year, never got issues and mine seems affected going on serial number and lack of markings...

7
Lenses / Re: 24-70 2.8f II or 70-200 2.8f II
« on: May 29, 2013, 10:44:53 AM »
That's a tough one, but would take the 24-70 first.

8
Lenses / Re: EF 14-24mm and Filters
« on: May 29, 2013, 10:36:17 AM »
Currently I use the Lee Filter Holder 150 x 150 for the Nikon 14-24f/2.8 on my Canon Bodies, I imagine Canon are not going to be able to do a heap with that front element that Nikon weren't able to do, so I guess if/when Canon drop a 14-24 onto the Market, you'll need to look at after Market adaptors like the Lee 150 X 150 System, it works just fine on the nikon 14-24 but the system & filters are somewhat dedicated to just this Lens, so it becomes an expensive solve to the problem.

I also have the Canon TSE 17 which has a similar issue with the front element (Huge), and no one makes an adaptor, that I am aware of, for this lens, which is a Bummer, best fix I've seen to date is a Modification to a spare Lens Cover for the 17mm adapted & converted to take the 100 x 150 "Normal" Lee Filter set up, I've not tried it though, may give it a go as I'de like to use my Grads on this Lens, the 24 TSE isn't an issue, Lee have a step Ring @ 82mm that allows it fit the normal 100 x 150 Lee System to the 24 TSE & 24-70f/2.8 II.

The Link shows the mod for the 17TSE if anyone's interested.


http://www.jameshagerphoto.com/blog/?date=2011-08-18


The lens is filtrable, Lucroit and Hitech make the appropriate filter and holder system....

9
Debating to replace my 24-105 for a 24-70 II for improved IQ reasons. Still on the fence whether I'll do this. 

I debated that same issue.  Now I'm debating whether to sell the 24-105L, as I haven't used it since getting the 24-70L II.

Neuro getting rid of a lens... that's a new one!

10
None really, covered except for a coveted second body, hopefully the tout high MP one for landscape work and the 14-24 if it ever appears.

11
Lenses / Re: 400 f/2.8L IS I vs. 400 f/2.8L IS II
« on: May 19, 2013, 02:41:05 PM »
I had the version I of the lens second hand for a year, sold it and recently got a hold of version II through a mentorship programme. In terms of IQ and sharpness, difficult to find major differences between the two, AF is fast on both except it had a tendency to keep searching more on the version I (in my case only maybe?), but what I found to be a blessing is the obvious and welcome decrease in weight. I literally got severe back pain carrying the version I, not telling the version II is a featherweight but oh so easier on the shoulders.

12
Lenses / Re: How "real" is the Sigma Art 135/1.8 OIS rumor?
« on: May 19, 2013, 02:38:49 PM »
Never heard of it being mentioned

13
Street & City / Re: Stockholm, Sweden
« on: May 16, 2013, 11:38:16 AM »
With all the uwa architecture opportunities you might consider renting a TS lens.

Planned equipment would be a 70-200 mm f/2.8 and 24 mm TS-E.

14
Street & City / Re: Stockholm, Sweden
« on: May 16, 2013, 08:22:51 AM »
Thank you, looking forward to it!

15
Lenses / Re: Who has pre-ordered or will order 200-400
« on: May 16, 2013, 01:49:16 AM »
See now I have a dilemma...I have been saving my money to purchase the 400mm 2.8 for the past couple of years and I'm about $1500 off from paying straight cash for it. I am planning to have it by the time fall rolls around for some high school football action. Now with this lens finally becoming a reality I wonder should I just go ahead go for this or just go ahead and pull the trigger on the 400 since I've been saving for it for so long...

Decisions, decisions...
Unless you will need less than 400mm I cannot see why you must change plans.

400 2.8 L IS II weighs the same as the 200-400 and is one stop better...



That's the thing though, one stop better, sharper and more depth of field, but you miss shots if subject comes too close, 200-400 has that versatility but a stop worse... decisions, decisions.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 21