1
Lenses / Re: Is An UWA Lens Useful on a Crop Sensor?
« on: May 10, 2013, 09:19:30 AM »
Thanks. Maybe the Tokina, then, for the match with my 17-50 Sigma and same 77mm filters (polarizing and ND).
May 23, 2013, 07:35:46 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.
2
Lenses / Re: Sport lens - low budget
« on: May 10, 2013, 08:23:31 AM »
Not sure why, but my 100 2.0 seems a lot nicer than my 85 1.8 was. The 85 was pretty good, but my 100 seems almost 135 2.0 - like.
3
Lenses / Re: Sport lens - low budget
« on: May 10, 2013, 07:35:44 AM »
My 100 2.0 and 200 2.8 define "ridiculous awesomeness".
4
Lenses / Re: Is An UWA Lens Useful on a Crop Sensor?
« on: May 09, 2013, 09:16:54 PM »
Is it OK, then, to turn this into a Tokina 11-16 vs Canon 10-22 thread? It'll likely be a mix of indoors, landscape, outdoor buildings, large group shots and experimenting.
Thanks again.
Thanks again.
5
Lenses / Is An UWA Lens Useful on a Crop Sensor?
« on: May 08, 2013, 06:24:15 PM »
After stewing to upgrade to FF or not I've decided to stick with my trusty old T1i. Not to brag, but I really get some great pics. 2 even ended up on our local TV station the other day as a backdrop when there's nothing on.
I've got a Sigma 17-50, Canon 100 2.0 and Canon 200 2.8 II. I use the primes for sports and the normal zoom for everything else. There are times when I could use a little more width, but nothing that's a deal breaker.
So, of course, an UWA would help a little there, but in general is an UWA lens a good thing to have for getting more in and also for the distorted UWA look when getting up close? Is it something that many enjoy having and using?
Thanks.
I've got a Sigma 17-50, Canon 100 2.0 and Canon 200 2.8 II. I use the primes for sports and the normal zoom for everything else. There are times when I could use a little more width, but nothing that's a deal breaker.
So, of course, an UWA would help a little there, but in general is an UWA lens a good thing to have for getting more in and also for the distorted UWA look when getting up close? Is it something that many enjoy having and using?
Thanks.
6
EOS Bodies / Re: 100D/SL1
« on: May 02, 2013, 02:16:50 PM »
Is there a chance that this could be a good upgrade from a T1i? All pics I've seen so far look pretty good. My T1i results are really good with my Sigma 17-50 and Canon 100 2.0 and 200 2.8II and I won't be going with a ff anytime soon. The 1.6x factor serves me well for sports, etc., I don't like articulating screens and probably don't need the features of a 7D.
7
Lenses / 100 + 200 vs 70-200 2.8 non-IS?
« on: April 02, 2013, 10:45:22 AM »
I have the 100 2.0 and 200 2.8 for indoor volleyball and other stuff, but am teetering on considering selling them for a single 70-200 2.8 non-IS. My other lens is the tremendous Sigma 17-50 so the zoom would have the same filter size (polarizing, etc.).
I really like the image quality from the primes and the smaller size is a bonus, but keep coming back to the zoom. Would I take a hit in image quality? If even a little I'll likely stick with the primes.
Thanks for any insight.
I really like the image quality from the primes and the smaller size is a bonus, but keep coming back to the zoom. Would I take a hit in image quality? If even a little I'll likely stick with the primes.
Thanks for any insight.
8
Sports / Re: Indoor Volleyball
« on: March 28, 2013, 01:02:59 PM »
Did someone say "volleyball"?:
http://corysteiner.blogspot.com/2012/08/guide-to-taking-volleyball-pictures.html
Our big Nationals qualifier is this weekend. Pictures will ensue.
http://corysteiner.blogspot.com/2012/08/guide-to-taking-volleyball-pictures.html
Our big Nationals qualifier is this weekend. Pictures will ensue.
9
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Two Bodies/One Software?
« on: March 22, 2013, 04:55:29 PM »
I'm tossing around keeping my T1i and maybe adding one of the upcoming Rebels. Maybe the little one with a little prime.
If I do that (or even go with the little prime on my T1i and maybe a 7D II one day) would I be using the same Canon software for both cameras or would I use the software that came with my T1i for the T1i and the new software with the new camera? And, if the latter, would the correct software recognize the right camera?
And my processing software is LR4.
Thanks for any insight into that whole topic.
If I do that (or even go with the little prime on my T1i and maybe a 7D II one day) would I be using the same Canon software for both cameras or would I use the software that came with my T1i for the T1i and the new software with the new camera? And, if the latter, would the correct software recognize the right camera?
And my processing software is LR4.
Thanks for any insight into that whole topic.
10
Lenses / Re: How's the 70-300L?
« on: March 17, 2013, 09:51:24 AM »
Narrowed down to the 70-300L. I don't think my wife will notice. All will be well.
Thanks for the insight.
Thanks for the insight.
11
Lenses / Re: How's the 70-300L?
« on: March 15, 2013, 08:54:55 PM »
Thanks for the help. I've got it narrowed down to the 70-300L or the 300 4.0 IS.
12
Lenses / Re: How's the 70-300L?
« on: March 15, 2013, 05:24:49 PM »
Not to be a nitwit, but how's the Tamron 18-270?
Thanks.
Thanks.
13
Lenses / How's the 70-300L?
« on: March 14, 2013, 03:29:45 PM »
I have a T1i, Sigma 17-50, Canon 100 2.0 and Canon 200 2.8 and am very spoiled by the image quality. Anything less would be a very large fail.
We're off for our big Alaskan trip and I'm undecided (for my telephoto needs) whether to just stick with the 200 2.8 and deal with the limitations (in exchange for the ridiculously great image quality), add a 300 f4 IS (which could potentially be a hassle) or get a 70-300L (which could serve many purposes to include outdoor sports and events).
Another option might be a 70-200 f4 IS or non-IS or one of the consumer grade 70-300's.
Any insight would be great.
Thanks.
We're off for our big Alaskan trip and I'm undecided (for my telephoto needs) whether to just stick with the 200 2.8 and deal with the limitations (in exchange for the ridiculously great image quality), add a 300 f4 IS (which could potentially be a hassle) or get a 70-300L (which could serve many purposes to include outdoor sports and events).
Another option might be a 70-200 f4 IS or non-IS or one of the consumer grade 70-300's.
Any insight would be great.
Thanks.
14
Lenses / Re: UWA (to complement 35/100/200)?
« on: February 13, 2013, 10:22:32 AM »
Thanks. It wouldn't be for protection so that leaves me on the "not needed" half of the arguement. That leads to an UWA being the "best" choice or not for landscape in bright sunny/water/snow conditions or maybe sticking with a normal prime for that even if limiting at times.
15
Lenses / Re: UWA (to complement 35/100/200)?
« on: February 13, 2013, 09:44:51 AM »
Thanks. Still undecided, but do you think (even though they don't do much) that a good UV filter might be a worthwhile choice on an UWA in light of the problems with a polarizing filter on UWA's with maybe a minor desired effect in bright sunlight?