July 22, 2014, 01:51:45 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 - neuroanatomist

Pages: 1 ... 530 531 [532] 533 534 ... 891
Lenses / Re: Canon 500 availability ?
« on: September 30, 2012, 01:34:37 PM »
B&H had both the 500/4 II and the 600/4 II listed as in stock for a brief period of time on Friday, 9/28.  They went back out of stock very quickly.

I take that to mean they filled all their pre-orders, and had a few left to sell.  Unfortunately, they're closed until 10/9.  But when they reopen, it means a short queue for their next delivery!

Lenses / Re: Portrait Lens
« on: September 30, 2012, 01:20:07 PM »
Probably not. In a studio setting, where I have control over lighting and background, the 24-105L is a great portrait lens.  But when I don't have control over the background, the wider aperture makes a huge difference - the ability to blur out the background to isolate the subject is why the 'classic' portrait lenses are fast primes like the 85/1.2 and 135/2.

Lenses / Re: New Lenses in January [CR1]
« on: September 30, 2012, 12:55:38 PM »
Does Canon sell enough superteles to make those lenses a cash cow?

Personally, I don't know anyone who owns a supertele, but know two guys who own the new 70-200mm f/2.8 IS mkII. My bet Canon makes more money on the later than on any of the superteles, my point being that Canon might make more money on cheaper 500mm f/5.6 and 600mm f/5.6.

Only a 500/5.6 has even a chance at coming in under $5K, and a 600/5.6 would cost more than the 300/2.8.  Are those 'cheaper' enough to matter?

Honestly, Canon's real 'cash cow' lens is the 18-55mm Rebel/xxxD kit lens, followed closely by the 55-250mm. I infer that because Canon released MkII versions of both lenses where the only changes were aimed at a small reduction in the unit production costs, which puts more cash in the cow.

As has been discussed (ad infinitum!), pricing takes expected sales volume into account with an inverse relationship.  Also, the superteles, with their stand-out white paint (that Canon just made even whiter) are advertising for Canon at every sporting event.

Lenses / Re: 24-70 MK II or 70-200 MK II?
« on: September 30, 2012, 11:57:24 AM »
The equivalents on APS-C are 15-44mm and 44-125mm.

Pretty sure your math is backwards.  Crop focal lengths would be 38-112mm, and 112-320mm for the 24-70mm and 70-200mm respectively.

DB is correct.  My point was to put the lenses the OP wants in terms of their equivalent focal length on the camera that the OP has, which seems the most useful comparison.

Lenses / Re: 24-70 MK II or 70-200 MK II?
« on: September 30, 2012, 08:51:46 AM »
It's really a focal length decision. 

The equivalents on APS-C are 15-44mm and 44-125mm.

You already have two great (if slow) lenses for FF - I'd wait until you get the new body, and see where the f/2.8 would give the most benefit.  For me, it's 70-200, but I'll likely get the 24-70 II at some point.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Hoya Clear filter HD or EVO for 85mm f/1.2
« on: September 30, 2012, 07:05:03 AM »
I've got a B+W MRC UV on mine to protect that big and beautiful front element.

If you plan to shoot outdoors wide open (portraits, etc.), you might also consider a 3-stop ND - sometimes even 1/8000 s isn't enough.

There will likely be no difference in AF speed on the 5DIII vs. 5DII.  I do notice it focuses faster on my 1D X, but that's because the 1-series bodies use a higher voltage battery which drives the AF motor faster.

Another thing, the Canon is 1/3 stop faster, not 1/2

Just to pick a nit, the 1/3-stop scale is f/1.0-f/1.1-f/1.2-f/1.4, and the 1/2-stop scale is f/1.0-f/1.2-f/1.4, so by convention, both are correct.

Mathematically, 1/2-stop wider than f/1.4 is f/1.19 and 1/3-stop wider than f/1.4 is f/1.26, so f/1.2 is best approximated as 1/2-stop faster than f/1.4.

Lenses / Re: The sports and wildlife king.
« on: September 29, 2012, 09:08:46 PM »
Canon, for the faster AF.

But for wildlife, I'd take a 500/4 II or 600/4 II.

...apparently it has a special digital focusing system.

Ahhhh, so that's how Sigma has chosen to explain their unreliable AF...   :P

The 50L is optimized as a full-body portrait lens.  The Sigma is more 'general purpose' assuming you get a good copy.

Lenses / Re: what filter for my first "L" Lens
« on: September 29, 2012, 04:57:13 PM »
Well this is my first L lens so I'm just scared of dropping it .. Never dropped a lens but if I'm going to it will be the L lol!

Honestly, if you drop the lens a filter will almost certainly not help.

I'd like 2-3 more C# settings.

Lenses / Re: What 3 lenses do you dream of and long to own?
« on: September 29, 2012, 04:38:00 PM »
EF 400 f/2.8L IS II // in combination with a 1.4x and 2.0x converter this would give more flexibility that one of the f/4 supertelephotos.

Flexibility, yes. But while the 400 II with 1.4x III delivers IQ similar to the 500/4 and 600/4 MkI, the MkII versions of those lenses are much better.  If you need f/2.8, then the choice is obvious. But, if you need the reach more, I'd plan on (or wish for) the 600/4 IS II.  That lens with the 1.4x III gives 840mm f/5.6 that is optically at least as good as the 800/5.6.

EOS Bodies / Re: Shutter count request to Canon.
« on: September 29, 2012, 04:11:09 PM »
I have a car that has 73,000 miles on it.  It's been serviced every 3,500 miles, and driven only for a 10-mile no traffic commute, a few long road trips, and never driven over the speed limit.  I'm a little sloppy, so there are a couple stains on the seats and a layer of dust on the dash.

My brother has a car, same make, model, and year, that has 37,000 miles. He took it in for the 3,500 mile service because it was free since the dealer sent him a coupon, after that it's never been serviced. It's been driven over pot-holed, over salted New England roads, driven up Mt. Washington pulling a trailer at 35 mph in 1st gear, and driven hundreds of off-road miles.  He's a neat freak and has it hand detailed weekly, so the car looks immaculate.

The car with only 37,000 miles must be in better shape, because of the low mileage. Right?

FWIW, I did acknowledge that selling a camera is a time when the shutter count is useful (although technically meaningless).  Also, FWIW, when I sold my 5DII, I got the shutter count using one of the many free utilities available, and listed the count in the ad.

EOS Bodies / Re: Shutter count request to Canon.
« on: September 29, 2012, 02:34:02 PM »
Ps. I think $1.59 is pretty reasonable to satisfy idle curiosity.  :P

EOS Bodies / Re: Shutter count request to Canon.
« on: September 29, 2012, 02:31:44 PM »

My car came with a warranty based both on time and mileage. My car requires recommended servicing at mileage-based intervals.  My camera has no warranty or service requirements based on shutter actuations.  Do you also want to know the cumulative time of IS operation and the number of aperture stop-downs?

Other than satisfying idle curiosity (which if you gave as your reason, it would make perfect sense to me), or selling the gear (which is technically meaningless, as described above, but buyers want to know), I can't see how the information is at all useful or necessary.

Pages: 1 ... 530 531 [532] 533 534 ... 891