August 01, 2014, 06:32:52 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 - seamonster

Pages: [1] 2 3
1
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Tamron 150-600mm availability
« on: July 25, 2014, 10:25:49 PM »
The small and smaller shops are indeed a place to try.  The big stores are not getting enough to fill orders, while a small shop might have one on the shelf.

Holy crap you hit it on the nose. Picked one up today from a local store today. Works awesome!

2
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 12-24mm f/2.8 L - Constructing the Enigma
« on: July 25, 2014, 01:23:23 PM »
Why bother with 2.8 at those focal legths...everything is in focus anyways and newer bodies can just crank up the ISO.....just go f/4 and keep the cost and size down to something reasonable.

3
Third Party Manufacturers / Tamron 150-600mm availability
« on: July 23, 2014, 10:29:00 AM »
For the folks who actually have this lens, how long did it take from your pre-order or reservation to actually getting it? Want it for some sports shooting in a month's time but its out of stock everywhere (surprise surprise) or available from japan for a ~20% markup (ebay).

4
Lenses / Re: Canon 24-105 vs canon 24-70 ii
« on: July 18, 2014, 10:29:19 AM »
A lens that is 7 years newer and costs 3x as much should be superior in every way.

24-105 is all the general purpose zoom I need. Don't forget the price of the 24-70 II (or 70-200 2.8 II for that matter) = a 24-105 + 70-200 f/4 IS + 85mm 1.8 and those are all rock solid lenses.

5
Lenses / Re: What Lenses are missing from Canon's range
« on: July 16, 2014, 02:51:56 PM »
200-500mm 5.6 (IS USM of course) please. And make it cost the same as the 70-300L.

For those who came from 70-300mm lenses on APS-C bodies we are used to the ~480mm equivalent so a 200-400mm isn't enough. The Tamron 150-600mm is the only one they need to be concerned with beating and even that lens isn't the best at 600mm so Canon making theirs stop at 500mm will be sufficient if it is better at 5.6 than the Tamron is at f8.

6
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: A Summary of Sigma Lens Rumors
« on: July 08, 2014, 03:15:12 PM »
well, even $1500 MSRP is still less than the canon offering and you know that even if Sigma's 24-70 f/2 isn't as sharp wide open, you can be damn sure that it will be or even better when equivalent aperture.

I was surprised that the 50mm EX wasn't the first to get the ART treatment - the president of Sigma has said himself that its his favorite lens but really glad they took their time with it to get it right.


7
Canon General / Re: Seeing Rebels....
« on: July 07, 2014, 04:44:35 PM »
You think you've seen rebelmania?

Try being in the Washington DC area from mid May-August. The swarms of locus- I mean tourists clogging the sidewalks and subway system are nearly all carrying rebels or D3xxx with the 18-55 and neck strap from the box. I'd say 95% of those are in the green mode. I have noticed a few more mirrorless this summer than last though.


8
A 200-400 5.6 won't cut it.

Want a 200-500 5.6 for some 700mm action with a 1.4 TC that will look better than the Tamron 150-600's 600mm @ the same f/8.

9
EOS Bodies / Re: More EOS 7D Mark II Talk [CR1]
« on: June 16, 2014, 08:34:29 AM »
So what is the point of greater than 1.0x magnification? Wouldn't that aggravate the perspective characteristics of ultra wides and long telephotos?

10
Lenses / Re: Canon 10-22 vs 10-18
« on: June 03, 2014, 01:57:04 PM »
Whatever.

They're both EF-S lenses and as we all know, Canon treats the whole EF-S line like second class citizens. I mean, for instance, how many years and iterations has it taken for the 18-55mm to perform acceptably? Not to mention that there used to be USM on it....8 years ago. Sure the optics have gotten better but I suspect that's more to do with the need for more resolving power due to the megapickle wars than them actually caring any significant amount.

And speaking of USM, there might never be another EF-S lens released with USM and full time manual focusing again now that they've gotten stepper motors cheap enough to stuff into these things. Think on that for a minute. The pretty darn good (but $$$) 17-55mm 2.8, the solid 15-85mm and the cool 10-22mm could all lose their excellent USM when they get refreshed, regardless of better optics. And for no other reason than their mount.

I am not posting to belittle or denigrate EF-S owners in any way, just Canon's continued practice of doing the bare minimum for the EF-S mount in general. My first DSLR was a 60D with a 18-135 and 55-250 kit and I shot the hell out of it.

I mean, we still haven't gotten a cheap 35mm 1.8  that those Nik** guys have right?

11
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 7D Replacement Mentioned Again [CR1]
« on: March 11, 2014, 10:53:11 AM »
Just re-use the 5DIII body shell (and get rid of the pop up flash). Saves on production costs.

12
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 7D Mark II Coming in March? [CR1]
« on: February 21, 2014, 11:46:17 AM »
somebody page the Loch Ness Monster?

13
Lenses / Re: Tamron SP 150-600 f/5-6.3 VC Review
« on: January 10, 2014, 10:04:42 AM »
do we know how variable apertures match up to the zoom range? how soon does it hit 6.3? i would hope it stays at 5.6 up to 400mm at least.

14
If you've already got CF cards, just get the frecking thing. I can't even buy a 85mm 1.8 for 250 frecking dollars in my area.

15
Animal Kingdom / Re: Luckiest Shot - Please Share
« on: October 16, 2013, 04:36:24 PM »


Maybe not my luckiest shot but I was on the ferry to the statue of liberty and saw it approaching fast so no time to compose through the viewfinder. I just held the camera at arms length and just eyeballed the center point confirming, panned with its flight path and shot. Oh and before all y'all that are going to be posting crazy stuff with crazy expensive super teles, this was shot with a 40mm pancake on a 60D.

Pages: [1] 2 3