October 25, 2014, 04:53:17 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 - bholliman

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 51
1
Lenses / Re: 70-200 2.8 II or 100 2.8L and 135 2 and 200 2.8
« on: October 18, 2014, 12:26:15 PM »
I am getting 70-200 f2.8 II for the same price as the following set 100 f2.8L, 135 f2 and 200 f2.8. I currently own a 60D and am planning to purchase the 7DII once it is available here in my country. What do you think is a better buy - the zoom or the set of primes? I love to shoot my kid (a very active toddler, her ballet recitals, outdoor sports, etc) and wildlife.

I own 3 of the 4 lenses you proposed - all but the 200 f/2.8, and have no intention of selling any of them.  I probably use the 70-200 the most by a small margin, but my 100L Macro and 135L get lots of use every week.  To me there is a place for all of them in my kit.  Here are the reasons why I own each of them:

70-200 2.8 II - excellent IQ, versatility, reach (200mm is my longest lens at the moment)

135 f/2 - f/2 and size.  This is my favorite portrait and low-light sports lens.  Excellent bokeh wide open (which is where is use it 90% of the time.

100 f/2.8 Macro - Short minimum focal distance and macro capability for small stuff.  Also reasonably small and light, a nice partner to my 35 IS or 24-70 II

I've never owned or used a 200 f/2.8, from what I've read its an excellent lens, but for me I don't see any advantages over the 70-200 other than size, weight and being less conspicuous.  To me the other two primes bring more advantages to the table.

If I were forced to sell 2 of the 3, I would probably keep the 70-200, but I hope that's a decision I never have to make.

2
Lenses / Re: 70-200 2.8 II or 100 2.8L and 135 2 and 200 2.8
« on: October 18, 2014, 12:17:08 PM »
I wish you had listed the 35L as an option, best baby/toddler/kid lens we own (Proud father of a 5 year old, 2 year old, and 9 month old).

However, since the 35L was not an option, I would go for the big tele. Yes it is heavy. Yes it is amazing.

I use "the big tele" at least 5 times a week for weddings and portrait shoots, but the weight really doesn't bother me at all. My wife, however, rarely carries the thing around and has a hard time with it when she does. If we ever split gear, I'll take the big tele, and she'll take the 100 2.8L or the 85 1.2L. We both do just fine, but I definitely prefer the 70-200 f/2.8L ii.

Last little note, I rarely take it out when we go out as a family. When we head out to the park, or spend the day at a theme park/traveling, we only take a 5Diii, and the 35.
I don't have a 35L now, but do own a 35 f/2 IS and it IS a great lens for little kids.  We have a 2 year old and lots of under 5 nieces and nephews running around.  35mm is a great focal length for capturing them around the house, in the yard or at the park. 

3
Lenses / Re: Building my lens system - where to go from my basic kit?
« on: October 16, 2014, 07:07:52 AM »

Alternative 1:
- 16-35 F4
- 35 F1.4
- 135 F2

Alternative 2:
- 16-35 F4
- 35 F1.4
- 70-200 2.8 II or 70-300 F4-5.6

Alternative 3:
- 16-35 F4
- 35 F1.4
- 100-400 or 400

Alternative 4 (that I think some of you might suggest):
- 16-35 F4
- 24-70 F2.8 II
- 70-200 2.8 II

Some of you must have experienced the same situation, or have some input on this situation?

I've owned a 6D since they first hit the market and after buying and selling many lenses ended up with your Alternative 4 (plus 4 primes). 

I recently ordered a 16-35 F4 and might be selling (haven't decided yet) my Rokinon 14mm 2.8 when it arrives.  The Rokinon 14 is an excellent lens and terrific value, but I often would like to use filters with it and am not interested in investing in an expensive filter kit for it.  The 16-35 F4 will be much more versatile and I think IS will come in very handy in low light situations.  Plus a already have a full set of 77mm filters for the 16-35.

I mostly shoot family/kids, portraits and landscape with some limited high school sports thrown in.  The 24-70 is my most used lens, but the 70-200 gets a fair amount of work as well.  Both are incredible!  The 70-200 often gets left at home however to save weight if I will be carrying my gear quite a bit.

If you don't have the funds for Alternative 4 right away, I think you could get along nicely with Alternative 1 or 2.

4
Lenses / Re: Travel gear thoughts...
« on: October 15, 2014, 04:40:43 AM »
Some really excellent advice here.  I agree with those commenting about taking everything if traveling by car and limiting your weight for air travel.  My air travel kit changes depending on where I'm going and unique aspects of the trip.  I only have one DSLR (6D), which I almost always take on significant trips and my EOS-M comes along as a backup and light/portable option.  I typically take 2-3 lenses for air travel trips.

Given your equipment list, I think the 16-35 f/4 and 70-300L would make a terrific combo. 

The only suggestion I'd make is to consider adding a small, wider aperture lens.  They come in useful at night time and when shooting indoors.

+1  Personally, I always like to include at least one wide aperture lens for shallow depth of field or low light shots.  Either your 50 1.8 or 85 1.8 would suffice.  About the only thing you give up with just the 16-35 f/4 + 70-300L combo is wide aperture.

5
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 6D Mark II to Move Upmarket? [CR1]
« on: October 14, 2014, 12:10:16 PM »
The 6D holds a critical position in the market and for Canon not to offer a basic entry level FF would not make sense. After all, an entry level full frame opens a door to buying full-frame lenses. That being said, the 6D Mark-II could well sell alongside the current 6D in exactly the same way that a Subaru WRX STI can sell alongside a WRX. There is no need to discontinue a product that caters to the needs of a specific part of the market if it still continues to sell profitably.
+1  An inexpensive, entry-level full frame body makes a great deal of business sense for Canon, as its a gateway to selling expensive full frame lenses.

The current 6D is great for my current uses.  I expect Canon to replace it in 2016 and by then I might be ready for an upgrade.

6
Reviews / Re: Canon 6D Review: 1+ Year Hands-On [video review]
« on: October 09, 2014, 12:19:37 PM »
Yes, the 6D and 7D/7D2 are both "specialist" cameras, in a way. 6D is not the camera to use for your kid's sports, but it is a fine landscape and general-sue camera. 7D is an action camera pure and simple.  You have to go to the 5DIII to get a single camera that combines both feature sets, though the 7D2 will still beat out the 5D3 on burst speed.

Technique will beat out camera model any day when shooting birds in flight.

When you have the technique, the best camera helps a lot.

I see the 7D2 showing up on football sidelines. Turning 300mm 2.8's into 480mm 2.8's for well lit games.

well, maybe 480mm f/4.5 in full format equivilent

7
We have had this discussion before.  Stop making assumptions from reading specs and rent a f/2.8 lens and try it.  I currently own 5 f/2.8 and faster lenses and the 6D autofocus is extremely fast and accurate with the center point and OK with the outer points.

Congratulations that you're doing fine with the 6d, but I have to admit that I find the assumption that I'm talking off the top of my hat rather presumptuous.

I've got the 100L/2.8 (<---- note that), and have had plenty of opportunity to shoot various situations with it, macro, portrait, wildlife. The bottom line is that the center af point performs exactly as the spec is: It's not cross at f2.8, so if there is no clear contrast target the precision suffers because it has to fall back to the less sensitive cross point.

I hope you'll allow me to state my mixed experiences with the 6d, just as I wouldn't dare to say that your good experiences are because you're only shooting sitting ducks and easy-peasy high contrast scenes. Thanks.

Sorry for assuming you had no experience with the 6D and f/2,8 lenses.

We can agree to disagree about the 6D's AF performance with fast lenses.

8
Samsung Note 3.  Camera isn't very good except in good light, but it's always with me and handy.  I always use one of my real cameras if time allows.

9
Looking at your lenses, a better af system would be useful because the 6d struggles with fast lenses (no cross point at all for f2.8, even the center is only f5.6 precision) and focus/recompose with fewer af points means way less keeper with a thin depth of field.

-1 Not true about f2.8 and faster lenses! 

We have had this discussion before.  Stop making assumptions from reading specs and rent a f/2.8 lens and try it.  I currently own 5 f/2.8 and faster lenses and the 6D autofocus is extremely fast and accurate with the center point and OK with the outer points.  I've owned and sold f/4 zooms (24-105L and 70-200 IS) and the f/2.8 versions I own now focus faster and more accurately.  My keeper rate for non sports/action is excellent.


And if you want to shoot sports as in "tracking", the 6d is simply out of the question, trust me, I've tried as a lot of others and the af system simply doesn't cope.

I agree the if action or sports is a high percentage of the OP's shots, they should look at the 5D3.  I shoot a fair amount of our sons high school sports (football, basketball, wrestling, golf).  My keeper rate isn't great, but is getting better as I've improved my technique.   I have "hobby" money set aside that will more than cover an upgrade to a 5D3, but have found my 6D sports results are "good enough" considering this is less than 10% of what I shoot and the 6D is terrific for almost all my other uses.

10
Lenses / Re: Shootout: EF 16-35 f/4L IS vs EF 17-40 f/4L
« on: September 27, 2014, 08:53:25 PM »
Very nicely done!  I appreciate the detailed comparisons at various focal lengths and f-stops.  I have been contemplating buying a 16-35 f/4 and this review helped make my decision to do it.

11
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Why haven't you left canon?
« on: September 27, 2014, 03:36:02 PM »
Best camera system available.  Terrific glass and camera ergonomics.  Everything just works and integrates extremely well. 


12
Lenses / Re: Inexpensive standard walk around lens question
« on: September 25, 2014, 03:50:21 PM »
EF 35mm f/2 IS is a terrific walk-around on my 6D.  I purchased this Canon 35mm instead of the Sigma Art  due to its compact size as I was looking for a relatively small lens that I could use in place of my relatively large 24-70 2.8 II.  35mm is a nice general purpose focal length.

I bought my as a refurb for $479 and its an excellent copy.  I'm a big fan of Canon refurbs.

13
Mirrorless has it own special - small, light weight easy to carry around on certain lenses.

I would switch to mirrorless if my kids weren't in sports. For landscape and everyday photos, current mirrorless is good enough for me.

Dylan, what lenses do you use on your mirrorless body (Sony A7r I believe)?  Do you use a Metabones adapter?

14
Lenses / Re: Inexpensive standard walk around lens question
« on: September 24, 2014, 03:00:51 PM »
People that want to rob your camera are likely cannot tell if it is a 5Dc or 5DIII. All they know is a BIG ( read it as expensive) camera. May be you should stay away from the area that is not safe. Your EOS-M should serve you well. It is small and cheap.

+1  The EOS-M looks (and is priced like) an inexpensive P&S, so most thieves would probably not look at it twice.  The M and 22/2 lens make a terrific general purpose option with very good to excellent IQ.

15
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: POLL: What's more important, gps or wifi?
« on: September 21, 2014, 07:40:51 AM »
I occasionally use wifi but have never used GPS.  As long as I can turn them off to save battery life, I don't care if they are there or not.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 51