Messages

31

Lenses / Re: 70-200mm f/4L IS USM for $629 at RitzCamera -mistake or fake?

« on: May 06, 2013, 01:47:17 PM »

I couldn't bring myself to order one, under the just "to good to be true..." theory.  Although I do hope some of the orders are honored (give that Ritz is trying to restablish their name/market), I will definitely kick myself for not being brave enough to give up my credit info.

I couldn't bring myself to pull the trigger either.  It will be interesting to see if anybody was able to buy one for $629.

32

Lenses / Re: Best Lens for FF 6D

« on: May 05, 2013, 09:47:14 PM »

To Stinger: since you are starting out, the lenses you have plus the one you're getting give you an excellent start. Use those until it becomes clear what you might need or want next.

+1

This is a pretty good starter kit.  Shoot with these for a few months and see what you like to shoot and what you feel you are missing.

33

Lenses / Re: canon 5d mk3 what lens ?

« on: May 05, 2013, 07:41:26 AM »

Another lens to consider is the incredible 135L.  I bought this lens in February and absolutely love it!  Fantastic portrait lens, maybe the best.  I have also been using it for shooting my sons junior high golf tournaments and have found it to be a great focal length for golf, basketball (close to the court) and wrestling. Its not as versatile as my 70-200 2.8 II, but a whole lot lighter.

34

Lenses / Re: canon 5d mk3 what lens ?

« on: May 05, 2013, 07:35:18 AM »

Should i get a Canon 24-70 2.8 ii this year
and early in to next year (when i can afford it) get the Canon 70-200 2.8 ii
Or
I can get 3 lenses like a 24-105 F4, 70-200 F4 IS and a little extra a Sigma 50.14 ?
I want to shoot portraits, small groups, product, landscape and events ie. engagements or weddings ?
Any information is much appreciated as well as critique !

I see your point in favor of adding the 70-200 now instead of later.  Since you don't have any lenses above 100mm now, adding the 70-200 would make sense.  If landscapes and outdoor photography were your #1 need, you would be more than happy with a 70-200 f/4.0 IS, but since portraits and events are higher on your list, I think the 2.8 II will meet your need much better.

Personally, my thought process for lens purchases now is to buy the best glass I can afford.  Quality over quantity .  I have a 24-105L, and its a very good lens, but I wish now that I'd spent the extra $$$ for the 24-70 2.8 II (which I will buy in the next few months).

So, my recommendation would be to by the 70-200 2.8 II or 24-70 2.8 II depending on if you feel your greatest need is for the normal zoom or telephoto.

35

Lenses / Re: A Walk Around Lens for a Trip

« on: April 30, 2013, 07:03:04 PM »

I am going to be using a 7D also.  I have been looking at the Canon 17-55mm.  It doesn't have the same range as the 18-85 others have mentioned already, but that f2.8 is very attractive (not only for this trip, but for a great lens to add to my kit after).  Has anyone had experience traveling with this lens?  Did you miss that 15-17mm or 55-85mm range at all?

I've got the 17-55, the 10-22 wide angle and the 70-300 EF.  The 17-55 was my standard walk around for awhile, especially in Vegas at night.  It's colors and sharpness are fantastic and the ability to take indoor shots without a flash is unsurpassed (but somewhat lessened with the newer cameras handling higher ISOs).  The cons are that it's heavy and somewhat large and it's zoom range never seems to be quite close enough.
A few years back I started walking around primarily with the 10-22.  It's lighter, smaller and the 22mm length was good enough for most portrait style shots I was looking for while the 10mm gave me the ability to take in much larger views and I found that combination more versatile. (If I wanted a close up shot I just moved close up.  But after going back and looking at some of the photos, I didn't think the lens brought out the detail of some of my scenes as well as the 17-55 did (shadowing seemed better, colors seemed to be better represented) and my last trip I went back to it as my default lens.  (Although both are in my camera bag).
Not saying the 10-22 is bad, it's great but the 17-55 edges it - especially if I'm going to shoot above 17mm.

The EF-S 17-55 2.8 is a great lens, certainly L quality glass.  I do not own one, but rented one for a few weeks and loved it on my 7D.

I recommended the 15-85 over it however due to focal range and price (the 15-85 is roughly $380 cheaper).  If you really need a 2.8 lens, the 17-55 is an excellent option.

36

Lenses / Re: A Walk Around Lens for a Trip

« on: April 30, 2013, 11:01:37 AM »

IMO the EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS is probably the best one-lens travel solution (and with 15mm, you might even consider leaving the 11-16mm at home).

I always vote for the 15-85 and will do that this time also, unless as Neuro says, you really need the reach. The 15-85 is a very good lens by any standard and will probably be perfect for 90% of your needs.

+1 The EF-S 15-85mm is a great all walk around lens.  I've found its range is great for 98% of the things I normally shoot on vacation.

37

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: EOS 5D Mark III Firmware 1.2.1 Available for Download

« on: April 30, 2013, 06:50:14 AM »

...
15. Removed "support" for 3rd party batteries...

Really?

You can still use them, but you get a warning and they are shown as 100% charged.

The 6D firmware already has this "feature" ...  Somewhat annoying, but I still use my 3rd party batteries.  I just have to make sure I always carry a charged spare, since I can't tell how much juice the one in my camera has.

38

Lenses / Re: How about a new 28-135mm?

« on: April 30, 2013, 06:32:07 AM »

I  guess the update I'd like to see would take the form of an f/4 L24-135is as an update to both the 28-135 and the 24-105.

-PW

+1

f/2.8 would be even better, but as Tom Scott pointed out, Canon would never do this since it would make several of their top selling lenses obsolete.  Also, it would be incredibly expensive

39

Lenses / Re: 24-105L or Sigma 35.1.4 for 6D walk-around

« on: April 28, 2013, 07:42:31 AM »

Buy the 24-105 as part of the kit -- you get it for $500 and can sell it for $600 to $800 depending where you are, how you do it, etc. Try the lens for a while and see if you like it, see if it meets your needs.

If you don't like the lens, sell it for more than you paid for it and get the 35.

+1 to Distant Star and Neuro's advise.

Buying the 24-105 as part of a 6D kit makes since economically, even if you later sell it and buy a 35mm.  I think you will find a need for both lenses however.

Personally, I use my 24-105L AND 35L (and 50 1.4) frequently for different things.  I use the primes for low light photography indoors and for evening outdoor shoots.  I use the 24-105 for outdoor shots at f5.6/8 and up in good light.  Also some for flash photography indoors. 

40

Lenses / Re: 24-70 f2.8 I L --- 24-105 f4 L --- TAMRON 24-70 2.8 --- 1000$ budget.

« on: April 27, 2013, 07:09:52 AM »

Do you live in the US ... if so, for under $1000 the only option is 24-105 f/4 L IS ... the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC sells for almost $1300 in US ... but a few months ago I bought brand new Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC from Amazon Japan for $1048 ... currently it is selling at $965 in Amazon.co.jp

I don't have any experience buying cameras or lenses outside the US.  Are there any taxes or duties that are applied if I were to buy from Amazon Japan?

41

Lenses / Re: Do you still love 24-105L?

« on: April 26, 2013, 03:24:57 PM »

[

Wow, Sporgon, your building panoramas are fantastic!

Back on topic, the 24-105 is my most versatile lens. If we could get a 24-105 f/2.8 IS, I'd happily sell most of my other lenses.

Thanks kev8d, that's much appreciated. I should point out that there are two of us involved in Building Panoramics, and nearly all the pictures are a result of a combined effort, so I can only really claim 50% of the credit 

@dick - there seems to be a lot of sub standard copies of this lens out there, probably because so any have been made. With a little pp at around f8 this lens should be able to hold its own against the big hitters .

The Building Panoramics pictures are evidence that this lens can take incredible pictures, especially stepped down.  Nice work BP!

42

Lenses / Re: 24-70 f2.8 I L --- 24-105 f4 L --- TAMRON 24-70 2.8 --- 1000$ budget.

« on: April 26, 2013, 01:27:35 PM »

If $1,000 is your budget, the Canon 24-105 is really your best option unless you can find a used copy of the Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC, since they go for $1,300 new.

The 24-105L is a very good all purpose lens, best for daylight and flash photography.  Your 50 1.4 can handle most of your low-light photography needs.

43

Lenses / Re: Do you still love 24-105L?

« on: April 26, 2013, 10:56:42 AM »

I just upgraded from the 7D and EFS 15-85 to the 5DIII 24-105.  While I am not going back, I have to say, I did absolutely love the EFS 15-85.  My images are better with FF, I love the AF and the high ISO performance, so I am not going back, but I loved the sharpness across that huge focal length range of the EFS 15-85.  The 24-105 feels stunted in comparison and then the lower IS performance is noticable.

+1

I also think EF-S 15-85 is a better lens than the 24-105L.  Too bad it won't work on my 6D! 

I did some quick comparisons with both lenses on my 7D and the 15-85 images were sharper with less distortion at 24-50mm.  These were all unscientific tests, I just shot the same subjects at different focal lengths and changed lenses.  Its also my observation is the IS on the 15-85 is more effective.

44

Lenses / Re: 135mm vs. 100mm macro

« on: April 25, 2013, 10:06:06 PM »

I have a 135L and have been borrowing a 100L Macro for the past 5 months.

The 100L is a great Macro lens, but the 135L is much better for portraits and general purpose photography. 

45

Lenses / Re: 24-70L II is fantastic

« on: April 25, 2013, 10:02:17 PM »

Agree! It's my second favorite zoom lens!

What is your favorite?