October 23, 2014, 07:27:30 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.

Messages - bholliman

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 51
I agree with the comments above. 

A Stofen gives you 90% of the functionality for 1/20 the price.

Lenses / Re: Which Bokeh Monster?
« on: July 26, 2014, 09:39:16 AM »
I currently own the following primes for use on my 6D (and occasionally EOS-M):  35mm IS f/2, 85mm f/1.8, 100mm f/2.8L Macro and 135mm f/2.  When funds allow, I plan to replace the 85mm 1.8 with the 85mm f/1.2 II assuming something better doesn't come along by then.  I also like the 50mm focal lenght, and might consider one of the new Sigma Art lenses down the road.  If I had to chose a bokeh monster from available primes it would be the 85mm f/1.2 II first and 135L second.

Your 100L vs 135L:
The advantage of the 100L over 135L is that you can get closer to your subject or move them closer to you (i.e.  further from the background) which can give you additional blur which nullifies the f-stop difference. Also being a shorter focal length the 100L allows you to use it in smaller venues so it becomes much more versatile on full frame. The 9-blade circular aperture in your 100L is also better than the aperture of the 135L, which is not circular and starts showing it octagonal shape by f/2.8 and become very obvious by f/4. The 100L is also weather sealed. The 100L also has IS which is of benefit which can also help with decreasing your shutter speed if you need more light. Basically, while the 135L is a cracking lens wide open, it's not very versatile and if you already have the 100L I don't see the 135L adding much value to your camera bag.

Depends on your definition of versatile, and entirely depends on the needs of the user.

In my case, for example- the 135L produces beautiful head and head and shoulder shots, and a great portrait lens if not as good as the 85, if you have space, and is great for kids especially if running around; it acts as a nice short tele when I am traveling, great for distant landscapes, zoos; it is a great lens for indoor sports where you need the FL and the f/2; it is also great for events. I just shot an acapela concert and a show, both in piss-poor light, with fantastic results even when cropped heavily.

So, for those need the wider FL or the macro capability, the 135L is more versatile. In fact, now that I have the 135L, I am considering picking up the 100 non-L for any occasional macro work I might want to do. I tried the 100L and I didn't like the bokeh- so I wouldn't pick it as a portrait lens.

+1  I own a 100L and 135L and use the 135L quite a bit more and find it more versatile for my purposes.  I love the 100L for macro work, but it's bokeh is too "busy" to my eye, I prefer the bokeh of the 135.  The extra stop of light is also a huge advantage to the 135, generally lack of IS is not much of an issue for me as I almost always shoot wide open, so can keep a fast shutter speed in all but the worst light.  Non-circular aperture blades also not an issue as I'm shooting at f/2 or 2.2 99% of the time.

It takes 1.4x extender with no noticeable loss of IQ to give a great 190/2.8, and takes 2x in a pinch to provide a perfectly acceptable 270/4.

As much as I love my 135L, I have not had good success with extenders on it. I've used it with both 1.4x III and 2.0x III extenders and feel the results are soft with lots of CA.  The same extenders work fantastically with my 70-200 2.8 II.


And I think I'm a jerk if I dangle that I have a 24-70 F/2.8L I and do not let people have a look at it.

Attached advert from a guy who clearly has not sold much gear.  Reach out if interested with a message.

- A

Your ad contains too detailed information and niceties IMO for the eBay or Craigslist customer. My lengthy ads have fared much poorly than short ones.
You can, however, use this post in FredMiranda.com, and you definitely should. I have sold multiple items in that site and the transactions have always been very pleasant (and hey, I can put in a line vouching for the fact you are a regular poster in Canonrumors, FWIW). You can use Paypal which is very secure, and apart from the 3% Paypal fee there is nothing else.

P.S.: As Steve says, feedback on FredMiranda goes a long way, but everyone had to start somewhere, right? Some things that convince buyers are good English and feel of genuineness (I think your post has that), good pictures (put your username on a post-it and put it in the pictures), and prompt and clear responses if questions are asked.

+1 For selling on FredMiranda.com.  I have bought and  sold on eBay for many years with good success, but their recent fee hikes have forced me to look for other options.

I've been using CraigsList off and on for a few years, but we live in a small town so it's hard to find buyers close.  Also, you have to deal with lots of thieves who make bogus offers at elevated prices and accompanying fake PayPal payment emails hoping to trick sellers into shipping products overseas.  I current have a 430EX II speedlite listed on CL for $220.  Yesterday, I received an "offer" for $350 including overseas shipping to ship to the buyers brother in Nigeria.  But, it was urgent that I shipped immediately or they would not receive it in time for their birthday. Yeah, right!  When I responded that I would not ship overseas until the PayPal payment had cleared the Buyer stopped communicating.  These type of fake offers are common with CL and even eBay in my experience.

I have a friend who fell for one of these scams a few years ago.  They were selling a collectible item on eBay.  She received an inquiry from a scammer who offered $200 more than what the item was worth if she shipped to a relative of the buyer in Romania.  The scammer requested my friends email/PayPal address and said they would send PayPal payment, but my friend had to ship immediately as their relative was moving to a new address in Romania soon.  My friend was getting ready to leave on a business trip and in a hurry to wrap things up before she left.  She received a fake email payment notification from PayPal and shipped the item to Romania without verifying payment at the PayPal website.  The next day she did check PP, and no money received.  She tried to contact the seller, but they never responded.  Tried to recall the package from USPS, but apparently that isn't possible for international shipments.  So, she was out a collectible worth a few thousand dollars.

Ive been selling a few items recently at FredMiranda.com and it's a pleasure by comparison with eBay and CL. The buyers are all legitimate and knowledgable photographers.  Prices tend to be fair market prices and FM does not charge any fees, so PayPal fees are the only ones that apply.  Those are not insignificant, but worth it to me to avoid the hassles on CL with scammers.  I had a few additional questions from potential FM buyers since I lacked selling history, but I responded to their their questions and sent additional pictures as required.  Some ask me to share my eBay user ID since I have a good seller rating there, and this helped.  As others pointed out, you have to start somewhere.

Good luck

Lenses / Re: What Lenses are missing from Canon's range
« on: July 18, 2014, 02:25:06 PM »
I'd like to see a new fast IS primes:  35, 50, 85 and 135mm.  Especially the 50.

Of course a 100-400 II L would be awesome, but the price needs to be reasonable given the quality of the Tamron 150-600.

Lenses / Re: Year of the lens....a joke....?
« on: July 16, 2014, 04:34:12 AM »
It is the year of the lens...

but unfortunately for Canon, the lens is the Tamron 150-600......

From a value-for-money standpoint Tamron's 150-600mm is impressive but I wish Tamron had made it a 150-500 instead and half a kilo lighter. I hate that on the long end it only reaches its best around f/10-11.  :'(

I rented a Tamy 150-600 for our vacation in Alaska and used it extensively.  I found it to be pretty sharp at 600mm and f/8.  It's definitely better at 500mm, but I was happy with 600 and f/8.

Lenses / Re: Flex Lens Shade
« on: July 16, 2014, 04:05:13 AM »
how about something like this:


something like this will make your CPL easier to turn also...

This is likely but there are plenty of 82mm screw on hoods that could work... might take you a few different shades to find the perfect one,

The flex shade will probably manage to find its way into your uncropped shots..

Not sure that I like the idea of a hood that screws into the filter threads.  Canons hoods attach to the outside of the lens which I would think is better for protecting and minimizing lens damage if dropped. 

However, if these hoods would make it easier to rotate a CPL they might be worth a try.

Lenses / Re: Flex Lens Shade
« on: July 16, 2014, 03:55:19 AM »
Looks flimsy to me.  I have some rogue flash benders for my flashes (similar idea) and they are a pain to use. Why you would want this functionality in a hood is beyond me

It does look flimsy. Never meant to be a protective tool of course. I do see the value of cutting off the flare.

Lens hoods two functions are shading your front element/filter to prevent flare and protection.  The flexi-shade would do a good job of the former, but not do much if anything for protection.  Lens hoods for wide angle and UWA lenses are so shallow they don't do much to shade the lens anyway, so protection is the main advantage.  If your primary concern is shade, the flex-shade looks like a good option.

Site Information / Re: Post Precessing Section
« on: July 14, 2014, 03:36:19 AM »
+1 I think there is a need

Canon General / Re: What's Would You Keep? [The anti-G.A.S. thread]
« on: July 11, 2014, 05:58:20 AM »
I hope I never have to make these tough choices, but:

1 body + 1 lens: 6D + 24-70 f/2.8II
1 body + 2 lenses: 6D + 24-70 f/2.8II + 70-200 f/2.8IS II
1 body + 3 lenses: 6D + 24-70 f/2.8II + 70-200 f/2.8IS II + 135 f/2.0
1 body + 3 lenses + 1 accessory: 6D + 24-70 f/2.8II + 70-200 f/2.8IS II + 135 f/2.0 + 600EX-RT
1 body + 4 lenses + 1 accessory: 6D + 24-70 f/2.8II + 70-200 f/2.8IS II + 135 f/2.0 + 35 f/2.0 IS + 600EX-RT

Though decision between my 135L and 100L Macro.  The macro is more versatile and has IS, but I shoot 4x more portraits than macro, and I love the 135L for portraits.  I could go with the combo of 24-70 and 135L if I had to.  I often use these two lenses for short trips or day outings and it works quite well.  I could also get by with the 6D and 35mm IS and 135L in a pinch and money or space were really tight.

Of course I could get by with my EOS-M and 22mm lens if I had to, I would just wouldn't be able to create many of the images I can today with my current equipment.

Photography Technique / Re: The definition of insanity
« on: June 26, 2014, 03:07:29 AM »
I have the same problem.  I always take too much gear on family vacations expecting and hoping to have time to take some great pictures, but inevitability I seldom have time for much more than quick shots.

We are right now in Alaska, just wrapping up three weeks in the 49th state.  I took my 6D, 24-70, 70-200, 100L Macro, Rokinon 14mm and a rented Tamron 150-600 as well as my EOS-M, 22 and 18-55 lenses, 3 600EX-RT's, ST-E3-RT, flash bender, mini softbox, set of Lee filters, other filters, tripod, monopod and other assorted items that took up one large backpack and overflowed into my suitcase.

So far I'm used the 6D and 24-70 90% of the time, the Tamron 150-600 9% (wildlife and whale watching cruise).  I've taken token shots with my other three lenses just to feel better about lugging them around.  The flash equipment has gotten little use despite intentions for better lit portraits of the family in front of various landmarks as normally there isn't time to set things up properly. 

Next vacation, I swear I'll just take my 24-70 and 100 or 135mm,  ::)

EOS-M / Re: Another great toy for EOS-M
« on: June 07, 2014, 08:39:57 AM »
I ABSOLUTELY LOVE my EOS M! Great little camera.

I was looking on DxO Optics. The 22 mm kit lens on the EOS M - that costs $95 new on eBay - is as sharp as my Canon 24-70 2.8 II on my Canon T4i. Not bad for a $250 camera & lens combo!!  :)

I have a Hoodman viewfinder that I use on my EOS M - same basic thing.

I have found, though, that by turning the LCD to full brightness, I can see it in full sunshine with no problem. 

I tested it, turning fully around in a 360 degree circle. The only place I had trouble was when my face was fully lit my the sun, when my subject was backlit, for about 20 degrees of the arc. I could solve the problem just by tilting a ball cap down trp shade my face.

The rest of the time, I had no problem seeing the LCD with brightness all of the way up.

One tip: You can program the "Trash Can" button to increase the LCD to full brightness. Works great!

Otherwise I use the "Trash Can" button to change ISO. I put the Custom Function to select the mapping of that button on "My Menu."

I never need to change ISO in bright sunlight, so it works perfectly to switch that to the LCD brightness ...

Good luck!

Good tip!  I'll try give this a try today.

Lenses / Re: What was your first L lens?
« on: June 07, 2014, 07:25:29 AM »
My first L was the 100-400.  My first DSLR was a T2i (550D) that I bought with the 18-55 kits lens and an EF-S 55-250 v1.  I was happy with this set-up for about a year, but then replaced the kit lens with a EF-S 18-135 and the 55-250 with the 100-400 as I was looking to additional focal length.  I purchased it used off eBay and it was a pretty good copy.  After over a year of use, I found I was seldom using it much beyond 200mm and often wished I had a faster lens for lower light use and shallow DOF.  So, I sold it to help fund the purchase of a 70-200 2.8 II, which I plan to hang onto forever!

My second L was the 24-105 followed closely by the 35 and 135.

Lenses / Re: Covering 70-200 Indoors.
« on: June 07, 2014, 06:13:10 AM »
Since you already have the 70-300L, which is an excellent outdoor lens with a terrific zoom range.  I think the 135L would meet your needs for a fast indoor tele option nicely.

I have a 70-200 2.8 II and a 135L and often choose to leave the 70-200 at home due to its weight when I'll be carrying the camera for extended periods.  My equipment choice for festivals and day-long events is my 6D with 24-70 and 135L.  Occasionally, I take an extender along as well.  I often use my 135L for my nieces and nephews swimming and wrestling events in very poor light.  It works well in smaller areas where you can get pretty close to participants, but I take my 70-200 when I need more reach.

I have 1.4xIII and 2.0xIII extenders that I use occasionally with my 135L.  As Mackguyver pointed out, the extenders do not work well with the 135 wide open for some reason, but they work brilliantly with the 70-200.  In my experience (not formal testing) the 135mm / 1.4xIII combination seems to work well from f/5.6 and up, but my shots at wider apertures seemed soft with high CA's.   

Lenses / Re: Tamron SP 150-600 f/5-6.3 VC Availability
« on: June 04, 2014, 07:17:44 PM »
I ordered one from B&H in mid April and no sign of it yet.  We are leaving on a trip to Alaska in a few weeks.  If it doesn't show up soon I'll rent a 400 f/5.6 to take with me instead.  I really need something longer than my 70-200 for Alaska!

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS M Vanishes from Canon USA Web Site
« on: June 01, 2014, 01:15:36 PM »
As camera phones improve these high end APS-C systems will eventually disappear.


I guess it should read "high-priced APS-C systems will eventually disappear" ... and that's exactly my opinion too.

Once we get beyond 135mm focal length, lenses for any sensor-size from mFT via APS-C to FF are exactly the same size: "FF size". And below that focal length, lens size and weight does not scale anywhere proporationately to image circle. There's just no point in buying 1000+ € 56mm/1.2 lenses ... unless they cover 36x24mm image circle.  :-)

Yes, I meant high priced.  If somebody can make a "high end" low priced APS-C system it will certainly be viable.

I'm not saying APS-C will go away, I'm saying APS-C systems that cost as much as better FF systems can't compete and will eventually decline quite a bit in sales.  I suppose there will still be a small market for users who care so much about compact size with lots of features, they are willing to pay a big premium for it.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 51