December 20, 2014, 01:49:22 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 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 54
Lafayette, Indiana USA, but born and raised in Kansas.

Scenery isn't great, but its a nice place to raise a family.

Lenses / Re: Permanent price drops
« on: August 30, 2014, 05:49:13 PM »

$500 drop on the 24-70mm f/4L IS.  More sensible price now, ouch for those that bought it at higher prices.

+1  This is a nice lens but was way overpriced compared with the 24-105L until now.

Lenses / Re: Another standard zoom advice topic
« on: August 28, 2014, 07:36:05 AM »
I would recommend a Canon EF 24-70 f/4L IS that are going for between $600 and $800USD used on eBay, and new white box for around $900.  If you can wait, there will probably be some deals on these in upcoming months as well. 

This is an excellent lens, sharp at both ends of the zoom range with 3-stop IS and near macro (0.7) capability. 

Lenses / Re: Help deciding on going full frame
« on: August 28, 2014, 06:43:00 AM »

The EF24-105 should be removed from the L line.  It's mediocre at best.  So if you can tolerate it's weaknesses, it should suit you fine.  Or, if 105 is not important, but IQ is, I'd recommend getting the 24-70 F4 or 2.8L II.

I don't agree.  The 24-105 is very well built, definitely "L" quality, auto focuses quickly and quietly and is pretty good optically.  The 24-105mm range is provides an extra 50% of reach over the standard 24-70 zooms.  Its also a terrific bargain at around $600 on the used market.  Excellent quality for that price!

There are of course better standard zooms, but they all cost more money, so the consumer has choices.  I owned one of these lenses for two years and was very pleased with the images I captured with it.  I replaced it with a 24-70 2.8 II last year, but if I didn't have the funds available I would still be using it.

Not all L's are excellent optically, some are just good.  Personally, I like having options within the L designation.

Reviews / Re: Tony Northrup - D810 vs. 5D Mk3
« on: August 09, 2014, 07:51:24 AM »
YAWN.  Gee lets compare a camera that just came out to one that is two years old....

But comparing a just released camera with larger sensor to an older one?  He might as well just compared the 5DMKIII to the 5D MK II

+1  Its a testament to the excellence of the 5D Mk III that it took the competition 2+ years to equal and possibly slightly surpass it!

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: DSRL Camera for travel
« on: August 02, 2014, 10:56:30 AM »
I just took the SL1 + Tamron 18-270 hiking over 70+ miles.  It worked great.
If you want it to be smaller, use the kit lens or the 40mm pancake or whatever smaller zoom or prime you like.
The batteries are also smaller than the 5D3 batteries.

How do you like the IQ of the Tamron 18-270?  I've been looking at buying an SL1 kit as a lightweight option for some time.  Carrying multiple lenses defeats part of the purpose of a lightweight/small kit, so a good superzoom would be a nice option for long hikes.

Canon General / Re: What is your Least Used Piece of Gear?
« on: July 31, 2014, 06:07:57 PM »
Mine: my 430EX and 580EXIII Speedlites.  I love natural light and use my Lastolite reflectors/diffusers or Einsteins most of the time I need to add or modify light.
I'm like natural light too. My Speedlites are least used.

+1 but for my 600EX-RT's and ST-E3-RT.  This is great equipment, but I normally just don't take the time to drag it out.  Its easier to use natural light and a reflector.  Part of the problem is that I'm not that good at speedliting, so even with great equipment tend not to use it that much.  I need to go back and re-read Syl Arena's speedliting book...

Photo backpack.  It just sits in the closet because it's too cumbersome to shoot out of, and I never find myself in a position to carry everything I own.

I seldom use mine either.  I used tend to only use it on vacations or 2-3 day photo outings which account for maybe 3-4 times per year.  The rest of the time I just take a my 6D and a couple of lenses with my M along as  a backup in smaller Lowepro cases.

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, 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  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 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

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 54