Messages

46

Lenses / Portrait/Medium Tele Lens

« on: March 28, 2012, 10:04:18 PM »

Hello all, I am mulling the purchase of a reasonably-priced prime for portraits and general shooting.  I would be using on a 5D (possibly upgrading to 5D mk II in not too distant future).  I am considering the 85mm f/1.8 and the 100mm f/2.  I do not have the budget for or interest in the 85mm f/1.2 L.  I also have a 50mm f/1.4 and a 70-300mm f/4-5.6, so I already have the focal length range covered, what I am really looking for is a faster lens for low light and the possiblity of a shallower depth-of-field.  Any preferences or alternatives I should consider?

47

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Received used (!?) 5D III from Crutchfield

« on: March 27, 2012, 08:51:01 PM »

As a big gear guy, I can understand the frustration.  However, in a month or so, those 69 pictures and the less than pristine box will make no difference whatsoever in your long-term enjoyment and use, right?  And isn't that what we should be focused on?

48

Lenses / Re: Best third-party lenses

« on: March 21, 2012, 02:13:17 AM »

Had the privilege of using a Zeiss 35mm f2.0, and was truly impressed by the quality of the color from the lens.  I cant exactly describe why it was so astonishing, but it was quite impressive.  Yes, the manual focus is an issue, but with the wide angle perhaps less so.

I love the Sigma 50mm f/1.4, on record as saying so a few times.

49

Site Information / Re: Disappointed and goodbye

« on: March 21, 2012, 02:00:42 AM »

Stick around, bro!  The world (and this Canon-related site) needs cool heads with thoughtful input.  I share your concern, but I have learned sooooooo much, even from the snarky types.  It is worth it on balance.

50

Lenses / Re: Best music/concert photography lenses?

« on: March 21, 2012, 01:53:27 AM »

I may be getting a reputation as a Sigma fanboy here (I am not, I am a Canon fanboy!), but I have shot a lot with the Sigma 50MM f/1.4 on my 5D Mark I and it has never been anything but tack sharp and quick to focus.  I am certain the Canon 1.4 would yield similarly awesome results, but the optics on the Sigma just seemed a bit more modern to me, with better performance in the corners on focus and CA, etc. 

But I digress. I think the 16-35 f/2.8 L II (or a used version I) might be a good choice on a crop body. Once you move to a full frame, the lens could fill an entirely different niche.  I have seen these pre-owned on B&H for <$1K.  Plus, if you ever get desperate for moola, the canon WA lenses are a good store of value and easy to sell for a fair price

51

Lenses / Re: EF16-35 a best fit lens over 24-70

« on: July 28, 2011, 12:25:02 AM »

I have been contemplating this dilemma myself, and I am leaning towards getting the 17-40 based on two factors in the pro column for the 17-40: 1) cost is much lower than the 16-35mm f-2.8 and 2) better reported image quality.  For most applications, the 4.0 aperture is going to be perfectly fine in a very wide angle lens.

The reviews I have read, including Ken Rockwell (http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/17-40mm.htm) and Digital Picture (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-17-40mm-f-4.0-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx) like the image quality, portability and price of the 17-40mm.  About the only common situation I can think of that you would need the extra f-stop of hte 16-35mm would maybe be concert photos. 

52

EOS Bodies / Re: Which companion camera do you have or recommend?

« on: June 02, 2011, 04:26:08 PM »

I imagine the xz-1 is a very nice camera. But note in the picture in my link that it is almost twice as thick as the s95. 

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/OlympusXZ1/

I have an s95, love it to death, the color, image quality and low light performance are terrific, the size versus the G series is a huge benefit.  I doubt I would want to put the xz-1 in my pocket, but the s95 fits great.

53

EOS Bodies / Re: What should I do?

« on: April 22, 2011, 08:55:29 PM »

I bought an used original 5D model last year and I love it!  If you are not taking video, maybe it will be the perfect thing until you can afford a 5DII or 5DIII when it arrives.  You can probably get one for about $1000.

54

Lenses / Re: EF 24-105 f/4L IS II [CR1]

« on: April 19, 2011, 03:39:51 PM »

It has quite a bit of barrel distortion at 24, for one.

You know I think it does.  I never notice it until I use the default lens correction in Lightroom, it can make a significant improvement.  Then again, we always can use Lightroom, so...

55

Software & Accessories / Re: What's the best tripod to get for a $100-$200 USD/AUD range?

« on: April 18, 2011, 12:59:06 AM »

I prefer Manfrotto. Well made and reasonably priced.

Ditto.  I also have the 190XB, great piece of solid equipment

For What It's Worth, I find the monopod more useful than a tripod most of the time.

Also couldn't agree more.  My Manfrotto 680B is a bit heavy but I LOVE it, and if I am every caught in a dark alley by someone that covets my camera gear, I am quite sure it will fill the roll of "Louisville Slugger" quite nicely.

56

EOS Bodies / Re: What do you recommend for beginner?

« on: April 18, 2011, 12:48:31 AM »

Depending on how quickly you want to be taking pictures versus the depth with which you want to learn about photography, I almost think as a first camera, you might want to get an older one with fewer video gizmos and artistic photography modes.  I don't say that because the are no good (they can be really cool), but because you may want to strip photography down to the bare essentials, force yourself to focus on why you would want a certain aperture or shutter speed, whether you want flash or not based on the lighting situation, etc.  I was all jonesing for the 60D to be released so I could purchase one as my first DSLR, and I am sure I would have been very happy, but instead I bought a used 5D (not 5D II) with a full frame sensor for about the same money.  I also got a 24-105MM f/4 L lens, and a 430EX flash as part of the deal (not included, the whole package was about $2k).  I think I am the better for it, but then again I am the guy that wants to master the technical aspects before I even start focusin on improving composition, etc.

57

Lenses / Re: Which two lenses should I get

« on: April 14, 2011, 01:53:26 AM »

I have the 5D Classic, which I bought with the EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM Lens, and subsequently added the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 L IS USM Lens and a Sigma 50mm f/1.4 lens.   I love that combo, I feel like I am ready for most any event. 

I have never tried the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM, so I can't comment there, except that is probably pretty spiffy.  What I would say is that don't worry too much about overlap in your focal length.  In most outdoor situations a little overlap in your zooms is a nice thing, prevents a lot of swapping, which takes time and can foul your sensor with dust, etc.

I must say, I am impressed with the 70-300 f/ 4-5.6 L IS USM, in most outdoor sports scenarios, even early evening, I can still shoot at 1/1000 sec exposure or greater at ISO 400, so I can stop baseballs and soccer balls in mid air, even in that golden evening sun, and with fabulous clarity and focus.

58

EOS Bodies / Re: Technicolor & Canon USA Alliance

« on: April 06, 2011, 12:24:49 AM »

I think it is great for Canon that they are having so much success in this area. However, for us plebes that are primarily still photographers, I just hope we are not left behind.

59

Lenses / Re: Old film camera lenses for DSLRs?

« on: April 05, 2011, 01:47:54 AM »

In my limited experience since I have gotten back in to photography, in situations where you want to use a prime lens, you probably have fewer time-sensitive concerns that would require the focusing speed of an auto-focus.  In addition, you might often be using a prime in low light where a very open aperture and shallow depth-of-field can make auto-focus more challenging to use.  I think that in low light and shallow depth, auto-focus can be both a blessing and curse, and whether it is a blessing depends on your camera knowledge and ability to trick the auto-focus into performing to your bidding (e.g. setting your focus by pointing at the subject, depressing half-way to engage focus, then composing your frame the way you want it). For me, using manual focus on my auto-focus 50mm f/1.4 Sigma prime enhances the feeling of control and connectedness with what I am shooting.

I can't say what the story is on converting FD lenses to EF mount.  If you can find an adapter that allows you to use the lens but still focus to infinity (i.e. no change in distance to the sensor from the back of the lens) then, bully for you.  I think the primary reason for the ascendence of Canon to best-sellerdom in the DSLR world was the quality of their lenses at about the time the conversion from FD to EF mount took place, so you should feel pretty good if you can get the better FD lenses to work on EF cameras. 

I think the thing to remember is that, while L lenses are really cool from what I have seen and used, the cost of your very good FD lenses is basically free.  That is compelling.  If you can get them to work well, that is to be considered, but those lenses won't be best for every situation.

No knock on Nikon intended here.  Also, this is just an opinion from a guy who is still learning the digital ropes.  I welcome more learned observations.

60

Site Information / Re: What originally brought you to canon rumors?

« on: April 05, 2011, 12:50:16 AM »

I tend to become a little obsessed once I have a new interest or want to reconnect with an old one. Some people may think of that as somewhat "unhealthy" or of me being a "gear head" with a tendency towards GAS ("gear acquisition syndrome"). Oh well. But I'd respectfully disagree. I still do actually take pictures, ride my bicycle, play my guitars (or work at my day job...).

Wow, that is pretty much me, although my guitar gets a little more lonely that I would like it to get.  Bikes are getting a decent workout though.