April 20, 2014, 12:41:29 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 - infared

Pages: 1 ... 13 14 [15] 16 17 ... 50
211
Lenses / Re: EF 100mm f2,8 L IS Macro... is IS worth it?
« on: June 22, 2013, 06:41:45 AM »
I have one... was initially put off by the fact that it was an all plastic body for $1000.....but the lens is great...With the IS you can do macro "light" quite nicely...by that I mean...I can take hand-held macro shots that I could never shoot before...but.... any really serious macro work needs a tripod in my world...and I went into this purchase knowing that...macro is at the extreme end of photography...really testing the physics to get great images (focus stacking adds another option if you are truly dedicated)...but I feel that this lens has broken down some of the barriers and moved the quest forward... Also...I don't believe you will find a sharper L lens out there. Quite remarkable and very useful as a portrait lens etc. (that is actually where the IS can really shine...). Have not regretted the purchase.
Best comment above: "Is it worth it? Hell Yeah!!!! " LOL!

212
Lenses / Re: New Wide Angles Lenses in 2013 [CR2]
« on: June 19, 2013, 08:33:16 PM »
YIPPEE!!!
I just picked up a 17mm TSE...(tried it out last weekend...AMAZING LENS!)....so with this news about the new Wide Angles...I will be putting my 16-35mm II on the block...it is getting less and less use with my growing collection of primes.   I expect the new 14-24mm to be spectacular, (and expensive...YIKES!)....but I plan on having one in my quiver for when I need quick versatility and fast AF!

213
EOS Bodies / Re: Patents: New 50mm, 85mm & 135mm Lenses
« on: June 19, 2013, 06:31:18 AM »
135 f/2.0 with IS would be awesome ... if they do release it, I hope Canon goes easy on its pricing.

Your hopes will be dashed!! It will double in price from the current version, for sure.

I agree with DS... "If" Canon produces a 135mm f/1.8 with IS it will have a hefty price based on their current upgrade pricing policies...  I think a 135mm f/2 IS is more realistic and even that will carry a heavy price for admittance. No doubt!  I do not own the current 135mm, but most photographers wax poetic about its abilities...so if an update is made I would expect conservative Canon to make it an incremental update, nothing big and splashy....but ya never know.

214
Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II
« on: June 11, 2013, 09:54:08 AM »
Well-balanced, real review. Thanks Justin. I also like how you throw in you personal biases (your 24 TSE sidebar), it let's us know your approach to shooting and why "you" may or may not like something about a lens.
It's interesting how we photographers all have our own needs, which evolve over time.
I've owned both lenses, 17-40mm & the 16-35mm (which I still own...but would kick to the curb if Canon ever delivers a 14-24mm like the Nikon! LOL!)....I only owned the 17-40mm for about 2 weeks (it was the 1st lens that I had purchased after my kit 24-105 that came on my 5DII).
The one thing that really bothered me immediately about the 17-40mm (something I feel that Justin missed), was the "short throw" on the wide end of the zoom ring..say from 17-24mm. There is almost no throw. It feels truncated and abrupt...so that when zooming to the wide end I had no latitude to adjust my field of view. That REALLY bother "me". The lens did not seem well-balanced because of that factor. Also, I found the softness at f/4 to be disappointing.  I ended up shipping the lens back to the seller for a full return of purchase price (something I have never done since with an L lens), and purchasing the 16-35mm L II. Although I gulped on the price, as Justin reports, I found it to be a better lens in every way and I never looked back, (my retirement fund may have,though  ).

215
Lenses / Re: Review - Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II
« on: June 11, 2013, 08:26:23 AM »
Well-balanced, real review. Thanks Justin. I also like how you throw in you personal biases (your 24 TSE sidebar), it let's us know your approach to shooting and why "you" may or may not like something about a lens.
It's interesting how we photographers all have our own needs, which evolve over time.
I've owned both lenses, 17-40mm & the 16-35mm (which I still own...but would kick to the curb if Canon ever delivers a 14-24mm like the Nikon! LOL!)....I only owned the 17-40mm for about 2 weeks (it was the 1st lens that I had purchased after my kit 24-105 that came on my 5DII).
The one thing that really bothered me immediately about the 17-40mm (something I feel that Justin missed), was the "short throw" on the wide end of the zoom ring..say from 17-24mm. There is almost no throw. It feels truncated and abrupt...so that when zooming to the wide end I had no latitude to adjust my field of view. That REALLY bother "me". The lens did not seem well-balanced because of that factor. Also, I found the softness at f/4 to be disappointing.  I ended up shipping the lens back to the seller for a full return of purchase price (something I have never done since with an L lens), and purchasing the 16-35mm L II. Although I gulped on the price, as Justin reports, I found it to be a better lens in every way and I never looked back, (my retirement fund may have,though  :-\).

216
... I cannot understand why we do not have a stunning, well-priced normal lens for our camera bodies....this continually perplexes me and obviously it perplexes others as well and has for quite some time.

Two reasons:

(1) Zoom lenses sell cameras. Who, especially the target audience of the "entry-level" cameras, will today buy a DSLR kitted with a prime lens?

(2) The non-L primes that are being "updated" are just being done because they are "traditional" lenses and Canon obviously feels that they should still manufacture them. Therefore they get "updated" and made current/modern with IS. The prices of these lenses suggest that Canon felt right from the start that sales will be very slow.

Valid points....perhaps a Sigma Artline 50mm f/1.4 is the best hope for a reasonably priced, better quality AF normal lens.  I know the Zeiss is going to cost a fortune but set a new standard, which it most likely will.

217
EOS-M / Re: New Lens, New Firmware for EOS-M
« on: June 09, 2013, 08:33:06 AM »
Hopefully the Firmware download adds a viewfinder.

LOL!...eml58, I had the same thought but figured that I would keep my sarcasm to myself until I saw your post. LOL! From reading other threads I know that you own an M as a small backup body for your full system. At least that was the intention upon purchase. I am slightly tempted to buy one at the low price they are now selling for (I would be buying one for the same reason that you did), more  tempting now with the AF software fix coming....but your comment helps me to realize that if the camera sold for $5 and had blazing AF I probably would not ever really actually use it. I am a serious shooter...and for me anything without a viewfinder just is kind of a novelty toy...ya really can't "shoot" with one.  (In my world).
I will just hold on and keep using my MFT system to complement my FF gear until something really changes. If Canon does ever deliver an M with a VF and good AF...after the price drop I might purchase one (keeping both of my kits) to have as a second body...but that will be quite a ways off in the future, because when that new M is introduced, you know the price is going to be a little ridiculous.

218
Based on the quality of the Canon 50mm lenses (especially the f/1.8 & f/1.4) it tells me that Canon is not too interested or concerned about a great quality, fine-tuned normal lens for their full-frame cameras.  I think perhaps your hope is displaced here as it appears that Sigma and Zeiss are on the brink of satisfying our needs long before Canon will,(but, you never know!).  Although...I cannot understand why we do not have a stunning, well-priced normal lens for our camera bodies....this continually perplexes me and obviously it perplexes others as well and has for quite some time.

219
Hmmm....you have the 24-105mm which definitely covers your stated needs. I think if you add the 70-200mm you would have a much fuller and versatile kit and could get some nice candids and feature-compressed portraits...that being said..the 85mm delivers some beautifully artful low DOF portraits which can be stunning...but it is slow to focus, so is not very practical with moving children. The 135mm f/2 could fit into you considerations as well because it is a great portrait lens, fast focuser and nice bokeh as well.

220
Lenses / Re: 200-400 f4 and the "new" 100-400 zoom
« on: June 07, 2013, 08:34:42 AM »
First 200-400.... probably about $50,000,000 to build...
second 200-400, probably about $5000 to build...and canon probably makes around $2500 profit per lens
To make their money back they have to sell 20,000 lenses.... a tough target to hit.

First 100-400.... probably about $20,000,000 to build...
second 100-400, probably about $200 to build and canon probably makes $500 profit per lens.
To make their money back they have to sell 100,000 lenses.... an easy target to hit.

Do you mean $50,000,000 to research, develop and design????

Do you mean $50,000,000 to research, develop and design????  :)

221
EOS-M / Re: FF EOS-M?
« on: June 07, 2013, 06:45:34 AM »
How about any M with a viewfinder that can perform competitively in 2013....that would be a step forward.

222
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: I'm returning my Sigma 35 1.4
« on: June 07, 2013, 06:40:15 AM »
Well....it does not make a lot of sense to pay $500 extra for that much green slime....now, does it? :o

223
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: I'm returning my Sigma 35 1.4
« on: June 05, 2013, 08:17:57 PM »
OMG...I own all L glass except my Zeiss 21mm, My Sigma 50mm f/1.4  ("for me" kicks butt on Canon f/1.8 & f/1.4...and blows the 50mm L away on price ($399 right now), size and "for me" similar image quality) and my Sigma 35mm f/1.4.  The price was just right and the focusing and image quality all the way around is as good or better than the Canon 35mm L "for me".
No-Brainer fantastic lens for an active photographer. I don't "over analyze", no lens stands up to that. I agree with all of the reviews I have read...The Sigma...Price, Build & Performance make it an absolute winner "for me".  ...can't wait to see the next offering in the Art Series line...Hope it is a winner, too!

224
Reviews / Re: Horrible experience with Adorama camera
« on: June 05, 2013, 06:53:40 AM »

Bob Dylan wrote about the morals of NJ in Tweeter and the Monkeyman

Jan had told him many times "it was you to me who taught:
in Jersey anything's legal as long as you don't get caught"

Alan...thanks for the humor! (BTW...Good song!)

225
Reviews / Re: Horrible experience with Adorama camera
« on: June 05, 2013, 05:54:41 AM »
They are not my favorite either...I had incredibly rude treatment in their store 20 years ago...it was so rude I never went back.......................

I can appreciate why you may feel this way, but in all fairness, the Adorama management team today is not the  same as it was 20  years ago

I mentioned that my experience was in the past and that the majority of your customers have positive experiences today, in my complete statement. I believe that you may have quoted me out of context?


...I live in NJ and they charge NJ sales tax on all orders, so I also have a financial reason not to buy from them online these days..............

Actually, Adorama doesn't charge  sales tax; the state of NJ charges it and for NJ residents we are legally obliged to collect it.
There is a provision on the NJ income tax forms for you to declare out of state purchases that are subject to NJ state sales tax; many  NY / NJ  residents actively choose to  purchase from  retailers who collect on their behalf,  as  it saves them  the  bother - in any case, you really do need to pay that tax when filing your state income tax return.

As an example, if the state rate is 5.5% and you purchase $5,000 worth of equipment from an online out of state retailer that doesn't collect sales tax on orders shipped to you, it is your responsibility to send in 5.5% of that $5,000 ($275) to your state Department of Revenue. 

Fines for tax evasion can be very high, and it adds up quickly with fees, interest etc added onto the tax owed. If you're ever audited you'd be very happy that you have been taking care of this year by year. The best thing to do is to ask your local tax agency as well as a good local CPA.

[It is probably not a good idea for anyone to even suggest on an internet forum that they don't pay sales tax on out of state purchases.
With the financial crisis that NJ and many other states are in, it is only a matter of time until they start cracking down on this].

Helen, while your statement is politically correct it is certainly not connected with the reality of the way that average consumers actually shop in the NY/NJ region. It's a red herring, so I made the type red, too. :-)
At any rate, you appear to be proactive in helping the consumer have a positive purchasing experience at the establishment that employs you. Please, keep up the good work!

Pages: 1 ... 13 14 [15] 16 17 ... 50