October 31, 2014, 05:15:45 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 - K-amps

Pages: 1 ... 88 89 [90] 91 92 ... 102
EOS Bodies / Re: 1D Mark IV Refurbs in Stock
« on: November 30, 2011, 09:36:02 PM »
15% code for reburbished DSLR and Lenses good till midnight Dec 2. I'm not going to use it and don't know if it's a single use so anyone's welcome to it


and don't forget $5 shipping


Didnt work for me, hope it does for someone else...  :)

Lenses / Re: I wish I'd never sold my.....?
« on: November 30, 2011, 05:05:20 PM »
I sold my very first L lens which was the 100mm f2.8L macro.. it was an awesome lens but i sold it to fund a 5d mk 2... and i know i wouldnt do as much macro photography as i would with street and landscape... Although the upside is i got a full frame i wish i would hold on to it  :(

+1 Me too... that copy I had of the 100 Macro f2.8 was razor sharp and great bokeh too. Sold it for the L version which did not dazzle me...

EOS Bodies / Re: Great Prices Now
« on: November 30, 2011, 05:02:02 PM »

and please not Ryther camera  :-\

Start Here http://www.canonrumors.com/cameras/canon-rumors-price-watch/

You can compare prices and various lens combinations at Canon Price Watch, but if you buy anything, please click through on CR's site.

Thanks!  :-)

EOS Bodies / Re: 1D Mark IV Refurbs in Stock
« on: November 30, 2011, 03:53:49 PM »

I got the last 70-200f2.8mk.ii last week... if i can use this coupon, I owe you a beverage !!   ;D

EOS Bodies / Re: Great Prices Now
« on: November 30, 2011, 03:35:20 PM »

and please not Ryther camera  :-\

Software & Accessories / Re: To HDR or Not To HDR
« on: November 30, 2011, 11:40:54 AM »
Got your point... there's something not right with them, the non-HDR version with less overall detail looks less fatiguing. I see some camera shake blur reflected in the HDR versions too...

So we understand that it is not only the painterly effect but also the blur effect that goes against HDr, however, I still think done right it has it's merits.

United States / Re: 70 - 200L IS MII vs 70 - 300L based on price
« on: November 29, 2011, 11:05:29 AM »
At $1974 for the f2.8 mk.II, it is a no brainer. I ordered mine yesterday!

PS: I already have the 70-300L. It is lighter and maybe even sharper if not the same, and is light. Great travel lens.

Lenses / Re: Help! 70/200mm f/4 IS OR 70/200mm f/2.8 IS II
« on: November 29, 2011, 10:54:09 AM »

How is this for motivation:  B&H has it for $1974 now till Dec 2nd !!  ;D

OP (jhubson1) you get an applaud for this :-)

Saved me $100... I am calling Adorama for a price match.

This site is so helpful !!

Lenses / Re: Help! 70/200mm f/4 IS OR 70/200mm f/2.8 IS II
« on: November 28, 2011, 05:09:11 PM »
When we consider the Human eye has has equivalent fstop range of f3.2 to f8.3 (assuming incoming light rays hitting the retina); are we surprised when the 70-200 f2.8 can give us very "eye pleasing" results...  :)

Lenses / Re: 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II Current Price
« on: November 28, 2011, 04:13:54 PM »
I just got a refurb for $1999 from Canon 6 days back. I might just return it and get a "NEW" one with factory box and all for less from Adorama... since Canon Charged me $140 tax... so the new one should be cheaper than Canon refurb since Adorama does not charge sales tax...   ;)

EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Mark III - which lens will Canon put into the kit?
« on: November 28, 2011, 12:32:03 PM »
OTOH, If Canon would offer another 5DIII kit with the new 24-70 f/2.8 II, that would be a combination NOBODY yet had. So, many users of the current 24-70L f/2.8 would maybe consider upgrading at the same time they upgrade their body (to 5DIII). While it would cost a fortune (around $5k?), it could sell in good amounts among enthousiasts. Kit will be cheaper and lots of people are probably waiting for both the 5DIII and 24-70 f/2.8L II.

That would be a good reason.  OTOH, a 24-70 f/2.8 II would be a highly popular lens and would sell like hotcakes at full retail so Canon may not want to put in a kit at a reduced price.  The 24-105mm is still the best choice for a new user and many (maybe most?) upgrading to the 5D3 might be less price conscious (i.e. they just want the 5D3 sooooo much they can taste it).   Anyway, I'm just having some fun with speculating... the choices for kits is purely a business decision to drive sales and generally I think they won't put a lens in a kit that would be highly desired for specific/compelling/professional reasons.

I would happily fork up to $4.25k for a 5d3 kit with a 24-70mm f2.8 IS

Lenses / Re: Help! 70/200mm f/4 IS OR 70/200mm f/2.8 IS II
« on: November 28, 2011, 11:56:34 AM »
+1 to all these guys giving good advice.

It usually starts with the budget constraints making you rationalize about getting the f4 instead, but as with others, I had the F4, but now am a happy owner of the f2.8 mk.II. It just makes some pictures out out alive, it is almost magical... I cannot explain it.... the word "dreamy" comes to mind perhaps...

You should not be comparing the 2 lenses based on cold hard facts of F4 vs F2.8 etc ... the f2.8 mk.II has something special... it cannot be quantified... It is heavy yes... but it should not matter unless you have health issues... you will build the required muscles quickly  ;)

Wait for Dec 6th? and if you are lucky, Canon announces the 24-70 f2.8 IS or mk.II without IS... if not the 24-105 f4 IS is a great lens for wider shots..

@Neuroanatomist  - That is what has been killing me with the 70-200 F4 IS versus the 70-300 F4-5.6.  Extra 100 is nice, but I think the 70-200 might be sharper.  You didn't like the 2.8 non-IS?  I think I read that while it is a little faster a lens, the F4 is a tad sharper. 

No difference in sharpness between the 70-200mm f/4L IS and the 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS.  The 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II has a slight edge (very slight) over both. 

As awinphoto, the 70-200mm f/2.8L (non-IS) is great from a tripod, or the right choice if you'll mainly be shooting sports/events under dim light and the IS MkII version is not in your budget.  The f/4L IS is a tad sharper than the f/2.8L non-IS.

On my copies; the 70-300L is sharper than the already sharp 70-200f2.8 Mk.II at 100mm (The only test I did was at f5.6 @100mm). This is not a competition between the two, but just to let you know how sharp the 70-300L is since you are worried about losing the 70-200 f4.

Attached is a shot I took with the 70-300L; not sharpened, just cropped 100% without resizing. @ 300mm @ f5.6 on an older 5D.

I tested a 70-200f4 once and it seemed sharper than the 70-200f2.8mk.II : I shot them both at their max apertures, i.e. F4 and F2.8 respectively... I know, not fair fight... but told me how sharp the 70-200 IS F4 is wide open.

Lenses / Re: Owners of 70-200f2.8L IS mk.II & 70-300 L IS
« on: November 23, 2011, 09:30:38 AM »
Thank you all for your inputs!

The 70-300L seems sharper than my 70-200mk.ii, but then I have been shooting f2.8... I don't mind the softness for portraits, but do you guys feel the same?

Pages: 1 ... 88 89 [90] 91 92 ... 102