December 18, 2014, 06:21:04 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 - K-amps

Pages: 1 ... 89 90 [91] 92 93 ... 103
1351
EOS Bodies / Re: Great Prices Now
« on: November 30, 2011, 05:02:02 PM »
Links?

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!  :-)

1352
EOS Bodies / Re: 1D Mark IV Refurbs in Stock
« on: November 30, 2011, 03:53:49 PM »
Thanks!

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

1353
EOS Bodies / Re: Great Prices Now
« on: November 30, 2011, 03:35:20 PM »
Links?

and please not Ryther camera  :-\

1354
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.

1355
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.

1356
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

1357
OP (jhubson1) you get an applaud for this :-)

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

This site is so helpful !!

1358
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...  :)

1359
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...   ;)


1360
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

1361
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..

1362
@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.

1363
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?

1364
Lenses / Re: sigma 12-24 mk II
« on: November 23, 2011, 09:14:11 AM »
Funny I was researching this lens yesterday: Here's the impression I got:

Old lens has less distortion, infact for 12mm it is very good. However it suffers from some softness in the corners. This is usually not an issue unless you really look, but it is there and needs to be mentioned.

New Lens: Sharper in the corners open wide is sharper than the 17-40: stopped down, 17-40 begins to catch up, but the sigma has huge width advantage should you need it, and infact is THE widest lens available on FF. Bad news is if you are into architectural photography, it has complex distortion patterns, not simple barrel fixed by PS but tri-modal, that distortion can be distracting; I am not sure if DxO has a fix for it yet, but I read somewhere that someone had a fix for it... I forget where.

Both old and new have their advantages, none is perfect, then again we ask for perfection but seldom really need it, unless we are specialists in a certain type of photography, in which case, you know which one to get.  ;)

1365
Lenses / Re: Owners of 70-200f2.8L IS mk.II & 70-300 L IS
« on: November 22, 2011, 09:11:51 PM »
Got home and took some test shot indoors.... WOW!  It is almost like cheating at exams... it's that much better than other lenses i have used so far in terms of lighting up the portrait under incandescent lighting.  Success rate much better indoors. The 180mm prime I loved so much for portraits seems so old school now...  :( If it wasn't a macro I'd be selling it ... lets see how much noise the wifey makes... maybe I keep both?  ;D

Pages: 1 ... 89 90 [91] 92 93 ... 103