January 30, 2015, 12:00:16 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 ... 91 92 [93] 94 95 ... 105
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?

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.  ;)

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

Lenses / Re: Owners of 70-200f2.8L IS mk.II & 70-300 L IS
« on: November 22, 2011, 02:49:06 PM »
Wow... not only lack of sharpness, but more CA and lesser contrast as well...  However at f6.3 the combo does rather well albeit a slight loss of contrast. CA and sharpness are much improved.

Thanks John.

PS: I once tested a 70-200f4IS vs the f2.8 mk.II, the F4 looked sharper. Both were stopped down to their minima... I did not test the macdaddy at f4 though...

Lenses / Re: Owners of 70-200f2.8L IS mk.II & 70-300 L IS
« on: November 22, 2011, 02:33:47 PM »

So 70-200 f2.8 plus 2x MK.III = 140-400 f5.6... would that be better or worse than the 70-300L at 300mm only comparing IQ?

Lenses / Re: Owners of 70-200f2.8L IS mk.II & 70-300 L IS
« on: November 22, 2011, 01:53:31 PM »
Thanks Guys!

Have you compared the IQ of the 70-300L vs the 70-200f2.8mk.II personally? (the light sensitivity apart)

Lenses / Owners of 70-200f2.8L IS mk.II & 70-300 L IS
« on: November 22, 2011, 01:20:13 PM »

I have owned and enjoyed the 70-300L these past months. It is light and has great IQ. All along I was on the lookout for a cheap 70-200f2.8 IS mk.II, and while I could goto ebay/CL, I figured if I could get one refurbished from Canon Direct (i.e. like new but serviced by Canon, I would go for it)... I waited for months but none showed up in stock till last Friday, I visited the site again and said to myself... if they have one in stock, I will push the button.

Well one did and it was delivered today!! ;D  I was very excited and went home over lunch to open the box up.

Apart from a tiny paint chip (less than 1mmx1mm) it is MINT. It does not come with the white box, but otherwise with all accessories. I think it is a great deal at $1999 especially when Canon has gone over it (something not all Production units can claim since random lots are inspected on the line):... or so I console myself. :-\

I only had time to fit it on to my 5D and take some test shots and view them on the Camera LCD.

It is too early to say if the images are good or not, but what I did notice is that for the 5-10 minutes that I held it.... my left arm which supports the lens... started to quiver with the weight after this little session. This never happens with the 70-300L.

Originally; my intention was to sell the 70-300L when I got the 70-200mk.ii +x2.0mk.III, but now... I am wondering if I will enjoy holding this heavy lens for long periods.

Would like to know if you guys have trouble keeping up with this solid lens and did you get used to it.


EOS Bodies / Re: 5DIII will come
« on: November 22, 2011, 10:34:54 AM »
I would be happy if the 5DIII had 1D4 AF and 12800 iso.
But, it won't.  It will be lucky to have 7D AF. 

I agree that 5DIII would be lucky to have even 7D's AF. Here is why:

5DIII will be aimed at studio/landscape photographers. Of course they deserve a decent AF system with their camera, say one that is between 60D's and 7D's AF. But not more than that or Canon will shoot themselves with their own weapon. 1DIV's AF is way too advanced for a camera that won't even need it. This would also mess the Canon lineup. 1Dx sales could suffer, 7D's or 7DII's sales would suffer although they are aimed at totally different markets. Heck, even 5DIII's sales would suffer because of it's increased price (highly advanced AF would obviously cost more). Why would Canon take such a risk?

They would not want to put all killer features in one camera and sell it for $2500... Why would they? They want you to buy the flagship model for that, and for a price. They would want to keep a good distinction between all their cameras to ensure that they all bring in the maximum cash. Which I think is only fair given the R&D they are putting in their different products. I know these cameras are already different in so many ways (sensor size, pixel count, low-light capabilities, burst shooting, etc) but AF system has always been the key feature to keep them really separated.

People expect better AF in 5DIII and right so, 5DIII will have better AF. Because Canon would want the 5DII users to upgrade to the new model and they know that only better IQ/low-light performance in the new model won't cut it for many of us. So a slightly better AF is all they will offer.

Just my 2 cents...

Granted... if they want to stunt the 5d3, remove the video capture features and let people use the 60D or 300C etc for Video... Give us a  decent Still Camera with at least 5-6 fps, 5AEB bracketing, decent AF and ISO... Hopefully this is a fair trade-off.

EOS Bodies / Re: 5DIII will come
« on: November 21, 2011, 09:47:39 AM »
D800 confirmed at 36 MP by NR.  Canon was right all along. More MP *is* better. That tears it. I'm selling all my Canon gear and switching to Nikon.

hehe ;)

Interesting times, love to see tech advancing! Nikon just tripled D700's pixel count, which surely will make some high-ISO fans unhappy... I wonder how many will switch to Canon now :D

I'd rather folks switch over to Nikon so I can get hold of nice glass on sale. Nikon guys coming here will drive up the prices of lenses...

Pages: 1 ... 91 92 [93] 94 95 ... 105