Messages

1

EOS Bodies / Re: Yet Another 5D vs 7D Question

« on: January 22, 2013, 06:35:06 AM »

The ability to use higher ISO with the 5DIII, thus keeping shutter speed high would be one of the big advantages. I hear the 5D III can really handle higher ISO without much noise, which as the owner of a 7D, I know is not true with the 7D.

2

Lenses / Re: No compact 'standard' L zoom?

« on: September 27, 2012, 07:42:12 AM »

Actually, Canon has five versions of the 70-200, but I believe they are currently manufacturing only three of them. I don't believe the 70-200 2.8 non IS or the 70-200 IS version I are in production anymore. The 24-105 is not too large or heavy and is a great all round lens.

3

Lenses / Re: Which lenses to start?

« on: September 19, 2012, 06:30:26 AM »

Is budget a concern? Some of the lens combos mentioned here are obviously top of the line, but they also come with a price. 70-200 2.8 II, 24-70 2.8 II, 16-35 2.8 II. Who wouldn't want that combo? However, new, these lenses will run around $6500 plus any tax that applies. If the OP can afford this fine, but not many people have all these lenses or pick them all up at once. The f4 zooms are a bit more affordable. Maybe the 70-200 f4 IS should be considered. It's really sharp, light and affordable. If you have a 24-105, maybe you have overlaps, but that's if you carry everything you own with you. Sometimes you just want one body and one lens. The 24-105 is great for that.

4

Lenses / Re: Which lenses to start?

« on: September 18, 2012, 12:22:42 PM »

Consider the 17-40 as a nice wide angle. It can be bought used on a regular basis for around $700-$750 and takes the same filter as the 70-200 2.8. The 24-105 is a very versatile lens with the latest IS system. It also takes a 77mm filter.

5

Lenses / Re: best wide or ultra wide angle lens for crop sensorh

« on: August 17, 2012, 06:23:57 AM »

I have only used the 10-22, but it lived on the cameras I had at the time (Xsi and 60D). It's a very nice lens and there are no problems with the build quality. I switched to full frame eventually and picked up a 17-40, but there isn't much difference in those two lenses.

6

Lenses / Re: 400mm f/4. Anything good and "affordable"?

« on: May 31, 2012, 07:42:03 AM »

Does the Sigma 120-300 take the Canon teleconverters? I like the look of this lens. Right now, my Canon 300 f4 IS lives on my 7D as the equipment I use for maximum reach. I also use the 1.4 II TC when I need more reach. It's pretty good, especially with good light. This is one of the cheapest ways to get this type of reach and still maintain decent quality. 420mm at 5.6 in a decent size package.

There is also the Sigma 150-500 to consider.

7

Lenses / Re: EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM vs. EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM

« on: May 25, 2012, 11:23:42 AM »

I have the f4 IS and have rented the f2.8 II. The f2.8 II is considered to be one of the best zooms available from any manufacturer and was very sharp. However, the f4 is super sharp also and very little difference in real world viewing can be seen. The f4 is half the price and readily available for around $1000 used also. It is also half the weight. It's a very compact, easy to carry lens for what it provides. The f2.8 II is a beast. Bigger and heavier. You do not need a tripod collar to make the f4 work on a tripod, which is good since Canon doesn't provide one.

The f2.8 II is metal construction, the f4 is not, but build quality is still excellent. Cheaper 67mm filters for the f4 vs 77mm for the f2.8 II, although I find many of the popular lenses that you find in many bags, such as the 17-40 and 24-105, 300 f4 etc are also 77mm filter size, so the 77mm may be a plus.

If someone offered me one or the other, I would take the f2.8 II, but in the $2500 range new, the f4 looks all the better in the real world. If you like to hike or travel, the size and weight of the f4 is a real plus.

Both lenses are great.

8

Lenses / Re: 70-200/70-300

« on: April 25, 2012, 11:58:03 AM »

There's no tripod collar with the 70-200 f4 either, but it's not so heavy that it's a must have. The 70-200 f4 IS very sharp, very light and compact, has a constant apperture etc. I've heard the 70-300 L is nice also, but I have only used the 70-200, which is a super piece of glass. Cheaper to buy new and much easier to find used. You can use 1.4 teleconverters on the 70-200 f4 but not the 70-300L.

9

Lenses / Re: 70-200 f/4 L IS USM

« on: April 11, 2012, 06:46:36 AM »

I have the IS version of this lens and love it. It's very sharp. Do some research. The IS version is not just the old version with the latest generation IS added. It is also weather sealed and has had a number of other improvements made to it from what I have read.

10

Lenses / Re: Canon 400mm f5.6 L lens - upgrade needed.

« on: February 29, 2012, 08:38:00 AM »

I'll go one further. I agree, the 400 f5.6 could use an upgrade with the latest generation IS. I would also like this upgraded IS on the 300 f4 IS, which has an older system. I love my 300 f4 IS, but why not a refresh? I agree, the retractable hoods are awesome.

11

EOS Bodies / Re: The Next 5D on February 27/28, 2012 [CR3]

« on: February 23, 2012, 07:49:06 AM »

No doubt this will be a nice camera. However, at $3500 for the body, my decision to grab a 5DII and a 24-105 kit last October for $2750 brand new is seeming like a better idea all the time. I picked up a mint, used 7D around the same time for $1100. Now I have an excellent full frame, a backup in the 7D that gives me advanced AF and fast FPS AND a very nice L lens. Plus I've been shooting all this gear for 5 months and enjoying. I have two buddies who did the same and they've produced some very nice images since then instead of sitting around waiting. And waiting.....

12

Lenses / Re: 300L 4.0 or 400mmL 5.6

« on: February 06, 2012, 07:49:26 AM »

I have to give thumbs up to the 300 F4 IS. It's a very fun lens. I added a canon 1.4 TC II, picked up used which gives me 420mm at 5.6 with no real drop off in IC. The thing with primes vs zooms however is versatility. 300mm gives you 300mm and that's it. When I first picked up my TC I tried it out at a local pond. There was a large goose on the ice and at 420mm that was too close to frame properly, so I had to drop off the TC, making the 300mm a good range. This is much easier with a zoom. However, for most birds, 300mm is not quite long enough. The 300 F4 is good for semi macro shots, close up of statues etc. It gives a nice look and bokeh. Bottom line, all lenses are comprimises depending on the situation.

13

Lenses / Re: What's the best deal you've ever gotten on a lens? I'll start...

« on: December 22, 2011, 07:52:57 AM »

Not sure if this counts, but I recently bought a 5D II kit with the 24-105, brand new for $2750 Canadian. Considering that Henry's was asking over $2700 for the body just a few months earlier, I got the lens extremly cheap. At the time 5D II were going for $2200-$2400 new in most spots and used ones were being offered at about $2100. So essentially I picked up a brand new 24-105 for anywhere from $550 to pretty much free, depending on what price for the body you look at. They retail for $1200 to $1300 on average new.

14

Lenses / Re: All round lenses

« on: December 19, 2011, 07:51:58 AM »

For a trip like that with a 60D, which I have owned, try the Canon 10-22 or one of the third party wide wide angle lenses. The 15-85 would be the best all around lens. Also consider the Tamron 17-50 2.8. The 70-200 works great on a crop, it's just longer than on a full frame. You won't be disappointed in that lens. One of Canon's best zooms. Very lightweight and small for travel.

15

Lenses / Re: Lens hoods and pouches now included with all non-L lenses?

« on: December 08, 2011, 08:49:18 AM »

The price Canon asks for these plastic hoods is riduiculas. I never recieved a hood or case (I use that term loosely) with any of my EF-S lenes, including 10-22 and 15-85. As for the cases, aren't they just glorified Crown Royal bags?