April 24, 2014, 01:32:52 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 - kirispupis

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 21
16
Lenses / Re: New lenses ($6800 budget)
« on: January 04, 2014, 09:06:39 PM »
I strongly recommend that you do not purchase 5 lenses when getting started in photography.  Even if you are already knowledgeable (say moving from Nikon) I still highly recommend that you stick with two lenses and hold the rest of your budget for later.  The following are my reasons

- You aren't exactly sure what you enjoy photographing the most
- Lenses are complicated beasts.  You need to spend a lot of time with a lens to understand its capabilities, strengths, and weaknesses.
- Some lenses (such as macro) require specific genre expertise that will require significant time themselves
- When trying to fit things in a budget, you may compromise on lenses that will frustrate you and be more difficult to sell

In terms of which lenses to buy, that depends on what you most want to photograph.  Personally I would probably pick up a 70-200/2.8 II + 24-70 2.8 II - which would cover a very fair range.

17
Lenses / Re: Get a 300mm or 600mm? Oh the agony...
« on: January 04, 2014, 08:59:37 PM »
While I understand the 300/2.8 II is an excellent lens, I can't understand why this lens is being trumpeted without the 200-400/1.4x also being mentioned.  At 560mm with the built in extender it is just as sharp as the 300/2.8 II + 2x III and at 300mm is very close.  Add in the flexibility to go between 200mm and 560mm and this is a no brainer choice of the 300/2.8 II unless you are photographing sports where you need the bare 2.8.

Personally, I bought this lens over the 600/II.  It was a tough choice but the flexibility makes the lens more valuable.  I would of course like more reach but it does a decent job with a 2x extender.  If I were photographing exclusively birds then the 600/II would have been the better choice but the fact is I photograph a wide variety of things.

18
Please don't feed the trolls...

19
Lenses / Re: Get a 300mm or 600mm? Oh the agony...
« on: January 02, 2014, 04:24:51 PM »
I recently had a similar decision and wound up purchasing a 200-400/1.4x.  Although I have had it only a week so far I do not regret this decision at all.  While the 600/4 has more reach, the 200-400/1.4x is far more flexible.

20
Lenses / Re: EF 400mm f/5.6L IS on the Way?
« on: December 30, 2013, 07:48:04 PM »
In general I have always believed Canon (and most other manufacturers) have a hole in their lineup in terms of high quality telephotos.  On the one side you have their 'budget' telephotos like the 400/5.6 and the 100-400 and on the other side you have their high end telephotos beginning with the 300/2.8 II.  The problem is there's really nothing in between unless you buy used.  So you either pay ~$1700 for the current 100-400 or you save up $7k for the 300/2.8 II (or more likely $10k and up for the 200-400 or 500/4).

I agree there's a gap, but it's been there long enough for Canon to have filled it, if they wanted to.

Very true, but that doesn't mean I can still wish they filled it. :)

Then again from Canon's point of view:
- I purchased the 100-400
- I purchased the 70-200/2.8 II + 2x III.  The image quality + AF was close enough to the 100-400 to no longer justify carrying it.
- I still wasn't happy with the image quality + AF, so I bought the 400/5.6
- I still wanted something with IS and a bit more reach, so after some time I used the money I was saving for the 600/4 II and bought a 200-400/1.4x with the justification that it is far more flexible.

So in the end Canon got a lot more money out of me than if they had just introduced a 500/5.6 IS in the first place.  :)

21
Lenses / Re: EF 400mm f/5.6L IS on the Way?
« on: December 30, 2013, 06:17:23 PM »
A better and more interesting option would be a f5.6 500mm IS prime. It could still be affordable and would compete nicely against the new Tamron 150-600. Yeah, it would probably be at least twice the cost of the current 400mm 5.6 prime, but would still be a lot cheaper than the fast super telephotos.

You would probably be looking at 1.5 to 1.8 Kilograms, a 92mm filter size and 100-105mm maximum diameter on a lens like that. That would be a big heavy expensive lens... until you compare it to the 500F4 which is 3.2Kilos and 146mm across and probably more than twice the price.

I think that there is a market for f5.6 versions of some of the big whites. The 500F4 would seem like the next logical contender for a mini "big white".

I agree that it would be very interesting to have a lens like this.  In general I have always believed Canon (and most other manufacturers) have a hole in their lineup in terms of high quality telephotos.  On the one side you have their 'budget' telephotos like the 400/5.6 and the 100-400 and on the other side you have their high end telephotos beginning with the 300/2.8 II.  The problem is there's really nothing in between unless you buy used.  So you either pay ~$1700 for the current 100-400 or you save up $7k for the 300/2.8 II (or more likely $10k and up for the 200-400 or 500/4).

What I would really like to see (well, maybe not so much now I have the 200-400) is something priced around $3500 that is a noticeable step up from the 400/5.6 and 100-400.  It's hard to say if a 500/5.6 would be priced that low, but if they could pull it off I expect it would be a good seller.

22
Lenses / Re: EF 400mm f/5.6L IS on the Way?
« on: December 28, 2013, 07:31:16 PM »
The current 400/5.6 prime is already optically better than the 70-200/2.8L IS II + 2x TC, and the bare zoom is better than the bare 200/2.8 prime.

Which is why there's no need for a 400/5.6L IS if the 100-400L is replaced.  The version II will very likely be better optically than the current 400/5.6L, have IS, focus just as well if not better, have better MFD and be able to zoom out as a bonus.  Sure it will be expensive but who thinks a 400/5.6L II will come in under $2,500?  The zoom will sell more and therefore benefit more from the cost reduction you get from volume production.
And the 400F5.6 II will be sharper and lighter.... And will sell a lot more copies than any of the big whites.... There is a market for both.... It is not a one or the other scenario.

Exactly. The other thing to consider is weight.  It is quite a bit easier photographing BIF with the 400/5.6.  I suggest everyone here who thinks a 400/5.6 is an unnecessary lens try one for a few days.  For the price it is an amazing lens, as I expect any successor to be.

23
Lenses / Re: EF 400mm f/5.6L IS on the Way?
« on: December 28, 2013, 12:37:14 AM »

I have used several of the Sigma zoom lenses before - my first telephoto zoom was a Sigma (the 80-400) - but when I moved to the Canon telephotos (100-400) there was a world of difference.  Although Sigma is very innovative with their lenses - having interesting focal lengths like 120-300/2.8 - 300-800/5.6, and 200-500/2.8 they are not a company to look at for high quality telephotos.  While I do give them marked improvement in their shorter focal length lenses, you get what you pay for with their telephotos (and maybe less so with their high end ones).

Personally I only use FF cameras.  I own a 5D3 now and started with the original 5D.

Ask anyone who truly cares about image quality and they will all say that TC's are really a last resort option.  I own both a 1.4x and a 2x III and only resort to them when I absolutely must.  The drop in image quality is simply too great.  For that reason I almost never use my 2x - it is almost always my 1.4x on a 70-200/2.8 II.  Perhaps some optical engineer will stun us, but right now any lens based off of multiple TCs will be junk.

In terms of justifying $2k for a good 400/5.6 that is easy.  I recently justified $11k for an improvement over this lens.  Given that I sell large prints of my works, this expense was justified.  A few successful images can easily pay for it.  I can see amateurs having difficulties with such a price, but anyone who makes money from their work can definitely justify it.


Well, thanks for putting me in my place.  How about you show me a full size image that would highlight where you needed more detail from it?  And show me an image that you've made more than $1000 on.  I want to see what a brilliant photographer you are.


This image is one that has earned me well over $1k. Besides selling several prints of it, it was the front page for Bing.com.
 

In terms of an image where more detail is desired, just ask any nature photographer.  All of us have such images.

24
Lenses / Re: EF 400mm f/5.6L IS on the Way?
« on: December 27, 2013, 08:44:06 PM »
+1

And when the 100-400 and the 400F5.6 get updated, the 400F5.6 will have the lighter weight and higher IQ...

Right now, you have to spend $10,000 to get more resolving power than the 400F5.6, so a better version at $2000 or so will sell.

Oh give me a break..."resolving power"??  Just how much into your image are you cropping?  If you're cropping that much you just need more focal length.

Cropping is a fact of life for wildlife photographers.  Regardless of how long a lens you have there are many times when your subject simply will not fit in the frame.  This is especially true for birds.  There are other times when the subject stays so briefly that I take the shot and recompose it by cropping later.

25
Lenses / Re: EF 400mm f/5.6L IS on the Way?
« on: December 27, 2013, 08:37:21 PM »

My Sigma 120-400 is more than close enough to the sharpness of the Canon 400 f/5.6 prime, especially on my 6D.  On a crop sensor the difference is a lot greater.  But I have no serious interest in crop sensors anymore.  And my Sigma costs less than half of $2000, it zooms, it has IS...and at the wider half of its zoom range it's as good or better than anything Canon makes.  The long end really suffers more from a lack of contrast than a lack of resolution, but this is easily corrected in post, or even in camera if you just shoot jpegs.  As for the AF speed, it's quite close to the AF speed of my new Canon 70-300L, if not matching it.  So your "facts" differ from my facts.

If one needs the sharpest glass for a 70D or a new 1 series with 35+ MP, then I agree with you, $2000 is ok to pay.  But for those of us who don't need any more than what 20MP on a full frame resolves, then $2000 for an f/5.6 prime is a waste.

If all you want is the best prime money can buy, but lighter weight and smaller size than the big superteles...in another thread I already suggested that they make something like a 330mm f/3.5 IS with at least one, if not 2 built in TC's.  They could sell that for $5k to $6k US, and THAT would be worth it.  But a $2000 400mm f/5.6 prime, or a new 100-400 for $3k, is definitely NOT worth the money to me.

I have used several of the Sigma zoom lenses before - my first telephoto zoom was a Sigma (the 80-400) - but when I moved to the Canon telephotos (100-400) there was a world of difference.  Although Sigma is very innovative with their lenses - having interesting focal lengths like 120-300/2.8 - 300-800/5.6, and 200-500/2.8 they are not a company to look at for high quality telephotos.  While I do give them marked improvement in their shorter focal length lenses, you get what you pay for with their telephotos (and maybe less so with their high end ones).

Personally I only use FF cameras.  I own a 5D3 now and started with the original 5D.

Ask anyone who truly cares about image quality and they will all say that TC's are really a last resort option.  I own both a 1.4x and a 2x III and only resort to them when I absolutely must.  The drop in image quality is simply too great.  For that reason I almost never use my 2x - it is almost always my 1.4x on a 70-200/2.8 II.  Perhaps some optical engineer will stun us, but right now any lens based off of multiple TCs will be junk.

In terms of justifying $2k for a good 400/5.6 that is easy.  I recently justified $11k for an improvement over this lens.  Given that I sell large prints of my works, this expense was justified.  A few successful images can easily pay for it.  I can see amateurs having difficulties with such a price, but anyone who makes money from their work can definitely justify it.

26
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 100 f/2.8L IS Macro autofocus?
« on: December 27, 2013, 06:27:04 PM »
Sorry to be blunt, but for macro shots AF doesn't really matter because it should be turned off.  For macro when you focus you are actually changing the magnification - which usually is not what you want.  The most common technique for macro focus is to turn AF off and move the lens itself backwards and forwards.  For this reason many macro lenses do not even have AF (such as the MP-E 65).

I have this lens and only use AF for portrait situations - which are rare (I am photographing some flower and the kids suddenly want a picture).  I certainly would not call it stellar - but at least on my copy it does an OK job.

However for your best results I highly recommend you just turn AF off.  If you are doing tripod based work with a macro rail, then live view is useful.  Otherwise I have found it possible to focus accurately just using the viewfinder.

27
Lenses / Re: EF 400mm f/5.6L IS on the Way?
« on: December 27, 2013, 05:54:02 PM »
I have no interest in this lens.  Who else has no interest in this lens?  Is it just me?  F/5.6 is only useful when you're already compromising because it's a zoom.  I've tried the current 400 f/5.6.  It's a fine lens for what it is, and considering its age. 

But I have no interest in an approx. $2000 fixed focal length 400mm f/5.6 lens.  If it were f/5, maybe...but not f/5.6.  If it were no more than $1450 at introduction?  Perhaps, but I doubt it will be.

Before I spent $2000 on a lens like this, I would rather use other less costly lenses and save up to buy a used or refurb 400mm f/4L DO.  It's entirely possible prices for those will dip into the low $4000's at some point, especially if a new f/4 model is never announced.  If Canon ever get around to bringing out a new 400mm f/4 (whether DO or not), it will cost $9000, thus prices on used 400 DO's will go up, rather than down.

Just my opinion and my thought process, no doubt others will differ.

While I have never used the 400 DO myself, I know two people who have used this lens.  Neither of them liked this lens and both sold their copies.

I admit that $2k for a fixed 400/5.6 with IS may seem steep, but what else of quality could you get for that money?  A new 100-400 will certainly be closer to $3k.  The Sigma + Tamron lenses in that price range are soft and slow.  The old 120-300/2.8 performed poorly - though I haven't seen the new one.

Right now if you want a sharp + fast lens at 400mm the current 400/5.6 is really the only game in town.  The same will likely be true of its successor.  The fact is when you reach these lengths good glass does not come cheap.

28
Lenses / Re: EF 400mm f/5.6L IS on the Way?
« on: December 27, 2013, 12:44:26 PM »
I have owned the 100-400 in the past and currently have the 400/5.6 - though it is up for sale (because a 200-400/1.4x is arriving today!).  The AF and image quality of the 400/5.6 beat the 100-400 hands down.  It is also a much lighter lens.  The 100-400 wins in terms of IS and flexibility.  For me though with a 70-200/2.8 II already in the bag I could no longer justify carrying the 100-400 too given that a 2x III extender brought the 70-200/2.8 very close.

My major frustration with the 400/5.6 was IS and the near focusing distance.  While for birds IS didn't matter because I used 1/1000 or more, at times I just wanted it for abstract images or landscapes and it was quite frustrating to still need to handhold it at 1/400.  Also its magnification made it difficult for small birds when they came close.

If Canon does release an updated IS version whether I would buy it would depend on the close focusing distance.  If they improve it then I would likely save up for a copy - even though I have the 200-400.  There are times when the light weight and portability of the 400/5.6 win out.  My guess is it would sell for a bit over $2k.  I doubt Canon sees this as a 'compete' lens but it does make sense to replace it given the age of the current model.

I am not too interested in a 400/4.  The 200-400 is far more versatile there.

29
Pricewatch Deals / Re: Canon 200-400/1.4x on sale at BuyDig
« on: December 21, 2013, 03:53:24 PM »
I found this price through CanonPriceWatch - http://www.canonpricewatch.com/product/03872/Canon-EF-200-400mm-f4L-IS-USM-Extender-1.4x-price.html

It does not list the discounted price right now, but did when I bought the lens.  If you keep an eye on the site you may see it again.

30
Pricewatch Deals / Re: Canon 200-400/1.4x on sale at BuyDig
« on: December 20, 2013, 04:27:12 PM »
Strange... It worked for me last night and the lens shipped this morning.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 21