Messages

16

Lenses / Re: sigma 120-300 f2.8 OS (The new one)

« on: May 26, 2012, 06:06:23 PM »

both shot handheld with the 120-300 os, minimal processing.

the heron (shot this morning):  300mm f3.5 iso400 1/1600s 50% crop (os wasn't switched to pan, but it didn't appear to affect the outcome significantly).

the squirrel (the first 'real world' test shot when I got the lens):  200mm f2.8 iso200 1/640s

17

Lenses / Re: No Optimal Option for 7D Standard Zoom

« on: May 26, 2012, 05:57:11 PM »

I have a 70-200F4IS + 1.4TCII and consider to add a 300F4 and if I sell the 30D with the Tamron 17-50 I'm thinking of adding the 17-55IS.

a 7D with those lenses will work great imo, all of them sharp performers from what I have read.  have a great time - make sure you get out to tofino!

18

Lenses / Re: No Optimal Option for 7D Standard Zoom

« on: May 26, 2012, 05:41:11 PM »

Because you live in vancouver...
I'm have a trip planned over vancouver island till the alaskan borden (hyder).

Would you miss the 1.6 facto of your 7d when you had a 5DmkII?
Which camera and lenses would you advise for your amazing place to life ?

wildlife is my passion - so I would certainly miss the 1.6 (are you listening canon? don't ever think that people don't want another high end crop body).  if I could afford a 500mm f4 then I would go full frame - but that's not going to happen soon.  the 7D is a great body to have here - a wide angle for landscapes and telephoto for wildlife cover most of what I shoot outdoors.

19

Lenses / Re: No Optimal Option for 7D Standard Zoom

« on: May 26, 2012, 05:18:01 PM »

love that video! I knew the 7D was tough, just not that tough.  personally I don't plan on drowning, freezing and setting mine on fire any time soon - but you're right, it can take some serious rain without much worry.  living in vancouver this is a prerequisite if you want to shoot year round.  so far I have had no issues, and I certainly don't hesitate to use it in less than ideal conditions.  I don't doubt that the 1 series have better weather sealing (as they're designed) but the 7D appears to be tough enough for this amateur on the wet coast.

If you are mostly shooting outdoors, have you considered the EFS 15-85?  I find it a very handy and high IQ lens and would fill your gap quite nicely.  It can be had used for around $550-600.
Diane

I have - nearly bought it in fact, but I shoot in so many low light situations, and use 2.8 on both my other lenses often enough that I figured I need the speed.  it's a great lens for IQ but looses on both the speed and build.  to bad - because you're right, it fits the gap better than anything else (with the exception perhaps of the 24-105).

20

Lenses / Re: No Optimal Option for 7D Standard Zoom

« on: May 26, 2012, 02:05:40 PM »

Since you have a tokina and a sigma you're obviously not opposed to 3rd party, price seems to be a concern so why not the tamron 17-50 2.8 non is version, then fill in the gaps with a 85 1.8 and a 100 macro or 135l. You could manage all 3 under 2k if you bought used. that gives you speed in the primes and a good walk around zoom.

I hear you - the 100mm macro is definitely on the list.  At this point I think the zoom is a toss up between the best optical/speed option (the ef-s 17-55 2.8 ) and the best optical/build option (as RC suggested: the 24-105) - deciding between speed and build quality is painful.  I'm not really worried about the gap between 55 and 100 as it's likely the least utilized focal range for nature landscapes and wildlife.  I hadn't thought of the non IS Tamron - will give it a look (see above for my comment on the new 24-70 IS... )

21

Lenses / Re: No Optimal Option for 7D Standard Zoom

« on: May 25, 2012, 07:32:14 PM »

[\quote]

Everything is a compromise, with each choice, you will give up something while you also gain something, so give each item a priority and give weight to that in your selection.
 
[/quote]

Agreed - my primary focus is wildlife, consequently the choice to go with the 7D.  I can't justify the costs to shoot with a full frame and get the range desired at this point (perhaps one day - but by then we'll all be shooting with mirrorless cameras and some crazy new glass that changes the game).  Anyway - I see your point about creating a plan moving towards it.  I bought the 7D with a 300 2.8 in mind, that was my priority.  Now I'm compromising on the mid-range, but would still like some speed and decent build quality.  Thanks for the breakdown - also interesting points regarding the 7D weather sealing and low light.

Brian: that's a brilliant shot!  The 24-105 is looking pretty good at this point.

Bdunbar79:  the 24-70 2.8 I has also crossed my mind - though it's discontinued now and I imagine second hand prices will remain relatively high considering the cost of the 24-70 2.8 II

22

Lenses / Re: No Optimal Option for 7D Standard Zoom

« on: May 25, 2012, 06:54:50 PM »

Thanks Brian - I will check it out and keep a lookout for an opportunity to pick that lens up second hand.  It would certainly fill the gap nicely (though the speed is still missing from the equation).

23

Lenses / Re: No Optimal Option for 7D Standard Zoom

« on: May 25, 2012, 06:31:04 PM »

The Tamron 24-70 has crossed my mind - it appears that the preliminary tests suggest decent IQ.  The MTF results show a distinct drop-off at 2.8 though - if that's the case I might as well buy a slower lens really.  I owned the Canon 70-300 IS (non L) - it was unfortunately soft at 300 and made it feel somewhat pointless to have that range, considering shots at 300 more often than not didn't have decent quality.  Would be sad to have a 2.8 that was sharp right through, except at 2.8.   Will have to wait for a few more reviews before that decision is made.

24

Lenses / No Optimal Option for 7D Standard Zoom

« on: May 25, 2012, 05:52:23 PM »

I shoot with a 7D and have a wide gap between my lenses: the Tokina 11-16 2.8 (primarily for nature landscapes) and the Sigma 120-300 2.8 OS (primarily for wildlife).  I would like a zoom to fill the gap.  not really worried so much about the long end (from 50 - 120), more the wide end for general use and landscape.

Requirements:
Weather Sealed - as I find myself consistently shooting in tough conditions: rain, salt spray etc.
Speed - should be a 2.8 considering that I shoot in low light environments often (forest, twilight etc.)
Great IQ - should keep up with the two lenses I already own.
Cost - Spending 2K seems really really excessive.

Conclusion:
Canon ef-s 17-55: great IQ and speed, but spending $1000 on a plastic lens seems wrong.
Canon ef 17-40L: great build quality and IQ, but slower than desired.
Canon ef  24-70 2.8L II:  $2,300 - ouch

What do you think - are there other options I should consider?  Would Canon benefit by improving the build quality of its best ef-s lenses (the 10-22 and 17-55)?  I wish they would!

25

Lenses / Re: sigma 120-300 f2.8 OS (The new one)

« on: May 25, 2012, 05:31:44 PM »

I bought the lens 3 months back based on a number of reviews, including this one here:

http://webservice.gentec-intl.com/GentecInc/Awards/OS120300HS-sigma_120-300mm_review_john_e_marriott.pdf

My experience with the lens has been similar to John's - it's tack sharp right through the range, only slightly (virtually unnoticeable) less wide open.  I use it on a 7D - which effectively removes the 'soft' edges.  I know it takes the Canon TC's, however, I use the Sigma 1.4 and 2.0 - reviews suggest the difference between the Canon and Sigma TC's are marginal and for the cost difference I went with the TC's made for the lens.  Of course you have the slower autofocus that comes with any TC and if you're far out of focus (complete blur) I have found it needs to be brought in manually (only happens in the extreme for the 1.4).

I don't have a 70-200 so can't compare - some say the Sigma is sharper, others say it's close, all I know is that it's damn sharp.  AF is fast (though apparently just slightly slower than the 70-200, but again I haven't compared them first hand).

Build quality is nearly to L standards (with the only downfall being that the front element apparently isn't weather sealed - for wet or dust conditions I use a UV filter, just in case).  Focus and zoom are smooth and everything feels solid.  Mine shipped from Australia to Canada - the box was really banged up after 10 days of travel though airports and customs.  Consequently I made sure to test it thoroughly to be sure the OS, AF and IQ were all perfect.  No problems - it appears to have taken a beating and still function as designed.

I use it primarily for wildlife and there are two things I have been surprised with: 1. the OS works so well that I use this lens handheld more than on a tripod.  2. I use the zoom more than anticipated (as I was considering the 300 2.8 it appears I made the right choice).