December 18, 2014, 03:30:16 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 - KyleSTL

Pages: 1 ... 10 11 [12] 13 14 ... 28
166
Lenses / Re: Tilt Shift Lenses - Looking for Advice
« on: February 21, 2013, 11:40:30 AM »
...The 17 TS-E isn't all that sharp wide open, and doesn't respond too well to TC's. Even stopped down to f11 with the 1.4x TC, its nowhere near as sharp as the 24 TS-E II is wide open:

In comparison to the 24mm the 17mm is slightly less sharp, however, the 17mm TS-E is widely considered to be one of the best ultra-wide lenses of all time and easily out-resolves any Canon or Nikon UWA zoom or prime.  So your comment is very misleading.   Both lenses are among the very best in there respective focal lengths, and what should be discussed is whether a wide angle or UWA FL is needed.  The ability of the 17mm to act as a 24mm TS with the TC is just a perk, if 24mm is the FL that is needed, then the obvious choice is the 24mm II.

167
Pricewatch Deals / Re: Samyang 24mm f/3.5 Tilt-Shift Available for Preorder
« on: February 18, 2013, 03:12:47 PM »
I think the real question will be whether or not this lens outperforms the Canon TS-E 24mm f/3.5 I.  That lens is readily available on the used market a lot, and often between $700 and $900.  If this lens performs better at a slight premium, I see the used market for the Mark I tanking as it is flooded with people that want better performance without the ~$2000 entry fee for the Canon Mark II.  I would be all over a Mark I if that happens for around $500-600.  I don't command the best image quality, but the things a TS lens can do cannot be replicated [well] by any other means.

168
Canon General / Re: Physical Ailments From Heavy Gear
« on: February 12, 2013, 04:56:18 PM »
This post is in stark contrast to another one here:

I love big gear
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=12507.0

I agree with the sentiment here.  I used to carry an XTi with battery grip because it was taller and more comfortable to carry.  When I upgraded to a 30D, and eventually to my current 5D, I never once considered the BG because they were more comfortable to carry even without it.  I don't think I'd ever buy a '1D' type body.  I appreciate a smaller rig with good image quality over one with excellent image quality that is heavier.  I appreciate the fact that both Canon and Nikon are making smaller, lighter FF DSLRs made partially with plastic (gasp!).  I wish Canon would make more FF zoom lenses that are smaller and lighter than the current selection (like my 28-105mm II).  Here's a quick comparison of common standard zoom lenses:

Lens                                                          Dimensions        Filter        Weight
EF 28-80mm f/3.5-5.6 USM72 x 78mm58mm330g
EF 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 USM73 x 70mm67mm380g
EF 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 II USM72 x 75mm58mm375g
EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM78 x 97mm72mm549g
EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM84 x 107mm77mm670g
EF 24-70mm f/4L IS USM83 x 93mm77mm600g
EF 28-70mm f/2.8L USM83 x 118mm77mm880g
EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM83 x 125mm77mm950g
EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM89 x 113mm82mm805g

Compared to my 28-105mm, the 28-135mm looks and feels large (I owed both and preferred the former so I kept it), and the 24-105mm is slightly bigger and heavier than it.  All the lenses above have Ring USM, metal mounts and at least Canon's mid-grade build quality.  Clearly smaller and lighter lenses are a real possibility (without going the cheapie route - i.e. 28-80mm, 28-90mm, 35-80mm, etc), whether or not Canon can make money on it is another issue entirely.

Also I still contend that Canon should make a smaller, lighter FF UWA lens than the current 17-40mm, similar in size and weight to the 20-35mm of yesteryear:

Lens                                             Dimensions        Filter        Weight
EF 20-35mm f/3.5-5.6 USM84 x 69mm77mm340g
EF 17-40mm f/4L USM84 x 97mm77mm475g
EF 20-35mm f/2.8L79 x 89mm72mm570g
EF 17-35mm f/2.8L USM84 x 96 mm77mm545g
EF 16-35mmf/2.8L USM84 x 103mm77mm600g
EF 16-35mmf/2.8L II USM89 x 112mm82mm640g

If Canon would introduce a new '24-85mm f/3.5-4.5'-like lens and a '20-35mm f/3.5-4.5'-like lens I would be first in line to order them.

169
Lenses / Re: What's the best deal you've ever gotten on a lens?
« on: February 04, 2013, 10:06:31 AM »
Couple weeks ago I found a Craigslist ad for a Canon film SLR and a couple lenses.  The guy said he bought it a long time ago and used it on a couple of trips.  I bought the two lenses alone, a 50mm f/1.8 II and a 28mm f/2.8 (UC code, 1989) for $40 each.

170
B+W XS-Pro MRC would be my choice.  The F-mount  would also be a good choice as would the Slim - with the caveat that Slim do not work with standard lens caps (only the slip-on cap that comes with them).  The F-mount and XS-Pro style filters work with standard caps since they have standard filter threads on the front. 

171
Lenses / Re: Lens Help..EF 28mm f1.8 any good?
« on: January 30, 2013, 11:22:25 AM »
I've been searching around for a good used deal on one to replace my 35mm f/2.  The 35mm f/2 is kinda mediocre, and the 28mm f/1.8 USM seems like a good-sized step up (without a skyrocket in purchase price).  The CA issue is mitigated with the Canon lens profile in DPP, and the corners appear to be considerably sharper than the 35mm f/2, so the upgrade path is a no-brainer (you can always correct CA with PP, but you can't add detail or sharpness that just isn't there).

172
... and being the primary photographer, there are not too many photos of myself.
+1

My avatar is a self portrait - a sagittal MRI of me.
Certainly the only one that exists on our little forum.  Bonus points for originality and overall cool factor.

173
My name is Kyle, I (currently) live in St Louis, MO.  Easy 'nough.

174
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: I love big gear
« on: January 25, 2013, 12:11:44 PM »
^ Ironically, the nifty fifty is also in the picture for contrast.  Nice touch.

175
Pricewatch Deals / Re: What is the best place to sell your equipment?
« on: January 23, 2013, 08:16:59 PM »
I have used eBay and Craigslist exclusively (60/40, respectively). I've bought stuff from KEH, but never sold anything to them because the prices I've been quoted on their site have been WAY below market value. I'm always stalking CL and eBay for excellent deals an broken equipment (I fix broken lenses, bodies, etc in my spare time).  Most of my equipment has been repaired or purchased by money I make by repairing and selling.

176
it'll be interesting to see who produces the first FF mirrorless with interchangeable lenses

Leica M9 - 2009
Leica M9P - 2011
Lecia M-Monochrom, M Typ 240, M Typ 220 - 2012

FF mirrorless with autofocus or affordable FF mirrorless is a different story, waiting to be written.

177
A year and a half ago I posted the idea of a wide-converter for FF lenses to APS-C image circle.

Source:
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=1564.msg22452#msg22452

Quote
EF 0.625x converter for APS-C cameras (keep the original angle of view of EF lenses on crop sensors and gain 1-1.33 stops of light)

I was pretty close, except for the fact the the flange distance needed to be reduced to make that a possibility (hense the need for Sony NEX or Fuji X series).

178
... I think an EF 70-200 2.8 IS ll should be a great way to pump some more money into the economy through B&H.
It's our civic duty.  Yeah ... that's the angle I'll take in my request for discretionary spending.

179
Does part of the down payment on a new vehicle count as 'fun'?   :P  I suppose not, but then, I fund all my gear purchases from 'on the side' consulting work - the day job income (and taxes refunded from that) go toward the important stuff - house, cars, kids' college and retirement funds, etc.

What the hell type of moonlighting does a neuroscientist do???  LOL

I was thinking the exact same thing.

180
I'm not sure the financial department will OK an AFE for camera gear.  Travel and kitchen reno will certainly come first.

Pages: 1 ... 10 11 [12] 13 14 ... 28