April 18, 2014, 05:07:40 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 ... 27
166
Lenses / Re: Oops, did it again !
« on: January 04, 2013, 09:41:06 PM »
Well, it's not exactly the same, but I had decided I wouldn't buy another lens for quite some time, but saw a a 70-200 f2.8 L for $360 and just bought it, who would pass? ;D
Where exactly did you find that deal?  I'd cal that a "once in a lifetime" find.

167
Lenses / Re: Oops, did it again !
« on: January 04, 2013, 02:40:58 PM »
I buy online and order what I planned to order when the price is right.


I usually buy in the shop my lenses. But, I got a good deal online, so first time order online. A bit of a gamble not being able to check the lens as you can do that when buying in the shop.


So today my 16-35 f/2.8 MK II arrived  :D


I also got a B+W slim filter for it. Weird experience with this slim filter (is a first too) The lenscap cannot be attached to protect the filter  ???
That's a first too. With my other regular B+W UV filters on other lenses this is not a problem.
Is this something common with slim filters?

The B+W XS Pro series are slim, plus it supports the lens cap. All my filters are XS Pro and the caps fit quite well for a ultra slim profile, never had any problems with it. You may want to get them for your UWA lens :)
I've been considering getting XS Pro's for all my lenses.  Currently they're all exposed.  The XS Pro was the only was I was considering for my UWA since the slim is not compatible with normal caps.  I might go for a slim CPL, since it will only be on the lens when in use.  Unfortunely, a good 77mm filter (UV or CPL) will be considerably more expensive than what I paid for my 19-35mm.

I haven't really gotten in trouble with my wife for buying camera stuff.  I hunt daily for really good deals and broken equipment to fix (I've fixed dozens of cameras and a bunch of lenses).  My photography hobby pays for itself.

168
Lenses / Re: 24-85mm Lens?
« on: January 02, 2013, 11:45:36 PM »
Fair point, neuro.  It absolutely does count as a mid-range (price) normal zoom lens.  However, in comparison to lenses like Nikon's 24-85mm VR it: 1) looks antiquated (1998 vs 2012), 2) has generation 2 IS which is noisier and much less affective, 3) is large and heavy and 4) does not go to 24mm.  Heck, even compared to the EF-S 15-85mm the image quality, features, and build quality seem to be lacking.  Something in the same price range for full frame is needed. 

I mentioned the 17-40mm only because it is the cheapest new-in-box UWA option from Canon. If Canon could undercut the Nikkor 18-35mm with better build quality and image quality it would be huge.  Additionally, Canon will definitely be coming out with a 14-24mm f/2.8 and something to compete with the 16-35 VR (and you can bet they'll both be substantially more expensive than the lenses they replace) which is all the more reason to come out with affordable, modern, non-L zooms.

169
Lenses / Re: 24-85mm Lens?
« on: January 02, 2013, 04:01:33 PM »
I think the replacement (by 28-135mm IS and 28-105mm II) is more likely what happened.  Here's the chronology of mid-level normal zooms:

EF 35-135mm f/4-5.6 USM (1990)
EF 28-80mm f/3.5-5.6 USM (1991) - metal mount, Ring USM [unlike later versions]
EF 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 USM (1992) - metal mount, Ring USM [unlike f/4-5.6 versions]
EF 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 USM(1996)
EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM (1998)
EF 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 II USM (2000) - metal mount, Ring USM [unlike f/4-5.6 versions]

When Canon annouced the 24-70mm f/4L IS USM, I was hoping it was going to be a competitor to the Nikkor 24-85mm VR.  Sadly it is not (based on price).  I'm sure Canon will need to come out with better full frame options for zoom lenses that are not L (and are much less than $1000 MSRP) in order to compete in the entry-level FF market.  Also disappointing is the fact there has only been 1 non-L ultra-wide zoom (EF 20-35mm f/3.5-4.5 USM - 1993).  I would love for Canon to come out with 14-24mm f/2.8L, 16-35mm f/4L and a 17-40mm f/3.5-4.5 (for less than the current f/4L).

170
Lenses / Re: Long lens recommendation for surveillance.
« on: December 18, 2012, 04:53:39 PM »
I asked him about some of the more serious high-tech they must use (he works for Homeland Security) and they do have all that stuff. He just needed something small and simple to keep with him for when he was out doing whatever it is he does. He said he mostly needs it for taking pictures of license plates and stuff like that.
If that's the case, I would have suggested the Panasonic FZ200 for compactness (smaller than a DSLR+lens) and versatility (25-600mm f/2.8 lens).  Although the AF speed would likely have disappointed and resulted in lost photo opportunities (and it would be pretty worthless in the dark).

171
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Only 1 lens
« on: December 18, 2012, 02:45:11 PM »
Thank you all so much for the encouragement.
I kept the 5d2, 50 1.8, and 70-200 2.8 ( it is the non IS, so value was not as high as I would have liked. Plus, 75% of my portraits are with this lens. )
 
One thing I completely forgot to mention, was my gitzo tripod and rrs ballhead, and a few other rrs accessories, which just took up space.

 
The lens and tripod, plus a few other things, filters, macro rail, etc.. Made me 2700$ so my child will be okay and I'm still in the photography game :)

To those who asked about if I make money with photography, the short answer is yes, but its not a constant paycheck and and my family has the bad habit of constantly needing to eat, lol.

because of the helpful responses from people, ill probably be on the forums more often and maybe ill even be able to help a few people. Thanks again everyone.
I'm glad to hear everything has worked out, and that you haven't given up all your gear.  Enjoy the time with your baby, and hope you get plenty of beautiful and memorable shots.  When you get back on your feet, keep in mind the suggestions in this thread, as a very versatile and reasonably price kit can be put together with non-L lenses (in a perfect world we would all be able to afford the newest and best gear, but that is not reality).

172
Lenses / Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 STM 99% off
« on: December 13, 2012, 01:20:40 PM »
Thought this was hilarious at KEH:

http://www.keh.com/camera/Canon-EOS-Fixed-Focal-Length-Lenses/1/sku-CE069991276240?r=FE

Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 STM marked down from $14,999 to $149.  Reminds me of the stuff you'd see in Immortally Glassy Eyes in the back of Autoweek magazine (for all you American car nuts like me).

173
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 50 f/1.4 IS in 2013 [CR2]
« on: December 13, 2012, 09:55:01 AM »
Yeah, at this point IS is gimmicky.

This lens has been a workhorse, although it can be finnicky and a bit fragile at times. All they need to do is make that inner barrel out of something besides plastic and this will be a fantastic lens.

What about the cheap micro-USM?  And mediocre performance wide open?  It's 2012, Canon can do much better than this.  A lens designed in 1993 was likely not computer generated.  Check out my post on page 3 comparing the new primes (24mm and 28mm IS) to the older primes and the current L lenses.  Don't tell me that kind of performance out of a <$900 lens is not desirable.

174
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 50 f/1.4 IS in 2013 [CR2]
« on: December 13, 2012, 08:49:03 AM »
This (50mm f1.4 IS) would be the most hand-holdable lens ever (EV 0 @ ISO 640), which puts it slightly ahead of the 35mm f2 IS (ISO 1000) and 24mm f2.8 IS (ISO 1250).  Compared to the venerable 200mm f2 (ISO 5000) or 70-200mm f2.8 IS II (ISO 4000-10000) that is an impressive feat.  All these estimates go by the 1/FL rule (minus 4 stop of stabilization) and shot wide open and EV 0 is defined as proper exposure of subject in ISO 100 | f/1 | 1 sec.

175
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 50 f/1.4 IS in 2013 [CR2]
« on: December 12, 2012, 05:58:55 PM »
... and a trio "cheapo" 35mm, 50mm & 85mm f2.8 non IS for £200 retail each in a build package not too dissimilar to a 18-55mm kit lens.
That's the first prediction of that happening that I have heard.  I think that is unlikely, but who knows, only time will tell.  There are a number of other lenses (at much higher pricepoints and margins) that Canon is more likely to produce [or replace], as well as cameras in need of replacement (most glaringly, the 2009-like spec'd EOS T3/1100D).

176
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 50 f/1.4 IS in 2013 [CR2]
« on: December 12, 2012, 04:55:08 PM »
f1.4 IS?????  WOW.....should I cancel my 50L that I ordered yesterday ::) ::) ::)

I'd say there is a decent chance that an updated 50 1.4 could outperform the 50L at f/1.4.  This is based off reviews of the 24 IS, 28 IS and 40mm f/2.8 STM.  Those lenses are really performing well (especially considering their price) compared to the other lenses in Canon's lineup ahead of them (24mm f/1.4L, 28mm f/1.8, 35mm f/1.4L) and the lenses they replace ( 24mm f/2.8, 28mm f/2.8 ).  I'd expect the 35mm f/2 IS to perform just as well when they start shipping.

24mm f/1.4L vs. 24mm f/2.8 IS ( both at f/2.8 ):
TDP ISO 12233 Link
24mm f/1.4L vs. 28mm f/2.8 IS ( both at f/2.8 ):
TDP ISO 12233 Link
28mm f/1.8 USM vs. 28mm f/2.8 IS ( both at f/2.8 ):
TDP ISO 12233 Link
35mm f/2 vs. 28mm f/2.8 IS ( both at f/2.8 ):
TDP ISO 12233 Link
35mm f/1.4L vs. 28mm f/2.8 IS ( both at f/2.8 ):
TDP ISO 12233 Link
35mm f/1.4L vs. 40mm f/2.8 STM ( both at f/2.8 ):
TDP ISO 12233 Link

Heck, the current f/1.4 isn't far behind the 50L as is:
Wide Open | f/1.4 | f/2 | f/2.8 | f/4 | f/5.6

I'd go so far as to say that the f/1.4 beats the L in apertures f/2.8 and smaller, based on those comparisons.  Wide open and f/2 seem like draws to me, and at f/1.4 the L is narrowly ahead.  I'd say when the new 50mm f/1.4 comes out, Canon will have a hard time selling the L.  I would expect the L to be replaced shortly thereafter (with the obvious Canon price increase).

177
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Only 1 lens
« on: December 11, 2012, 01:57:21 PM »
What about a Tamron 28-75mm 2.8?  Or a Canon 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 USM or 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5?

The Tamron would cost less than a Canon 24-105mm (albeit with less range and a larger aperture).  The Canon lenses are essentially f/4 and have reasonable build quality, real USM, and can be picked up used for $200 or less.  They won't have the image quality as the 24-105, but then again neither will any crop camera with anything except a 17-55mm f/2.8.

I say keep the 5D2 and 50mm f/1.8 II and spend a couple hundred on some cheap discontinued model lenses.  I picked up my Tamron 19-35mm for $90 (although I think it normally goes for $100-125, I just got a good deal on eBay), my 28-105mm was $110, and 70-210mm was $140.  So my 3 zooms put together was only $340.  I think that's a heck of a kit for less than half of the lowest price L lens.  I can't justify putting hundreds of dollars into each lens for my hobby, and I'm ok with the image quality of the lenses I have (althought, the 70-210mm is a little disappointing at 210mm).  Its has taken me quite some time to put my whole kit together, but I'm constantly looking for good deals on used stuff to add to it without breaking the bank.

EDIT: Additionally, the Canon 20-35mm f/3.5-4.5 USM normally goes for $160-200 on eBay for the wide end when you want to continue shooting landscapes, etc.

178
Lenses / Re: Canon 50mm 1.8iii... L... Real or fake?
« on: December 11, 2012, 12:39:02 AM »
That is a 50mm 1.8 II with a modified mount, not the original. I own one the the originals and the layout is the same as the 24mm, 28mm or 35mm non-IS (center focusing ring, focus window, square style AF/MF switch).


179
Lenses / Re: EF 800 f/5.6L IS II & Other Big Lenses
« on: December 08, 2012, 12:37:04 PM »
That's only because the pixel density of the Nikon 1 is greater than any other interchangable lens camera Nikon makes.  Putting a super tele on an EOS M is pointless because the pixel density is the same as the 7D (which is considerably better than the EOS M in almost every single way), 60D, T2i, T3i and T4i.

Pixel density means absolutely nothing other than at 100% it covers a bigger area. The quality of the pixels is so much more important than how many there are.
I completely agree with you, but pixel density is the only reason a Nikon 1 has an advantage over other cameras. And the EOS M has no advantages over other Canon cameras.

180
Lenses / Re: EF 800 f/5.6L IS II & Other Big Lenses
« on: December 07, 2012, 11:14:39 PM »
I heard they're going to kit this with the next Rebel.

I heard there will be an EOS-M + EF-EOS M adapter bundle with the 800/5.6 II.
That's not quite as silly as it sounds, a pro photographer I know has actually been using a Nikon 1 with his 200-400 for photographing golden eagles when he needs extra reach and the quality was actually better than I would have expected.
That's only because the pixel density of the Nikon 1 is greater than any other interchangable lens camera Nikon makes.  Putting a super tele on an EOS M is pointless because the pixel density is the same as the 7D (which is considerably better than the EOS M in almost every single way), 60D, T2i, T3i and T4i.

Pages: 1 ... 10 11 [12] 13 14 ... 27