March 04, 2015, 02:14:16 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 ... 11 12 [13] 14 15 ... 29
I'm not sure the financial department will OK an AFE for camera gear.  Travel and kitchen reno will certainly come first.

Lenses / Re: 2013 - The Year for 400mm Lenses? [CR1]
« on: January 17, 2013, 12:56:36 PM »
Neuro's in rare form today, sarcastic and mistaken.  Somebody mark that on the CR calendar.  ;)

If Canon were to release a new 400 f/5.6L with all the latest features (v. 4 IS, weathersealing, modern build quality and materials, better MFD, etc) what do you think the cost would be?  I think it would have to remain below the price of a 70-200 IS II, but I could definitely see it coming close to $1800 or so given Canon's recent price structure.

Canon General / Re: Why buy from a bricks and mortar store?
« on: January 16, 2013, 01:19:28 PM »
Sorry, but it's not a loophole.  In pretty much every state that charges Sales Tax, there's an equivalent Use Tax that applies to goods purchased out of state for use in the state where you reside.  The buyer is responsible for paying that tax to their state government.  A loophole is a technicality or ambiguity that allows you to avoid the spirit of a law while obeying the letter of that law.  Not paying Use Tax on internet purchases is flat out tax evasion.  Much like driving 10 mph over the posted speed limit, it's unlikely you'll ever be caught/penalized...but it's still against the law.

I totally agree with you neuro, but where is the line drawn for what must be declared on taxes?  Purchased on eBay (new or used)?  Craigslist?  Garage sale?  What is the letter of the law?

Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 50 f/1.2L
« on: January 13, 2013, 12:18:26 PM »
Sorry for the pedantic comment, but the bokeh of the 1.8 is pentagonal (five-sided), not hexagonal (six-sided).

No, thanks! I can't make the edit myself though, so I'll just sound more like a tool.  :-X

One of my long time curiosities with the lens was will I upgrade from my 1.4? After 2 weeks with the 1.2 the answer is no - but I did *like* using it more than I do my 1.4, and maybe that counts for something?

Sorry, I'm an engineer, that's kind of how we roll.  I didn't mean it as an insult or anything.  I did enjoy reading your review on the lens, and I think everyone's experience with it is valid, and personal to some level.  Keep the reviews coming, and I will continue to read and enjoy what is written.  Thanks again for sharing.

Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 50 f/1.2L
« on: January 12, 2013, 04:23:00 PM »
Sorry for the pedantic comment, but the bokeh of the 1.8 is pentagonal (five-sided), not hexagonal (six-sided). 

I do agree with the assessment that if Canon made a 1.4 with the build quality and wide-open image quality of the new 24mm, 28mm, and 35mm IS primes, the sales of the 1.2L would be greatly affected.  I like my 1.8 v. I, but I'm always on the lookout for a deal on a used or broken 1.4 because of the wider aperture, better (not excellent, though) build quality, and USM (though not Ring-USM).  Personally, I wouldn't consider the 1.2 for myself because of price alone, but the advantages over the 1.4 (build, weather sealing and Ring-USM) are obvious.  The image quality and focus accuracy are debatable.

Lenses / Re: 300 f2.8 Ser 1 vs. Ser 2?
« on: January 07, 2013, 06:28:27 PM »
Just for clarification, are you talking about the non-IS Ver. I?  If so, that price seems on the low side of reasonable.  If that is the case, I would be cautious, though.  The focusing is electronic for the early telephotos, and the parts for them are all long discontinued.  If it is a version I non-IS it was made between 1987 and 1999 (when the IS version I was annouced), and its electronics are not likely to last much longer, and when they go out, that's it - no more focusing (autofocus or manual).

If it is an IS version 1, I would also be cautious as to its condition as well as its legitimate ownership (read: it might be stolen).

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.

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.

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.

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).

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).

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).

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

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).

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.

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.

Pages: 1 ... 11 12 [13] 14 15 ... 29