August 01, 2014, 09:15:55 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 ... 12 13 [14] 15 16 ... 28
Lenses / Re: EF 800 f/5.6L IS II & Other Big Lenses
« on: December 06, 2012, 05:11:22 PM »
The EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x with the built-in 1.4 teleconverter is not the only lens planned to have the technology. It will definately be the first, and may be the only one for a while, but the concept is being tested with other zooms as well as prime lenses.

...A 70mm~210mm f/2.0 w/ built-in matched 1.4X ...

I'd sell a liver for such a lens. (You can get by on just one.)
You would have to, based on the price of the PRIME 200mm f/2, and the fact it would be the first f/2 zoom ever with an image circle for a 35mm format.

I believe the rumor is the possibility of a 120-300mm f/2.8 1.4x TC (to give 168-420mm f/4 with the TC engaged).  The overall dimensions of the lens might not be very different from the 70-210mm you stated (especially with regards to objective lens size), but the pricing for the two and internal design would be very different.  Either way, this theoretical lens would be a baby Siglauncher (aka. Sigzilla, 200-500mm f/2.8).

But now that I think of it, wouldn't the 120-300mm (168-420mm f/4) conflict with the 200-400mm f/4L IS 1.4x USM?  Is there a point (for Canon) to produce both?  Wouldn't the 120-300mm have to be cheaper to justify its existence?  I know it's just a rumor, I'm just thinking out loud.

Lenses / Re: EF 800 f/5.6L IS II & Other Big Lenses
« on: December 06, 2012, 01:59:12 PM »
Kyle, I get what you mean.  but I feel that your last sentence, while generally accurate, leaves out the issue of price.  not only does a piece of equipment need similar specifications, it needs to be somewhere in the same ballpark in terms of price.  these days it doesn't feel like canon and sigma are even playing in the same time zone.  I realize why this is a mutually beneficial arrangement from a business standpoint, as the consumer I can't help wishing for a more competitive landscape.  I guess that's where Sigma is starting to go with new lenses like the 35 f/1.4; I can only hope that this trend continues.  I'd love to see Sigma try their hand (as they have in the past) with high quality superteles with their new quality and design measures in place.

I can definitely see your point.  The new Sigma 35 f/1.4 seems to perform just as good as the Canon 35mm f/1.4 for a much lower cost (TDP ISO 12233 Comparion - just posted today).  As long as 3rd party manufacturers continue to challenge Canon in the build quality, image quality, and features department, Canon will eventually be forced to lower costs.  We will all win when 3rd parties can consistently manufacture good lenses.

Lenses / Re: APS-C lens mm are correct
« on: December 06, 2012, 01:55:33 PM »
The thing is, a 50mm image cropped down to the perspective of an 85mm lens will have the same perspective and compresion as the same image taken with an 85mm lens.

So if I frame a photo the same with my 24mm lens and then with my 200 lens, the photos will have the same perspective?  Perspective, like the mm length, is part of the lens, not the sensor behind it.

No. Perspective is determined by the distance from the camera to the subject.  Focal length, sensor size, cropping - none affect perspective.

If you frame the same subject with a 24mm vs. a 200mm lens, you've changed the distance and that's what changes the perspective.  If you took the two shots from the same distance, the perspective would be the same, but the framing would be different. If you then cropped the 24mm shot to the framing of the 200mm shot, both the perspective and the framing would be the same.

My 8-15 and 200 have the same perspective?  If I cropped the 8-15 to the same framing of the 200 it's the same perspective?

An ef 35mm lens on a on a crop is not the same perspective as a 56mm on full frame.
An ef 35mm lens on a on a crop is not the same perspective as a 56mm on full frame.
From a framing standpoint, so long as the camera and all objects within the frame have not moved, the images will have identical perspective, with different depths of field (assuming the same aperture).  EDIT: Although at macro-like distances, that may change.  Neuro might have to chime in on that.

My 8-15 and 200 have the same perspective?  If I cropped the 8-15 to the same framing of the 200 it's the same perspective?
Yes, after applying distortion correction they will have identical perspective.

Lenses / Re: EF 800 f/5.6L IS II & Other Big Lenses
« on: December 06, 2012, 11:02:05 AM »
referring to Sigma's 120-300 f/2.8 OS as a point of comparison for a future Canon 120-300 f/2.8 IS +1.4x is laughable.  they're aimed at almost entirely different markets and buyers.  please, don't get people excited about the possibility of a f/2.8 telephoto zoom coming from Canon in the $3K price range.  this thing is likely going to cost $9K, and probably won't arrive until christmas 2016.
I don't think any reasonable person would think a Canon zoom would be priced similarly to a third-party zoom of the same specifications.  By competitor, Craig is stating it would be so on a focal length, aperture, and feature standpoint.  You buy third-party gear for the better price, and name brand gear for the quality (in most cases) at a higher cost.  If one party does not have a piece of equipment with similar specifications that the other does (think Canon 200mm f/2L, 8-15mm Fisheye or Sigma 50-500mm, 12-24mm, 120-300mm), there is no competition in that segment.

EOS Bodies / Re: Downgrade to crop
« on: December 04, 2012, 05:25:46 PM »
OK, that does it, I'm selling all my gear and carrying around a Panasonic FZ200 from now on since there is no 25-600mm f/2.8 lens for DSLRs.  Not even the Siglauncher can hold a candle to that FL/aperture combination. /sarcasm

To be fair, though, in perfect light that would be a pretty good package for birding.  Although the tripod and gimbal would weigh considerably more than the camera.  IQ would not even be in the ballpark of a 1Dx / 600 II rig, but the size, weight, and cost ($600 vs. $20K+) difference is night and day.  Likely any crop DSLR and 400mm f/5.6 would result in image quality much greater with fewer pixels and would not be an order of magnitude more expensive.

EDIT: Actually, I'd like to see this shootout:

FZ200 @ 600mm f/2.8 ISO 100
10D/300D/Digital Rebel @ 400mm f/5.6 ISO 400 (640mm equ with 400mm f/5.6L USM)
10D/300D/Digital Rebel @ 200mm f/4 ISO 200 (cropped to 1.7MP with 70-200mm f/4L USM)
10D/300D/Digital Rebel @ 300mm f/5.6 ISO 400 (cropped to 3.8MP with 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM)
10D/300D/Digital Rebel @ 300mm f/5.6 ISO 400 (cropped to 3.8MP with 75-300mm f/4-5.6)

EOS Bodies / Re: Downgrade to crop
« on: December 03, 2012, 10:37:18 AM »
My main reasons:

1.  Viewfinder (big, pentaprism)
2.  Primes (selection thereof)
3.  Selection of wide angle

Here's a comparison of viewfinder sizes (normalized):
1Dx, 1Ds3 - 0.76x
5D3 - 0.71
1Ds2, 1Ds, 5D2 - 0.70
6D - 0.69
5D - 0.68
7D, Nikon D300, D300s - 0.63 (biggest crop VF yet)
60D - 0.57
Rebels - 0.48 to 0.52 (pentamirror)

Once you look through a FF viewfinder everything else just looks like staring through a dark hallway.  Here's a comparison I used for someone looking into upgrading a little while back:

Looking through a 5D Mark III would be like looking at an 8x10 print at arms length in good, indoor light.  A 7D would be like looking at a 7x9 print at arms length in the same light.  A 60D would be 6.5x8 in the same light.  A Rebel would be light a 6x7.5 with a lights dimmed to 80% (since it is a pentamirror).

Pricewatch Deals / Re: Canon EOS 6D Shipping This Week From Adorama
« on: November 29, 2012, 11:32:34 AM »
$600 for the 24-105mm kit lens.  Seems like a sweet deal.  Hasn't the 24-105mm been $800 kitted for years?  Currently at B&H the 24-105mm kit is $700 with 5D2, and $400(!) with 5D3, all these prices seem like a bargain compared to $1150 alone.

Pricewatch Deals / Re: Buying Used Equipment on
« on: November 21, 2012, 08:30:58 AM »
...they exhaustively test each one between every rental.
+1 and that includes the retired rentals that are up for sale.  Read any of Roger's articles on lens testing and you'll know the pains they go through to ensure happy customers and consistent operation from all their equipment.

Pricewatch Deals / Re: Buying Used Equipment on
« on: November 20, 2012, 08:45:07 PM »
I have enjoyed my purchase from LR (85mm f/1.8 USM in 7.0/10 condition).  Better condition than any body or lens I've ever purchased through Craigslist or eBay.

Lenses / Re: Is the EF 800 f/5.6L IS Due for Replacement? [CR2]
« on: November 20, 2012, 04:05:53 PM »
I've seen that picture posted a bunch of times, but never realized the lenses that are beside it are the New FD 600mm f/4.5 L and New FD 400mm f/2.8 L and just how small they look in comparison.

Here is a picture of two of the now extinct FD 1200's with TC at the 1984 LA Olympics.

What are those two odd-looking black lenses in the picture?   ;)

I know you're just joking, but I got curious and looked it up.  The one in the background appears to be a Nikkor AI-S 600mm f/4 ED IF or a Nikkor AI 600mm f/4 ED IF

Lenses / Re: Is the EF 800 f/5.6L IS Due for Replacement? [CR2]
« on: November 20, 2012, 10:23:54 AM »
1993 EF 1200mm f/5.6L USM
That lens has been out of production well over a decade, and the number of units in likely in the 10's.  Not a good example of the point you are trying to make, but I do agree with you that there are many other lenses badly in need of replacement.  The 50mm macro and 135mm SF are prime examples, however, I can't see Canon actually producing a new softfocus, as photography styles have shifted away from that since the 1980's and the effect can easily be replicated in post.  My money would be on 35L, 50 1.4, 300 4, 400 5.6, 800L, 45 TS-E, and 90 TS-E replacements next year.  That's a pretty full year right there.  Unfortunately, the cheapest lenses will be the 50 1.4 and I'm guessing an MSRP around $700-800.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Nikon D600 price drop $1,996
« on: November 18, 2012, 01:30:54 PM »
Immediate price drop for 6D?  I'll bet dollars-to-donuts it will be so (<$2000 before Jan 1).

Lenses / Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS
« on: November 15, 2012, 05:31:12 PM »
Maybe a bit off topic but can somebody please explain how a f/2.0 lens becomes f/3.5 on 1.6 crop. I understand a focal lenght 'change' but never heard of an aperture change. Thank you.

This is exactly the reason I try to fight the 'equivalent aperture' that so many people online insert.  It just confuses people that don't understand it.

24-70 f4 and 6D is available at Camera Canada with January delivery for $3299.00. 

$1200 for the kit lens, ouch.  The Nikon D600 + 24-85 VR is going to kill this combo.  It'll drop $500 in 6 months or less to be competitive.  You heard it here first.  Canon cannot afford to lose on price AND marketing specs and expect comparable sales.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Refurbished 5D MK3s?
« on: November 07, 2012, 06:33:59 PM »
Lensrentals has a used one in 8/10 condition for $2775 with a standard 90-day warranty and 3-day return period.

Speedlites, Printers, Accessories / Re: AA Battery Charger and Batteries
« on: November 07, 2012, 12:12:51 PM »
I am very happy with my Energizer NiMH batteries and compact chargers. The batteries hold a charge very well. My first rechargeable batteries and charger were from PowerEx... the charger is good, but the batteries were the worst. I still have the charger but the batteries are no longer in my bag.

I had Energizer NiMH batteries for year in various electronics around the house, including an older P&S that took AA's.  I was constantly disappointed by them.  Not one of them holds a change now, and most won't even charge anymore (blinking light on charger indicating faulty battery).  I use Sanyo Eneloop batteries exclusively now.  They are very reliable, and from what I've found, hold a charge for a very long time in storage between charges.

Pages: 1 ... 12 13 [14] 15 16 ... 28