October 31, 2014, 02:25:59 AM

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
196
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.

197
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).


198
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.

199
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.

200
Lenses / Re: APS-C lens mm are correct
« on: December 07, 2012, 02:13:31 PM »
Re. Perspective and focal length.

As a picture is worth a thousand words.

First comparison, 17mm lens and 200mm lens both on same camera from same place and both f8, these are the full images.

Second comparison, same images with the 17mm cropped to match the framing of the 200mm.

As you will see, whilst the dof is very different, the perspective (the size of the various elements within the frame with regards each other) stays constant. The woman, the trees and the jumps are the same size in both examples when the 17mm is cropped.

This is also a very graphic demonstration of why smaller sensors have deeper dof, the second image crop is effectively a small sensor shot with an 11 times crop factor, which still puts it way bigger than P&S's and phone cameras.
Not true, below are crop factors of various sensor sizes:

FF - 1x
APS-C (Canon) - 1.6x
m4/3 - 2x
Nikon 1 - 2.7x
1/1.7" - 4.6x
1/2.5" - 6.0x
1/3" - 7.2x
1/4" - 10.8x

I believe the iPhone sensor is in the ballpark of 1/3", for example.

201
Lenses / Re: EF 800 f/5.6L IS II & Other Big Lenses
« on: December 06, 2012, 05:35:11 PM »
Off topic, but somewhat relevant to earlier comments:

Teen sells own kidney to get hands on iPad 2
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_162-20068762-10391704.html

202
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.

203
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.

204
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.

205
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.

206
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
vs.
10D/300D/Digital Rebel @ 400mm f/5.6 ISO 400 (640mm equ with 400mm f/5.6L USM)
vs.
10D/300D/Digital Rebel @ 200mm f/4 ISO 200 (cropped to 1.7MP with 70-200mm f/4L USM)
vs.
10D/300D/Digital Rebel @ 300mm f/5.6 ISO 400 (cropped to 3.8MP with 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM)
vs.
10D/300D/Digital Rebel @ 300mm f/5.6 ISO 400 (cropped to 3.8MP with 75-300mm f/4-5.6)

207
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).

208
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.

209
Pricewatch Deals / Re: Buying Used Equipment on LensRentals.com
« 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.

210
Pricewatch Deals / Re: Buying Used Equipment on LensRentals.com
« 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.

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