April 19, 2014, 12:35:41 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 - wickidwombat

Pages: 1 ... 216 217 [218] 219 220 ... 269
Lenses / Re: EF 50-140mm f/2 IS
« on: February 17, 2012, 04:42:00 AM »
I would expect it to be in the region of the 200 f/2 which is handholdable
You know it's a ridiculous idea for a lens when you have to state that yes, indeed, it would be hand holdable when on the short end it's standard lens and on the long end it's a short telephoto. The 200/f2 is like five and a half pounds! A 5.5 pound portrait lens you're whipping around the studio!

It would cost less and weigh less if you just bought a whole 'nother camera and carried both. Just get an extra 5D2 with a 135/f2 to go along with the 50 prime you probably already have.
thats a pretty good point actually unless you are already carrying 2 cameras of course

Lenses / Re: hum...what's this lens ?
« on: February 17, 2012, 04:35:15 AM »
why didnt you go ask him?
Because he and I were busy working ?...but thanks for you troll

Thanks guys, that's definitely the 500mm, can't believe how "new" it looks, wasn't suspecting an older lens.

geeez i thought since you managed to get a shot of his back you might be close enough to say "hey man sweet looking lens what is it?" no need for name calling m'kay?
and yeah agree its in pristine condition

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 1 D mark II N (used)
« on: February 17, 2012, 04:28:59 AM »
the 1D mk3 doesn't have video have a look on ebay the mk3s are popping up more and more

Lenses / Re: EF 50-140mm f/2 IS
« on: February 17, 2012, 02:08:33 AM »

Just out of curiosity is there anything that would keep Canon (or any other maker of APS-C of FF SLRs) from making an f/2 zoom like this?  In theory, the lens would be identical to the size of a 70-200mm f/2.8 (and likely just as expensive - if not more so), and would act like an 80-225mm f/2.8 with the 1.6x crop factor of APS-C cameras.  On top of that it would make a killer portrait lens on a full frame camera and could replicate 4 other lenses (50mm f/1.8, 85mm f/1.8, 100mm f/2, and 135mm f/2) with the flexibility of zooming and added benefit of IS.

Adding on a 1.4x teleconverter would make it a 70-200mm f/2.8; a 2.0x would bring it up to 100-280mm f/4.

What do you guys think?  Would you be interested in such a beast?  I know Olympus has made a line of f/2 zooms, just wondered what the CR community would think of one in the Canon mount.

yeah i would be keen i made a similar thread a while ago about 2x f2 zooms you zoom range and aperture is possibly a bit aggressive i was thinking of 20-40 f2 a 50-100 f2 and a 100-200 f2
of course they would be insanely expensive and huge but totally awesome :P

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 1 D mark II N (used)
« on: February 17, 2012, 01:32:58 AM »
check the serial number range that were affected by the problems against any model you are looking at purchasing if it is in the range ask the seller to provide confirmation from canon that the repair was carried out and it should all be good. :)

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: The best ways to (not) get your gear stolen
« on: February 17, 2012, 01:31:12 AM »
Of course I know that I can get insurance for it, and I probably will.

No 'probably' about it - get insurance.  If a thief wants to take something, they will. I pay $7.60 per year per $1K covered gear.  Low cost for piece of mind...

Could you please send me a link regard to that insurance?

State Farm.  You'd need to go through your local agent, and I don't think they write just a Personal Articles policy, you probably need to have home/renters insurance with them. 

As stated above, it's for personal use only, not business.
Do you happen to know a good quote/company for business uses?

I go through AON they are a global insurer and have a special photography camera division that deals exclusively with this stuff it also covers public liability insurance all unde 1 policy and full worldwide cover
if in australia i can give you a contact number, not sure about other countries

Lenses / Re: Should I get the existing 24-70 or wait for new version
« on: February 17, 2012, 01:21:00 AM »
Given the high price of entry to the MkII, it is quite possible that the used prices of MkI 24-70 lenses may increase from where they are now. It's happened before.

In a spectacular stroke of luck I got a stellar 18 month old 24-70 f/2.8 MkI from Gumtree for just $600. It was literally two days before the new lens was announced.

Generally a good used 24-70 will go for double this. Get a late build and they are generally very good. Avoid earlier copies. YMMV.
This is how you check the year of manufacture: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Canon-Lenses/Canon-Lens-Aging.aspx

Paul Wright

wow bargain! most of the stuff on gumtree i see these days is overpriced to death
I sold all my Nikon gear in a week on gumtree... must have priced it too low :(

Lenses / Re: Just how important is IS?
« on: February 17, 2012, 12:51:04 AM »
Tuck your arms in, spread your legs slightly, lean against something, take a deep breath and exhale fully
sounds like preparing for canons new pricing!  :o

Lenses / Re: Should I get the existing 24-70 or wait for new version
« on: February 17, 2012, 12:48:17 AM »
i have the 16-35 f2.8L II which i think is sharper i use it on an APS-H body so effective focal range is 20mm to 48mm. the difference between 48mm and 70mm is hardly anything nothing a few steps closer cant fix
difference between 20mm and 24m is actually quite noticeable
I have found the 24-70 a little soft when i've loked at them might be bad copies though. people report them being a bit hit and miss. If you get a good copy you will probably love it. There are alot of happy owners of it

Lenses / Re: Kenko 1.4X PRO 300 TC DGX?
« on: February 17, 2012, 12:35:34 AM »
Are you all saying this will work with the 70-300 F4-5.6 L ??? I read where the Canon TC will not, so I was going to purchase a 70-200 F4.... But if this works, I'll get the 70-300 instead. As the original poster said, I would not need it much with a range upto 300, as I use a 60D, and this would be a better choice for me as I shoot birds alot.

Thanks for any info!

i'm 99.9% sure it will i guess i could take my converter into a shop and try it on their demo
the 60D wont AF though with the kenko DGX TC you need a 1 series body for that as it will be an f8 lens

Lenses / Re: Should I get the existing 24-70 or wait for new version
« on: February 16, 2012, 11:41:14 PM »
you forgot the option to sell everything and move to nikon... :P

but more seriously i dont like the version 1 lens so i'd wait and see what the new one is like

Lenses / Re: Just how important is IS?
« on: February 16, 2012, 11:14:08 PM »
it depends what you are shooting

IS is needed if

you are shooting still objects in very low light
you are shooting from a vibrating or moving platform
your shutter speeds are low (wont help subject motion blur though)

IS is not needed if

you are shooting from a tripod
you are shooting action moving subjects
you are shooting with a high shutter speed over 1/500 or so. there was alot of discussion on this recently that at high shutter speeds IS can actually cause more probles than it helps

supertele lenses are a bit different becasue the angle of view is so tight IS provides benefit in many of these situations anyway because even the smallest movement of a supertele can cause blurring.

Lenses / Re: hum...what's this lens ?
« on: February 16, 2012, 10:51:59 PM »
why didnt you go ask him?

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 5D Mark III/X Commercials Being Shot? [CR1]
« on: February 16, 2012, 09:21:14 PM »
While I kind of see what people are getting at, video is nice and all. I like to watch movies too but a still image is different in that it's a moment frozen, capturing a certain motion blur when panning, stopping a bird in flight all of these tangible things that happen in a blink can be frozen for a viewer to spend however long they want to look at absorb the detail. Video is kind of like life its there then its gone only you cen rewind and replay pause and slow down and speed up but that still involves a process but to look at a still image all you need to do is look at it.
When cameras were invented did all the painters in the world cry that no one would be painting anymore in a few years? I dont think so.
Its a different  medium and presents the subject completely differently

Shooting on a RED camera you can essentially shoot video in RAW; each frame is like a RAW image.  Someone correct me if I'm wrong on this (it could just be their marketing speak).  Someday, I don't see why most video formats couldn't advance to a point in which each frame is a very hi res photo.  Will this change the way photographers work?

culling high shot count shoots is a PITA now can you imagine going frame by frame through that to get the best shots out of it?
might sound good in theory but practicality of time invested vs how much you are charging would likely destroy this as an option for still shooting

Canon General / Re: Is it worth *really* studying photography?
« on: February 16, 2012, 09:17:41 PM »
Never under estimate how stupid the majority of the worlds population actually are
stupidity has no prejudice it effects all races all sexes equally.

They didnt ask you to submit a portfolio of work for entry consideration?
Tafe require a portfolio of set shots to be submitted and entry is determined by a panel review of the portfolios
still a very high application to acceptance ratio too but at least then they are certain the people that apply know what a camera is and which end to hold...

Pages: 1 ... 216 217 [218] 219 220 ... 269