September 23, 2014, 04:45:44 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 - dhofmann

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5
16
Lenses / Re: standard zoom upgrade
« on: November 27, 2012, 04:42:04 PM »
There's no doubt that the 100L will give you better quality than the 15-85, or any zoom. So one strategy is to collect a set of prime lenses.

But what I'm wondering is why you find you get fewer keepers with the 15-85 than the 100mm. The 15-85mm is still a great lens, if you don't mind allowing the ISO speed to rise as necessary in order to obtain an appropriate shutter speed, and if you use something like Lightroom to apply lens corrections.

17
Lenses / Re: Don't want to make a rookie mistake
« on: November 27, 2012, 12:00:15 PM »
100L would be the way to go considering his budget
The 135mm f/2L will give him more pixels on the subject than the 100mm f/2L at the same aperture, so it depends on which focal length he finds more useful.


The 70-200 f4L is a very good lens and will provide much improved clarity and sharpness and speed over the 55-250 (especially at the long end).
The 70-200mm f/4L IS is even better, even if you don't use image stabilization.

18
EOS Bodies / Re: First Round of EOS 7D Mark II Specs [CR1]
« on: November 26, 2012, 05:27:17 PM »
Maybe the 7DII will have the rumored new revolutionary sensor with better high-ISO performance and more dynamic range than its predecessors and anything else on the market.

19
Lenses / Re: Don't want to make a rookie mistake
« on: November 26, 2012, 04:53:37 PM »
If you can afford $1,600, I'd get a refurbished 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM. While it won't stop action as well as the 135mm f/2 lens except at 190-200mm, it's much more versatile and almost as sharp. Also consider the 100-400mm ($1,087) and the 300mm f/4L ($927) lenses, if reach and/or price is more important to you than aperture.

The next step up from these lenses is the 200mm f/2L lens ($6,000).

20
Lenses / Re: Help me choose a lens
« on: November 20, 2012, 04:42:02 PM »
The only way you are limited with your current gear is that you don't have a lens that goes very wide. So the 10-22mm would be useful.

Your 18-135mm lens isn't very sharp. I'd replace it with the 15-85, plus one of the 70-200mm lenses with image stabilization (the ones without aren't very sharp).

If you do bounce flash, and you've tried different flash modifiers and gels, and you are able to shoot with the flash off the camera, then you've got your lighting needs covered.

It's been six years, thousands of photos, and a new APS-C camera since my first one, and I still don't see a compelling need to switch to FF. Composition, lighting, technique, good lenses, and Lightroom give me everything I need.

21
Lenses / Re: Any words on 70-200 f/2.8 L II (non IS version)?
« on: November 16, 2012, 04:22:57 PM »
I wouldn't be surprised if they stop making non-IS telephoto lenses.

Anyway, a 70-200mm f/2.8L II USM would probably cost only about $400 less than the IS II.

22
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Help me upgrade my 550d
« on: November 12, 2012, 05:26:00 PM »
Have you experimented with bounce flash, light modifiers (bounce card, etc.), etc.  to get better low light performance? An external flash can create pleasing light if you know how to use it.

Canon's EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM is supposed to have better autofocus than the Sigma.

23
Lenses / Re: Which way to go
« on: November 08, 2012, 03:29:16 PM »
I really think you need something wider than 17mm on APS-C or 28mm on full-frame. You just can't get certain shorts otherwise.

24
Lenses / Re: Which way to go
« on: November 08, 2012, 02:32:30 PM »
Okay, 15mm on the 5D would give you a pretty good field of view, and you can always defish if necessary.

The 70-200/2.8 IS II is much sharper than the /2.8 non-IS, especially with the teleconverter.

A tilt/shift lens would be fun to play with, too...

25
Lenses / Re: Which way to go
« on: November 08, 2012, 02:02:15 PM »
On an APS-C body, even 15mm isn't very wide.

Is your 70-200/2.8 the mkII?

26
Lenses / Re: Post your wishlist for to-be-released lenses
« on: November 05, 2012, 08:41:42 PM »
Canon EF 100-400mm f/4-5.6L IS USM (with macro mode)
- Brighter at the short end, sharper, improved IS

Canon EF 20mm f/1.7 STM (pancake)
- A compact walkaround lens especially for APS-C (similar to 35mm FOV)

Canon EF 30mm f/2 STM (pancake)
- A compact walkaround lens especially for APS-C (similar to 50mm FOV)

Canon EF 500mm f/4.5 IS Reflex (with autofocus)
- An inexpensive, compact super telephoto lens

27
Lenses / Re: Thinking about a 17-40 f4L USM. Thoughts?
« on: November 02, 2012, 08:16:06 PM »
If you're using an APS-C camera like the 60D, the 15-85mm lens is sharper, wider and longer.

28
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 24-70 f/4L IS Coming [CR3]
« on: October 31, 2012, 01:22:40 PM »
It's a ploy by Canon to extract the most amount of money possible out of its customers:

First, the 24-70L f/2.8 USM II, because the v1 has a known user base, and the II is an obvious upgrade path for v1 users.

Then, the 24-70L f/4.0 IS USM, because some of the II users need IS, compactness, and light weight more than f/2.8.

Then, the 24-70L f/2.8 IS USM, as the new top end lens in this focal range. People who bought the above two lenses who want the strengths of both will buy this lens. Expect this lens to be announced in a few months, after the f/4 IS lens sales start to drop off.

And then finally, the 24-70L f/4.0 USM, for people who can't afford any of the above but still want a quality lens in this focal range. Like the f/2.8 IS USM, it will be announced after sales of the f/4.0 IS USM drop off so as not to cannibalize any sales.

Canon is quite the crafty company!

29
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 24-70 f/4L IS Coming [CR3]
« on: October 30, 2012, 05:28:31 PM »
Who would buy the 24-70 II when they could get something with the same focal range that's just as sharp, half the weight, more compact, and 2-3 stops more handholdable?

People who need f/2.8, that's who.

That's a great non-answer!

Quote
Who buys the 85/1.2L with the 85/1.8 available?  Lots of people.

That would be a valid comparison if we were comparing an f/2.8L non-IS lens with an f/4L non-IS lens. But we aren't.

Quote
The 24-105 f/4L IS close to $1000, if the 24-70 f/4L IS is anywhere even close to $2000, it's a sure big fat loser.

Unless it's as sharp as the 24-70mm f/2.8L II.

30
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 24-70 f/4L IS Coming [CR3]
« on: October 30, 2012, 04:53:28 PM »
Who would buy the 24-70 II when they could get something with the same focal range that's just as sharp, half the weight, more compact, and 2-3 stops more handholdable? Not many people. A few, but not many.

The 24-70 II is like the 70-200mm f/2.8 non-IS lens. Who buys that one?

If they can get the price of the 24-70mm f/4 IS down below $2,000, it's a sure winner.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5