March 02, 2015, 07:49:41 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 - Michael_pfh

Pages: 1 ... 13 14 [15] 16
Lenses / Re: 70-200 II and forget about primes? (70-200 IS I is rubbish?)
« on: January 16, 2012, 10:23:42 PM »
I have never tested the f2.8 IS and f4 IS side by side since I sold the f4 in order to get the f2.8 however I do not remember the IS on the f4 to be better. One reason could be that I am now taking those shots I would have previously taken at f4 at f2.8 instead.
Anyway, the IS on the f2.8 has worked great so far for me and my keeper rate remains as high as with the f4 IS which I can recommend to anyone who does not really need the f2.8.

Lenses / Re: 70-200 II and forget about primes? (70-200 IS I is rubbish?)
« on: January 16, 2012, 10:06:02 PM »
The 70-200 f2.8 II IS is an amazing lens and definitely my favourite one to shoot with. Its IQ is outstanding, you get usable pics at 2.8 already, from 5.6 onwards it's really prime sharp. I upgraded from the F4 IS version about a year ago and did never regret it. On FF I would use it even more often I think...

At least for the Mk2 of that lens the rear glass does not move at all - Send it back!

Lenses / Re: Help! 70/200mm f/4 IS OR 70/200mm f/2.8 IS II
« on: January 03, 2012, 03:58:08 AM »
I did upgrade from F4 to F2.8 about a year ago and have never regretted it. For indoor shots the F2.8 is definitely the lens you want to buy.

Canon General / Re: Canon 16-35 vs Tamron 17-50
« on: January 02, 2012, 04:28:10 AM »
It is a very unique lens I would say because of the shallow depth of field it creates which looks odd in a wide angle picture. If I would have to sell one I would sell the 24L and keep the 16-35 as it offers great flexibility.
As for the 24L my main use case is indoor shots at dinners and whenever flash is not an option. Sometimes I use it as walk around lens at night, however the 85L serves that purpose better, might be due to the half extra stop. For long exposure shots at night using a tripod the 16-35L does outperform the 24L by far.

Software & Accessories / Re: ANOTHER tripod topic!
« on: January 02, 2012, 04:16:30 AM »
I seem to be extremely lucky that my Manfrotto carbon fibre legs are from a rare good batch. Cam, battery grip, head and super tele weigh more than 8kg combined but the results are everything but shaky...

Canon General / Re: Canon 16-35 vs Tamron 17-50
« on: January 02, 2012, 04:04:59 AM »
I have never tried any lens other than Canon L so I can unfortunately not compare the two lenses.

However, I can highly recommend the 16-35L II, I did take a major share of my pictures with it as it is a great walk around lense on a crop body. I would definitely buy it again...

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Travel / carry bags
« on: January 02, 2012, 01:01:47 AM »
I am using LowePro Stealth Reporter D300AW and Lens Trekker 600AW bags as well as a Rimowa Tropicana 384.03 case and can highly recommend all of them.

Software & Accessories / Re: ANOTHER tripod topic!
« on: January 02, 2012, 12:45:38 AM »
I am using the Manfrotto 055CXPRO4 with a Manfrotto 498RC4 ballhead with almost all of my lenses (plus flash when needed) and a Manfrotto 393 for my 400F2.8L. I have been more than happy with the light weight and compact yet very sturdy tripod.

However, the 055CXPRO3 might be a better choice for you if you do not plan to use heavy super teles with it.

Lenses / Re: UW lens recommendation for 7d?
« on: January 01, 2012, 10:31:22 PM »
I am using the 16-35 F2.8L II on my 7D and have hardly faced a situation in which I would have wanted/needed more than the 25.6mm. In terms of IQ, build quality etc this lense is far better than the alternatives you listed however it is not UW on a 7D.

I recommend you to rent one for a weekend and to give it a try...

Software & Accessories / Re: Airtravel experts
« on: January 01, 2012, 09:49:13 PM »
I travel a lot for work and have fortunately never experienced any problems regarding the weight of either carry on or check in baggage (I am holding 2 gold statuses with 2 Star Alliance carriers, that raises the weight limit for me).

In order to protect my precious 400F2.8L while traveling I am checking it in using a Rimowa Tropicana 384.03 which is a very sturdy piece of luggage. It comes with some flexible set of dividers that allows you to customize the interior lay-out according to your specific needs.

Lenses / Re: Canon 16-35mm L II Usm
« on: November 14, 2011, 10:33:21 PM »
Guess you are right, I am not an expert. However, I do notice the difference, the 85 1.2L works better in low light, at least on my cam.

Lenses / Re: Canon 16-35mm L II Usm
« on: November 14, 2011, 08:36:24 PM »
As for the 24 1.4 I hardly use it during daytime (probably I just haven't gotten used to the shallow depth of field in a wide-angle pic (which is not that wide on a 7D). I use the 24 1.4L as a walk around lense that stays on my cam in the evening/at night and also when having dinners and get togethers with friends as it allows nice indoors pics without a flash. I must add that the 85 1.2L is even better for taking pics in dim light (as the additional f-stop allows it to let twice as much light in as the 24 1.4L), however, on an APS-C sensor the 85 1.2L is a 136mm lense which limits its use. On the 5DMk3 the 85 1.2L will probably become my night time walk around lense... ;-)

Lenses / Re: Canon 16-35mm L II Usm
« on: November 14, 2011, 07:59:36 PM »
Without having read any other the other replies I just want to mention that I am loving the 16-35mm L II USM. Despite having 6 other L's I still do take a large portion with the 16-35mm II which I find wide enough in 98% of the cases using it on a 7D.

Lenses / Re: 400mm 2.8 L (non- IS)
« on: November 07, 2011, 10:45:06 PM »
My canon dealer told me that even the 2.0x MkIII should work perfectly with the 400mm 2.8 L (non- IS).
I got the 1.4x MkII and it works fine.

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