December 23, 2014, 12:27:29 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 - tron

Pages: 1 ... 48 49 [50] 51 52 ... 129
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon 2x and 1.4x mk3 extenders
« on: August 13, 2013, 09:30:34 PM »
Nice, maybe I should try with my 1200/5.6.

Lenses / Re: What lenses would you bring for this travel-trip?
« on: August 13, 2013, 09:25:49 PM »
When I go for 2 lenses, it's often the Canon 15-85mm and Canon 70-300mm L.
A killer combination indeed, especially if combined with a 10-22 lens (I know you mentioned other brand you just reminded me of my beloved and stolen 10-22).
But the point is that OP has already a FF camera. I agree with you that in this case the 24-105 is the best all round lens(I do own and like it). I would complement it with the 16-35 and 135 (and leave behind all others) to avoid carrying the 70-200 2.8

Lenses / Re: What lenses would you bring for this travel-trip?
« on: August 13, 2013, 09:18:12 PM »
The only way to not change lens often is to get a second FF body. Put the 16-35 in one and the 70-200 in the other and you are done.  Only then the 35 - 70 range does not matter a lot.

Otherwise a 24-105 is more versatile.

I have my 5d mkII that I could use. Perhaps I should bring it alongside the 5d mkIII as a "backup" ?
Didn't want to carry to much weight/gear with me on the trip though :)
When I want minimum size/weight a carry a 5D2 with 24-105 and 70-200 f/4 IS. But I try to combine lenses you already have. True 2 bodies and a 70-200 2.8 is a heavy combination. In that case a viable alternative is 5D3 with 16-35 50 135 and 1.4X.

Lenses / Re: What lenses would you bring for this travel-trip?
« on: August 13, 2013, 08:20:56 PM »
The only way to not change lens often is to get a second FF body. Put the 16-35 in one and the 70-200 in the other and you are done.  Only then the 35 - 70 range does not matter a lot.

Otherwise a 24-105 is more versatile.

Lenses / Re: Zeiss 55 f/1.4 Distagon
« on: August 12, 2013, 07:31:53 PM »
If zeiss made AF lenses for canon, I'd probably not own any canon glass.
I think that Sony/Zeiss 135mm 1.8 has something to do with this   ::)  ;D

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 6D vs 5D3 vs 5D2 for indoor rental
« on: August 12, 2013, 10:23:36 AM »
The 5d mark 2's AF is horrid...  worse than your rebel in my opinion...  The 6d's CENTER AF POINT is better than any of the 3 cameras, from what I can tell, but every other AF point, the 5d3 is better in... so... to rehash, if you like to focus/recompose, then the 6d would be good for you, if you like a camera that works when you want it how you want it with a kick ass AF, get the 5d3.
+1 I am spoilt (spoiled  ;D ) with 5D3's AF

Canon General / Re: Failure rates
« on: August 12, 2013, 10:17:29 AM »
I'm going to be ordering a 500mm mk2 in the next week or so and in all likelihood will be getting a grey market one as I'll save £1000 on the UK price. If Canon want to play the global market game then so should we. As Canon no longer do international warranties (I wonder why?!?) I spoke to Canon customer services today about what happens if the lens dies in the first year. They told me if the lens went faulty I'd have to return it to a service centre in the territory it was intended for or get it repaired locally and reclaim the costs from Canon in the intended market i.e. Japan in this instance. So even if I bought European-market gear and it went faulty on a trip to, say, Brazil, I couldn't get it repaired in Brazil without forking out for the repair there and then. Customer care? Not once Canon HQ have your money it seems.

Anyway, I'm not here to question Canon's approach to their customers (although I did) but wondered if any of you have access to a table of failure rates for their lenses (or bodies for that matter). I wouldn't expect a lens to fail in the first year but clearly it's possible. Is the percentage failure rate evenly spread throughout their product range or are there specific items that are notorious among service centres?

Essentially I'm trying to convince myself the grey import option is worth doing especially when looking at the savings.

Just tell me to quit whining and buy the damn thing.
Quit whining and buy the damn thing  ;D

I bought this lens gray from UK since I saved about 2000 Euros!. Plus they had it available!
I know that if (and that's a big IF) I have a problem I will have to ship it to them.
But 2000 euros save is a lot for an  amateur who uses this lens occasionally!

Actually, if I waited for a month I would save another 500 euros but:
1. I cannot predict the future.
2. I got it when I NEEDED it! Lens arrived Friday and I needed to use it the weekend to get the supermoon behind an ancient temple from a long distance. I failed on Saturday due to wrong position selection but I succeeded on Sunday (full moon day) so no regrets here.

P.S It came with latest firmware (1.1.1)  :)

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon is going to add mid format
« on: August 12, 2013, 09:46:33 AM »
Why not, only they haven't completely done some basics first: upgrade 100-400, 400 5.6, 35 1.4, create a 24 1.4 III with less vignetting and MUCH LESS coma, upgrade the 45 and 90 TS lenses, improve their sensors, improve their DO lenses,  to name a few  ;D

Granted they have done a lot and I am a Canon fan but still there is room for improvement  ...  ::)

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 6D vs 5D3 vs 5D2 for indoor rental
« on: August 12, 2013, 09:33:52 AM »
Didn't want to come off as a prick but I guess I did...
just saying that the someone's wedding shouldn't be used for one's photography experiments...especially if it can be distracting or intrusive to the paid photographer.
You are repeating yourself since it was mentioned twice that he will take pictures from his seat!
The couple and photographer meet and discuss expectations/wants/needs for the day.  Remember, you're a guest. You're job as the guest is to have fun and enjoy the time, not cruising around acting as the informal second shooter. 
Maybe it is also not your job to tell him what is his job!
And if one does decide to take gear, again, the respectful thing to do would be ask the paid professional.
Quite wrong! The respectful thing to do would be ask the paying couple!

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: I killed a Samyang!
« on: August 12, 2013, 08:04:20 AM »
It was fortunate that only the least expensive part of your equipment was damaged.

Landscape / Re: Stars above.
« on: August 11, 2013, 07:30:14 AM »
I want to do some star trails, but I don't trust my wired shutter release... so I'm putting that on the back burner.  I wish I could just look up and see the north star... but they all look like as far as I'm concerned.
All you have to do is follow the instructions

Lenses / Re: TS-E 90mm f/2.8 Replacement Info [CR1]
« on: August 08, 2013, 01:58:44 PM »
Of course it will get the L treatment!!
You don't even need a brain to figure that out.

When it was released some 23 years ago the L series was not the same thing as it is today.
If you would release it without the L branding it would be silly to ask 2500$ for it.

Also the TS-E24mm was also released in 1990 as the 90mm and the mark II got the L treatment.

It's a no brainer..
Version 1 TS-E24mm was also an L lens. It also does not require a brain for this. Only eyes  ::)

Pricewatch Deals / Re: Canon EOS 6D Body $1499 New
« on: August 08, 2013, 01:50:00 PM »
It reverted back to 1999$...

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 100-400 f/4-5.6L IS Update [CR2]
« on: August 08, 2013, 05:47:31 AM »
Sound interesting but based on the premium Canon charged for the TC in the 200-400mm I would expect it to cost close to $5k.  Just too much for the flexibility of not having to remove the TC.

Without a doubt, the 200-400 + TC is a pricey piece of glass, but what we don't know is how much of this price is for the build of the basic lens, how much for the built-in TC and how much is new-product premium on this recently released lens that Canon reportedly still can't (hand-)build fast enough to meet current demand.

Given the current price of the latest versions of Canon's TCs ($500), it would seem generous to double that price and say a built-in TC for a prime lens (as opposed to the 200-400 zoom) would add $1,000 to the price.

And let's say that a 300 f/4 IS II would be priced at twice the current model. OK, that's $2,700. So add these together, and I would speculate an announcement price around $3,700 ... let's just round that up to $4,000. That's still 20% below your $5K estimate.

Maybe that's "too much for the flexibility of not having to remove a TC" for you, but maybe not for me!

As for Schill's post that a built-in TC would "significantly affect the compactness of the 300/4; well, sure. But it would no longer be just a 300/4 ... it would now be a "300/4 + 420/5.6"!

And as for Tron's comment that "the last thing a 300mm f/4L needs is a built-in teleconverter," well, I don't know about that either. I'd say that the LAST thing a 300 f/4L needs would be a built-in nightlight, a pink-with-purple-polka-dots paint job or integrated Bluetooth. Personally, I'd put a built-in TC much higher up the list of things this lens could benefit from. ("Needs" seems a little strong to me.)
Well a 300mm f/4L IS could benefit by getting the basics: the sharpness of 300mm f/4L non-IS plus 4 stops of IS for a start...

That would put the cost at around $2K. Compare that with a $4K 300mm f/4L IS 1.4X.

Pages: 1 ... 48 49 [50] 51 52 ... 129