March 06, 2015, 09:14:52 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 ... 54 55 [56] 57 58 ... 134
826
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.

828
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


829
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  ::)

830
Pricewatch Deals / Re: Canon EOS 6D Body $1499 New
« on: August 08, 2013, 01:50:00 PM »
It reverted back to 1999$...

831
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.

832
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 100-400 f/4-5.6L IS Update [CR2]
« on: August 07, 2013, 07:21:40 PM »
I'm looking forward to seeing how the II version of this lens is designed and performs ... and I'm potentially in the market for it ... but I'd rather see a 300mm f/4 IS II with built-in 1.4x TC!

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.

I think a built-in teleconverter would also significantly affect the compactness of the 300/4.
The last thing a 300mm f/4L needs is a built-in teleconverter  :-\

833
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 100-400 f/4-5.6L IS Update [CR2]
« on: August 07, 2013, 02:16:09 PM »
Hmmm, I thought that many zoom lenses , how to put it... well trombone. 100-400 is not alone.
They just trombone by ...rotation instead of push pull. (24-70 both versions, 24-105, 70-300 L and non-L, etc)
 ;D  ;D  ;D

834
Lenses / Re: lens vs. body
« on: August 07, 2013, 01:00:43 PM »
Get the lens. It is super sharp and it will hold its value...

835
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 100-400 f/4-5.6L IS Update [CR2]
« on: August 07, 2013, 12:22:45 PM »
OK, seriously now, I would want it below 2K but I believe it would be slightly above that...

836
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 100-400 f/4-5.6L IS Update [CR2]
« on: August 07, 2013, 12:21:53 PM »
It's overdue, and in high demand. I'm sure this lens will be well received if it stays under 2k.

This statement has been made before for new Canon products and is almost definitely untrue - I expect the new lens to easily be priced above 2k.

So your saying it's not over due and not in demand and wouldn't be well received if it was under 2k?  ???

Corrected, see quote above. Also I'm sure this lens will be well received even though it will be priced above 2k
Still, it would be well received under 2K too  ::)

837
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 100-400 f/4-5.6L IS Update [CR2]
« on: August 07, 2013, 12:17:19 PM »
It's overdue, and in high demand. I'm sure this lens will be well received if it stays under 2k.

This statement has been made before for new Canon products and is almost definitely untrue - I expect the new lens to easily be priced above 2k.

So your saying it's not over due and not in demand and wouldn't be well received if it was under 2k?  ???
;D

838
Lenses / Re: Canon 14mm II for "Yangshuo, China"
« on: August 07, 2013, 12:14:01 PM »
So, to sum up, do you intend to get:

2 x 5D3 bodies
14mm 2.8L II
24-70 2.8L II
70-200 2.8L IS II

I think it is a very good combination.

Just some thoughts/suggestions:

I would swap the 14 II with TS-E 17 L if I knew that I would be able to shoot interesting buildings.
Also, I would get a 70-200 4L IS instead of 2.8 to lower the weight. But then I do have both lenses so I can chose.
(So the last one is more a though rather than suggestion).


839
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Decisions decisions...
« on: August 07, 2013, 11:43:42 AM »
I have the 300 2.8 II and I love this lens.  I was in your dilemma awhile back a chose the lens over the 1dx.  I still want the 1dx but I've been able to get by without it for the time being.  Since you have the 5d mk III, 7d and both teleconverters, I think you would get more benefit from the 300 2.8.  If you got the lens, you could run two bodies--one with the 300 (and a 1.4x converter) and one with the 70 - 200.  This is a great set-up for shooting sports.  Can't get into Candlestick with this set of kit?   Join the club.  You can't start at the top, shoot local sports with this very profession level gear.  Sell the 300 f4 and the 100 - 400.


+1
That's my idea. I am saving for the 300 2.8 II (and already have the 1.4 III - that was easy)
This is indeed the best scenario. 300 2.8L IS II is a lens that will serve someone for decades...

840
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Decisions decisions...
« on: August 07, 2013, 06:53:44 AM »
Glass, glass, glass  ;D

Pages: 1 ... 54 55 [56] 57 58 ... 134