August 28, 2014, 07:46:56 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 - tron

Pages: 1 ... 56 57 [58] 59 60 ... 122
856
Lenses / Re: Euro Trip Lens selection.
« on: June 06, 2013, 08:15:48 AM »
Since the 70-200 f/4 IS doesn't weigh much less than the 70-300L or take up much less space, you might as well go for the latter; even if you don't need the extra reach, the 70-300 is very good at isolating subjects and creates superb bokeh at 300mm.  They're both excellent lenses, but I don't think I've used my 70-200 f/4 IS since buying the 70-300L. 

I value your opinion since you have used both. I do have the 70-200 f/4L IS.

However, to me there is difference in weight and in size. True the 70-300L can be shorter at 70mm but it is thicker! This can be a problem or not depending on the bag used. To me it is.

Also, the fact that it is thicker and (more important) the rings are reversed makes the 70-300 a more difficult to handle lens (otherwise I would think seriously about it...)

As for the rest, while your other two suggestions make a lot of sense to me, if you like photographing in low light you might want to consider increasing the proportion of lenses you have with IS (e.g., unless 17-24 matters a lot to you, the 24-105, with its good IS, might prove more useful than the 17-40) instead.  Flash and tripods are all very well, but in London and Paris I doubt there are many interiors where you will be allowed to use either, let alone both (and even if they did, they're annoying to everyone else - it's hard to avoid crowds in either city, and in Paris, at least, people actually do still use churches for their intended use and don't seem entirely delighted by those who treat them as tourist attractions). 

Flash could be used in Madame Tussaud Museum and in some internal dark places in London Zoo.
Tripod can be used for night shots around the Big Ben,  parliament and the Trafalgar square. 17-24mm is a very useful focal range too.


(It probably goes without saying that no matter what lenses you leave behind you'll wish you had brought at least one of them, and that there will be at least one lens you take with you that you'll never use.)
That is the best comment ever and I believe it applies to all of us.

P.S Irrespective of my opinion regarding 70-300L I am very interested on your further comments on that lens.

858
Lenses / Re: Euro Trip Lens selection.
« on: June 05, 2013, 03:48:26 PM »
Paris & London for a week. I will shoot alittle of everything and want to travel light with f/4 zooms and a fast 50mm.

- 5D3
- 17-40L
- 50L

but I don't know to rent the 70-200 F/4L IS or the 70-300L. Which should I take?

I would take a 135 and a small flash instead. But I also like the idea above with the 100 macro. Make for good portraits and "street"/people photography in addition to the macro option. And it's smaller and lighter than a big white lens.
+1 for the flash (if you are going to visit madame Tussaud's museum)
How about a tripod for night time photography near big ben?  :)
A TS-E lens would be suitable too... (St. Paul's church would need the TS-E17mm ....)
Also I would avoid the very big whites. They attract attention...  (The 70-200 f/4L IS  would be the bigger I would choose...)

859
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Thoughts on Zeiss Canon 5 lens kit?
« on: June 04, 2013, 01:54:55 PM »

I own currently 35/2.0, 50/2.0 and 100/2.0.  Just sold my 85/1.4 and 50/1.4.  I'm looking for a 21mm to complete 'my set' and I don't carry all at once.

I've rented the 15mm...

Just curious, but how are you choosing (or what's the thinking I guess) behind the 21mm over the 15mm?
Thanks for your thoughts...

I can't really absorb the cost difference between the 15mm and the 21mm and that is why I would look for the 21mm.  Additionally, the 15mm requires a 95mm should you decide to use one however CPL's and most filters don't work well on UWA lenses.  I have a collection of 82mm filters that would work for the 21mm.
I do not justify the cost of Zeiss 15mm.  Last year I bought Canon TS-E 17mm L and I quite enjoyed it. This year I found a cheap used EF14mm f/2.8L II in mint condition.

This ultra wide combination (EF14mm, 17TS-E, Zeiss 21mm) is enough for me (I also have the 16-35mm f/2.8L but there has been some time since I used it!)

860
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Thoughts on Zeiss Canon 5 lens kit?
« on: June 04, 2013, 11:54:04 AM »
Up to now I have used my Zeiss 21mm with a 5DMkII. Focusing was just by camera's confirmation.
For astrophotography I enjoyed infinity's hard stop.

861
Reviews / Re: what utter crap this is.... samyang 24mm TS
« on: June 04, 2013, 11:37:31 AM »
Let me get this right.
A $1k lens is not as sharp as a $2k lens... and you're spitting mad? Have you never thought that (usually) you pay for what you get? Quite often, you pay a lot more.

I think people are always upset when their expectations aren't met.  Samyang has released several lenses that are optically very good, and at a bargain price.   This lens appears to be neither.

+1.  Before it was released, a lot of people were hoping that it would approach the TS-E 24L II in performance.  Now it seems like the discussion is turning to comparing how it does versus TS-E 24L (version I), which is similar in price used...
Exactly:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=347&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=841&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0


The $1K 24mm TS  Samyang lens is worse than ... the $1K 24mm TS Canon lens!

862
Canon EF Prime Lenses / Re: Canon EF135mm f/2L USM
« on: June 03, 2013, 09:46:38 AM »
I do not have anything longer 200mm ;)
Dylan!!!  THIS IS SERIOUS!

I suggest a therapy with a 500mm f/4L IS II ASAP!

863
Lenses / Re: Tele for backpacking
« on: June 03, 2013, 05:23:37 AM »
Also consider the 70-300 L.
+1 I remember missing it last year when I was using 70-200 f/4L IS. My small backpack was full mostly with wide angle lenses so my 300mm f/4L had stayed back in my room.

However the reverse use of the focus and zoom rings in 70-300 puts me off  :(

864
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Thoughts on Zeiss Canon 5 lens kit?
« on: June 01, 2013, 10:12:15 PM »

I have the 21mm 2.8 ZE and it is excellent. If I were to buy a second one I would get the 25mm f/2.0


See I find this comment interesting.
Wouldn't you find the 21 & 25 to be too close to be worth the cost of having both?
the f/2 would come handy for landscape astrophotography which interests me.
Canon's 24mm 1.4L II exhibits terrible coma and Samyang/Bower/Rokinon 24mm 1.4 is reported to have quality control issues (mainly decentering)

865
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Thoughts on Zeiss Canon 5 lens kit?
« on: May 31, 2013, 03:23:01 PM »
A mere case is not worth it!   Buy them one by one and choose the ones you really want.

I have the 21mm 2.8 ZE and it is excellent. If I were to buy a second one I would get the 25mm f/2.0

I do not believe in 85mm since it is not easy to focus manually, plus: It has been reported to have focus shift.

866
Lenses / Re: Zeiss 15 vs Canon 14
« on: May 29, 2013, 07:19:48 AM »
What is your intended output?

I know a world leading (in his field) pro photographer and his primary lens is the Sigma 12-24, he absolutely swears by it.

I have the 17 and it is without equal in the ultra wide stakes, even if the Zeiss is fractionally "sharper" the additional functionality of the TS-E make it a far more accomplished lens.
I would get the TS-17 (Actually I do have it!)

As you said it has no equal. Period!

867
Lenses / Re: Zeiss 100 f/2 vs. Canon 85 f/1.2 II vs. Canon 135 f/2
« on: May 29, 2013, 07:17:15 AM »
I was going to recommend the 135L, but the Zeiss is a great piece of glass.  100mm also is also closer to your 35mm.  As somebody else pointed out, the gap between 35 and 135 is a big one.

+1
Every 2x in focal length results in 4x FoV. You can fit four 70mm lens frames inside one 35mm lens frame (sh :)ot from the same distance) and almost sixteen 135mm lens frames inside one 35mm lens frame.
No matter how good the Zeiss 100mm is, the Canon 135mm f/2L has great IQ AND it can autofocus which is a great plus for that focal length (until your subjects sit still).

Plus, one could get a 135mm f/2L and a 85 1/.8 (which is a very decent lens) for the price of Zeiss.

Keep in mind that the above come from someone who swears by his Zeiss Distagon 21mm 2.8.
However, I also have the above 2 mentioned Canon lenses and I am very happy with them  :)

868
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 6D vs. 600D with good lenses?
« on: May 28, 2013, 06:57:16 AM »
It would be 6D and 24-105 for me. No dilemma!

If you go FF you will have no need to upgrade to FF later. You can built upon this system.

869
Canon General / Re: Desired fantasy gear
« on: May 28, 2013, 06:35:25 AM »
EF500mm f/5.6L IS DO (But with quality rivaling that of EF500mm f/4 L II)

One can only dream  ;D

870
Canon General / Re: Canon direct mail marketing
« on: May 26, 2013, 03:22:30 PM »
I don't agree they sent a useless brochure. If I recall correctly you have 2 daughters, so the 2 Rebels - which by the way are of different size - would suit them both!
(OK may be in a few years)
 ;D   ;D   ;D

Pages: 1 ... 56 57 [58] 59 60 ... 122