« on: April 11, 2014, 05:19:08 PM »
Nice! Thanks for sharing. When I saw it, I thought seriously about backing it...but decided I should do something else with the money.
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.
Thanks for your feedbacks gent's.
Prior writing this topic, the only thing that make me think twice is non AF. This could be a huge issue for me. My current 16-35 II is fine when shooting at smaller apertures f11 or smaller. However, there are times I need to shoot indoor f4 to 5.6, the IQ is quite not same.
Another Q: is there any tilt-shift with AF?
Thanks surapon for sample photos. Those tall buildings look great with tilt-shift.
I think with digital, it is easy to get in the habit of spray and pray. I feel this is especially true for those photographers who never shot film.
Now that we are getting close to the point where we can buffer dump RAW files almost non-stop, there is nothing technically slowing down the photographer.
There are, however, types of photographers who don't want to slow down. Fencecheckers and sport photographers or anyone trying to photograph fleeting subjects want as many shots as they can.
But for some of us, photography is a slow process. I am one of those types that uses a tripod and takes about 5 minutes for every shot.
Different togs need different speeds. But unless you truly need the speed, I feel that photographers would benefit from slowing down. Yeah, we used to think a lot more in the film days. Not only from the expense viewpoint but also because we only had 24/36 exposures before we reload. These days it is not unreasonable to be able to store 500 full frame RAW images on one SD card.
If a shot is worth taking, it is worth taking it slow. LoL
The 16-35 II is a convenient UWA zoom. The TS-E 17mm is one of the best 2-3 ultrawide lenses in terms of optical quality, and when you add in the movements it's an amazing lens.
I'd be tempted to buy either of those lenses...except for the fact that they're a good chunk of the way to one of the L lenses. Not always half-way, I'll grant you, but if they'd have been ~$300ish, much more attractive. At $600, I can probably double that and be about a refurb from Canon.
The 28 f/2.8 IS is 352 + tax (in stock) at the Canon refurb store now, and the 24 f/2.8 IS is 384 + tax (currently out of stock).
Quote from: RustyTheGeekCall me crazy but I thought the overpriced 24 and 35mm EF primes that came out with IS were a waste of time.
The 24 IS and 35 IS lenses are both spectacular for different reasons.
First, they replace older designs that were far inferior optically.
Second, the 24 IS has significantly less flare closed down (where most landscapers would use it) than both the 24L II and the 24-70 II. The smaller size also makes it more portable for hiking.
Third, the 35 IS has rounded aperture blades unlike the 35L, plus it is smaller and lighter than the 35L. Fantastic for a city walkabout lens for those reasons, plus less obtrusive/expensive looking.
Fourth, these lenses have the added bonus of IS, which can be useful in select circumstances when you lack a tripod. IS is really only a bonus though, the real beauty is in the other advantages mentioned.
Seems like a lot of folks are interested in the extreme lenses in the long range.
Me, I would like to see a 24-105 ver II. I would also like to see a 16-35 III.
Call me crazy but I thought the overpriced 24 and 35mm EF primes that came out with IS were a waste of time.
The 24-70 ver II that came out was obviously a hit but also way overpriced.
For most mid-range enthusiasts, the 24-105 has been a great lens. It is likely most folks 1st L lens with good reason. Why doesn't Canon improve that lens after all this time? Seems like it would sell well for them.
Somewhere out there are a couple of videos on this topic - one from a stills guy who shoots a skier and talks about needing more control (but thinks this is coming) and another with two guys testing various shoots but coming away with the feeling that the shutter speed for smooth video is too slow for most stills work when subjects are moving much. Then there's this: Photos shot on Red, which makes you think twice, at least for portrait work.
For another $ 10 more, a white box item from an authorized dealer:
Not sure if it's changed or what, but link now shows as $149 with $39 shipping. =P
Here's my bet as to what they mean:QuoteWe used high precision CAD tools to design these two parts fitting together so water's natural surface tension would make it unlikely it will get in between and sneak up into the battery compartment.
They state, "The camera is protected…," not the camera + grip.
Canon's 5DIII brochure shows a diagram of the body+grip saying it's weatherproof - I guess because of the "high-precision alignment of seams and high-density structure". I love the grip and it's by far and away the best accessory grip Canon has ever made.
I'm skeptical. The body has sealing. The grip itself has sealing. I'm not convinced the combo is sealed. 'Seams' are integral to an assembled piece. The battery doors on both body and grip have foam. Is there foam on the body door opening or the grip where it contacts the battery compartment? There wasn't on the 7D or 5DII. There's play between the body and the grip, so I don't see how a 'high precision alignment' sealed seam can be formed.
We used high precision CAD tools to design these two parts fitting together so water's natural surface tension would make it unlikely it will get in between and sneak up into the battery compartment.
Really it comes down to the price/value, just like everything else. The amount of wear that a lens has is based on how popular it is. The nice thing about LensAuthority is that they check out the lens before selling them for decenteredness, resolution etc. It saves a bit of time checking it out.
I purchased a 100-400L from them during a Black Friday sale for 950. It was rated 8-8.5. The lens body was in excellent shape and the front/rear elements were clean. The lenshood is a bit looser than a new lens' because of the wear, and the bottom of the lens foot was scuffed up (all of it was disclosed in the lens description), so I got what I thought I was going to get.
All things being equal, I'd rather get Canon refurbed units for the same price (better warranty, etc.), but not all lenses are available there. I almost got my MP-E 65 from LensAuthority (they sold out during a sale), and I got the 100-400L and I'm happy with what I got for the price I got it.
Small scratches in the coating don't affect image quality significantly but it does affect resale value. It might be worth waiting for a 8.5 or another unit that has cleaner glass for that reason alone.