February 28, 2015, 09:04:19 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 - Dantana

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10
Lenses / Re: Ultrawide Zoom from Canon?
« on: September 05, 2014, 01:39:37 PM »
Not every lens is going to be perfect for every photographer.

For me, if I looked at the full frame ultra-wide zooms that have come up in this posting so far:

17-40 4 - Size and weight are great, accepts filters, f4, soft unless stopped down. I've seen a lot of great images taken with this lens, but nobody "loves" it. The softness overall and the softer corners keep me from jumping on it. The price is great though, especially when there is a special at the refurb store.

16-35 2.8 II - Bigger and heavier than the 17-40, reportedly not a whole lot sharper, a lot more expensive, but it does accept filers, and it's fast. If I found a good deal on a used copy, I'd give it a try, otherwise the one stop difference doesn't matter that much to me (with the emphasis on "to me").

16-35 4 IS - About as big and heavy as the 2.8. Sharp across the frame. I don't really see the need for IS on this wide of a lens for how I would use it, and I wish there was a smaller lighter version without IS but with the same sharpness, but that doesn't exist. It's not cheap, but not crazy expensive. Something I will consider when it shows up in the refurb store.

Nikon 14-24 - The biggest and heaviest of these lenses. Sharp and fast. Bulbous front end won't take filters without giant filter system. Expensive. If this was a native Canon lens, it's not something that I would be thinking about anyway. For me, the cost, size, and filter situation outweigh its strengths.

Do I want Canon to come out with new fancy ultra-wide zooms? Sure. The advances they make on one product seem to make their way into others, and it could possibly lower the price of their other zooms. Would I buy it for myself? Probably not. I doubt I could afford it. And if it's huge and heavy and can't take normal filters, I don't have a whole lot of use for it. On my radar right now in this category is the 16-35 4, when it goes on refurb. There's a small chance I'd pick up one of the older lenses used or refurb at the right price. Until then, I'll make due with my Rokinon 14.

I'm not sure how many more lenses they would actually sell if Canon came out with their version of the 14-24 2.8. I'd have to imagine that it would be very similar to the Nikon. Yes, there are always people on boards like this clamoring for such a lens, but I think that in real world numbers that wouldn't really be that many sales for Canon. Maybe I'm wrong. It's happened once or twice.

I always increase the green saturation when I'm using lightroom... so I don't find it to be a problem ;).

Thanks for that. I was beginning to get mad at myself for reading this thread.  :D

Lenses / Re: help on lens
« on: August 28, 2014, 05:35:31 PM »
I can't speak to the 200 2.8 specifically for sports, but I have been happy with the overall performance of the lens. Fast focus, sharp, compact. I've been quite happy with it as my only telephoto since switching to full frame.

Lenses / Re: 200 f/2.0 vs 70-200 f/2.8 II
« on: August 26, 2014, 02:33:02 PM »
You mentioned nothing in your original post about needing to shoot low light, so it seems the 200/2 is not necessary for that reason.

You would save so much money by going with the 70-200/f2.8, especially since you don't need that extra stop.  With the money you save over the 200/2, you can pick up a few books on composition in photography, and also on composition in painting (where there is much overlap).  Basically, a book that will teach you about rules of composition, about using contrasting elements, about using negative space, about using symmetry, etc etc.  You don't need to "kill" your background with f2 when you know how to properly compose a photograph.  I used to have the same lust after that lens, luckily I never bought it thanks to the wise words spoken by a professional portrait photographer. 

I've got a few buddies who either have the 85/1.2, 135/2, or 200/2, and I just think "what are you doing???"  They claim those lenses are great for background separation.  You know what else is?  ANY lens and a knowledge of composition.  I saved so much money, and weight, by going with the 70-200 f4, which is also my most expensive lens.  You can tell it eats at my friends' hearts that I am taking better photos with gear that is not high end.  But as they always say, a great photographer can take a better photo with an iPhone than a S___ty photographer with the best SLR.

I urge you, because I used to be in the same position of lust for that amazing-bokeh lens as you, to reconsider.  You have the potential to save so much money, which will increase what you can spend on other things.  Not having spent thousands upon thousands (or even tens of thousands) on gear has allowed me to travel much more (which in itself is a lot of fun, whether it be traveling locally, nationally, or even internationally), practice photography more, and just enjoy life more. 

Think about it this way.  You'd be paying thousands more in order to take pictures where less and less stuff is in focus.  Yes, I know that it is a fantastically sharp lens , but let's not kid ourselves about to the real reason most people lust after the lens.  Super thin DOF/background separation.


Interesting post.

I think that it's helpful to remember that these are all tools, the bodies, lenses, lighting, etc. We all choose different tools based on what we are looking for and how we work.

You have chosen the 70-200 4 as your tool of choice, and apparently it does what you want it to. I don't own it, but from what I've heard it's a great lens. It is, however, a very different tool than the 200 2.

I don't currently have the cash for tools like the 200 2 (or even the 70-200 2.8 IS II), but I did have the chance to pick up the 200 2.8 II for a good price used last year and I have been happy having that as a tool in my kit. Would I say it's better than the 200 2? No. It's a different tool. It's much smaller and less expensive and I've gotten some great images out of it. I will never be able to open it up to 2.0 though, and it will never have that same look. It is a lot easier to fit in my pack on a hike though, which is important to me. Maybe that's not important to the OP. Maybe the cost is no issue. For me the cost (and size) of that lens don't justify a place for that tool in my toolbox. If I had the means, I'd love to have one though.

I think it's odd to criticize someone for asking about a particular tool and then telling them they need to learn more about composition. These are separate things. We should all work on out technique. That should be a given.

EOS Bodies / Re: here we come, 6d AF problems
« on: August 12, 2014, 07:54:46 PM »
Not sure where you are or what available there, but home improvement stores here have halogen work lights that are relatively inexpensive ($20) and a couple of them would provide ample light.
Those would definitely work well and I always feel silly using my Einsteins' modeling lights for FoCal tests.

I bought a pair from Home Depot for this very purpose, and they were just the thing. Two of them clamped onto chair backs pointed at my Focal target. They are also good in a pinch if I need some constant light for some other purpose.

Software & Accessories / Re: Adobe Creative Cloud 2014 - Jumped yet?
« on: August 06, 2014, 02:58:44 PM »
I jumped in about a year ago at a promotional price for the entire suite, and that's about to expire.

So far, so good. I needed a new suite as my previous version (CS1) no longer worked on my hardware/Windows version.

As much as I appreciate the thoughts on open source, and other alternatives, none of that works for me personally. I'm an animator by trade and it's a collaborative process. Everyone needs to be using compatible software, so I need to have the industry standard applications. I understand that's not everyone else's concern.

Lenses / Re: Why are Cine Lenses so expensive?
« on: August 04, 2014, 05:35:10 PM »
which leads me to the next (obvious) question

Is there any advantage for Still Photographers to use cine lenses?

The one advantage I can think of is that with a cine zoom, you can zoom in tight to manually focus and then back off to your desired framing.

Software & Accessories / Re: Tripod center column - yes or no
« on: July 17, 2014, 02:08:26 PM »
I rarely use mine, but I have left it on since it's shorter folded up backwards with it on than it would be without. My 3 Legged Thing won't fold backwards around the head without the center column, at least I don't think it will.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: A Summary of Sigma Lens Rumors
« on: July 08, 2014, 04:18:07 PM »
I just simply cannot believe in the fanthom 24-70/2 Art lens. Look at the current 2.8 offering - size and weight. Do you really want 1,5 kg lens with 86+mm front lens diameter? I'm glad with ~800g of the current 24-70/2.8L II, even still, sometimes feels a bit on the heavier size.

You beat me to it. That lens would be a beast. I think we are more likely to see good 24-70 2.8 in the Art line at a competitive price, possibly with IS. Sigma hasn't chosen to go faster on the 35 or 50 than Canon. They have concentrated on sharpness and build quality.

three legged thing (3LT) brian. A fantastic travel carbon fiber tripod. I used with my 5d3 + 70-200 no issues. Super light, super strong.

Plus one of the legs unscrews and it becomes an extremely light monopod

I have one of their metal models (the Adrian v1) as I couldn't afford the Brian. It's been great so far. I can only imagine the Brian being an improvement.

Lenses / Re: Covering 70-200 Indoors.
« on: June 10, 2014, 02:14:03 PM »
This may be throwing another wrench in the works, but on the budget end you can pick up a used copy of the 200 2.8L for a very good price. I nabbed the version 2 for around $500 last year, though I have heard that optically both versions are the same. I don't know about AF performance for version 1.

I can say that my copy is sharp and fast to focus. I've used it with the 2x extender III (outdoors) and I was pretty happy with the results, though I haven't used that combination a ton. I would think it would pair well with the 135. I know that means 2 lenses instead of a zoom, and that you don't get IS, but it might be a thought.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: EDC gear
« on: June 10, 2014, 01:16:59 PM »
This question is related to one that I have.

I was thinking of packing my old Rebel with a kit lens in my trunk, so I always had something with me. Do I have to worry too much about heat damage or are these cameras designed to take that kind of abuse?

The only thing I would worry about is the battery. I'd leave it out of the camera. Also, humidity is important.. You don't want foggy lens when you pull it out. I'm sure too much hear isn't good for any camera though.

Didn't think about the battery. Thanks for that.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: EDC gear
« on: June 05, 2014, 08:57:42 PM »
This question is related to one that I have.

I was thinking of packing my old Rebel with a kit lens in my trunk, so I always had something with me. Do I have to worry too much about heat damage or are these cameras designed to take that kind of abuse?

Lenses / Re: What was your first L lens?
« on: June 05, 2014, 01:17:21 PM »
I picked up the 200 2.8 L last fall, just before upgrading to the 6D/24-105 combo. I love how small, fast and sharp it is, as well as how quickly it focuses. It's a great lens. I know a 70-200 would be more flexible, but for a price.

It's also acceptably sharp with the 2X Extender III that I picked up just after. It makes for a really pack-able 400 5.6.

Pricewatch Deals / Re: Deal: Spyder4Elite for $169 from Amazon
« on: May 27, 2014, 01:19:57 PM »
That is a great deal. I just bought the Pro version for the same price at a local Samy's. Oh well.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10