September 01, 2014, 08:16:44 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 - well_dunno

Pages: 1 ... 17 18 [19] 20 21 ... 24
271
Site Information / Re: Should karma remain on the forum?
« on: February 20, 2012, 03:21:35 PM »
I think that some people have a problem with how it's used though. It seems that some people use it as a "agreement/disagreement button" more than anything else.

True what you  say... People having different opinions is all good so smites should be kept for cases of disrespectful and uncivilized manners and not for disagreements... IMHO anyway...

272
Lenses / Re: 16-35 f/2.8II vs 17-40 f/4
« on: February 20, 2012, 08:44:31 AM »
Few days ago, I was checking the reviews for TS-e 17mm and saw a few image comparisons of the lens with 16-35mm f/2.8 II and 17-40mm f/4. Of the latter two, 16-35 mkII seems considerably sharper there in many apertures...

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-TS-E-17mm-f-4-L-Tilt-Shift-Lens-Review.aspx

edit: sorry the comparison I was referring to was under TS-E 24mm - Comparison is available on the above link too though. Naturally @ 17mm and 24 mm respectively...
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-TS-E-24mm-f-3.5-L-II-Tilt-Shift-Lens-Review.aspx

273
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 8-15mm f/4.0L
« on: February 18, 2012, 07:23:35 PM »
I was lookiing at one in our local camera store yesterday while trying to pump the salesman about any new models.  I seldom use my 15mm FE, so it would be a very high price per image lens, maybe one to rent for a special use.

That is what has been holding me back from getting this lens too. I'm afraid it would just become a nice toy in the bag after a few weeks...

274
Lenses / Re: 70-300L anyone?
« on: February 17, 2012, 06:35:38 PM »
The 70-300L doesnt work with the canon extenders... the rear element in the lense sits too far back I think, so there is no room for the extender.

I believe the kenko 1.4 fits but I do not think there is a 2.0 that fits it. Thats the way things were about a year ago when I got the lens. I dont know if anything has changed. Given its F/5.6 at the long end a 2x extender may give you autofocus issues anyway depending on what body you are using.

Thanks!

275
Lenses / Re: Canon 70-200mm f/4 L vs. Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 L
« on: February 17, 2012, 05:15:16 PM »
Other than weight and price, 2.8 II is superior in all aspects to my knowledge. This applies to the IS versions though.

All four are sharp lenses but I recall reading some order (starting with the sharpest)
f2.8 IS mk2
f4 IS
f2.8
f/4

you can find a comparison tool at:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx

276
Lenses / Re: 70-300L anyone?
« on: February 17, 2012, 01:51:12 PM »
I have a 70-200 f/4 which I like a lot but have been considering 70-300 L too due to the reach.

Could anyone who used this lens on a 1.4 or 2x extender post some samples?

Cheers!

277
Lenses / Re: 24-105 f2.8IS
« on: February 15, 2012, 05:13:19 AM »
yeah by all accounts it was softer than a marshmallow on a bonfire :(

LOL
+1 for that

278
Lenses / Re: Lens for Norway
« on: February 14, 2012, 02:27:21 PM »
Nice approach Kernuak! +1  :)

279
EOS Bodies / Re: I can't decide what to do!
« on: February 14, 2012, 02:24:43 PM »
I also think it is better to wait and see what comes out at this stage...

280
EOS Bodies / Re: No 7D Mark II? [CR1]
« on: February 14, 2012, 10:44:35 AM »
I think they might remerge 60D and 7D into one line, may that be 7D mk2 or 70D. Whatever it is, it would be better than 7D I imagine... Also, probably XXXD line would get better specs if this happens.

281
Lenses / Re: Lens for Norway
« on: February 14, 2012, 09:51:54 AM »

Concerning the 24-105L, I'd stay away from it if you're taking a crop camera. You can't get wide shots with that on a crop camera without taking another lens, and then you'd have two lenses while still not having any far tele range zoom.

That's a good point, 24 mm will be only moderately wide on an aps-c.

282
Lenses / Re: Lens for Norway
« on: February 14, 2012, 06:22:15 AM »
But if this is the one time in Norway I would guess that you will be amazed by the nature (without being too self centered here:)

I spent a few weeks in northern Norway and I can confirm that you are not being self-centered :) it is special...

283
Lenses / Re: Lens for Norway
« on: February 14, 2012, 06:18:36 AM »
I probably should learn the lingo before i go out!!

i'll probably be using an APS-C

what do you think of the tamron 18-270mm?

IQ is going to suffer with that lens (also with any of the 18-200) , but if you can take only one lens with you the range might mean getting the shot or not getting the shot... 24-105 does not have the same reach but it's a very good lens. I would take two lenses in your shoes, 24-105 + 70-300 IS (L if you have the lens or the budget). IS is going to come handy in cold IMHO...

You can find a review of Tamron 18-270 here http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/412-tamron_18270_3563vc_canon

284
Lenses / Re: Lens for Norway
« on: February 14, 2012, 04:52:40 AM »
Canon 28-300
Tamron 18-270
Sigma/Tamron 18-200

These come to my mind. Image quality is going to be sacrificed though...

Are you on APS-C/H or FF?

285
Lenses / Re: 24-105 f2.8IS
« on: February 13, 2012, 07:54:08 PM »
I am hoping that Tamron's quality will improve over time but quality goes up, price goes up... I do agree Sigma is more close to it. Besides Nikon's corresponding lens leaves much to be desired I heard so there seems to be a market if third party alternatives came out.

internal zoom + 2.8 + IS + improved optics and I would be interested too even for north of 3K as I really like the f/4... I should try the lottery a little more frequently, want to have the 200-400 f/4 too when it comes out ;D

Pages: 1 ... 17 18 [19] 20 21 ... 24