April 16, 2014, 01:26:54 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 - dolina

Pages: 1 ... 26 27 [28] 29 30 ... 52
406
Lenses / Re: EF 800 f/5.6L IS II & Other Big Lenses
« on: December 06, 2012, 11:08:21 PM »
Are they going to build in the 1.4x extender into the 800mm as well?  Maybe the 2x?

No, since it's already f/5.6.
If it was integrated it would make me think of upgrading. So long as the weight's below 3.5kg. :)

407
Lenses / Re: EF 800 f/5.6L IS II & Other Big Lenses
« on: December 06, 2012, 10:00:03 AM »
New 400mm primes are true but when?

Assuming this will become an actual product, 6 stops of IS means 1/12th of a second.

Stops
1 - 1/400
2 - 1/200
3 - 1/100
4 - 1/50
5 - 1/25
6 - 1/12

From the current 1/50 of the actual 800mm IS.

It would be nice to have it sell at a reduced weight of more than 28%.

Below 3.5kg anyone?

408
Price should remain at that level until demand softens. 6-12 months more to my reckoning.

409
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x TC Information
« on: December 02, 2012, 05:32:26 AM »
A separate extender sells for $430. Materials-wise it should be cheaper when integrated.

Rather I think the weight and price is mostly from Canon trying to surpass Nikon's 200-400 VR II.

Anyway, not in the market for this thing. I rather get a white prime than a white zoom.

410
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x TC Information
« on: December 02, 2012, 04:07:31 AM »
As heavy as the 600/4 IS II (3920g)? I wonder if it'll approach the weight of the 800/5.6 IS (4500g)!

Priced nearly as much as the 400/2.8 IS II ($11,500)?

The pluses of this lens are the zoom and built-in extender. A short f/4 and and longer f/5.6 are still slow even with modern bodies like the 1DX. Compromises like these are acceptable on a $7,000 lens but not on a $11,000 lens.

I expect this to sell as much as the 800/5.6 IS after the 600/4 IS II was introduced!

411
Lenses / Re: Trying to justify purchasing a 200mm f2.0
« on: November 29, 2012, 09:22:59 AM »
I'd stick with the current body if you are happy with it.

Bodies are made obsolete in mere years.

Lenses are made obsolete in decades.

The 1-Series bodies generally have a 3 year or longer product cycle. My 1D4 was just a crummy 2 years.

The predecessor to the Canon EF 200mm f/2L IS USM enjoyed a product cycle starting from 1988 through 2003. The lens you are contemplating was marketed in 2008. Chances are it wont get replaced anytime soon even if there are rumors to this effect.

Two decades for a lens that sold barely 8,000 copies worldwide. Not bad, not bad at all.

412
Lenses / Re: Believe it or not, 5D3 user misses the 300D reach...
« on: November 29, 2012, 08:42:45 AM »
:) What can I say? As far as I can compute 300D = 10D * 30
;)
so 300D > 10D algebraically.
The 10D works on all Canon gear. The 5D3 doesn't. So as far as I see you are getting the better end of the deal.  ;D

413
Lenses / Re: Trying to justify purchasing a 200mm f2.0
« on: November 29, 2012, 04:24:07 AM »
I have the Canon EF 200mm f/2L IS USM and Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM.

You have the proper understanding and intention for the prime. You must determine if it is worth your while to buy it. The prime is peerless but hefty in mass and price.

I had no regrets in buying it and have only high praise for it.

My sole complaint is the lens foot was small to use as a handle so I replaced it with one from Kirk.



This lens draws attention and people will expect you to be able to magnify the moon to touch the top and bottom of image frame. Removing the lens hood lessens the attention to a degree.

414
Lenses / Re: Believe it or not, 5D3 user misses the 300D reach...
« on: November 27, 2012, 12:51:19 PM »
I have a working 10D, in terms of features is superior to your 300D. I am more than willing to accept in trade for your 5D3 even if it does not work with 800mm  ;D

I miss the reach of my 300D and the 100-400L. With that combination I thought I got 640 mm focal length. Then I bought the 5D3. And the 400 mm seems to be - well, 400 mm! So I decided to get back to Rithmetic. Well, 400 x 1.4 = 560. 5.6 x 1.4 = 7.84! Wow! that is less than f8. And hopefully, Canon will deliver next year - meaning 2013 on f8 focus.

Now There is the Sigma 150-500 that is a f5-6.3!

So the question is, should I get:
  • The 1.4x III extender for my 100-400L
  • The Sigma 150-500 mm lens. I intend to keep the 100-400L.

What experience do you have on the Canon 100-400L + 1.4x
                           OR
The sigma 150-500 mm Lens

Thanks in advance.

Regards,

Rustom

415
EOS Bodies / Re: First Round of EOS 7D Mark II Specs [CR1]
« on: November 27, 2012, 01:51:35 AM »
Better high ISO performance, more DR, and throw in built-in GPS and I'm good.
Add Wi-Fi and I'll buy

416
EOS Bodies / Re: First Round of EOS 7D Mark II Specs [CR1]
« on: November 26, 2012, 11:54:01 PM »
If Canon upgrades from the current process generation of 0.5µm that is reaching it's 10th year to 0.18µm that is Sony is using then I can only foresee better dynamic range and lesser noise.

417
Pricewatch Deals / Re: Ended: Canon EOS 5D Mark III Body $2499
« on: November 23, 2012, 11:11:35 AM »
Great deal! Wish it worked with my 800 without needing a hardware fix.

418
Lenses / Re: 1Dx or lenses
« on: November 22, 2012, 09:41:16 PM »
I rather get more lenses than a new body. I had to chose between a 1dx, 5d3 or a 400/2.8 II and went with the lens.

Lenses last decades. Bodies just years.

419
Lenses / Re: "Native" ISO... is it real and does it make a difference
« on: November 22, 2012, 12:05:48 PM »
It matters to stills to! It's the difference between working to remove noise or remove lesser noise.

420
EOS Bodies / Re: !!!FIRST!!! - Full Frame Mirrorless Camera
« on: November 22, 2012, 01:07:23 AM »
Sony's A-mount SLT is 'technically' a mirrorless. Demount the lens from the body and you will see the A99's full frame immediately.

I was looking at the Leica M but since getting the 40/2.8 Pancake of Canon the requirement waned.

I wish Canon's EOS M was the first sub-$3000 FF mirrorless but I guess Canon was trying to improve profit margins with their APS-C sensors.

Pages: 1 ... 26 27 [28] 29 30 ... 52