Messages

256

Lenses / Re: 70-200 2.8 II with 2x (old) vs 100-400

« on: February 01, 2013, 02:51:33 AM »

The 300 f/2.8 with TCs is much sharper than the 100-400mm. If you are going on a bird shoot on Safari, then I would definitely prefer the prime.  But, my experience from my one safari is that the zoom would be far more useful for the wild life as the game wardens take you very close to the big game and the 300 would be useless.  (I have both sets of lens and would pack the 100-400, which retracts nicely to a small size too).

Alan good points. I have been to Sabi sands in Kruger before where we could off road and come real close to game. However this time I will be in main Masai Mara reserve and we are not permitted to off road. Game could be far or close depending upon luck but if far we would not be able to drive to them.

257

Lenses / Re: 70-200 2.8 II with 2x (old) vs 100-400

« on: February 01, 2013, 02:33:22 AM »

Thx much TC

258

Lenses / 70-200 2.8 II with 2x (old) vs 100-400

« on: February 01, 2013, 02:13:48 AM »

Experts.
I have an unplanned trip to Masai Mara coming up with I am very excited about.
I sold my 600 ver 1 few months ago and have not been able to replace it (waiting for 200-400).

Now I have 300 2.8 ver 1 and 70-200 II for the trip. I am concerned that I might not have the required reach on my full frame cameras (X and 3).

A friend has 100-400 which I can rent for real cheap.

My questions: Will the 70-200 wit 2x be as effective as the 100-400 in regards mainly to IQ. AF speed is important by I think if there is any difference in this regard it would be minimal.

I intend to shoot at the widest f stop in most situations.

Thank you for your help.

Sanjay

259

Lenses / Re: Have you one of the new 24-70 f4 canon lenses, Is it good

« on: February 01, 2013, 01:59:16 AM »

I like the 24-70mm f/4 IS very much.  I originally bought the f/2.8 MkII, it is a fantastic lens, however I need the IS for low light event shooting.  But, back to the subject at hand, while I had the 2.8 MkII I rented the Tamron, in my opinion, not as good as Canon.  When the f/4 came out, I rented it and compared it to the f/2.8 and "for what I need" the f/4 was the winner and I returned the f/2.8 and bought the f/4.  All comparisons done on a 5dMkIII.

Price was not the issue, the new hybrid IS on the f/4 allows me more than enough room to make up for the one stop difference and I get all the benefits of IS (yes, I give up one stop of DOF, but check out the DOF calculator - it is minimal).  Where in the world these folks are coming from saying the 24-105 IQ is better than the 24-70 f/4, either don't own the 24-70 f/4 or they are trolls.  The IS on the 24-105 is old 2nd generation and does not hold a candle to the new 24-70 f/4 and 70-200 f/2.8 MkII.  This hybrid IS is rock solid.

I just wish the naysayers would come out and honestly say whether they have actually shot with the lens or not.  Further, on an actual shoot and not shooting a bunch of test circles.  (I have never been paid a penny for test shots).  Finally, I need IS and it is my money, so don't critisize me for my shortcomings (unless you are willing to pay good money for it).

I love Canon products and applaud them for offering a wide range of great products with a wide range of price points.  Finally, if they introduce a f/2.8 IS, I would strongly consider buying it just because I can!

Well said!

260

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Canon may be expensive but...

« on: February 01, 2013, 12:47:43 AM »

Wondering why Canon, Nikon would NOT measure actual lenses?

261

6D Sample Images / Re: for those who snub the 6D AF...

« on: January 31, 2013, 11:50:22 PM »

Wait, isn't that plane beyond infinity focus? I'm guessing you could get that in focus with a manual lens without looking through the viewfinder too!

+1

262

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: a digital photography noob has a question about image quality

« on: January 31, 2013, 10:22:39 AM »

If I were you I would shoot JPEG.
Best wishes for your trip.
Where exactly are you going? I travel to Africa often. Inbox me if you need any info on Namibia, SA or Botswana.

263

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: a digital photography noob has a question about image quality

« on: January 30, 2013, 07:42:02 AM »

Sir if money is of concern, I really recommend you return both and get 6d.

264

Canon General / Re: Canon 1D X on the Street

« on: January 29, 2013, 09:07:06 AM »

People who are afraid of taking their camera to new places are the ones that are less travelled or those who have had an unfortunate incident.

265

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Canon may be expensive but...

« on: January 29, 2013, 07:03:12 AM »

My heart sinks. Canon may price their next 800 to match this...

266

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sony RX1 Full Frame sensor Compact leaked photos / rumor

« on: January 28, 2013, 10:21:58 AM »

Concerning the price, I think many of you forget there's a Zeiss 35mm f/2 in front of that tiny thing

It's a Zeiss that costs 800-1000 tops!

What I heard though, is that's no Zeiss lens, it's a design collaboration between Zeiss and Sony, Sony made the lens with some Zeiss expertise, or just enough support to justify slapping a Zeiss logo on the thing. If it were actually a Zeiss lens, the RX1 wouldn't be $2800

Noooo.

267

Canon General / Re: Why did you choose Canon?

« on: January 28, 2013, 03:13:51 AM »

Did not know better.

5d2 was in rage and bought it.

First few photos I knew the IQ was great. Then slowly I realized that the focus was not the best

268

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon's Roadmap for 2013 [CR2]

« on: January 28, 2013, 02:53:12 AM »

these are just rumors... just check all the rumors from 2012, mostly the same as this: nothing more than speculation... I don't really understand why this is a CR2...

serious rumors will only surface a few days/weeks before releasing the new camera...

my point too!

269

Technical Support / Re: at what shutter speed you turn IS off?

« on: January 28, 2013, 01:36:52 AM »

Another reason to switch it off aside from the potential effect on AF speed/accuracy is that some wildlife reacts to the sound of it.

   Wow!  Really??  So does this mean that if you turn off the IS, you only get one shot when the much louder SLR Actuation scares off the wildlife?

Well said!

270

Technical Support / Re: at what shutter speed you turn IS off?

« on: January 28, 2013, 01:33:31 AM »

Another reason to switch it off aside from the potential effect on AF speed/accuracy is that some wildlife reacts to the sound of it.

Never felt this way in the last five years of wildlife photography with IS. I had non lS lenses for 15 years before that and no wildlife got distracted by other sounds in my vehicle (lenses bumping on to metal etc.)