July 28, 2014, 05:15:20 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 - ScottyP

Pages: 1 ... 24 25 [26] 27 28 ... 35
376
I'm sure you'll be ecstatic if/when Canon releases that newer 100-400L II.. :)

problem is we will all be so old it'll be to heavy to use by the time that actually comes out... :(

And by the time it reaches the shelves of a store, we'll all be dead and buried!

And they will price it 3 times what the current  version costs, which they will attribute to the dollar-yen exchange rate which seems to affect camera stuff overnight whenever a Mk2 or Mk3 of something is released. 
And fanboys will defend that passionately with the typical cry of "love it or leave it", or "go buy a Nikon then", or "Canon really does love me; it just treats me badly sometimes, but it always regrets it deep-down!"

377


The 400mm f/5.6 has caught my eye as an affordable option. I'm getting the Canon 5D3 so I'm thinking I just ramp up the ISO to maintain the shutter speeds I usually use. I've managed to live ok without IS as my subjects are moving faster than I shake the camera anyway.

Everybody seems to end up suggesting the 100-400mm IS but I won't be using that 100-200mm end, not sure about how much IS I'll end up using, and it's not as sharp as the prime.


Here's a very interesting IQ comparison between the 400 f/5.6 and the 100-400 zoom.  I was surprized at how much sharper and clearer the non-IS 5.6 prime was, honestly.  Check out the one of the building in particular.  (see link below to "Forgotten 400")
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/forgotten-400.shtml

378
I think I'd try the 1.4 extender first.  It can't hurt, and it would be a useful thing to have no matter what.  I might even be tempted to save a few bucks and get the Mk II extender used cheap, rather than the new MkIII which is pretty expensive for a TC.

At that point, if you want more range later on, you can get the 300 f/4 instead of the 400 f/5.6.  Since you already have the 1.4x TC, then you would have basically a 420 lens at f/5.6 WITH IS, in addition to the fairly bright 300mm by itself. 

I may be just projecting my own mental upgrade path onto your situation, but it is what I am planning to do personally, and it seems to hold water.

You can go to The Digital Picture site and compare variousl lens combos with and without TC's attached if you want to do a test drive.  It is not obvious unless you are looking for it, but it is under "Tools" and ISO comparisons.  You can even compare Canon to Nikon or Zeiss just for kicks.  (There is no "add TC" button.  To add the TC, you just add MM's over the lens's maximum native length, and it adds in the TC automatically.)

 

379
Very nice!

380
Lenses / Re: sigma 120-300 f2.8 OS (The new one)
« on: May 27, 2012, 03:44:54 AM »
As someone who bought one noted, it does not dovetail with other f/2.8 focal lengths, so one should ask how it fits into their overall scheme of things before buying it and then asking what lenses do I buy to go with it.  That focal lenght definitely does not mesh with Canon f/2.8 lenses, I'm not sure it does with Sigma either, and  Sigma does not really have top quality lenses that form a 3 or 4 f/2.8  lens system.

Not exactly dovetailing, but that unique range is the genius of the lens, according to some lens critics (TDP, Lens Rentals, et al).  I am not telling you anything you don't already know in saying most people don't have ALL mm's covered by lenses.
This one is very interesting.  I was very curious about it a while back, but we have very little in the way of high-end "try it out" camera stores where I am.  If I'd had an opportunity to try one out first, (and seriously liked it) I might not have bought my 70-200 f/2.8 IS II, even though I'd have a hole between 55mm and 120mm.  Not having actually tried it, I guess I have to sit down and shut up.

381
Lenses / Re: Canon 42mm f/2.8 TS-E, anyone heard of this?
« on: May 27, 2012, 03:26:24 AM »
I have heard Bigfoot shoots a Canon 43 lens.  Even rarer... ;)

382
Canon General / Re: Starting lens upgrade.
« on: May 27, 2012, 03:20:57 AM »
Good you are hanging on to the 7d for the 1.6 length advantage (as well as the camera's other good qualities).  I only have one EF-S lens (17-55 same as yours), but even with the crop body I find my 70-200 mk2 is short for some things, and very short for birds.  Not even birds on treetops, mind you, but even birds on birdfeeders in my back yard.  I have never shot with a FF body, but I wonder at how suddenly myopic one feels when making the change "cold-turkey" without keeping the 1.6X body.

383
Well, at least I didn't invest in Kodak.

384
I have had another great days shooting using my out of fashion 1DS3 and 24-105 - why would I spend money to change it?




That's pretty good for ONLY 21mp  ;D :P. Nice to see a sunny day in GB!


Ah, but there's a sheep down there that is kind of grainy and pixelated.  Look right there, approximately 2.6 miles out, at about 2 o'clock. ;)

385
Lenses / Re: sigma 120-300 f2.8 OS (The new one)
« on: May 25, 2012, 12:15:57 PM »
Apparently the lens can distort hair, making it look absurdly bushy.

Seriously, though, good question.  If it is a good lens it certainly would be a useful range.

386
Lenses / Re: Advice/suggestions extenders
« on: May 25, 2012, 12:14:13 PM »
Canon makes several 1.6x extenders for your lenses that give very little loss of IQ.  They are a little bulky, and they are all black and boxy, but they do come with their own neckstraps.

387
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: I'm confused about Nikon...
« on: May 25, 2012, 11:55:39 AM »
Nikon's numbering actually reflects how much money (in MM yen) they intend to pay Ashton Kucher to play with each particular camera body on TV.

388
Instead of getting pissed off when we see a new Nikon that is better and/or cheaper than comparable Canon gear, we should be happy.  It means that Canon will have to respond (albeit not as instantaneously as you might wish) by lowering prices or improving cameras or both. 

Without Nikon around, Canon would not be as good as it is now, and vice-versa.  I also hope Sony cameras continue to improve and threaten/challenge Canon.  Also Panasonic and all the other "also-rans".  Competition gives better products at lower prices.  The worst thing in the world, frankly, would be to see Nikon or Sony crater and bow out of the DSLR market.  A monopoly Canon would be a very bad thing for quality and value and inovation.

389
Marketshare would tend to disagree with your idea of 4/3 killing Canon and Nikon any time soon.  Plus, I love all the lens reviews that harsh on a FF lens (Canon or 3p) for "vignetting" only to say that "of course, this is no corncern when mounted on a crop body".




390
Canon General / Canon stock (CAJ) repeatedly hitting 52-week lows
« on: May 25, 2012, 12:10:49 AM »
I was going to buy a few thousand bucks worth of Canon stock in my retirement portfolio, just to make it interesting to follow Canon's status.  Maybe "let them buy me a new Canon" or whatever.  Unfortunately, Canon stock (CAJ) is continually triggering news alerts in my browser for having hit a "new 52-week low".  I know that cameras are only a part of their business, but they seem to be in a bit of trouble.  Plus, their PE ratio is still high compared to others in their industry, even after the recent drops.
 
Anyone have insight as to how much of this losing is due to the camera end of Canon vs. copiers, printers, etc.?  I do know that Nikon has been losing money for years, and of course Sony has too, though they are so big that cameras are only a tiny part of Sony.

Pages: 1 ... 24 25 [26] 27 28 ... 35