December 07, 2013, 02:37:34 PM
Messages - HarryWintergreen
Provided IQ is close to excellent, for an amateur phtographer with wild-life ambitions what would be the alternative to spending more than 2k for a (highly speculative) mark II version of the Canon 100-400? Sigma 120-300 f/2,8 is too short in reach and @ f/5,6 not superior to the current Canon 100-400. The other serious alternatives are way too expensive. Unfortunately
As it's already been said, beyond technical ('pixel-peeping') perspectives there's the dof thing that leads you to a more thorough considering of what you are going to shoot. Action and wildlife are crop body's patch. And when sticking to crop bodies good glass is essential (and this opens up a back door to ff ).
Thanks willrobb, handsomerob, briansquibb and K-amps.
The first two images were photographed with a 5D2 using it's center AF point.
K-amps & thepancakeman, good eye. I was shooting at f/2.0 and did not crop so only the camera's in the DoF. As I am not used to shooting portraits with the lens I miscalculated the DoF.
briansquibba I would buy this lens if you need an extra stop of IS, an extra stop of light and the bokeh. If you need neither then the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM is more than sufficient.
Thanks Dolina... needless to say, it is one heck of a lens!
That it is. That it is.
Here's another shot of the model that ya all like so much.
TLR by alabang, on Flickr
The 5DII is an FF camera and as such it offers many ways to improve your skills as a photographer. I do like crop bodies, but it is not the same. Since owning a 5DII, looking through the viewfinder of a crop body gives me the feeling that something's missing. In terms of RAW IQ, the 5DII at least performs equally well as the 5DIII (except for higher ISO). The attached image may give a slight impression of the fact that the 5DII is not basically incapable of taking photos of fastly moving objects. This photo of a home-flying snipe was taking when dusk had already started to settle (ISO 640, f/8, 1/1000, 1.4 Kenko TC, 70-200 f/4 L IS, very little post-processing). It's the best out of three shots taken.
« on: June 09, 2012, 09:44:40 AM »
this 'who's got the best camera and if it's not my brand I'm gonna fall into despair' attitude still doesn't appeal to me. Is there anybody out there who believes seriously his or her poor Canon gear will prevent him or her from showing what his or her creativity is up to? And will we have to assume a future started by the D800 where people say, 'oh quite nice with your 5D3 but if you had taken your images with a Nikon body this would have made the essential difference and therefore stay in the realm of inferiority'?
« on: June 03, 2012, 02:10:37 PM »
Tse 24 II
85 F1/2 II
85 F1/2 II
« on: May 24, 2012, 04:37:08 PM »
I also started with the 40d and still love this camera. I never was fully satisfied with the wide and ultra wide zooms from the third party side. The 70-200 f4 is was perfect and I really loved the extra reach. The 85 1.2 IQ was terrific but to me it was too close as a portrait lens. What finally made me go for FF was the ts 24. I have never regretted this step. And even the 70-200 now is more "real". So, I am now an enthusiastic FF user. But I don't like the conception of a world without crop cameras because it widens the picture of slr cameras, and in the end it's an additional option.
its too expensive.. [its not wide and close enough focal length].
As far as I see it, the 24-70ii is designed as an event and wedding lens to work in combination with Canon's other standard for these occasions: the 70-200ii. I guess Canon figured that when shooting people, you don't really need IS for this zoom range because of the min. shutter speed for moving objects, and that for professionals it's in the exact 70-200ii price range they're used to get for their work.
very good point!