September 30, 2014, 12:14:37 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 - HarryWintergreen

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6
61
I think Canon should give it some thought that competitors are not in a shock-stiff hibernation.

62
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.

63
Animal Kingdom / Re: Show your Bird Portraits
« on: May 20, 2012, 03:01:41 PM »
70-200 f/4 IS 40D @ ISO 640 D40 and 5DII (Oyser fishers and seagull)

64
Lenses / Re: 70-200: 2.8L vs 4L IS?
« on: May 18, 2012, 09:37:00 AM »
the keeper rate of the 70-200 f/4 IS is very good. 1/30 in most cases is no problem (provided  continues shooting used) and 1/15 is still decent. And IQ is simply something you won't miss again. Cheers!

65
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II - Your thoughts
« on: May 16, 2012, 07:46:16 AM »
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!

66
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II - Your thoughts
« on: May 16, 2012, 02:53:24 AM »
in the end it's all about IQ. And Canon is ready to provide another stellar zoom lens. To me that's no mean achievement.

67
The new tse lenses are incredibly versatile. To me the mf is no downside. These lenses require careful planning and a bit getting used to it. Once you became friend with such a lense you can't help it but love it. And iq is beyond the slightest doubt. Pp is of minor importance and thus the loss negligible. Well done, Canon!

68
The older  Sigma could never match even the Canon 300 f/2.8 Mk1. For a review of the Mk2, see  [http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1369/cat/10] or [http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-300mm-f-2.8-L-IS-II-USM-Lens-Review.aspx.].
Consider the fact the mk2 even beats the mk1. The Sigma is quite heavy but I see it's having some nice features. So, it might me an interesting alternative for e.g. bird photography (photos taken by humans of birds).

69
in the end it depends on what you are aiming at. To me a good bokeh and no field cuverture is essential (not always the biggest asset of Tamrom). Very good sharpness should go without saying.

70
Lenses / Re: Are primes really more sharp?
« on: April 26, 2012, 09:07:56 AM »
...

Environmental feeling - what?

I think zoom lenses are catching up and soon there will be no significant difference between a zoom and a prime (yes, they will be faster, but who does really need f/1.2?). My 70-200mm f/4 is extremely sharp, has great color and awesome contrast and costs less than some primes. So, I don't see the advantage of prime lenses at all (unless you are a professional photographer and need super sharp corners)...
[/quote]

good point - not to mention better flexibility

71
Lenses / Re: Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC Available for Preorder
« on: April 25, 2012, 01:14:02 PM »
The trouble with third party lenses is there not being really sharp @2,8. This is exactly what I think the Canon 24-70 f2,8 will deliver: sharpness @2,8 beyond compromises. However, omitting IS is a bit annoying, admitted.

72
Lenses / Re: Lenses: 35L II & 85L III Next Up? [CR1]
« on: April 24, 2012, 06:21:00 AM »
There are products that really need an update like the 100-400. Here, the additional charge to me made sense. In the case of the 85/1,2 one has to be very critical about what you really gain and have to pay for.

73
Again people, myself included, express their wish for a decent 400mm solution offered by Canon. I wished desperately Canon would listen carefully. So, I keep hoping for an upgrade of the 100-400 in the medium price range.

74
Lenses / Re: Which 70-200?
« on: April 18, 2012, 04:13:21 PM »
to my mind the 70-200 f/2,8 non-IS version is a bit overrated, it's very good but not stellar. However, it has a very decent bokeh. Except for the bokeh it doesn't go any better than the 70-200 f/2,8 II.

75
Lenses / Re: Canon 50mm 1.2L or Canon 85mm 1.2L?
« on: April 17, 2012, 06:20:29 AM »
I own the 85 1,2, got a copy in mint condition for 1k €. It's true, this lens needs a little getting used to. This doesn't hold only for the slow focus and the focus by wire. To my mind it's
more a question of deciding when the extremely sharp and fast 70-200 has to stay in the bag and the time has come where a thin dof and a dreamy background blur are eagerly awaiting to show
off. You just don't get head and shoulder shots with a better bokeh.
Especially when used on a crop body you get very decent sharpness @ f/1,2 and perfect sharpness to the corners @ f/2,8. However, the crop factor isn't ideal for shooting portraits, ff performs better in this respect.

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6