January 28, 2015, 04:34:25 AM

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 - Random Orbits

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 96
1
Yes. I was not clear enough: i would like to have an EF 24/2.8 pancake ... as small, cheap and good as the ef 40/2.8. And a EF 75/2.4 pancake in addition. ;)

Just get the 24 f/2.8 IS.  It's a gem of a lens, and it's fairly small.

2
Lenses / Re: POLL: Which of these UWA options would you buy?
« on: January 24, 2015, 02:32:14 PM »
Really interested in seeing the 11-24 reviewed.  It's hard enough framing at 14mm... it'll be interesting to see how 11mm can be used well.

3
Technical Support / Re: 18-135 STM Focus issue
« on: January 22, 2015, 05:57:03 PM »
If you've had it for a couple of months, then you should be dealing with Canon directly.  It's easy.  Give them a call and follow their instructions.

4
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sigma 24-105 f/4 DG OS Discontinued
« on: January 22, 2015, 09:46:56 AM »
This is a misstep with Sigma and their new product philosophy (Art/Contemporary/Sport).  They had clear wins with the 35 and 50mm primes, but missed with the 30 for APS-C and now the 24-105.  Sigma is a company like any other -- a new marketing scheme does not make them immune to missteps or not understanding the market properly.

I don't think Sigma had any real expectation of replacing Canon 24-105 with their 24-105.  It would have been nice for Sigma if it did.  But other camera systems lacked a good quality 24-105.  I think that was the intended market, not Canon users.

We need to make sure that we are not just looking at this from a Canon-centric viewpoint.

I think Sigma was hoping to take a large chunk out from Canon and Nikon.  It's available in 2 other mounts:  Sony and Sigma.  How much will they sell of those?  When Sigma's lens came out, the white box Canon was available for about 800.  Now the white box Canons go for closer to 600.  Sigma can't compete with that when it has to charge 800-900.  Canon has a larger user base than Nikon, and failing to penetrate the market in the largest segment will hurt overall profitability.

5
Technical Support / Re: 18-135 STM Focus issue
« on: January 22, 2015, 08:58:58 AM »
No, not normal.  Probably a bad AF module in the lens.

6
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sigma 24-105 f/4 DG OS Discontinued
« on: January 22, 2015, 08:50:03 AM »
I would tend to agree that optically the lens was not really superior in real world photography to the Canon 24-105mm f4L and as the Canon lens is widely available as white box & good S/H ones on Ebay then the critical mass was likely not there for Sigma. Throw in the newly launched Canon EF 24-105mm F3.5-5.6 IS STM lens and  the volume drops again.

+1.  I agree that Canon's introduction of the non-L 24-105 probably is the final nail in the coffin for Sigma.  With an intial price of ~600, it's primed to be sell for a few hundred in a kit.

This is a misstep with Sigma and their new product philosophy (Art/Contemporary/Sport).  They had clear wins with the 35 and 50mm primes, but missed with the 30 for APS-C and now the 24-105.  Sigma is a company like any other -- a new marketing scheme does not make them immune to missteps or not understanding the market properly.

7
Now is good time to get the 5DIII, with prices below 2200.  There is big difference in IQ between the 60D and the 5DIII and you have the lenses to take advantage of FF.  What it comes down to is price.  I'd rather get a 5DIII now for 2200 or less rather than buying a 5DIV, which is probably be 3500+.  You could always upgrade without too much of a loss as the price of the 5DIV will fall more in the first year than the 5DIII.

8
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Body + lens for design office
« on: January 20, 2015, 09:02:28 AM »
How about a 70D with the kit lens and supplementing it with a 10-18 if you need an UWA lens?  Rebels don't have AFMA and that feature might become necessary if you do get faster glass for it later on...

9
I use a BR strap with a RRS clamp at the end of it.  I leave the L-bracket on my 5D3 and also have a RRS foot for the 70-200 IS II.  I can then choose to attach the BR to the lens or body depending on the situation.  It takes only a few seconds to get it on/off the strap.

10
Lenses / Re: Would you buy this lens? Small, lightweight, 17mm/2.8
« on: January 14, 2015, 11:38:55 AM »
It would be nice to have, but I don't think it's possible for that price.  The existing 24mm f/2.8 IS is about 10 oz, and the existing 20mm f/2.8 is a bit larger and weighs about 14 oz.  The existing 16-35 f/2.8 II weighs about 22 oz, so your looking a a 17 f/2.8 that would be close to 20 oz, which would be about twice the weight of the existing 24mm f/2.8 IS with its concommitant increase in size.  The Canon 20mm f/2.8 is already above 500 and that is for a lens that was introduced in 1992.  With a new design, I'd suspect the launch price to be closer to 1000.

11
Canon General / Re: What's a good studio lens for a small studio?
« on: January 14, 2015, 08:16:19 AM »
If you're shooting at f/8, why would you restrict yourself to a prime?  I have a similar setup in my garage, and I primarily use a 24-70.  The zoom makes it easy to take pictures of kids from half body to full body shots.  If I want something for a particular effect, then I'll use a prime with a large aperture, but most of the time, it's the zoom.

I have one prime and two zooms... but when I am in a controlled environment, I gravitate to primes... While the zooms at f/8 are really good... I really like tickling excellence when it comes to using a really good prime. 

I have all the respect for the canon 24-70 f/2.8L mkii... but I'm holding out for the rumored sigma 24-70 f/2 art if it ever comes out.  I just like the idea of having an extra stop of light (two stops form where I am now) for my normal zoom. 

I've just become a bit of a prime snob.  I like my zooms... they are good (great), but there just a little something missing which makes me sad.

Perhaps you should give the 24-70 f/2.8 II a try.  It performs well wide open, and will be 3 stops faster than f/8.  I do wish that the long end of the 24-70 f/2.8 II was a bit longer many times.  Much fewer shots were are f/1.4 or larger.  Those were reserved more specialty shots, but I usually found myself running out of space in the double garage to get the foreground/background distances right.

12
Canon General / Re: What's a good studio lens for a small studio?
« on: January 13, 2015, 03:01:39 PM »
If you're shooting at f/8, why would you restrict yourself to a prime?  I have a similar setup in my garage, and I primarily use a 24-70.  The zoom makes it easy to take pictures of kids from half body to full body shots.  If I want something for a particular effect, then I'll use a prime with a large aperture, but most of the time, it's the zoom.

13
Lenses / Re: What the better value?
« on: January 12, 2015, 11:35:03 PM »
I've finally saved up some money for a new lens and I wanted to take a little poll.

Would you rather purchase the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS USM ii, or purchase both the 70-200 f/4 L IS USM and the 100mm f/2.8 L Macro?

The way I see it, with modern ISO performance on FF cameras, f/2.8 isn't as critical as it use to be, but I wanted to read some discussion.

Thanks

Your signature lists a 7D and an EF-S 10-22, so are you planning on staying with APS-C or moving to FF?  If you plan on staying with the 7D, it is better to go with the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II because crop bodies can use all the light they can get.  Even with FF, I'd still recommend the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II over the other option for most users.  And if you have kids or need to shoot events indoors, f/2.8 is the slowest you want to use when the light is low.  Shooting at ISO 6400 and above indoors with f/2.8 already restricts DR and editing latitude significantly.  Having to go to ISO 12800 with an f/4 lens is worse.  So, I'd suggest trying the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II in the store and see if the weight and size suits you.  If it does, I'd opt for that option over the 70-200 f/4 IS + 100L.  You can always get the macro later.   ::)

14
EOS-M / Re: Why do I keep my Eos M?
« on: January 09, 2015, 03:55:05 PM »
I love my Eos M, and here's how I use it:
1. Dinners, parties and get togethers- a conveniently sized camera that doesn't yell "photographer", is easy to use for someone asked to take the shots (especially as most people on the road seem to prefer an LCD to a viewfinder for composition), cheap enough to give to someone to take the shots, and far better low light capability and IQ than a smartphone or point and shoot.
...

+1.  Took the M + 22 f/2 and 270ex ii to a surprise dinner for a friend at a fancy restaurant.  The 270ex ii was just powerful enough to be used bounced of the ceiling, and yet I was able to keep the camera and lens in one jacket pocket and the flash in the other.

15
Canon General / Re: New Gear Resolutions for 2015
« on: January 09, 2015, 01:32:45 PM »
Number 1 is pretty dangerous especially if you already have a lot of lenses (looking for upgrades of the 35L and 50L).

To cast the resolutions is a more positive light:

1.  I will upgrade to the 100-400L II after the price has dropped 10% or more from its inital 2200 price.
2.  I will only considering upgrading the 5DIII to the 5D(whatever) if I get to shoot a wedding gig this year.
3.  I will not spend as much on computer hardware as 2014 (after having 3rd HDD failure in 5 years and having installed a NAS, and upgrading network switches in the house, etc.).

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 96