December 21, 2014, 05:26:19 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 - Random Orbits

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 94
Lenses / Re: Buying from Lens Rentals/Lens Authority
« on: November 25, 2014, 12:44:15 PM »
Read the descriptions carefully -- it's accurate.  You won't get a pristine lens unless it's rated that way, but at least they optically check their lenses.  I bought a 100-400 from them last year during the black friday sale.  It was in great optical shape, but some of the paint had come off from the tripod ring, where renters had scuffed it up mounting/unmounting it.  Do your homework so you know what you're getting for your money, and if the price is right, then go for it.

Lenses / Re: EF 35mm f/1.4L II to Finally Come as Well? [CR2]
« on: November 24, 2014, 01:02:39 PM »
+1.  35 f/2 IS:  great optics, affordable price.  Buy a few bags for "weather sealing."

Not the same. Bags of what? Oh, a few bags full of those 35mm lenses ... disposable, then? Also, an f/3.5 can be even smaller, 'cause note I said "travel lens".

Why bother?  Just buy yourself a 40 f/2.8 and be done with it.  The size can't be beat.  yes, get a few bags/covers for the rain.  Given the low price of the 40 f/2.8, I'm sure you can afford some if you're willing to pay L prices.  Want IS, the 24 and 28 f/2.8 IS are small.  The 35 f/2 is a bit fatter, but it's not a big lens.

Lenses / Re: EF 35mm f/1.4L II to Finally Come as Well? [CR2]
« on: November 24, 2014, 09:33:31 AM »
This lens is over-kill for me. I'd have preferred it being f/3.5, weather-sealed and possibly with IS ... unless the latter significantly increases the size. It being an L-grade lens goes without saying, but just for clarification: L, of course. Such a lens, with great optics, would be the ideal travel lens with a "full-frame" camera.

It's called 2470 f4 L IS or 17-40 or 16-35.

Why 35 f/3.5 when there is an 35 f/2 IS already in existence? The point of a prime lens is speed*. No use owning a f/3.5 prime L when there are f/2.8 L zooms kicking about.

Edit - *exception TS 24mm f/3.5 L

+1.  35 f/2 IS:  great optics, affordable price.  Buy a few bags for "weather sealing."

Lenses / Re: Help me decide: should I buy an EF 135L
« on: November 24, 2014, 09:32:00 AM »
Thanks for the balanced opinions so far. While the vote isn't really clear, it seems that there is a slight tendency advising against buying it despite its merits.

I think I am coming to reason... and getting that little GAS relapse under control again. ;)
Even though the lens it is a steal at "only" 710€, these 710€ are probably better put towards what I am really lacking: more reach!
I am currently waiting for the first reviews of the Sigma 150-600 S (the review sure looks promising) and the 100-400L II and hope to be able to pick up either one sometime in spring.

Sounds like a good plan.  Another viable plan would have to upgraded the 70-200 f/4 IS to a 70-200 f/2.8 IS II, but it looks like that money would be better spent to get a longer lens.

Lenses / Re: Really bad GAS
« on: November 20, 2014, 09:38:12 AM »
I've been mulling this over for a while, but I'm considering the 200 f2.  Attach a 1.4x and I'm at 280 f2.8... not quite 300 f2.8, but not bad either.

With a 70-200 f/2.8 IS II in tow already, why the fascination with the 200 f/2?  The 300 f/2.8 IS II is so much better than either 70-200 or 200 f/2 IS at 280.  Just curious...

Lenses / Re: 70-200 or 100-400 conundrum.....
« on: November 20, 2014, 09:30:52 AM »
Get the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II first.  f/2.8 is the maximum that you would want for indoors and it matches well with the 600ex-rt.  I'll be a better portrait lens and more useful for kids at play/sports.  Plus you won't be paying a premium because it is not a new lens.

Most of us that have both 70-200 f/2.8 IS II and the 70-300L or 100-400L will generally say that the 70-200 is more versatile and would be the first lens to get unless you know you will be predominately at 300mm and beyond.  If you do develope a more keen interesting in birding in the future, then you can evaluate your options later.  I'd wait for the reviews to come out comparing the new Sigmas to the existing Tamron to the new 100-400 II.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: How long until the next FF body? Or buy now?
« on: November 18, 2014, 11:59:32 AM »
Remember that the vast majority (around 95%) of people never buy another lens after their original purchase of a DSLR.

I'd love to know how someone can generate such statistics.  I mean, you can't correlate sales figures, because you have no idea whether people are buying a body to replace an existing one or buying one fresh.  And you can't even assume that people who buy one with a kit lens are new buyers, because they might turn around and sell the lens on eBay at more than the difference in price between the kit and the body-only price, or they might be buying the kit lens to have as a "beater" lens for when they go to the beach or whatever.

Also, even assuming the whole "people don't upgrade" thing is true for entry-level bodies, the main reason for that is because lots of people buy them, try them, conclude that they can't deal with the size and bulk, and go back to shooting photos with their cell phones.  That doesn't mean that someone who actually plans to shoot for more than a week with a DSLR shouldn't choose a camera based on what lenses are available.  :)

Also, to the extent that the "never upgrade" thing is true, it means that the manufacturers need to improve their kit lenses, because a lot of folks won't upgrade, and will be daunted by the low-quality images that they get compare with what they were expecting.  This leads to people giving up before they find a reason to buy a better lens.

Probably not 95% if Canon production statistics can be used as a guide.  In April 2014, Canon surpassed 100 million EF lenses.  In February 2014, Canon produced its 70 millionth EF camera (film and digital).

« on: November 13, 2014, 03:31:20 PM »
Depends on whether or not you'd use it as a walkaround setup.  I started with the 70-200 II and got both TCs for it, but in the end, I preferred getting a 70-300L for zoos and as a lighter travel solution because the 70-200 II with TCs is harder to handle and carry on a strap.  I see the 100-400 II in roughly the same vein.  I like the pics from the 70-200 better than the 70-300L, but I prefer the portability of the 70-300L more in these situations.

I had a similar situation at the other end of the focal length spectrum.  I had a 16-35 f/2.8 II but I never liked it.  So, I bought a bunch of primes and the 16-35 II was left unused.  Then the 16-35 f/4 IS came out, and I swapped the f/2.8 II for it, and now I use the 16-35 f/4 a lot.

Lenses / Re: Critical View of 70-200 f/2.8 mkii+2xTC III
« on: November 13, 2014, 03:14:14 PM »
OK, so here is my dilemma, buy the 70-200 f/2.8 mkii+2xTC III or the new 100-400 4.5-5.6. I have a 5dII and will be using the setup to shoot cheerleading at night football games or cheerleading competitions is a gym. I’m concerned with having to set the iso too high in order to get a good shutter speed at night or in the gym. I wouldn’t need the 2xTC all the time, it just depends on how close I can get to the action.

+1 to what others have said already.  I've used the 70-200 II indoor at 3200 and 6400 ISOs at f/2.8.  Being focal length limited may affect the types of shots you get, but it's a good trade most of the time.  And if you really need the FL, then that is when the TCs come into play, but at least you have that choice.

Reviews / Re: G7X Review by Dpreview
« on: November 13, 2014, 08:41:52 AM »
i have sony gear for years. TV and hifi... never had any issues.
so i am pretty confident in sony gear.

but in 15 years i had 2 canon bodys die after the warranty periode.
canon was not a big help either in these cases.

Look up Sony XSRD.  Their reliability was awful.  The projector lamps didn't last and the color modules broke.  4 lamps in 2 years, and the the screen developed a stronger green tint as time went on.

Lenses / Re: Did Canon Leak the EF 11-24mm f/4L?
« on: November 12, 2014, 11:59:55 AM »
Maybe because Canon can't get around Nikon's patent to produce a competitive 14-24.  Nikon's 14-24 decreased the demand for its own 14 f/2.8. 

Very unlikely IMO.

Then why hasn't Canon done so, IYO?

Lenses / Re: Did Canon Leak the EF 11-24mm f/4L?
« on: November 11, 2014, 12:20:31 PM »

So I don't think it's as cut and dry as people are making this out to be.  But everyone on this thread -- today -- seems to be on the same page that this is a focal length driven need.  Perhaps the release of the 16-35 F/4L IS put the sharpness 'want' to bed (for now), and now the reeeeeally ultrawide folks want their need addressed, i.e. perhaps all the 75% from my poll aren't reading this thread because they are out happily shooting with their new 16-35 f/4 IS lenses.   :D

- A

Agree that the 16-35 f/4 IS solved a lot of UWA issues in the Canon camp.

Lenses / Re: Did Canon Leak the EF 11-24mm f/4L?
« on: November 11, 2014, 12:16:32 PM »
I'm just starting a conversation here.  Why is Canon making a 11-24 f/4 lens?  What segment, issue, reason, gap would make this light up to Canon's marketers as an opportunity to them?

- A

Maybe because Canon can't get around Nikon's patent to produce a competitive 14-24.  Nikon's 14-24 decreased the demand for its own 14 f/2.8.  I like that Canon is not matching the competition step for step.  Perhaps its market research found that 11-24 f/4 would do better than 14-24 f/2.8 .  Want the widest fast ultrawide?  14 f/2.8 .  Want a UWA zoom?  16-35 f/4 IS or 16-35 f/2.8 II.  Want something even wider?  11-24.  The asymmetry would also give Canon claim to the widest rectilinear lens on FF, and I'm sure photographers will use that newly-available focal length for some unique/compelling images.

Lenses / Re: First Image of the EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II Lens
« on: November 06, 2014, 09:16:37 AM »
I think performance is a gimme, the price is what will dictate when I'd upgrade from the 70-300L (unless I can convince myself that both lenses can live together   :P )

They get along just fine, right next to to the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II!

Lenses / Re: DO you correct lens vignetting when sot wide open??
« on: October 29, 2014, 10:45:35 PM »
For the normal workflow, I use the corrections.  There are some shots that I like better without it (when the background is bright relative to the subject), so I uncheck the box, but corrections is the default.  For me, sports shots tend to be cropped asymmetrically, so the natural vignetting will look uneven/odd.  In those cases, if I want to add vignetting back in, I use the post-crop option.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 94