April 20, 2014, 08:40:21 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 4 ... 76
16
But on the other hand I can't be the only one with two EOS bodies and eight EF/EF-S lenses.

You're not!  Which is why people on this forum are not representative of the typical EOS users.

17
Lenses / Re: sorry i have to ask....
« on: March 26, 2014, 06:42:15 PM »
I'd be tempted to buy either of those lenses...except for the fact that they're a good chunk of the way to one of the L lenses. Not always half-way, I'll grant you, but if they'd have been ~$300ish, much more attractive. At $600, I can probably double that and be about a refurb from Canon.

The 28 f/2.8 IS is 352 + tax (in stock) at the Canon refurb store now, and the 24 f/2.8 IS is 384 + tax (currently out of stock).

Refurb, not retail. Although, not that I'm opposed to refurb, often some good equipment you can pick up for a discount there.

It doesn't matter as much as it used to with the refurbs now coming with a 1 year warranty.  I picked up new 28 f/2.8 IS before last Christmas for 350 from a Canon authorized dealer, which was an even better price than what it is going for in the refurb store with 20% off now.  The point is that at 300-500 (when you can find deals on them), the 24 f/2.8 IS, 28 f/2.8 IS and 35 f/2 IS offer a lot for the price.

18
Lenses / Re: sorry i have to ask....
« on: March 25, 2014, 10:14:51 PM »
I'd be tempted to buy either of those lenses...except for the fact that they're a good chunk of the way to one of the L lenses. Not always half-way, I'll grant you, but if they'd have been ~$300ish, much more attractive. At $600, I can probably double that and be about a refurb from Canon.

The 28 f/2.8 IS is 352 + tax (in stock) at the Canon refurb store now, and the 24 f/2.8 IS is 384 + tax (currently out of stock).

19
Also, can't the 135L take teleconverters?  Is the pocketable 2x option worth it for space reasons?

I'd imagine that the 135L + 2x won't be as sharp or quick on the AF as the longer end of the 70-200, but (a) it will be longer and (b) the aggregate space it would take up in the bag will be smaller/lighter.

I could see a smaller bag with a wider prime (or standard zoom) with a 135 + 2x as a pretty flexible setup if I was going on a photo walkabout, event in the city, visiting family -- in short, at events where I'm not sure what I'm going to see.  Anyone ever try that combination?

Ouch -- maybe not, based on this TDP comparison:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=108&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=2&LensComp=687&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=2

- A


Yes, the 135L can take TCs, but as you found out, the IQ of the 70-200L II is better than the 135L with TCs.  Puls it has IS, better AF, etc, which is why the 70-200L II is so highly regarded.

20
I can do without the 135L a lot more easily than without the 70-200L.  The 135 gets used primarily for portraiture, although I will force myself to use it exclusively from time to time for other purposes.  My kids are younger, so I usually have access to the court edge so the 135L is too long, and I end up using the 24-70 almost exclusively.

I guess the question is whether or not it is worth it to you to have a dedicated portrait lens for 700.  If it is, then you'll find some other uses for it and be satisfied. 

21
Lenses / Re: Thinking about this but wanting your thoughts....
« on: March 25, 2014, 08:02:17 AM »
Do you think this will be the year the 100-400 gets replaced?  And if so, will it be an 80-400 or similar, like Nikon did?

I would like to think so, but I'm not holding my breadth.  It's time to replace it.  According to AlanF and others in this forum, the Tamron can do as well as the 100-400L at 400mm.  I woud expect the 100-400L replacement to do significantly better at 400mm, and depending on how much better it is, it could bring up the debate as to which is better:  upres-ing the 100-400L II or using the Tamron at a longer focal length.  And if Canon could do that, then the 100-400L II will be a winner:  better AF, better IQ and significantly smaller and lighter.  Even if the 100-400L replacement comes out this year, I'd probably wait until next Christmas when the prices soften a bit.

The 100-400mm range is fine as long as the IQ is high.  According to TDP crops, the Nikon 80-400 softens significantly from 300 to 400mm.  I'd much rather have a smaller zoom range and better IQ at the long end.  That and f/4.5 at 80 or 100mm isn't all that exciting either.

22
EOS-M / Re: EOS M Lens survey - your favorites, and your most wanted?
« on: March 24, 2014, 11:22:52 PM »
At some point, I'd like to pick up the 11-22, but only if Canon commits to the system and brings newer bodies to market.

EOS M2?  I think it came out in January?

Not in all the markets.  If they brought it out in the major markets (Americas, Europe, Asia), then it'd a signal that they're committed to the M for the long haul.

23
EOS-M / Re: EOS M Lens survey - your favorites, and your most wanted?
« on: March 24, 2014, 04:58:58 PM »
Favorite and most used:  EF-M 22mm f/2

I also have the 18-55 but I find that I don't use it much.  I often use the M indoors, so larger max aperture is good for keeping the ISO down and maintaining detail.  At some point, I'd like to pick up the 11-22, but only if Canon commits to the system and brings newer bodies to market.

The combination of 11-22/22/18-55 would be fine for me.  If I need more capability, I'll use a FF camera or bring a EF lens with the adaptor.

24
Lenses / Re: Thinking about this but wanting your thoughts....
« on: March 24, 2014, 12:25:56 PM »
Yes, but I live in a part of the world where second hand (used) is not quite as appreciated. Even if the lens in question is mint. That, and I have never tried to sell anything second hand here. I started a thread about it here:

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=20156.0

Not sure what I will do with it, but for now it just sits in a case in a cabinet.


I like the 70-300L for travel because it's lighter/more compact than the other options (70-200 or 100-400).  I picked up a used 100-400L, and between the 70-200L II, 70-300L and 100-400L, I'm guessing that it'll be 100-400L that gets sold. 

25
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: When can we drop 'D' for 'Digital'
« on: March 24, 2014, 08:04:16 AM »
Yeah, and then they'll call it Mirrorless DSLRs, lol.   ;D  That's what happens when people have been conditioned to value DSLRs more than the sub $1000 EVILs and MILCs.

26
Lenses / Re: Thinking about this but wanting your thoughts....
« on: March 21, 2014, 08:26:31 AM »
First off, wow thank you all for your responses and suggestions.

Its interesting to see what's worth looking into and what peoples experiences are. I first read a couple of reviews about the 70-300L and was a little put off when they suggest its a "sunny weather" lens.

Hence why I was looking at the 70-200 2.8 ii with £210 cashback because most of the time in Britain its usually cloudy so wanted something pretty quick in questionable weather for the cross country riding that I could kinda use for wildlife if I wanted.

So just for clarification, if I went down the route of the 2.8ii would the autofocus would work with the 1.4x and 2x teleconverters because the lens itself wont be >F8?

Granted I expect the AF to be much slower and the IQ to be softer with the 2x. Just thinking the 1.4x would give me 448mm and the 2x could give me 640mm for those days where I was looking for birds. If I did go down the 2.8 ii I would go for the 1.4 teleconverter.

Cheers
Stu

Yes, with the 70-200L IS II, the max aperture will be f/5.6 with a 2x TC, so it will AF on your camera.  With the 2x, the AF will be significantly slower than the 100-400L and the IQ will be just a bit behind the 100-400L (just remember to AFMA your TC + lens combo).  It will replace your 18-135 for field sports (where there is enough space).  With TCs, it'll give you more reach than the EFS 55-250, but probably not enough for birds if that is what you primarily need the reach for.

If you need a lens for birding more than sports, then it's probably better to look into the Tamron 150-600.

27
Lenses / Re: 16-35 II vs what?
« on: March 20, 2014, 11:48:59 PM »
...

Zeiss 21mm 2.8: At least it is a 2.8 lens. It is not AF but I observed that I can focus manually easily. Not a zoom either.
It is very sharp across the frame.

I find the AF confirmation zone is pretty big for the Z21 f/2.8 using phase detect.  Is that your experience as well?  Big enough (between beeps) that the subject could be out of critical focus.
I used it for landscapes and astrophotography. Of course not all photos were focused at infinity but I observed I had no problem. But I attribute this to the lens being ultra wide.

I was trying it for an environmental portrait so the subject wasn't that far away...

28
Lenses / Re: 16-35 II vs what?
« on: March 20, 2014, 09:37:11 PM »
...

Zeiss 21mm 2.8: At least it is a 2.8 lens. It is not AF but I observed that I can focus manually easily. Not a zoom either.
It is very sharp across the frame.

I find the AF confirmation zone is pretty big for the Z21 f/2.8 using phase detect.  Is that your experience as well?  Big enough (between beeps) that the subject could be out of critical focus.

29
Lenses / Re: 16-35 II vs what?
« on: March 20, 2014, 09:25:38 PM »
No, not really, which is why it sells pretty well even though it falls short of the other members of the f/2.8 zoom trinity.  The 16-35 II is probably the best option for your line of work because of its focal length versatility.  Perhaps the 14L II and 24-70 II would complement your 20 f/2.8 better if you're willing to swap lenses.

30
EOS-M / Re: Want the 90EX?
« on: March 20, 2014, 08:33:36 PM »
If I want more pleasing bounced flash - I can certainly pop on my 430EX or my 580EX - but they don't look or feel proper on the top of my M.  The whole point of the M for me is simplified photography - and for that - the 90EX works VERY well for me.

I got a 270EX II for the M instead.  It can tilt 90 degrees and has just enough power to bounce of normal ceilings and it's not that large (takes 2 AAs).  It's dumb as can be (slave only), but I've got other options if I need a master.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 76