Messages

31

Reviews / Re: Review - The Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS

« on: April 23, 2013, 11:56:52 PM »

Nice review!  I, too, love its form factor and compactness.  I also agree that it should put a bigger dent into the 70-200 f/4 IS's sales than it does because it is that good.  The only thing that would force me to consider selling this lens is the mythical 100-400L replacement.

32

Lenses / Re: Canon 50 1.2 L

« on: April 23, 2013, 11:08:58 PM »

My 50L doesn't rattle even a bit, pal. Send it back.

Sorry mate.

+1. 

33

Lenses / Re: 50mm 1.2L vs 35mm 1.4L for events photography...

« on: April 23, 2013, 11:05:10 PM »

Standard CR answer:  go for the focal length you need.

If you're serious about the 35L, you should also consider the Sigma 35.  Less expensive and slight sharper than the 35L by many accounts.  I have the 35L, and it works for me, but if I were to make the decision now, I'd be tempted by the Sigma.

There is a lot of debate over the 50L.  Again, I'd suggest you try some the of the f/1.4 offerings before committing to the 50L.  It's a lot more expensive, but it does produce wide open.  I never had luck with Canon's 50 f/1.4 wider than f/2.8 -- it was sometimes hit but mostly miss.  The 50L is a lot more consistent AF-wise and the look is more pleasing, and it does seem geared to portraiture, which is what you'd use it for.

The 50mm focal length is more versatile for me when I'm trying to cover a large focal range (traveling) with the minimum number of lenses while keeping low light versatility (i.e. 16-35/50/70-300).  For portraiture, I'd still favor longer focal lengths (50 over the 35) especially if you have the space like most wedding locales, but ultimately it comes down to your shooting style...

34

Lenses / Re: Budget lens for birding ?

« on: April 23, 2013, 10:25:55 PM »

The push me pull me is a dust hog. Birding is field photography ergo I find the 400 prime a better selection.

The "dust hog" or "dust pump" nonsense is just that - a silly internet myth propagated by people who have never actually used the lens.

If the OP is planning to buy a newer lens, he shouldn't worry about getting a "soft copy" - the early problems with quality control were cleaned up about 10 or 12 years ago (this lens has been in production since 1998).

Why would people lie?  I heard that the 100-400mm and the 17-55 were dust collectors.  I don't have any experience with them, but I do stay away from them because of the rumors.  Of course I have spent a ton of cash on other lenses... so it's not like I'm missing out.

So you might have missed out on using great lenses because of those rumors.  The rumors did their job! 

I had the 17-55 for about five years, and it gathered a few specks of dust that I could see, but nothing that would qualify as a "dust pump."  None of the lenses are air tight, so dust can get in any lens.  If you have questions about a particular lens, it's more accurate to get informed opinions from those that have used the item.  The internet has many opinions and a lot of them are wrong or not representative of the collective user base.

35

EOS Bodies / Re: 21mp Sensor in the 7D Mark II? [CR1]

« on: April 22, 2013, 02:23:28 PM »

One thing is for sure.  5D3 owners will be up in arms over anyone who posts that their new 7D2 is the superior camera...When it comes to Canon fanboys, you just don't mess with the 5D3.

Agreed. I feel though that the 7DII will come very close OR may even better the 5D3 under good lighting conditions. High ISO will however, be a different story.

LOL, I don't know if I'd go that far!  If the 7DII performs as well as the 5DIII on a per sensor area basis, then you might see the restoration of the 5D/7D combination.  Although with the 5DIII's improved AF and frame rate, there might be fewer people using 5DIII/7DII combos -- the 5DIII might be good enough.

36

Lenses / Re: TS-E 17mm or 24mm

« on: April 22, 2013, 02:08:57 PM »

I have been dreaming of a TS-E lens ever since I discovered they exist. I guess I am going to get one for my travel next month to Venice, Florence, Siena. I would probably opt for the 17mm version. So far I have been using my 16-35mm II when inside towns to do 'architecture' photography. What do you guys think 17mm or 24mm - both would be a bit cheeky...

If you get the 17mm, you can use a 1.4x TC to get to 24mm.  It won't be as sharp, but you still get the advantages of the movements.

37

Lenses / Re: which lens to keep

« on: April 22, 2013, 11:55:23 AM »

Sell them both for the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC. 1 lens gives you the best of both worlds and the Tamron is sharper than both of those lenses (assuming you are talking about the 1st generation of the Canon 24-70 f/2.8L because the V2 is sharper). The Tamron is a very good overall lens and you get the constant f/2.8 plus stabilization. The Tamron even beats the new Canon 24-70 f/4L IS.

How does the Tamron fare for sports?  TDP has indicated that it does not do well in AI servo...

38

Lenses / Re: Trouble mounting a new 24-70 II

« on: April 22, 2013, 08:36:43 AM »

Most likely a tolerance stack up issue.  My 70-200 is a little loose with some play, and the 24-70 is much tighter.  Try inspecting both sides of the mount (lens and camera side) to ensure that it is free of debris.  If you bought it at a brick-and-mortar store, you could bring it back and try it with some other 24-70s to see if one of them "fits" your cameras better.

39

Lenses / Re: canon 5d mk3 what lens ?

« on: April 22, 2013, 07:41:31 AM »

Would you use one or two bodies at a time?  If you primarily use one, then a 24-70 makes sense, and the 60D would become your backup system.  When the time comes that you could get the 70-200, then sell the 17-50.  If you would use two at the same time, then having the 17-50 on the 60D and the 70-200 on the 5D III is an intriguing possibility.

How much do you use the 17-50's vibration control?  If a bit, then you might want to consider the Tamron 24-70.  It's a lot less expensive than the Canon, and selling the 17-50 would get you partially there.

40

Lenses / Re: Trading my Canon 70-300 L for a 70-200 2.8 L ?

« on: April 21, 2013, 06:18:06 PM »

What are your thoughts on the Canon 70-200 2.8 with a extender 1.4 (I need to research on the forum)? 280mm f/4 is pretty good, I've read reviews (digital photography . com) and seen a few samples and it looks pretty good for those times when I need that extra reach, which will not be very often given the lack of access to a major airport for spotting.

It's pretty good -- compares well to the 70-300L at 280/300mm.  AF is slower than bare lens, but usually still fast enough.  Again, the 70-200L II + 1.4x will be heavier and longer than the 70-300L.  The 70-200 II will give you a good portrait lens tho.  The 70-200L II +1.4x is a good solution if you're willing to carry the weight and size and factor in the additional cost.  What you gain is a fast bare lens that is great for portraiture.

41

Lenses / Re: Macro Lens for Carpets

« on: April 21, 2013, 01:07:11 PM »

sorry forgot to tell you ,i have canon 600 D and also full frame canon 6d with ef 17-40 mm .i love it .i bought 6d with the consultaion in this forum .
i need a macro lens which is compatibale with full frame but i will mostly used with 600d cropped sesnor.i want as high quality as possible but as cheap as possible as macro shots is my 20% priority .many thanks for your help in advance.kind regards

Take a look at the Canon 100mm macro lenses.  From many posts in this forum and elsewhere, both are good for the macro work you do.  The 100L has IS which helps for handholding but costs more. 

42

Lenses / Re: Lens recommendation please

« on: April 19, 2013, 03:45:19 PM »

Are you using a strap system with the camera?  If not, could that be a reason why you think the 24-70L is too heavy?  The reason I ask is because the 70-200L f/4 will weigh about the same.

It might make more sense for you to hold onto the 24-70L for now until after you finish your courses.  A longer portrait lens (i.e. 85 f/1.8 or 100 f/2) will serve you well for now and will complement your 24-70.

43

Lenses / Re: Question about Canon 50mm 1.4 AF and AFMA

« on: April 19, 2013, 03:26:33 PM »

If the problems persist at f/2.8 or smaller, exchange it.  The copy I evaluated was soft wide open to about f/2.8.  After that, it was sharp.

44

Lenses / Re: Lenses for WDW

« on: April 18, 2013, 10:08:33 PM »

24-105, 70-200 and the 40/50.  70-200 is nice for the parades, shows, animal safari, etc.  24-105 as a general walk around.  The 40 or 50 for a night at Downtown Disney and the like.

45

Lenses / Re: Better for head shots, portraits: 100mm f.2.8L Macro IS or 70-200 f.2.8L IS II?

« on: April 18, 2013, 03:48:05 PM »

100L worked fine for me too.  I don't notice all that much difference between the 100L and the 70-200L II in practice.  My copy of the 100L might be a tad better than my 70-200L II at that focal length.  Printed 24"x36" canvas print and it looks good.  Chose the 100L because I did not have a sturdy enough tripod for the 70-200L II.