August 29, 2014, 06:25:25 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 5 ... 88
31
I'm 5'8" and have the TVC-24L.  It is a bit longer than the TVC-24, but I rarely extend ANY leg fully even on uneven ground.  There isn't a big price difference between these tripods, so it really comes down to how compact you want the folded up package to be and weight (~0.6 lb difference).  If you travel a lot (carry on luggage), then the 24 (or the 14) will suit you better becuase you might be able to get in into a carryon.  If you travel by car a lot then the weight and length penalties don't count as much, and I'd opt for the 24L even if you only use 3 out of 4 sections of it most of the time.

32
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 12-24mm f/2.8 L - Constructing the Enigma
« on: July 25, 2014, 09:37:16 AM »
Sigma's 12-24 has a bulbous front element, is f/4.5-5.6 and weighs about 670g already.

If Canon were to build a constant f/4 12-24mm lens, I'd expect to to be closer to 1kg, and it'd still would not take filters.

33
Lenses / Re: Ditching the Primes - Advice/Opinions Needed
« on: July 25, 2014, 09:25:56 AM »
The 24-70II is a great lens, but the range is limiting.  The 70 is often too short.  If given the choice between the a single lens (24-70II) and a series of primes, I'd opt for the primes.

Agree with Sporgon that you're missing a lens in the middle of the range.  I'd look at the 35 f/2 IS (picked up a refurbished copy through the Canon store for less than 500 during one of their sales) and Sigma's 50A.  Both have fantastic IQ, but I'd definitely test out the 50A in a store to make sure that it works well for you on your 6D before buying it.  The 40 is a great value lens, but it looks like you have a significant budget and being limited to f/2.8 when so many other lenses around that focal length are faster can be limiting in its own right.  This option will also be lens expensive than the 24-70II, which will allow you to get the 70-200II that much sooner.   ;D

I'd also keep the 24 f/2.8 IS.  It'll serve you well as your child grows and you start travelling more again.  It also gives a nice environmental portrait potential (i.e. shooting from a low position when the baby starts walking).

34
Lenses / Re: 24L MkII focusing problems
« on: July 24, 2014, 03:22:57 PM »
Why are you AFMAing at a target that is so far away?  For the 24L II, I adjusted AFMA for a target closer to 50x, which is 1.2m or 3-4 ft, and it works fine for much larger distances.

That said, I did have an issue with my 24L II where I it would not focus accurately at all even stopped down to f/5.6.  It did fine with LV, which bypasses the PDAF.  I would suggest trying to AFMA at a closer target and see if that fixes it.  If not, I would take a few shots showing your problem and send it to Canon with the lens.  They had to adjust my lens' AF mechanism.  The description of the work done was not more detailed than that but it did not imply that they had replaced any parts either...

My issue was found on a 5DII and confirmed on a 7D.

35
Lenses / Re: 24L MkII focusing problems
« on: July 24, 2014, 01:34:33 PM »
Why are you AFMAing at a target that is so far away?  For the 24L II, I adjusted AFMA for a target closer to 50x, which is 1.2m or 3-4 ft, and it works fine for much larger distances.

That said, I did have an issue with my 24L II where I it would not focus accurately at all even stopped down to f/5.6.  It did fine with LV, which bypasses the PDAF.  I would suggest trying to AFMA at a closer target and see if that fixes it.  If not, I would take a few shots showing your problem and send it to Canon with the lens.  They had to adjust my lens' AF mechanism.  The description of the work done was not more detailed than that but it did not imply that they had replaced any parts either...

36
Lenses / Re: How many years before we see a 50L II
« on: July 24, 2014, 01:22:20 PM »
3-5 years.  The Otus was the first with a non-gaussian design.  Is there any indication that Canon has been working on a similar design 1-2 years ago?  If there were working on another modified guassian design, then it will not do well against the Otus or Sigma A, and they might as well start from square one.  And if it's new product development, then will take years...

37
Lenses / Re: 3 week trip to Finland & Germany, what lenses to take?
« on: July 23, 2014, 02:23:40 PM »
Only taking the 24-105 and the 50 f/1.4 sounds like a good idea.  Traveling with kids can be taxing enough without having to worry about additional gear.  It might not hurt to ask your relatives whether there are any camera shops that rent lenses while you're there just in case you run into a situation that you'd like a longer lens.

My gear is covered by a rider on my homeowner's policy.  It'd be a good idea to look into it before traveling.

38
Lenses / Re: Buying a used lens from Adorama
« on: July 23, 2014, 11:26:46 AM »
Well damn, I didn't even think to look on Canon's site specifically. I figured they'd be way more expensive. :)

Is a refurbished lens better than a new, white box lens, though? Doesn't refurbished mean that it was broken at one point and then fixed?

Not necessarily... refurb equipment is stuff that is returned to the factory for whatever reason, which can include buyers remorse.  They check out the equipment and make sure it's functioning up to spec.  I bought a refurbed 5DII a couple years ago that had less than 100 clicks.  I also purchased 3 refurbed lenses and 2 flashes, and never had an issue with any of it.  Certainly some of the refurbished units could have been broken and then fixed, but with a warranty of 1 year, there is much less risk. 

39
Lenses / Re: Buying a used lens from Adorama
« on: July 23, 2014, 11:02:51 AM »
I'd pass.  Refurbished 24-105s are priced at 920 on Canon's own website (shop.usa.canon.com), and they run promotions from time to time (10-20% off).  And those refurb units carry a 1 year warranty -- same as new.  Split kit lenses can be had for as low as 600-650...

40
Reviews / Re: Please help me love ef 35mm f2 IS vs 40mm pancake
« on: July 21, 2014, 08:06:24 AM »
I recently got a 10 month old 35mm f2 IS. On top of my two month old 40mm pancake.

I love the pictures coming out from pancake when it came, so sharp, so cute, so light, no distortion, i can make head shots with no enlarge parts.
6D and 40mm combination as light as like i was holding my nexus 7.

Recently, I invested on 35mm f2 IS.
I could not love the pictures at f2, portrait subject is not sharp, and its just giving me a headache looking at it.
at f2.8 picture almost identical on both lens.
I shoot 1/60 and faster so i eliminate the love for IS.

Field of view wise, with 40mm i can take one step backward and field of view is the same.

Maybe I'm doing it wrong. And need more time to play with 35mm. Or I could rent a 35L and see how it fairs.

again f2 is not a keeper at all. or my copy is not sharp as per normal.

Agree with others to take another look at AFMA.  It is unusual to have poor focus at f/2 and good focus at f/2.8 if the AFMA is set correctly.  I once had a lens that had poor focus and had to be sent in to Canon to be recalibrated/focus adjusted but that lens gave soft pictures even at f/5.6.  When you recheck the AFMA, check to see that lens elements don't show major signs of decentering (uneven blur from corner to corner).  Also see if shots taken at f/2 with live view can satisfy your requirements for this lens.

The fact that both the 40 and 35 appear similarly sharp at f/2.8 and smaller is a credit to the value/performance of the 40.  The 35 may be better at f/2.8 but it won't matter or be noticeable in many situtations.

The 35 does have a bit more distortion than the 40, but it is more likely that the increased distortion that you see with the 35 is a function of the closer distance between you and the subject to achieve similar framing.  That one step difference can make a big difference in perspective when the subject is close...

41
Reviews / Re: Please help me love ef 35mm f2 IS vs 40mm pancake
« on: July 21, 2014, 07:43:21 AM »
I am in exactly the same boat...well, sort of. Traveling to FL/Disney/beach in a couple of weeks, and would just love to provide family with pix from inside some of the Disney rides/exhibits/etc. I do not yet own the 35mm 2.0IS and am considering it (instead of the 40mm pancake, which works quite well on the 5DMkIII but I haven't really tested it indoors at Disney when mated to the 5DMkIII). Just how much better would the 35mm 2.0 IS be for this sort of thing? Not live-action sports, but kids are involved, and some movement on rides etc.

I've had some luck with the EOS M/22mm 2.0 as well as the 11-22 something-or-other for outdoor walkaround at Disney and the beaches...and in past years I've used a 40D/17-55 2.8IS for indoor (and outdoor) shots. Recall that the 40D only goes to ISO 3200. Now that I have full-frame capabilities, I'm looking to better my chances.

I get the sense that, for a non-L lens, that the 35mm 2.0IS is a nice one for this sort of thing...

Help/advice is welcome.

What other lenses do you have and what is your budget?  I find that the 35 f/2 IS and the 40 are too close (in focal length range, maximum aperture) to bring together on the same trip.  If you don't have anything wider than the 40 that you can use on FF, I'd suggest looking into the the 24 f/2.8 IS or 28 f/2.8 IS.  If you're planning to have people in the shot, the 28 may be easier to use but would still give you a wider angle of view than the 40.

42
Canon General / Re: New Speedlite Coming? [CR2]
« on: July 20, 2014, 08:17:49 AM »
We are all just guessing of course, but I think the reason Canon has not been in a hurry to put RT into the mid-tier models yet is because Nikon has not yet fielded an RT flash, so for the moment Canon has the field to itself.   If this rumor of an upcoming 430/440 with RT proves not true right now, then I think it is a matter of time.  At the latest, i think,once Nikon puts out an RT flash or two, we will probably see Canon put that feature in the 2nd tier units.

Come to think of it, that is a good question.  When WILL Nikon answer Canon with an RT flash?  And why has it not already done so?  There are already 3rd party RT flashes out, and there are a lot more coming up soon. If the 3rd parties can do it surely Nikon has the ability to do so.

Or Canon just misjudged how well the 600 would sell, and they didn't start working on the RT version of the 430 until after the 600 was already was in the field.  At 2 years and counting, it's feeling more like a product cycle than a tiered release.

43
Lenses / Re: What Lenses are missing from Canon's range
« on: July 17, 2014, 12:32:33 PM »
Just in my idea, Canon miss 8 mm F/ 2.8 Fish eye , Prime Lens---No, I do not need " L " lens, just similar to EF 15mm f/2.8 Fisheye, but = 8 mm. prime
Surapon
PS. The Photos below = Bower 8 mm. F/ 3.5 Fish eye Lens( Made in Korea) = $ 299 US Dollars , at 3 years ago

I used to think that way until trying the 8-15.  Love that you can get similar results with FF (15mm) and APS-C (8mm) with one lens.

44
EOS-M / Re: The promised pics of the 18-200 Tammy
« on: July 16, 2014, 08:07:23 PM »
that lens is in my eyes (currently) the  reason for the M to exist.
I'm not a street photographer but Souks in Marakesh, Old Town Jerusalem, Markets in Bangkok... anywhere where it is crowded this lens just shines. And mounted on the M the lens still takes up less real estate in my bag than the Tokina 11-16 2:8 did in the past.

Pitty that it is so hard to get in the land of the free

Got mine from Canada.  It is a sweet lens.

45
What you choose may matter less than what you think because the 1.6x crop factor changes how you would use the lens APS-C or FF.  I loved having a 35mm prime for APS-C, and I ended up getting a 50mm prime when I moved to FF to maintain the same AOV.  I still used the 35, but it was now for a different purpose.  Just like many that used a 16-35 on APS-C as a general purpose lens use it for a much different purpose when they move to FF.

If you start out with a 24 on APS-C, then you might end up with a 24 and a 35 (or 40mm) pair when you move to FF, and if you start out with a 28, then you might end up with a 40 (or 50mm) on FF.    I'm sure you'll be able to make either combination work well for you.  Personally, I'd prefer the 28 IS to the 24 IS just because I find 24mm a little too wide for general use.  That and there are so many options at 24mm (TS-E, f/1.4, f/2.8 IS) that I'd rather pick something else at 24mm.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 88