April 16, 2014, 12:51:30 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 5 ... 75
Canon General / Re: cutting bait on the 24-105???
« on: March 16, 2014, 08:46:50 PM »
Seems like it might be worth your while to buy/sell that lens as long as the price differential remains that large... even if you don't choose to use it/keep it.

Nope.  Much more useful for FF.  The range is a bit long and is expensive for APS-C.

Pricewatch Deals / Re: Deal no longer available as of March 8?
« on: March 08, 2014, 04:24:48 PM »
Clicking on the link shows a discount only to $2,399, not $1,999.

It works, but you have to add it to the cart.

Lenses / Re: Canon 600mm f4 IS II Vs Canon 200-400mm w/1.4x TC
« on: March 07, 2014, 08:42:41 PM »
Well, your dilemma reminds me of mine at the opposite site of focal lengths.

I sold my 16-35 2.8L (version I) and I wonder whether to get the 16-35 2.8L II.

Around this focal length I have just the 14mm 2.8L II, TS-E17 4L, TS-E24mm 3.5L II, 35mm 1.4L, 24-70 2.8LII  ::) ::) ::)   (  ... oh and the Zeiss 21mm 2.8 (this is not a joke I had forgotten it!)

I guess I should not get the 16-35 2.8 II and instead get the fisheye 8-15 zoom but still...

P.S To tell the truth I obviously do not carry all of them at the same time...
P.S2 I wish for a coma free 16-35 2.8L III ...

+1 on skipping the 16-35 and getting the 8-15.  I used the 16-35 a lot more when I didn't have a mid-range zoom (16-35/50/70-xxx)  With the 24-70 II as good as it is, I opt for carrying the 14 a lot more (14/24-70) if I need AF.

5D MK III Sample Images / Re: In Like A Lion
« on: March 04, 2014, 03:02:34 PM »
Haven't seen many birds in CT yet; we have a mess of Blue Jays where I am during the summer.

All I see is more and more deer foraging my CT backyard.  The deer herd started with 4 early last year, then 6, then 8, and now as many as 12.

Lenses / Re: Do you top your pancake with a filter?
« on: February 27, 2014, 12:25:58 PM »
No.  Good filter price to lens price is too high.  Plus I don't have any other lenses that use that small a filter.

Lenses / Re: 70-300mm F/4-5.6L IS or 70-200mm F2.8 VC?
« on: February 22, 2014, 09:27:25 AM »
The Tamron will do your photography justice. Plus matched with you 6D - with its -3EV sensitivity rating on the centre cross point will be an amazing combo. I agree with trying both. If you can go one further and find a place that you can rent either one, I think would certainly help your decision. In regards to the focus speed, the reality is - at times its like splitting hairs, its close but negligible. BUT to some photographers they would said its worlds apart and reviews will go either way.

Check this review out on the Tamron. It does mention that Tamron has the edge over the Sigma 70-200.


+1 on the TDP review.  It notes that the Tamron loses more of its focal length when focusing on a closer target than the Canon, its AF servo performance/accuracy and its AF speed is is not as good as the Canon's.  It also has a lower max mag value.

In the US, one could have bought the Canon for less than 2000 during the winter/holiday sales.  Right now it's 2500, and the Tamron is 1500.  Obviously, your country is different, so the price difference is more significant.

Landscape / Re: Please share your snow/ Ice Photos with us in CR.
« on: February 22, 2014, 12:44:12 AM »
A partially melted snowflake.

Lenses / Re: Affected with GAS, Gear Acquisition Syndrome
« on: February 22, 2014, 12:31:15 AM »
I need help! Spring is in the air and I am coming down with GAS, I am spending to much time looking at lens reviews....how can I rid myself of this affliction?..? ;) ;)

You can't.  Read the reviews, try out the gear in the store, and create a wishlist.  Then wait until the holiday season when prices are the lowest, and then get most gear you want for the your money.  ;D

Lenses / Re: 70-300mm F/4-5.6L IS or 70-200mm F2.8 VC?
« on: February 22, 2014, 12:24:23 AM »
Good point. One issue: no I'm not earning money out of it, and it means I will not get a single cent out of it too. Seems like most of you guys are pro-aperture in here then. I understand most people stated that Canon's speed is good, but does the Tamron lag behind much? How big is the difference? Seems like you guys are saying the speed is worth twice the price? It will be used mainly indoors I believe, hence it seems like I'm more of going for the Tamron for now. Definitely will use it outdoors at times, but the fact that I'm a hobbyist means that there's a good chunk of it being indoors.

I think you know what your choice will be:  Tamron.  Stick with your budget, and you'll sleep better.  There is no point in extending yourself financially for a hobby, but before you buy, drop by a store and try both.  See if the Tamron satisfies your requirements, and if the price difference is worth saving the extra funds.

Lenses / Re: A 500mm f/5.6?
« on: February 21, 2014, 01:39:55 PM »
Guys, there's one point that maybe I didn't explain all too well. My observation is not about the feasibility of a 500/5.6 or a 600/6.3 for 2500€. It's about the feasibility of such a lens at the same price of the current Tamron 150-600.

The overall hypothesis is that if a 600/6.3 is viable, then a 500/5.6 should be too. It's not a wishlist thread, I would like to discuss the technical implications of that. Comments on that?

Designing and building a 500mm prime is arguably easier than a 4x-600mm zoom, so that should offer the basis for better optics. Comments on that?

If Tamron built a 500/5.6, it might be more expensive/heavier than the current 150-600.  According to Dustin Abbott, the Tamron is at f/6.3 starting at 411mm.  If it were at f/5.6 at 500mm, then you might have been onto something...

Lenses / Re: 70-300mm F/4-5.6L IS or 70-200mm F2.8 VC?
« on: February 21, 2014, 09:35:41 AM »
Seems like everyone's pro Tamron's 70-200mm F2.8 VC. Is this a testament to the IQ of Tamron? How would the zoom fare in comparison? Is the motor comparable to Canon's USM? F2.8 is really a big lure, bokehlicious and everything. How sharp is it in comparison to Canon's 70-300mm? Both lenses are priced rather closely as mentioned, so it really boils down to how versatile and useful it is in normal daily life (travelling, events, gatherings and stuff like that: read mundane. No wildlife, but sports might be used a bit.) On a side note, is 6D and a 70-xxxmm a good combo for sports?

I think a lot of people are giving their experience with the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS II, and not the Tamron's.

The reviews I've seen on the Tamron is that it is a good value relative to Canon's 70-200 f/2.8 IS II.  It's not quite as good as Canon's, but it's price is major asset.  The 70-300L is a fine lens.  It is as good if not slightly better than the Canon 70-200 II with an 1.4x III near 300mm, and that is saying a lot.

I think a major factor for you is whether or not you have or intend to buy a high speed telephoto in the future (i.e. 135L).  The 70-300L is great if you're outside and have enough light, but it's not fast enough for indoor settings.  Something like the 135L will complement it nicely for indoor work and portraiture.  If not, then a 70-200 f/2.8 may be a better choice.

Lenses / Re: what lens's to bring to Hawaii?
« on: February 21, 2014, 08:31:22 AM »
For me, it comes down to whether or not there is some place you can store it securely when out on excursions.  If you will have secure storage, then bring it all.  You won't have to carry everything with out all the time.  Just choose what you need for a particular activity.

17-40 and 24-70 as a walk-around
70-200 for playing on the beaches (especially with kids involved)
24-70 and 100 for hike
50 or 85 at night (I'd only bring one of these two to save space)

If you will not have secure storage and will need to carry all the gear all the time, then I'd bring the 17-40, 50 (skip if you don't plan on using it at night) and 24-70.  That will fit in a small camera bag.

The scenario you lay out does not take advantage of the 1DX's core strengths:  AF, continuous frame rate, etc.  So, the 6D wins on cost.

Lenses / Re: f2.8 16-35mmL vs. f4 17-40mmL
« on: February 20, 2014, 12:53:28 PM »
The 16-35 does a little bit better in the midframe and the edges at larger apertures, but the differences are minimized at f/8 or smaller.  The 16-35 will also vignette less at larger apertures.  However, neither lens will approach the sharpness of primes (i.e. TS-E 17, TS-E 24, 24L II), especially at larger apertures, and the IQ gap between the 16-35 and primes is bigger than the gap between the 16-35/17-40.

If you have a higher price sensitivity, then the 17-40 makes sense because it will get you most of the 16-35 performance for much lower cost for landscapes.  If you like to take photojournalist style pictures, then the additional stop and midframe sharpness might be worth it.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 75