January 31, 2015, 01:04:45 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 ... 23 24 [25] 26 27 ... 96
361
Lenses / Re: New EF-S 24mm & USM Motor Coming? [CR1]
« on: February 18, 2014, 11:49:10 AM »
Something like this would only make sense if it's f/2 or faster.  17-55 f/2.8 IS covers the range and has IS.  Yes, it's more expensive, but it's focal length range is useful.

362
Lenses / Re: Good Non-Sports Mix - 10-22 + 35 2.0 IS?
« on: February 17, 2014, 10:00:03 PM »
My vote is for the 10-22.  24mm is somewhat limiting on crop -- it is much better suited for FF.

363
Lenses / Re: Need Help Choosing Lenses for Walt Disney World & Cruise..
« on: February 17, 2014, 07:11:26 PM »
I brought a 70-200 II to WDW.  It was useful for the shows and parades, but that was about it.  A fast prime is nice at night. 

364
Lenses / Re: Which wide-angle lens to hire?
« on: February 17, 2014, 10:04:03 AM »
Agree with yorgasor that most of the Canon lenses are not well suited for astrophotography.  Most of the f/2.8 lenses (14, 16-35) have significant coma (the 24-70 II is an exception).  Stopping down reduces/eliminates coma, but then you lose the advantage of the larger aperture.

I know you said that you were planning on renting a UWA.  Unfortunately the UWA primes are much better than the zooms, so it comes down to which one.  If you had the funds to upgrade your 24-70 to version II, then I'd suggest looking at the Rokinon 14, Zeiss 15 or TS-E 17 (you lose a stop here, but its movements make it more versatile creatively).  That would give you a very good 24mm and UWA option.  If you don't have the funds, then yorgasor has a good recommendation to rent the Zeiss 21.  The 21-24mm focal lengths are easier to compose well and will be used more often than a 14-17mm prime.

365
EOS-M / Re: Is the canon eos-m a dead end system?
« on: February 15, 2014, 02:56:03 PM »
I agree with surapon and privatebydesign.

With an 18-55, 22 and 11-22 what lenses you really need for a portable system?  If you want to extend the capabilities, then the adapter lets you use the wide range EF lenses available.  I bought it to replace a Canon P&S, and it works well.  I got the camera during the firesale, and for that price, it couldn't be beat.  I have the 18-55 and 22, and I might get the 11-22 in the future (via Canada).  It also backs up my 5D III.

366
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sony FE 70-200 f/4 G OSS lens
« on: February 13, 2014, 11:31:36 AM »
Doesn't make sense... unless servo AF is dramatically improved.  And given that it's not much cheaper than the 70-200 II, then you're relying on Sony to remain with this mount/technology for how long?  It weighs as much as the 70-200L f/4 IS.  I can see the advantage of the A7R for landscape applications; for this... not so much.

367
Lenses / Re: Advice on Primes
« on: February 13, 2014, 12:10:54 AM »
Start with what you know you'll use and save the rest of the money for later.  Is there a penalty for waiting?  The more you shoot, the more you'll know where you want to spend more on equipment.

For TCs, go with the IIIs.  The 2x III is visibly better than the II.

368
Especially because I bet the photogs get pretty far from wireless access points at times....

Well, I'd think they would have the place covered, especially since all current professional cameras are WiFi enabled.

The linked article states that the photogs covering the ski races (i.e. cross country) don't have access because they set up along the course to get the shots of the athletes along the route, and that they try to dump the images at access points a few times a day.

369
EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: Canon EF 24-85 f/3.5-5.6 IS
« on: February 09, 2014, 09:27:38 PM »
Agree on the need of a consumer zoom.  FF prices will fall, and as it does, there will be a market for consumer FF zooms. 

370
Lenses / Re: question about 600mm lenses
« on: February 09, 2014, 09:18:54 PM »
I was shooting at a birthday party last night and pulled out the 600EX. That prompted the following conversation...
Party-goer: Is that an old camera?
Me: It's out of date, I'm going to replace it soon....
Party-goer: The new cameras all have flashes. The good ones pop up and are real good.
Me: Good to know, I'll have to check that out.

Classic!  The first time I used brought the 70-200 to a large gathering, a friend commented that it was so large and that I must be able to see very far with it.  Well, not exactly....

371
Lenses / Re: question about 600mm lenses
« on: February 09, 2014, 07:43:16 PM »
So if the real number is about 1.5 lenses per body.... that would mean half the bodies with 1 lens and half with two.... or 25 percent with 3 lenses and 75 percent with 1.... However you slice it, there are a lot of cameras out there with only 1 lens, and this goes to prove one of the things I have been saying all along... we are not normal and do not represent the typical camera user.

Yes, there are many forum members that are well outside the norm, which is why it's not useful to extrapolate the priorities of forums to those of the general EOS owner or overall EF market.  Claiming that I'd like a 600 f/5.6 prime or a mirrorless camera with specific attributes and claiming that they'd sell like hotcakes if they made one to satisfy my feature list is not realistic.  Would I look into a 600 f/5.6 for 2k?  Absolutely!  Would I buy one?  Yes, if it proves to have no compatibility issues, is handholdable and has better IQ than the 100-400.

372
Lenses / Re: question about 600mm lenses
« on: February 09, 2014, 06:46:19 PM »
Most people with SLRs don't get another lens to complement/replace the kit lens. 


sorry but if this argumentation would hold it´s water then any lens beside a kit lens makes no sense for canon. ;)
and canon would not have sold... how many... 90 million EF lenses?


Yeah, 90 million EF lenses for 70 million EF cameras.  How many lenses, on average, is that?   ::)

Or, perhaps Canon has done the research and found that there isn't a market to make it profitable for Canon.  Buy of course, you know more than Canon, so Canon should do your bidding, eh?   ::)

Canon makes a 300 f/2.8 for close to 7k.  And you think Canon will make a 600 f/5.6 for 2k?  My guess would be that it'll be closer to 7k, like the 300 f/2.8 IS II.
The original poster was speculating on why NOBODY makes such a lens, not why Canon doesn't...

The 90 million EF lenses for EF cameras are Canon numbers... Since we are talking about "anyone", you have to add in the Sigmas and Tamrons of the world to the total.... Even if we were insanely optimistic and said that Sigma and Tamron sold 50 million EF lenses (I doubt it was half of that), you get 140 million lenses to 70 million cameras, or one extra lens per camera.

And six months ago, If you told me that there would be a $1500 600mm zoom lens on the market with good quality images I would have laughed at you..... and six months and $1100 later I was wrong.

I believe that it is possible to make a 600F5.6 lens for $2000. What I don't believe is that there would be a good market for it... Those who must have the very best will go for the $12000 Canon, and those on a budget will go for the $1100 Tamron zoom. This really pinches the market... but there is no way I would place bets on this... Who knows what Tamron and Sigma have up their sleeves....

Yes, thanks for the correction; he did mention EF so that does include 3rd party manufacturers.  I got a little peeved when he called me out when I said that most DSLR users tend to have 1 lens/body.

373
Canon General / Re: So much redundancy...
« on: February 09, 2014, 05:38:00 PM »
Different lenses suit different purposes differently; it's not just a focal length difference.

The 135 is the one that I can do most easily without because I carry the 70-200 so much more often, but it will be different for you.  As long as you have a different use for each lens, then there is no redundancy.

374
Lenses / Re: question about 600mm lenses
« on: February 09, 2014, 05:13:55 PM »
Most people with SLRs don't get another lens to complement/replace the kit lens. 


sorry but if this argumentation would hold it´s water then any lens beside a kit lens makes no sense for canon. ;)
and canon would not have sold... how many... 90 million EF lenses?


Yeah, 90 million EF lenses for 70 million EF cameras.  How many lenses, on average, is that?   ::)

Or, perhaps Canon has done the research and found that there isn't a market to make it profitable for Canon.  Buy of course, you know more than Canon, so Canon should do your bidding, eh?   ::)

Canon makes a 300 f/2.8 for close to 7k.  And you think Canon will make a 600 f/5.6 for 2k?  My guess would be that it'll be closer to 7k, like the 300 f/2.8 IS II.

375
Lenses / Re: question about 600mm lenses
« on: February 09, 2014, 01:44:39 PM »
Quote
the overall complexity of the lens design would have to increase

so the question remains... why is nobody doing it?  :)

My guess is that the market isn't big enough.  Most people with SLRs don't get another lens to complement/replace the kit lens.  In some ways, these smaller markets might be filled easier by the 3rd party manufacturers.  They can sell similar designs in multiple mounts and have a potentially larger market than Canon or Nikon.

Pages: 1 ... 23 24 [25] 26 27 ... 96