July 29, 2014, 05:36:51 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 ... 24 25 [26] 27 28 ... 86
Lenses / Re: Another Lens recommendation request :)
« on: November 27, 2013, 12:51:25 PM »
I'd suggest the 17-55 or the Tamron 24-70 VC.  If you choose to go with the 17-55, get it used/refurbed and you won't lose much when you sell it and move to FF.  Losing a stop is a killer with a crop sensor.  The 17-55 is a more natural range for crop sensors.

EOS Bodies / Re: New EOS-1 in 2014 [CR1]
« on: November 27, 2013, 12:44:14 PM »

CUSTOMERS always come FIRST.  8)

That's right:  CUSTOMERS come first.  Customer does not.

Lenses / Re: Canon 10-22 vs. Tokina 11-16
« on: November 27, 2013, 08:53:55 AM »
The 10-22 works a little better as a walk-around lens.  It reduces the amount of lens switching, which is nice.  Both lenses are highly regarded, so you really can't go wrong with either.  The Tokina is a stop faster, which can be helpful, but the range of the Canon is more useful.  Variable aperture doesn't make much of a difference to most people.

Lenses / Re: eye focusing with 5D3
« on: November 23, 2013, 09:38:58 AM »
For single subjects, I tend to use spot AF.  Have you AFMA'ed the lens to your body?

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Anyone Mind Another 70D vs 6D Question?
« on: November 22, 2013, 11:10:55 AM »
Wow.  I really appreciate that. 
I'm going to use my crop-only zoom one more time today and then replace it with a 35 2.0 IS.  The last question, then, is - Is 35mm a good compromise focal length for full frame normal/standard range?  I think I'm set for portraits with the 100 2.0 and am not really an overly wide-angle shooter anyway.  I guess it goes back to the 35 vs 50 thing, but with 35 maybe being more versatile?  Maybe it ends up being 24+50 vs. 35?

How do you currently use your 17-50?  I use either a 35 or a 50 fast prime depending on the situation, but it comes down to personal preference.  Or you could consider getting a kitted 6D or a body only 6D with a white box 24-105 depending on how the prices fall and then supplement that with the 35 f/2 IS.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Anyone Mind Another 70D vs 6D Question?
« on: November 22, 2013, 09:01:06 AM »
I'd suggest switching to the 6D.  The biggest gain to switching to 6D is in low light situations.  You'll gain about 1-2 stops noisewise compared to the T1i.  The files are cleaner, so the overall results should be significantly better.

Lenses / Re: The price you paid for your 70-300L ??
« on: November 21, 2013, 11:33:17 PM »
I bought mine brand new from Adorama for $1099 on 12/28/2012. The sale period lasted, I'm pretty sure, for less than one day and maybe only for a few hours. I just happen to check the CR site late at night and saw the notice for the sale. I wasted no time in ordering the lens. It's a fantastic lens. I've seen this price or a few dollars lower ($1089?) occasionally on a Canon refurb sale, but not on all of their sales. I've never seen anything lower than this price. If you need the lens now, even $1199 is a good price. If you can wait, then check this site and canonpricewatch.com for sale notices.

Yes, I remember that one and it was a short-lived sale.  I was surprised that it went as low as it did.  I'd bought a used copy for about the same price the previous year, and I thought I had gotten a good deal for a like-new lens until I saw that deal.

Its focal length range and size/weight are its advantages.  Its images are also better/different than what I see on the LCD, so much so that I no longer delete files while reviewing images in the field but do it all on the computer.  Never had to do that with my other lenses, including the 70-200 II.  It also has a tougher time focusing on low contrast targets even in bright sun (i.e. wet seals/sea lions) than the 70-200 II.  A reason for that might be that it can't take advantage of the more accurate AF f/2.8 baselines.  It is my only non-specialty lens that is slower than f/2.8.  For sports and portraits, I'll grab the 70-200 II every time, but for travel (including zoos), the 70-300L is hard to beat.

It's not really fair to compare those two lenses, they're at different sizes/weights, price points, and are meant to do different things.  A 4x plus zoom range, compact size, value price...along with the image quality (of the 70-300L), are what is hard to beat...frankly impossible to beat, by anything else in my opinion.  If the AF turns out to be slower than my 70-200 f/4, I will be surprised.  If it's as fast as it on my 6D, then that is plenty fast enough for me...lightning fast really.  Time will tell.

Yes, it is fair to compare those two lenses because there have been many threads of 70-300L vs. 70-200L, and most people can't afford to own both.  I've never used a 70-200L f/4, so I don't know how it compares with the 70-300L.  I own both the 70-200 II and the 70-300L; I use them both.  I was assuming that the 70-300L would be your only lens in this focal length range based on your original post, so I was giving some pros and cons versus another lens that is commonly considered.  Evaluate others' experience and opinions as you wish -- it's your money and your decision.

Lenses / Re: And so I DID - My 1st BIG WHITE LENS
« on: November 21, 2013, 09:47:40 PM »
After this purchase, I have about $12 left in my photography

Time to shoot some random teams on the fields and sell the photos to the coaches!  Congratulations on the purchase.  So jealous!

Thanks Random Orbits

One step at a time. I started with just used 40D + 50mm f1.4 + 17-55mm f2.8 IS and that was 5yrs ago. Just put some $ on the side ;)

LOL, all my money for the next few years is going toward a home addition that we did this year.  Maybe if the kids continue to play soccer or large field sports in the future, then I can build a case for it!

Lenses / Re: And so I DID - My 1st BIG WHITE LENS
« on: November 21, 2013, 09:42:08 PM »
One of the beauty's of a white lens is the freedom it buys you.

The first white lens must always be revealed because it so clearly stands out from the rest. But, once you have one, then they all look alike to most spouses. So, as long as you take care never to let them see two of them together, you can safely purchase as many as your credit limit will allow.

Try that with a 600 II...    :-X

Do they make 600mm lens canteens?   ::)

Pricewatch Deals / Re: Deal: Canon EF-S 10-22 $529 at B&H Photo
« on: November 21, 2013, 08:56:15 PM »
Interesting, when I try to click through the price remains at 649.00. I had the same issue when the 70-200 Mk.II was on blow out last week. Anyone else having that issue? I don't need this as I shoot FF but I was considering the 70-200 deal last week and could not get the 'good pricing'.

How far did you go?  Adding it to the cart is not enough.  You have to start the checkout process to see the price reduction, which is how I got the 28mm f/2.8 IS for 350.  ;D
That worked - I needed to login and push through the checkout process. Thanks for your help!
No problem, glad to help!

Lenses / Re: And so I DID - My 1st BIG WHITE LENS
« on: November 21, 2013, 04:42:56 PM »
After this purchase, I have about $12 left in my photography

Time to shoot some random teams on the fields and sell the photos to the coaches!  Congratulations on the purchase.  So jealous!

I can't say because I've never tried, but the following article gives some warning about you may not want to rely on adapters.


Lenses / Re: Ken Rockwell reviews canon 50mm f/1.0
« on: November 21, 2013, 02:53:23 PM »
Dear Teachers and Friends.
Sir/ Madam, I am a crazy Canon fan, and buy any Canon Lenses and  Canon Cameras  that I like with out Thinking, Until I am the member of CR. for 4 months---Yes, I Must ask my Teachers and my friends in This Great CR. before I  buy some thing.
The Question :
I already have one of the good Sigma 50 mm. F/ 1.4, And I just use 2-3 times after I buy 8-10 moth ago,  Do I need This Awesome Used Canon  EF 50 mm. F/ 1.0 L ( $ 3,750 to 4,100 US Dollars-Fron E-Bay)---For show-off to my friends as the fastest Lens( Ha, Ha, Ha), Or But the new Canon EF  50 mm. F/ 1.2 L USM ($ 1,620)--for use and beat Sigma 50 mm F/ 1.4 in Shallow DOF and better Bokeh.
Thanks you so much for answer my stupid question.

I must admit that I too was interested playing with a f/1 lens in near darkness after reading that.  The following link gives a good comparison between the various 50mm options.  I had borrowed a Canon 50 f/1.4 before getting the 50L f/1.2, and the f/1.4 had inconsistent focus from f/1.4 to f/2.  The colors were also less pleasing.  The Sigma is said to fall between the two Canon offerings, but the link below shows that the resolution among the three lenses are similar and are clearly better than the f/1.0.  If you're happy with the AF of the Sigma, then I don't see a reason to switch.  If you're not, then the 50L f/1.2 is a good choice.  You'll get better bokeh, a 1/3-1/2 stop in speed, but the price for that upgrade is pretty steep.

The 50L f/1.2 is not about resolution (not as sharp at 100% as other fast primes) and the 50 f/1.0 is even less about resolution.  But the effects of the f/1 shot wide open are special.  Definitely a lens that I would like to try, but not buy...


Speedlites, Printers, Accessories / Re: Speedlite guide number question
« on: November 21, 2013, 02:33:16 PM »
I would like to add one thing.  Larger guide number is not the only attribute for a flash.  A "pro level" flash does not always mean a higher guide number just like a "pro level" camera does not always mean a higher MP.


The built-in catchlight panel and the additional freedom of head movement (180° in either direction, and downward tilt) of the 580/600 flashes vs. the 430 are often more useful than the additional power.

LOL, yes, but it's hard to go the other way.  After using a 430/600, I got used to how much light they could put out.  I got the 270 for the M, and it is barely adequate for boucing off 8-ft ceilings.  I'm glad that I didn't get the 90.

Pages: 1 ... 24 25 [26] 27 28 ... 86