March 03, 2015, 02:54:08 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 ... 24 25 [26] 27 28 ... 97
376
Lenses / Re: New EF-S 24mm & USM Motor Coming? [CR1]
« on: February 18, 2014, 05:39:16 PM »
I see little value in that.  A person bringing both the 24 and 40 and possibly something else might be better served by the 17-55.  Either that or pick up the M with the 22 f/2, which is still less inconspicuous than an APS-C body.
This is why: http://camerasize.com/compact/#448.303,448.345,ha,t

For me, I do adventure sports, which either involves long treks, or being put into a small case in the back of my boat. That weight makes a very big difference over miles, and it effects how the camera handles.  The EOS M can't AF, which makes it of limited use for multi-frame bursts. It's the same issue with basically all the mirrorless cameras; I need portability AND the ability to shoot action.

Moreover, if the new lens ends up being about the size of the 22 STM, I can own it and the 40mm pancake and still have $400+ and 1lb of weight saved. If it ends up being f/2 instead of f/2.8, then its even better off than the 17-55 (IS is of no use to me in action shooting)

That's a great size comparison except if you need to bring other lenses for other focal lengths anyway...

I hope you're right about the new lens being the same size as aperture as the 22 f/2, but I'm guessing it'll closer to 28 f/2.8 in size rather than the 22 f/2.

377
Lenses / Re: New EF-S 24mm & USM Motor Coming? [CR1]
« on: February 18, 2014, 12:41:19 PM »
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.

I disagree for form factor reasons.  If it's a pancake lens, there's your value proposition.  It might not be for you, but many folks would love to turn their APS-C rigs into inconspicuous + easier-to-bring-with-them-everywhere 35mm FF equivalent walkaround setups. 

So I think that a fairly quick (say F/2) wider prime in a pancake format would be very well received I think.

- A

I don't necessarily disagree with you, but what if it was a f/2.8 lens without IS like the EF 40?  I see little value in that.  A person bringing both the 24 and 40 and possibly something else might be better served by the 17-55.  Either that or pick up the M with the 22 f/2, which is still less inconspicuous than an APS-C body.

378
Canon General / Re: Canon lack of innovation
« on: February 18, 2014, 12:00:37 PM »
It should be no surprise to anyone that they pay employees who secure patents. I would be very surprised to find a large high tech company that didn´t and I would also be surprised if they only paid 2k$.

I wish my company gave out money for patents.  Alas, it doesn't...

379
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.

380
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.

381
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. 

382
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.

383
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.

384
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.

385
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.

386
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.

387
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. 

388
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....

389
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.

390
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.

Pages: 1 ... 24 25 [26] 27 28 ... 97