Messages

46

Lenses / Re: Trouble mounting a new 24-70 II

« on: April 22, 2013, 08:36:43 AM »

Most likely a tolerance stack up issue.  My 70-200 is a little loose with some play, and the 24-70 is much tighter.  Try inspecting both sides of the mount (lens and camera side) to ensure that it is free of debris.  If you bought it at a brick-and-mortar store, you could bring it back and try it with some other 24-70s to see if one of them "fits" your cameras better.

47

Lenses / Re: canon 5d mk3 what lens ?

« on: April 22, 2013, 07:41:31 AM »

Would you use one or two bodies at a time?  If you primarily use one, then a 24-70 makes sense, and the 60D would become your backup system.  When the time comes that you could get the 70-200, then sell the 17-50.  If you would use two at the same time, then having the 17-50 on the 60D and the 70-200 on the 5D III is an intriguing possibility.

How much do you use the 17-50's vibration control?  If a bit, then you might want to consider the Tamron 24-70.  It's a lot less expensive than the Canon, and selling the 17-50 would get you partially there.

48

Lenses / Re: Trading my Canon 70-300 L for a 70-200 2.8 L ?

« on: April 21, 2013, 06:18:06 PM »

What are your thoughts on the Canon 70-200 2.8 with a extender 1.4 (I need to research on the forum)? 280mm f/4 is pretty good, I've read reviews (digital photography . com) and seen a few samples and it looks pretty good for those times when I need that extra reach, which will not be very often given the lack of access to a major airport for spotting.

It's pretty good -- compares well to the 70-300L at 280/300mm.  AF is slower than bare lens, but usually still fast enough.  Again, the 70-200L II + 1.4x will be heavier and longer than the 70-300L.  The 70-200 II will give you a good portrait lens tho.  The 70-200L II +1.4x is a good solution if you're willing to carry the weight and size and factor in the additional cost.  What you gain is a fast bare lens that is great for portraiture.

49

Lenses / Re: Macro Lens for Carpets

« on: April 21, 2013, 01:07:11 PM »

sorry forgot to tell you ,i have canon 600 D and also full frame canon 6d with ef 17-40 mm .i love it .i bought 6d with the consultaion in this forum .
i need a macro lens which is compatibale with full frame but i will mostly used with 600d cropped sesnor.i want as high quality as possible but as cheap as possible as macro shots is my 20% priority .many thanks for your help in advance.kind regards

Take a look at the Canon 100mm macro lenses.  From many posts in this forum and elsewhere, both are good for the macro work you do.  The 100L has IS which helps for handholding but costs more. 

50

Lenses / Re: Lens recommendation please

« on: April 19, 2013, 03:45:19 PM »

Are you using a strap system with the camera?  If not, could that be a reason why you think the 24-70L is too heavy?  The reason I ask is because the 70-200L f/4 will weigh about the same.

It might make more sense for you to hold onto the 24-70L for now until after you finish your courses.  A longer portrait lens (i.e. 85 f/1.8 or 100 f/2) will serve you well for now and will complement your 24-70.

51

Lenses / Re: Question about Canon 50mm 1.4 AF and AFMA

« on: April 19, 2013, 03:26:33 PM »

If the problems persist at f/2.8 or smaller, exchange it.  The copy I evaluated was soft wide open to about f/2.8.  After that, it was sharp.

52

Lenses / Re: Lenses for WDW

« on: April 18, 2013, 10:08:33 PM »

24-105, 70-200 and the 40/50.  70-200 is nice for the parades, shows, animal safari, etc.  24-105 as a general walk around.  The 40 or 50 for a night at Downtown Disney and the like.

53

Lenses / Re: Better for head shots, portraits: 100mm f.2.8L Macro IS or 70-200 f.2.8L IS II?

« on: April 18, 2013, 03:48:05 PM »

100L worked fine for me too.  I don't notice all that much difference between the 100L and the 70-200L II in practice.  My copy of the 100L might be a tad better than my 70-200L II at that focal length.  Printed 24"x36" canvas print and it looks good.  Chose the 100L because I did not have a sturdy enough tripod for the 70-200L II.

54

EOS Bodies / Re: 5D3 Firmware

« on: April 18, 2013, 08:52:52 AM »

At least it's not April 62nd (i.e. June 1st), lol.

55

Lenses / Re: Questions for 5D3 and 70-300L

« on: April 17, 2013, 07:10:22 PM »

The 70-300L is fine for outdoor stuff even when it is gloomy.  It does become a problem when indoors.  Even with the 5DIII, there is a big difference between ISO 6400 and 12800+.  Basically, it comes down to the difference between you using your 24-70 and you 24-105 indoors.  If you can get away with using the 24-105 indoors, then you'll be able to get away with using the 70-300L.  The nice thing about the 70-300L is that is gives you a good start to getting the 135L for indoor use.   

56

Lenses / Re: what lenses for what shoot

« on: April 17, 2013, 03:51:33 PM »

18-55 as a general walk-around, 55-250 for a telephoto and the the 50 f/1.8 for ambient light when it starts getting dark.  Or you could leave the 50 f/1.8 at home if you don't plan to use it much.

57

Lenses / Re: One lens for vacation

« on: April 17, 2013, 03:46:33 PM »

If you're used to the 50L, just take the 50L.  It's what you and your kids are used to, but it just might mean that you get a bit more wet than with the 70-200 II.   

58

Lenses / Re: I need a 24mm focal lenght Lens.. is the 24mm f2.8 IS right for me?

« on: April 17, 2013, 02:44:14 PM »

...

I still believe that a prime is sharper than a zoom if they were made of the same quality around the same time (i.e. year of release).  The 24-70 II is the only flat-out exception to that rule that I've seen.

- A

It'll be interesting to see how Canon does with new 35L and 50L revisions.  I'm guessing they'll be better than the 24-70 II, else you might as well take your chances with less expensive 3rd party alternatives.

59

Lenses / Re: New review of the Sigma 30mm f/1.4

« on: April 17, 2013, 09:03:14 AM »

Has anyone gotten there hands on the lens yet? Would it worth getting the 35 1.4 for crop despite the 30 being specifically built for crop?

If you intend on going FF in the future, then getting the 35 f/1.4 makes sense.  There is a larger market for lenses that can be used for both crop and FF cameras.  The disadvantages are size, weight, cost.

60

Lenses / Re: I have just lost confidence with Canon Rumors & B&H

« on: April 17, 2013, 09:00:15 AM »

I saw the headline "new bigger savings from B&H". The lens I purchased yesterday, the 24-70 f2.8 ii is now $2099 vs $2049 I paid yesterday. How is this better??? My attempt at posting this earlier was blocked.

There is an ebb and flow to prices.  Prices tend to be lowest near Thanksgiving/Christmas/New Year's but there are multiple rebates throughout the year.  Take a look at canonpricewatch and you can see the price histories.  Know the rules of the game and play accordingly.  You can't guarantee getting the lowest price with a given rebate, but at least you'll know how the current price compares with its historical prices.  I got my 24-70 II for 1999 by negotiating with an authorized dealer through an Ebay listing through "make an offer" -- go figure!