April 16, 2014, 09:23:37 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 ... 30 31 [32] 33 34 ... 76
Pricewatch Deals / Re: 600EX-RT speedlite deals?
« on: May 22, 2013, 02:49:44 PM »
600 refurb is back in stock - hurry if you want one.

Thanks for the update!  Snagged one!

Lenses / Re: 50mm.. Upgrade or not?
« on: May 22, 2013, 11:47:07 AM »
iSy, for your purposes the 50L would work well.  Try borrowing/renting it before committing the funds.  It's not the sharpest, but it wasn't designed to be.  It has much better focus accuracy than the 50 f/1.4, and you'd be playing to its strength for beauty shots.  Bokeh and color rendition are also better, but is does have some serious quirks.

Your 24-70 II will destroy any 50mm prime that is AF capable on a Canon body sharpness wise, including the 50L.  If everyone had enough money, everyone would own the 50L and 24-70 II for best performance at any aperture.

Key question (albeit probably deserving of a separate thread) - SmugMug or Zenfolio?

I never tried Zenfolio, but SmugMug works OK for me.  Earlier this year, I was trying to decide between Flickr and Smugmug -- glad I went with SmugMug.  I post links to my SmugMug pics to my Facebook page -- I no longer load pics directly into FB.  Biggest SmugMug complaint is that they only take normal picture files -- no CR2, LR catalogs, etc.

Lenses / Re: Tilt-Shift Lenses
« on: May 20, 2013, 10:48:05 AM »
I never considered using a 1.4TC with a TS-E.  Do you think that, with the  exception of losing 1 stop and some IQ, I can approximate a 24mm TS-E using a 17mm TS-E with a 1.4x TC?  I do like the flexibility of using filters on a 24mm TS-E for outdoor work.   I will have to decide after shooting the 24 and 45

Yes, the 17 with 1.4x can approximate the 24.  The 17 is one of the sharpest ultrawides around, but the 24 is sharper still.  For critical applications, the native 24 would be better.

Lenses / Re: Tilt-Shift Lenses
« on: May 20, 2013, 08:55:20 AM »
It's really up to the user, but generally speaking, the 17 is more used for interiors (where space is limited) and for really large objects than the 24.  The 24 is usually preferred for landscapes.  The 90 has a fairly high max magnification ratio and is used in product photography.  The 45 and 90 are older designs whose shift and tilt movements are coupled; the 17 and 24 are newer and have an additional rotation stage that decouples those two motions.

Shooting with non FF bodies will narrow the AOV and DOF accordingly as with any other lens.  Extenders can be used (at least on the 17 and 24) as well.

Lenses / Re: Telezoom lens (70-300L vs 70-200 vs 100-400)- Advice
« on: May 19, 2013, 11:53:23 AM »
Try out both the 70-200 II and the 70-300L if you can.  Getting either is not necessarily wrong, but at least you will decide which of each lens' features are more appropriate to you.

Like a lot of others have suggested, the 70-300L does look like it will fit your requirements better:  lighter and more compact.  Being able to store the lens vertically in the bag saves a lot of space compared to laying it on its side and taking up the space of two lenses.  The 70-200 II does take extenders better to get you to 400mm.  For portraiture/action, the 70-200 II is hard to beat.  With the 70-300L and its smaller max aperture, it does makes more sense to have a range of fast primes at 85 (which you have) and possibly at 135.

Lenses / Re: Telezoom lens (70-300L vs 70-200 vs 100-400)- Advice
« on: May 19, 2013, 08:09:47 AM »
The real dilemma is 70-300mm L vs. 100-400 L... fortunately there is an easy solution. Pick up a used 7D and you have an "effective" reach of 112-480mm. I put the EF 70-300L on my old 40D for the very first time in two years to shoot an outdoor event this weekend and was very pleased with the reach. With the EF 24-105mm for candids and overview shots on the 5DII, it makes a great two-body event combo. For tromping in the woods for flora/fauna, I would keep the same combo or go with the 70-300L on the full frame and maybe a 100 macro on the crop. For birding, I'd try the 70-300L on full frame and a 300/4 + TC on the crop (poor man's solution).

It's been said many times before but is worth repeating: f/2.8 zooms for indoors | f/4+ zooms for outdoors. Your situation doesn't demand an f/2.8 lens.


Another consideration is that the 100-400 weighs about as much as the 70-200 II.  The 70-300 is the most compact and lightest of the three.

Lenses / Re: I have a weight limit....what would you bring?
« on: May 17, 2013, 07:33:30 AM »
Sounds good to me.  If you were considering going to 2 lenses, then I would suggest leaving the 70-200 at home (unless you know you're going to an event that you know you'd use it).  IS is made for interior shots, where you can trade longer shutter speeds for lower ISOs, so the 24-105 is a good choice.

Lenses / Re: Standard Lens for Paris and London holiday.
« on: May 16, 2013, 07:28:01 PM »
Hmm... you got the 6D body only because you "knew" that in the future, you'd go with the 24-70 II.  Now, you're considering the 24-105 as a stop gap until you get the 24-70 II next year.   Looks like you're fated to get teh 24-70 II.  ::)

Sounds like you should just get the 24-70 II now esp. if you can get it for around 2k US and if you can afford it without wrecking your finances.  It might be 100-200 less next year, but you'll have transaction costs for buying/selling the 24-105, and renting the 24-70 II for a couple weeks will also cover the difference as well.  The only advantage that the 50 f/1.4 has over the 24-70 II is 2 stops.  At equal apertures, the 24-70 II is much better.  If you don't use the 50 f/1.4 wide open, then there is no point in having it because it will get used even less.

The problem with this line of thinking is that the 24-70 II will also put the 16-35 II to shame, and then next year, you'll consider trading the 16-35 II for the TS-E 17.   :o

Lenses / Re: Best fisheye for canon.
« on: May 16, 2013, 02:16:09 PM »
And what about the quality loss at de-fisheyeing?

Defishing degrades IQ more toward the edges and especially the corners because those are the areas that need to be stretched out more.  However, a defished image is still "wider" than a 14mm prime, so it does have some unique capabilities.  A defished image will lose to good UWA lenses, but may be good enough anyway if subject is not at the edges/corners and if you're not demanding edge-to-edge sharpness (i.e. landscapes).  Most likely, the IQ loss won't be obvious for web sizes, but it will when viewed 1:1. 

Reviews / Re: The Digital Picture Reviews the Tamron 24-70
« on: May 15, 2013, 08:50:25 AM »
If the 3rd party lens did not work as advertised then it would be a simple matter to return it to the place that you bought it from.
Sure. Check the TDP review ... that's exactly what Bryan did, THRICE ...

Not quite.  He bought a copy retail (as usual), it was bad, and he exchanged it for a second retail copy, which was decentered.  He sent that copy in for service, it came back worse than it went in (how's that for quality service?).  He sent it back a second time, and the 'repaired' lens had a new serial number.  Anyone want to bet that Tamron didn't hand pick and pre-test that replacement lens?

+1, and it still performed poorly in AI Servo.

Lenses / Re: EF 24-70mm F2.8 L ver 2 or 3 Prime Lens
« on: May 14, 2013, 09:31:08 PM »
Get the 24-70 II first, and if you need something faster later at a particular focal length, then supplement the zoom with a prime.  Plus it's always easier to get the less expensive items piecemeal later.   ::)

Lenses / Re: What other lenses for my 60D
« on: May 13, 2013, 04:51:06 PM »
Considering the new Sigma 30mm f1.4 Art lens is coming soon, is there any info as to when that will be released?

I can hold off on it for a little while if needed or get another lens. Reading up before impulsively buying anything.

Edit: It is available already, just not many reviews. Sounds like the corners may be sharper, but its $100 more at $500. First amazon review had a focus issue that needed to be recalibrated.


was there a forum post on this lens already?

Haven't seen all that much about the sigma 30, but the initial reviews indicate that it is closer to the previous sigma 30 in IQ rather than Sigma's 35mm f/1.4.  The link below shows a sample crop comparison between those two lenses.  There is also a drop down menu that allows you to compare the new sigma 30 with the old one or see the second link (harder to compare because the scaling is different).  If the Sigma 35 f/1.4 is wide enough for your purposed, that might be a better choice.



So I guess one really should use a tripod with  TS for optimal results. How would one work as a walkabout lens?
Cheers brian

It works fine if you don't mind manual focus -- they're also a bit bulkier/heavier than non TS lenses.  Shifts can also be done handheld and tilts for miniature effects too.  It's when you need to precisely aline the focal plane with live view precisely that tripods are necessary.

Lenses / Re: Can the 70-200 2.8L II IS replace my 100L and 135L?
« on: May 10, 2013, 11:16:45 AM »
The question is how often you use the 135L at f/2.  If you don't use it much wide open, then the 70-200 II can replace it.  And because you don't use the 100L for its magnification advantage, the 70-200 II can replace that as well (I find the two similar in IQ).  The 70-200 II is a bit heavier and will require better tripod setups.  Until recently, I was using a cheap tripod that did not handle the weight of the 70-200 II well, so by default I favored primes over it.  It got sand that I could not get out using it on a beach, and the head failed shortly after, which gave me reasons to get a good tripod.   ::)

The only big disadvantages of the 70-200II is its size and weight.  If you can hold onto the primes while having the 70-200 II for a while, you'll quickly find which ones become expendable.

Privatebydesign also mentions the potential harsh bokeh of the 70-200II.  In those cases, I find it helpful to shut off IS.  I haven't tested it rigorously, it but stands to reason that it could create a more jittery background with high contrast because the axis of rotation for the camera/user and the IS elements are not the same.  He is also right that the 100L does allow you to get closer because of its magnification advantage even if you don't get close to 1:1, which is why I end up carrying the 100L with me even though I have the focal length covered by other options.

Pages: 1 ... 30 31 [32] 33 34 ... 76