October 20, 2014, 09:45:39 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 ... 31 32 [33] 34 35 ... 92
Lenses / Re: The price you paid for your 70-300L ??
« on: November 21, 2013, 09:04:49 AM »
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.

Lenses / Re: Which lens to start with?
« on: November 19, 2013, 11:31:28 AM »
Thank you all for reading and given advices. I'm not a professional at all, but I know I am a perfectionist. That doesn't make it easier.
Read about pixel peepers, well, I think I am one of them.
So, I don't think the 24-70 is the one for me at the moment. It's a lot of money and I would rather spend it on the 70-200.
So, 35L, 17-40, 40mm, or TSE or the 24L? Why do they make so much lenses ;)

The OP's priority is landscapes/nature and doesn't think the 24-70II will be a good match for him.  If he is serious about landscapes, then I'll assume that he'll be using a tripod most of the time.  If so, then a TS-E 24 with a 1.4x might fit the bill.  Add a 40mm or a 50 f/1.4 and/or a Rokinon 14mm, and he'll have most of the lower focal lengths covered.

It didn't scratch my 20D, it make a little scratch on my 5D2 and larger scratches on the 5D3.  Like Neuro, I'm now attaching the the BR lug to a QR clamp (RRS in my case) clamped to an L-plate.  Most of the scratches occurred when I'm putting the camera with the BR strap attached in the camera bag, not in actual use.  Before I got the QR clamp, I'd take off the BR strap everytime I stored it, but that got tedious very quickly.

Lenses / Re: The 24-105 and/or the 24-70 II ...
« on: November 14, 2013, 02:25:42 PM »
Anyone who is arguing against or dismissing IS, is IMO, simply rationalizing the purchase of a lens for thousands that lacks said feature.  And that is fine.

But lets be real, IS is highly desirable.  There is no disadvantage with IS except a *slight* cost increase, and lets be frank when you are spending $2200 on a lens you can't really argue costs. The 17-55 has IS, the 70-200 has IS, the 24, 28, 35mm consumer primes all have IS.  Obviously it is very doable both financially and engineering wise.

The advantages with IS are plentiful.  Less shots needing tripod, less blurred shots, and even if you have a steady hand your shots will be slightly sharper with IS due to its nature as no one has the hands of a tripod.  If we were all as steady as a tripod, tripods would not exist.  More possibilities for photos are unlocked.  And it helps video, too, if you are into it.

There is no effective argument against IS.  Canon is just playing marketing games getting people to buy the same lens over and over again, because they can.  That is why it is not in the 24-70 II, no other reason.  When the 24-70 IS comes out, the 24-70 II will drop like a rock in value.  Take a look at how much less resale the 70-200 non-IS versions have versus the 70-200 IS versions. 

So, while people can say they might not need it, that is probably true.  But you also don't need L lenses or a full frame camera.  IS is another tool in the toolbox that is HIGHLY DESIRABLE.  Let's just hope we don't have to wait too long for Canon to milk the non-IS version before the inevitable 24-70 IS release.

Yes, the 24-70 II is sharper than the 24-105. But that has nothing to do with IS, it simply uses better glass.  Once the 24-70 f/2.8 IS comes out, the 24-70 f/2.8 will be soundly outclassed and lessened in value IMO.

The problem is that the optical formula with IS is different than the one without it.  Are the 70-200 f/2.8 IS versus non IS the same optical design?  According to the rumors circulating before the 24-70 II came out, both the 24-70 II and a 24-70 IS variant were being field tested.  They were different lenses.  The testers preferred what became the 24-70 II.  If that is true, then it is harder to design something that is as good as the 24-70 II and has IS.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Japan Teases a White Kiss
« on: November 13, 2013, 06:27:27 PM »
I will continue to bash Canon as long as they launch silly, immature and meaningless products and try to cheat their customers for their money with them, instead of devoting their resources to develop and manufacture products that truly help us to take (technically) better pictures and/or to get the pictures we want more easily and with a higher success rate.

Go ahead and bash away, but what is the point of doing it repeatedly in this forum?  We know where you stand. 

And given that no one makes your ideal camera, maybe it's not all Canon's fault.  Mirrorless probably is the way of the future, but what it ends up being may not be what you want... or maybe what you want is 5 or 10 years down the road.  I'd rather just not read 5 or 10 more years of the same posts over and over...

Software & Accessories / Re: Remote release/intervalometer question
« on: November 12, 2013, 09:05:49 PM »
Thanks for chiming in!  The Hahnel it is.  Placed the order with B&H, and hopefully it'll arrive this week.  Why it takes days to travel 60 miles is another issue...

Software & Accessories / Re: Tripod...
« on: November 12, 2013, 08:40:28 PM »
The TVC-24L works well for me, when I use the 70-200L II + 2x.  Granted, the 200L is 1-2 lb heavier, but I doubt it'd bother the TVC-24L much.  I use the TVC-24L with the BH-55.  What is nice is the added length, especially on slopes.  The price between the 24L/34L/33 isn't that much compared to the overall cost, so it comes down to weight/max capacity/length.

EOS-M / Re: The Next EOS M in 2014 [CR2]
« on: November 12, 2013, 04:00:45 PM »
So I just acquired a EOS M over weekend, of course it showed up AFTER returning home from the trip that justified the purchase! Grrr. Anyway, I've been dying to get my hands on this camera for sometime now. I've been shooting for about 8 years now and always wanted an alternative to lugging around L-Glass and a Full Size DSLR Body. I was waiting to see what Canon was going to do with the next version of the M before I bought one, unfortunately my patience expired. I am still within the 30-days to return the camera, so I've turned to CR for advice. I understand everything is speculation at this point, but from those of you who own this camera, should I hang on to it? Will the update be that significant?

 I am thrilled about the images it produces and how easy it is to use. It is just lacking a few things, like a viewfinder. I found myself bring the camera up to my face a few times.

Bottom line; to keep or not to keep and restart my patience clock.  :-[



Really, it comes down to how you use it, so the answer is that "it depends."  Mine replaced a powershot 230, so it represented a large increase in IQ.  My wife uses it primarily, and I use it for quick snapshots if the DSLR isn't handy.  Really like it with the 22 f/2 (especially indoors/when the light is dim), while the wife prefers the 18-55.  I got the adaptor so it can serve as a backup to the DSLR, but I've yet to use it much with EF lenses.  I also got a 230EX for the wife, which barely has enough power to bounce off ceilings (skipped the smaller 90EX) but works well enough for what it is.

So what would M2 give me?  It won't affect resale value much given that I got the M + 22 f/2 for 300.  I don't do video much, so the main advantage of a 70D sensor is minimized.  Otherwise, the IQ will be similar and the M2 will cost a lot more than the M does not when it launches.  If I need better AF or high ISO performance, I'll be grabbing the DSLR anyway.

So, if you will use it similar to how we use ours, then keep it.  The M2 will still have the EF-M mount, so any lenses you get now for it will still have value.  The thing to keep in mind with consumer lines is that they get refreshed often.  The newest and greatest will always cost the most, but wait a year and prices drop significantly when the newer model appears.

Software & Accessories / Remote release/intervalometer question
« on: November 12, 2013, 12:09:45 PM »
I am looking for a remote release for my 5DIII.  I'm trying to decide between the Vello Shutterboss and the Hahnel Giga T Pro II.  I'd use it more as remote release than as an intervalometer, but I like having that capability as well.  Is either significantly better than the other?  I notice that the receiver is often mounted on the hotshoe, but I'm assuming it doesn't have to be when a flash is being used... TIA for your insight!

Lenses / Re: EF 8-15 FE Vignette Issue
« on: November 09, 2013, 10:48:52 PM »
Lens hood is off. I took a couple pics on my FF to show it better. I don't mind so much but there were a couple shots that had the vignette on the right and not the left. The only thing I can do in post to fix it is crop which sucks when you want to go really wide. No issues on 8mm; It's a full circle. I think I'm going to end up going to Canon service to look it over.

Not normal at all.  My lens vignettes equally in each corner when I shoot wider than 14mm on FF.  Have it checked out.

Lenses / Re: Macro lens for the missus for christmas
« on: November 07, 2013, 04:40:26 PM »
+1 for the 100L.  For serious macro stuff, a tripod and flash are required, but the 100L does well informally and especially well for portraiture.  I really like having the ability to take a picture of something and then get close for a detail without changing lenses.  IS helps, but for outside work, wind can often be a bigger obstacle than light/camera shake.

Anyone else having an issue where it shows up in PS6 but not in LR?  I'd rather launch from LR, rather than LR -> PS -> Analog Efex...

i also like sigma lenses but i think it is a lens issue with the new ones. there should only be 2 variables, the mount to image sensor distance and the mount to af sensor light path distance. that remains constant so should cause consistent focus misalignment.  once you calibrate a sigma lens with the dock it makes changes to the focusing characteristics of the lens and does not consider any camera lens pairing. when i have done this the 2 lenses 18-35 and 120-300 work the same on the 3 camera bodies i have tried them on. i don't know all the inner workings but it seems more like the lens is just not calibrated right to begin with?

in order to really set the lens right with the dock you need to make 4 focal range x 4 distance corrections and they can be all over the place?

the 2 lenses that i have would be unusable by most peoples standards without the dock adjustments.

How do the dock adjustments work on multiple bodies?  If you dock adjust the lens on body 1, will AFMA on body 2 get it to be accurate, or do you have to readjust all those values specifically for body 2?

EOS Bodies / Re: An Announcement Coming in November? [CR1]
« on: November 02, 2013, 08:00:32 PM »
Its not greed, its business.  Mirrorless sells horribly across all manufactures compared to DSLR, so why would Canon stack their resources in a category that fails to sel?

Mirrorless has sold horribly up to now, because products offered ranged between "inadequate and horrible". EOS-M (dog-slow, no EVF), Nikon 1 (dwarf-sensored, too expensive), mFT (generally too expensive and not small/light enough compared to APS-C), APS-C sensored NEX did rather well ... compared to Sony SLT/DSLR sales ;-)

Wow, so the mirrorless products have not been good a value proposition to date!  What a surprise.  It might happen in a few generations, but not in 2013 nor 2014.  I'll wait when native lens families are more well developed.  f/2.8 primes for $1000?  Not interested.

Lenses / Re: I'm done - I have all the lenses I need
« on: November 01, 2013, 04:43:11 PM »
I'm sure I sound a bit nuts :o, but I'd like to thank that I have all I need to own.  Has anyone else "completed" their lens kit?

Would this change with the advent of a 14-24L f/2.8?

Pages: 1 ... 31 32 [33] 34 35 ... 92