October 20, 2014, 09:05:20 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 ... 32 33 [34] 35 36 ... 92
496
Lenses / Re: Help. 50mm 1.2 ?
« on: October 29, 2013, 08:01:03 PM »
Agree. I used three copies, they needed different MA (the current one needs none). They all focus very well on my 5D2, no complaints at all. I can focus well even with the outer AF points, unless it is really dark.

To the OP - the 50L is an excellent lens. Sharp enough wide open, with some loss of contrast with backlit scenes  wide open (well, avoid them), excellent color rendering, great potential for good bokeh.

My 5D2 AF with the 50L was hit or miss (mostly miss) at the outer points.  Center point AF was good.  With 5D3, AF with non-center points is almost as good as the center column.

497
Lenses / Re: 85L or 135L?
« on: October 28, 2013, 12:26:20 PM »
Hmm, If you attach a Kenko 1.7x Teleconverter to the 85L you'll get a 145mm f2. So why another expensive lense? ;)

I guess this combo would work well in ai servo with... snails!   ::)

498
Pricewatch Deals / Re: Have you ever purchase camera gear from BuyDig.com
« on: October 28, 2013, 12:17:29 PM »
Bought one camera and at least 2 lenses from BuyDig/Beach Camera, and never had a problem with the equipment I bought there so I never dealt with their customer service.

499
Lenses / Re: Which TS lens is better
« on: October 22, 2013, 11:23:01 AM »
Both TS-Es are very good at what they do, so it comes down to which focal length suits your needs better (as others have already stated).

Both TS-Es can use extenders, but the image degrades slightly.  The 17 also has slightly less swing than the 24, so the 17 + 1.4x will not be able to correct as much as the 24 does natively.

For buildings, especially interiors, I use the 17 primarily.  For landscapes, it's the 24.  I also find that TS-E 24 panoramas are more pleasing than the 17s because the subject to camera distance is longer and the foreground objects aren't stressed as much.

500
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sony A7 or A7R pre-order list
« on: October 18, 2013, 09:47:07 AM »
Sony has published a road map. 15 lenses in 2 years is really not bad for a whole new system. Has Canon done better with the EOS-M?

Moreover, Samyang has confirmed the release of FE lenses in a couple of months. Not to mention Leica, Voigtländer, Nikon, Canon, etc etc via Metabones adapters that even retain AF. Sigma and Tamron will also express an interest sooner rather than later, to try and conquer this whole new market. If this system lacks something, it's certainly not lenses - not for long.

And no, the A-mount has not been abandoned. Together with the A7/r, Sony has announced a new 70-200/2.8 for A-mount and a new enthusiast camera is scheduled for 2014.

This roadmap?

http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/the-full-frame-e-mount-lens-roadmap-15-lenses-will-be-launched-until-late-2015/

Is there a more detailed one for the outer years?  Those unmarked bars are far enough in the future that Sony probably has not committed the big development bucks to it.  If the system sells poorly, those plans may never be realized.

A f/2.8 35 prime?  A f/1.8 55 prime?  A f/4 70-200?  A f/4 24-70?  A f/4 wide-angle zoom?  So far, their planned offerings are slower than their DSLR counterparts.  No f/2.8 zooms?  Why buy into an expensive system to get the FF sensor and not be able to use fast glass that APS-C cameras can already use natively?  And how many Sony adaptors are there?  It looks like Sony is trying to hedge their bets (A, FE mount, etc.), and it'll be a mess for a while.

The future may belong to mirrorless, but technology development is not a smooth transition.  Early adopters can get burned (minidisc or Sony-proprietary memorsticks, anyone?).  I'll wait.  And battery technology is a big issue.  There really isn't anything better than lithium batteries on the horizon and 300 shots/battery is not going to cut it.

501
Lenses / Re: 16-35 2.8 vs 70-200 4 on 650D
« on: October 17, 2013, 11:01:59 PM »
I would suggest getting a APS-C zoom first, unless you plan on moving to FF in the near future (less than 6 months).  If the price of a new 15-85 or something similar is too steep, try looking for a good used copy.  The range of the 16-35 is too short on aps-c, and it is pricy to be used that way.  On FF, it becomes more of a specialty lens, and it's IQ isn't that great.  If you get this general purpose zoom for APS-Cused, then you won't lose much selling it when you move FF.

And, if you have sufficient additional funds, I'd suggest getting the 70-200.  It's good on APC-S, but it'll really come into its own on FF.

Near term:  T4i, 15-85, 50, 70-200.

Sell 15-85 when moving to FF and get kit lens:  5D or 6D, 24-104, 70-200.

502

Why? 70-200L II + 1.4x TC gets you nearly there, is more compact and lighter, and costs less.

Why?  Because that combo does not "nearly get you there", it merely gives you a 100-280 f/4, and it weighs 3.5 pounds...and it costs not much less ($2200 + $500 = $2700).  It's also only f/4, rather than f/3.5.  So that's why.  Think about it...50-300 millimeters of zoom at f/3.5.  There's a lot of shots you can do in that range from 50 to 100mm that you would miss...and that you even miss with the 70-200 without a TC.  A "fast" ultra-wide zoom...wider and faster than the much-loved 70-300 f/4-5.6.  Weighing the same or less than the 70-200 f/2.8 ii...I want one!

Right, f/3.5 is such a big difference from f/4:  1/3 of a stop.  And at <= weight of a 70-200L II.  You're dreaming!

503
Canon needs to make a 50-300 f/3.5 IS, and charge $3500 for it.  Most of you would buy that instead of the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 OS.  Why?  Because IT'S A CANON "L"...

Why? 70-200L II + 1.4x TC gets you nearly there, is more compact and lighter, and costs less. 

504
Lenses / Re: 1st timer tot he boards need advice
« on: October 14, 2013, 05:15:07 PM »
A 35 prime would fit the bill.  When I used a crop body, the 35L was my go-to lens indoors.  At 35mm, the 18-135 is at f/4-4.5, so the 2 stop advantage of the 35 f/2 IS will be huge.  Personally, I'd opt for a 35 f/1.4, but that involves a trade between price, weight and size.  Even now, I prefer fast primes to zooms for indoor stuff (esp. without flash); outdoors, the zooms usually have the advantage.

505
Canon General / Re: Baffles the mind
« on: October 10, 2013, 12:31:44 PM »
You can look at it that way, but I have heard people complain about having to pay for things on their car that they didn't want for years. Longer than the video complaints on cameras.

And I still say I am paying for the R&D of a "feature" I didn't need. (This is starting to sound like an Obama Care discussion)

You can complain all you want, but the market for stills only is not big enough to warrant a separate product offering.  Perhaps you can find 100,000 others and sign a petition/contract telling Canon that all of you will be willing to buy a stills camera every year for the next ten years.  I'm sure a revenue stream of 100-200M/year will tempt Canon to develop a stills camera for you.

506
Cicada head...


507
Is there a technical reason why it is 55mm and not 50mm?  Is it not possible to design a fast (i.e. f/1.2-f/1.4) lens with a double gauss design?  Is it why the 55 is a reverse-telephoto design?

508
... but I've been told even better - the alleged pro photog I'm ranting about in this thread told me not only that real photogs never crop, but also that of course he never needs to do it. And he was using a prime lens but almost never moved a foot! That's when I realized the guy is an idiot and I'd better double-check whatever he tells/told me :-p

Brilliant!  Misdirection at its finest!  Did you catch sight of his assistants climbing over the fence to get closer while he calls attention to himself by bloviating?

509
Indeed, that's the very issue why I've written this thread and am wondering if leaving more space - no matter what alleged pro photogs might say - isn't a smart idea.

I recently have done a lot of wildlife macro in awkward angles and positions (like standing waist-high in cold water with my €3000 gadget 1cm above water level), and because I missed the level the framing got to tight and the shot was lost after rotation. Btw. I've now installed the Eg-D screen for that, it's great, very unobtrusive unless I want to see it.

This was a bigger issue with lower MP cameras.  With 1, 2, or 4 MP, every pixel counted more than it does now.  I also try to leave a little space for rotations, perspective corrections.  That was one nice thing about my previous camera.  It didn't have a 100% VF, and I knew that if saw it in the VF, I'd have a little margin around the edges.  Now I have to be more careful because that margin is gone.  There have been occassional cases where I couldn't correct it as much as I'd like because I'd be making the image worse compositionally if I corrected it fully.

510
Canon General / Re: I'm so sick of Canon ...
« on: October 07, 2013, 10:51:23 AM »
Well ... I returned the 16-35 yet again (didn't get third time lucky). This was the third copy I checked and didn't like it wide open - stopping down to f/8 or so was better but I can get the 17-40 if that was my main purpose.

Maybe I need to look elsewhere ... the 17mm TSE perhaps ... this just seems to go on forever.

The TS-E 17 is a great lens.  Biggest drawback is lack of AF.  If you can get around that and its cost, it's a winner!

Pages: 1 ... 32 33 [34] 35 36 ... 92