April 19, 2014, 11:06:47 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 ... 32 33 [34] 35 36 ... 76
496
EOS Bodies / Re: The Future of EOS M [CR1]
« on: April 26, 2013, 07:42:27 AM »
Well that gives me some comfort that I did not sink my money into the current version, coz on many occasions I thought of getting the EOS-M but just kept putting it off as it wasn't a priority for me ... maybe the newer version(s) might lure me into buying one  :-\

Although if it drops below 400 with the prime kits lens, I'd get it to replace the P&S...

497
Lenses / Re: Do you still love 24-105L?
« on: April 25, 2013, 02:36:54 PM »
I used to like this lens more. Then I began to appreciate prime lenses. All of a sudden this zoom becomes mediocre. It's performance is average but it's versatile. I am debating whether to sell it to fund a sigma 35. But I'm afraid I'll regret selling a general zoom. Plus it's not worth as much as when  I bought it. For those of you who own this zoom, do you still use it very much? I realize it's unfair to compare a zoom with a prime but I promise myself not to add a lens without selling one. What a dilemma...

Try putting it away for a month, and see how you do without it.  You already have the focal length covered with what you have.

I never had the 24-105 but I went over a year using primes instead of a general purpose zoom.  There may be cases where the zoom would be handy, but the greater range of DOF that you gain offsets it in a different way.  I did find myself carrying two lenses more often with primes than when I had a general purpose zoom though.  Recently, I picked up a general purpose zoom but I still find myself carrying two lenses most of the time: the zoom and a fast prime, especially if I know I'll want to take pictures inside and outside.  I guess what I'm trying to say is that there is a place for zooms and primes.  If you find by your experiment that you miss the 24-105, then it might be time to declare a mulligan.   ;D


498
Lenses / Re: 50mm 1.2L vs 35mm 1.4L for events photography...
« on: April 25, 2013, 08:38:24 AM »

I have the 24-70mm II and the Sigma 35mm f/1.4.  Both are great, but have to disagree that the 24-70 II is sharper at 35mm than the Sigma at 35mm.  If you compare the IQ from both at f/2.8, the Sigma has an edge in center and mid frame sharpness.  This comparison can be seen at the the-digital-picture.com:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=829&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=3&LensComp=787&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=0

And the Sigma is two full stops faster; makes a big difference in the bokeh department.


I saw the same crops before making my post but came to a different conclusion.  I agree that the Sigma is slightly sharper in the center but saw the Canon slightly better mid frame (more vignetting but better contrast) and better in the corner.  Lens to lens variation might flipflop the center and midrange results, but it looks like the Canon should retain its advantage at the corners.

In either case, the difference between the two is not big enough to pick the S35 over the 24-70 II unless you need a larger aperture.  That was the part that surprised me -- how good the 24-70 II is.  I'm not surprised that newer designs beat older designs but I am surprised that the new S35 prime does not beat the 24-70 II.  I'm also impressed by the 24-70 II's AF speed/tracking ability in AI servo when I shot a young boys basketball game on a small court (standing at the baseline because there are no bleachers).  It's like a mini 70-200.  I know the 35L and 50L can't track like that (I haven't used the Sigma so I don't know about how that does in servo).  Before, I used all primes to cover the midrange focal lengths because they were better than the zoom options at the time.  Now, I use primes for low light/shallow DOF applications only, which means that I use them about 1/3 as much as I used to.

499
EOS Bodies / Re: Good Deal for Used Canon 7D?
« on: April 24, 2013, 09:33:19 AM »
sorry, i was given a used Nikon D80 (pretty old) but still usable, I recently rented teh Sigma 35mm to go with and it was fantastic. Although, I'm currently saving up for Canon 6D and then my friend informed just yesterday about this deal. I know its a great deal but thats the dilemma I'm in now, keep saving up for the 6D or hop on this deal now.

I guess it comes down to how soon you'll be able to afford the 6D.  If it's a few months, then continue saving for the 6D.  If it's at the end of this year or longer, then get the 7D and start building your lens kit.  I'd take a look at used lenses for the best value.  Use the camera as much as you can so that you'll know what features you really value more than others.  And if you decide to switch to the 6D in the future then you won't lose much money (if any at all) for "renting" the 7D for a year.  Also, with Japan weakening the yen, Canon has more leeway to offer more rebates.  The 6D just came out and it's price has been falling and will fall more, especially near Christmas time.  The 7D is nearing the end of its lifecycle, so buying it at 820 is pretty safe.

500
EOS Bodies / Re: Good Deal for Used Canon 7D?
« on: April 24, 2013, 09:07:28 AM »
It's true. I have 6D and I sometimes wish I had the AF capabilities of mk iii. But the 6D is half price of its brother so I'm happy. I got mine for less than $1600 after rebate.

When the 5DIII came out, prices for the 5DII dropped, and I picked up a refurbished 5DII for 1500.  Then the Christmas sales started coming out and I snagged a 5DIII for 2500.  I lost about 300 on buying/selling the 5DII with taxes/fees factored in, but I essentially rented the the 5DII for 9 months and 12000 clicks for free and bought the 5DIII for 2800.  Patience is a virtue -- especially for hobbyists!

501
EOS Bodies / Re: Good Deal for Used Canon 7D?
« on: April 24, 2013, 08:38:52 AM »
Sounds like a very good deal.  Use it while you save up funds for the 6D.  You won't lose much selling it in the future and you might even make a slight profit even you end up keeping most of the batteries for your next camera.

The missing piece of information is what you currently have/use.  If the 7D is a step up in the way you would use it, then it looks like a no brainer.  A camera upgrade for minimal cost if you decide to upgrade to the 6D in the next year or so.  Really the risk is that you like the 7D's AF and then decide to upgrade to the 5DIII.   ;D

502
Reviews / Re: Review - The Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS
« on: April 24, 2013, 07:45:31 AM »
I don't want this lens.  But then, why am I checking the current price on Amazon??   :-X

Actually, what I'd find useful is a comparison between the 100-400L at 400mm and the 70-300L at 300mm cropped to the 400mm FoV, on a FF body.  Since getting a 600, I use my 100-400L less, but I do still use it.  If it could be replaced by something smaller and lighter (70-200 II + TC need not apply!) without sacrificing IQ, I'd be quite interested in the 70-300L.

I don't have a 100-400, but I do have a 70-200 II + 2x and a 5DIII.  If interested, I could take a few pics of items in the yard, maybe even a shed (although I promised not to underexposed by 3 stops and then lift it in post).

503
Lenses / Re: 50mm 1.2L vs 35mm 1.4L for events photography...
« on: April 24, 2013, 12:30:42 AM »
+1 Sounds like advice from an owner.

I do a lot of event work with a 5D3/70-200L 2.8II and a second 5D3/50L. I love the 35L but once I shifted to the 5D3s, the 50L is just about the best lens for me. It's my standard carry when I go for one rig. Great portrait focal length, pure cream bokeh and now, with the AF of the newer bodies... it's killer combo. For event work it shines, and gives the unique 50 perspective... great for photojournalism. The 50mm 1.4 is ok, had the same experience Random Orbits... cheap build and if your making money can take a crap on you when you need it.  It also hunts in sketchy light. Not the 50L though, locks on and its built like a tank. Love my 35L too but it now takes a back seat and with the new Sigma, I'd be checking it out too. I own  3 Siggys and the all perform flawlessly and are built well, so the 35 is looking like something I might need to try.

I'll probably keep the 35L until after the 35L II is out for a while and the prices soften.  I mostly use it for portraiture and as a walk around lens, so I don't need it to be critically sharp into the corners because my subjects aren't in those locations anyway.  Most people know that the 24-70 II is sharper than the 35L, but according to TDP, it is also sharper than the Sigma 35, so in either case, the user that is concerned about sharpness the most will opt for the 24-70 II in either case.  Canon's next generation primes should be able to beat the 24-70 II.  If not, then Canon will lose potential sales because more people will opt for the 24-70 II rather than buying a few primes with higher total sales within that focal length range.

504
Reviews / Re: Review - The Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS
« on: April 23, 2013, 11:56:52 PM »
Nice review!  I, too, love its form factor and compactness.  I also agree that it should put a bigger dent into the 70-200 f/4 IS's sales than it does because it is that good.  The only thing that would force me to consider selling this lens is the mythical 100-400L replacement.

505
Lenses / Re: Canon 50 1.2 L
« on: April 23, 2013, 11:08:58 PM »
My 50L doesn't rattle even a bit, pal. Send it back.

Sorry mate.

+1. 

506
Lenses / Re: 50mm 1.2L vs 35mm 1.4L for events photography...
« on: April 23, 2013, 11:05:10 PM »
Standard CR answer:  go for the focal length you need.

If you're serious about the 35L, you should also consider the Sigma 35.  Less expensive and slight sharper than the 35L by many accounts.  I have the 35L, and it works for me, but if I were to make the decision now, I'd be tempted by the Sigma.

There is a lot of debate over the 50L.  Again, I'd suggest you try some the of the f/1.4 offerings before committing to the 50L.  It's a lot more expensive, but it does produce wide open.  I never had luck with Canon's 50 f/1.4 wider than f/2.8 -- it was sometimes hit but mostly miss.  The 50L is a lot more consistent AF-wise and the look is more pleasing, and it does seem geared to portraiture, which is what you'd use it for.

The 50mm focal length is more versatile for me when I'm trying to cover a large focal range (traveling) with the minimum number of lenses while keeping low light versatility (i.e. 16-35/50/70-300).  For portraiture, I'd still favor longer focal lengths (50 over the 35) especially if you have the space like most wedding locales, but ultimately it comes down to your shooting style...

507
Lenses / Re: Budget lens for birding ?
« on: April 23, 2013, 10:25:55 PM »
The push me pull me is a dust hog. Birding is field photography ergo I find the 400 prime a better selection.

The "dust hog" or "dust pump" nonsense is just that - a silly internet myth propagated by people who have never actually used the lens.

If the OP is planning to buy a newer lens, he shouldn't worry about getting a "soft copy" - the early problems with quality control were cleaned up about 10 or 12 years ago (this lens has been in production since 1998).

Why would people lie?  I heard that the 100-400mm and the 17-55 were dust collectors.  I don't have any experience with them, but I do stay away from them because of the rumors.  Of course I have spent a ton of cash on other lenses... so it's not like I'm missing out.

So you might have missed out on using great lenses because of those rumors.  The rumors did their job! 

I had the 17-55 for about five years, and it gathered a few specks of dust that I could see, but nothing that would qualify as a "dust pump."  None of the lenses are air tight, so dust can get in any lens.  If you have questions about a particular lens, it's more accurate to get informed opinions from those that have used the item.  The internet has many opinions and a lot of them are wrong or not representative of the collective user base.

508
EOS Bodies / Re: 21mp Sensor in the 7D Mark II? [CR1]
« on: April 22, 2013, 02:23:28 PM »
One thing is for sure.  5D3 owners will be up in arms over anyone who posts that their new 7D2 is the superior camera...When it comes to Canon fanboys, you just don't mess with the 5D3.

Agreed. I feel though that the 7DII will come very close OR may even better the 5D3 under good lighting conditions. High ISO will however, be a different story.

LOL, I don't know if I'd go that far!  If the 7DII performs as well as the 5DIII on a per sensor area basis, then you might see the restoration of the 5D/7D combination.  Although with the 5DIII's improved AF and frame rate, there might be fewer people using 5DIII/7DII combos -- the 5DIII might be good enough.

509
Lenses / Re: TS-E 17mm or 24mm
« on: April 22, 2013, 02:08:57 PM »
I have been dreaming of a TS-E lens ever since I discovered they exist. I guess I am going to get one for my travel next month to Venice, Florence, Siena. I would probably opt for the 17mm version. So far I have been using my 16-35mm II when inside towns to do 'architecture' photography. What do you guys think 17mm or 24mm - both would be a bit cheeky...

If you get the 17mm, you can use a 1.4x TC to get to 24mm.  It won't be as sharp, but you still get the advantages of the movements.

510
Lenses / Re: which lens to keep
« on: April 22, 2013, 11:55:23 AM »
Sell them both for the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC. 1 lens gives you the best of both worlds and the Tamron is sharper than both of those lenses (assuming you are talking about the 1st generation of the Canon 24-70 f/2.8L because the V2 is sharper). The Tamron is a very good overall lens and you get the constant f/2.8 plus stabilization. The Tamron even beats the new Canon 24-70 f/4L IS.


How does the Tamron fare for sports?  TDP has indicated that it does not do well in AI servo...

Pages: 1 ... 32 33 [34] 35 36 ... 76