April 16, 2014, 03:47:28 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 ... 34 35 [36] 37 38 ... 75
526
Lenses / Re: 135mm vs. 100mm macro
« on: April 15, 2013, 09:00:14 PM »
With the 135L and the 70-200L II, the 100L would most likely be used for macro only.  The IS is nice for macro applications handheld, but I wouldn't think that it would be a high priority.  Look to fill your other lens needs first.  The 100L may be a nice upgrade, but it might not be the best bang for your buck.

527
Lenses / Re: Trading my Canon 70-300 L for a 70-200 2.8 L ?
« on: April 15, 2013, 03:13:23 PM »
The switch to 70-200 II + 1.4x can work but it will be heavier/longer than the 70-300L.  Try it out in a store before buying.  The difference might be significant to you.  Even though the 1.4x isn't large, it does affect the body/lens balance more than its size.  You'll gain about 1+ stops compared to the 70-300L, but I'm not sure if it's worth the increased weight and cost.

Even though you have a bias against primes, it might make sense to get one specifically for portraiture.  It'll cost less than switching to the 70-200II + extender.  The question is what focal length makes sense to you.  I use the 135L on FF, and it works well, but I'm not sure if it'll be too long for you on the 7D.  You could try fixing the 70-300L at 135mm at see if that will work for you.  The 135 focuses quickly and can track action well (not a big difference compared to the 70-300L or 70-200 II), plus the 2+ stop advantage that it has over the 70-300L will give it a distinct blur advantage.  If you're subject isn't moving and/or if 135 is too long for you, then it might also make sense to look at the sigma 85 f/1.4, canon 85 f/1.8 or canon 100 f/2.

528
Lenses / Re: Keep my 70-200 f/4 IS?
« on: April 15, 2013, 07:51:44 AM »
I have the Big Daddy (70-200F2.8 L II) and got the F4 IS L because I wanted something lighter.

Found that I needed extra reach so I opted forthe 70-300L.  Now I have 3 lenses with similar range.

I propose to keep the 70-200F2.8 (very sharp, F2.8) and the 70-300 (lighter and greater range).

If so, I'll sell the 70-200 F4 IS.  Thoughts?

70-200 II + 70-300L is what I ended up with, and that combination has worked out well for me.  For sports and portraiture, 70-200 II.  For travel and zoos, 70-300L.  The biggest advantage of the 70-300L for me is its compact size.  Standing it up, I can use one lens slot in the bag as opposed to the equivalent of two slots for the 70-200L II.  You'd lose fractional stops to the 70-200 f/4 IS, but if light is that much of a concern, the 70-200 II is a better choice anyway.

529
EOS-M / Re: anyone buy from From BigValueInc M for $399
« on: April 14, 2013, 12:16:16 PM »
I got a 5D through them last Christmas, and I was happy with what I got at the price that I got it.  This promotion is a clear grey import that BVI would warranty themselves.  For that price it might be worth the hassle if something fails.

I don't know about the iphone 5, but I use the iPad 3, and I'd rather have a APS-C sensor with fast glass than that indoors.  Outdoors and in good light, it difference isn't as large.  I do like the idea of EOS-M being able to use EF lenses with an adapter.  I might consider it more when gen 2 comes out.

530
Lenses / Re: Keep my 70-200 f/4 IS?
« on: April 12, 2013, 02:05:02 PM »
Sell it.

If you want to replace it, it might be worth looking into the 70-300L as a travel lens.  It's lighter and more compact than the 70-200L II and it gives you a bit more reach.  It's a little heavier than the 70-200L f/4 IS but is still about an inch shorter and about 2 inches shorter than the 70-200 II.  The difference in length might not seem like much, but it's the difference between being able to store it vertically in a camera bag versus on its side, which takes a lot more room.

531
Reviews / Re: Review - Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM
« on: April 12, 2013, 12:10:41 PM »
The real test:  Would any current 35L users consider trading for the Sigma 35?

Thoughts?

I don't know about others, but I'm holding onto the 35L for now.  The price difference isn't that much of a factor since I already have the 35L (sunk cost).  The Sigma offers more value for those that don't have the 35L, but it does not compel me to change.  According to reviews (TDP), the Sigma peforms better toward the center while the 35L does better at the edges/corners.  I'll wait to see what the 35L II offers.  Right now, the 24-70II beats both the 35L and the Sigma 35.  Hopefully, the 35L II will do better than the 24-70II.  If not, I'll stay with the 35L.

532
Reviews / Re: Review - Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM
« on: April 12, 2013, 11:54:53 AM »
i've been struggling with my next lens purchase and i've narrowed it down to the 24-70ii and this sigma 1.4 (leaning sigma). clearly, price is not the issue - space in my bag is! i like to pack light, and i love 35mm. the question: do you guys believe the 24-70ii will outperform the sigma 35 at 35 f/2.8, or at least close and the added versatility makes the 24-70 a better choice? i generally prefer primes due to size/weight but everyone can't stop talking about how great the 24-70ii is, and i don't often shoot in low light but man, if i get this sigma i might just have to!

extra, relevant info: i own the 24-105L
and edited to add more info: shoot a 5d3

i plan on making the purchase after canon's apr23rd announcement - i know it's a long shot but i've been waiting for a 35mm 1.4ii from canon for a long time - what say you canonrumors? thank you in advance for your help :))

According to TDP's testing, the 24-70 II is better than Sigma 35 at f/2.8.

533
Lenses / Re: IS mandatory? 70-200 f/4 IS vs. f/2.8 Non-IS
« on: April 12, 2013, 09:56:14 AM »
For static subjects, IS is more useful.  It will allow you to decrease ISO/shutter speed and achieve better IQ.  If you were shooting sports or moving animals more, then you'd want to to shoot at higher shutter speeds, where IS would make less of a difference.

534
EOS Bodies / Re: Body upgrade advice
« on: April 12, 2013, 09:07:44 AM »
My budget is flexible.  This does seem what it comes down to 6D vs. 5DIII.  I'm not sure I can justify the 5D.  90% of my shots are still.

The 5DIII's AF system also helps for stills, especially when the subject is off-center.  Its many f/2.8 points with spot focusing helps with using large aperture lenses.  I used to crop a lot of 5DII images because I was only able to get good results with the center point consistently, so the subject was centered and the image was "reframed" in post.  Now I just select the AF point, and it minimizes cropping.

535
Lenses / Re: Insurance on camera equipment
« on: April 11, 2013, 12:43:22 PM »
Call your insurance company.

My comprehensive homeowner policy covers personal possessions including all the camera gear. Even if you rent, you should still protect yourself with home insurance.

+1, assuming your gear is for personal use only.  If you make money from your photography, be up front about that - your homeowner's/renter's policy probably won't cover business use, you'd need a separate policy that would include liability coverage.

I have a separate personal articles policy for my camera gear, from my home/auto insurer (State Farm).

+1.  The rates that each company charges also can vary quite a bit, so it makes sense to get quotes from a few companies just to compare.  My personal articles rate wasn't the cheapest with my insurance company, but another company couldn't beat it when all the insurance policies were quoted (auto, home, etc.).

536
Lenses / Re: 8-15mm or 15mm fisheye?
« on: April 11, 2013, 12:36:37 PM »
According to TDP, the 8-15 should be sharper outside the center (might help if you defish)  and it should be better against flare.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-8-15mm-f-4-L-USM-Fisheye-Lens-Review.aspx

If you're happy with the 15mm, I don't think you'll be blown away with the 8-15's advantages for twice the price.  One of the advantages of the 8-15 is the flexibility you have with crop and FF bodies.  You can get a wider AOV with the crop, and you can get the porthole look with FF.  I don't use the porthole look much but changing the AOV on the crop is a nice feature.  I've unloaded the crop camera since moving FF, but I can imagine that the 8-15 would be a lot more valuable to someone that has both types of cameras.  You might have to try renting it out to see if it makes sense to you.

537
also get the sigma 35mm f1.4 its half the price of the 35mm L and its better too ;)

Ignoring the body-choice stuff (I love my 7d, and have been quite happy with the IQ:$$ ratio, but I'm also usually in pretty good light), I would get behind this recommendation of the sigma 35 over the 35L. Sharper, great colors, reviews all say the AF is as good as the 35L (never used the canon, so can't comment personally), etc etc.
It's a shame when so many people that admittedly never have used the 35L is recommending 3rd party alternatives. I've myself never used the Sigma, but the 35L is a top notch lens. Not cheap, but it has a proven performance and quality record over 14 years which the Sigma doesn't.

Never said it wasn't- the point is that sigma has caught up, and the Σ35 is now every bit a top notch lens, for $900 new...

I'm glad that Sigma has been able to supass a lens that was designed 15 years ago.  It will put some (if not much) price pressure on Canon's 35L replacement, and that is a good thing.  I also think that the 24-70 II will be the prime competitor to the 35L II.  According to TDP, the 24-70 II at 35mm is better than the Sigma 35 at f/2.8, and I would expect primes to beat zooms when compared within the same generation.

It also remains to be seen how well Sigma can adapt when/if Canon decides to change how it does AF in future bodies.  Some people have been caught with lenses that will no longer work with newer cameras.  Is that risk worth the 28% cost difference (in the US)?  That's up to the individual users.  If I already didn't have the 35L, then I would definitely consider the Sigma.  Given that I already have the 35L, the slightly better IQ of the Sigma does not compel me to switch (and incur the transaction costs).  It will be interesting to see how Canon responds to Sigma's new offering because I can imagine that Sigma is taking a big bite out of the 35L's sales.

538
Lenses / Re: Help: 24-105L making faint noises
« on: April 10, 2013, 09:53:45 PM »
IS?  Did you do the same thing with IS off?

539
Lenses / Re: Which one to get?
« on: April 10, 2013, 06:18:23 PM »
How bad is the coma? And how much do I need to stop down?

From most boards I've read, most use the 24L II at f/2.8 or smaller for astro. 

540
Lenses / Re: Which Lens ... 24-70 II or primes?
« on: April 10, 2013, 09:20:28 AM »
Get the 24-70II first, and then trade in the 24-105L to finance the prime of your choice.

I don't use the primes as much after getting the 24-70II, but I still use the primes for shallow DOF or for low light ambient situations.

Pages: 1 ... 34 35 [36] 37 38 ... 75