Messages

61

Lenses / Re: New review of the Sigma 30mm f/1.4

« on: April 17, 2013, 09:03:14 AM »

Has anyone gotten there hands on the lens yet? Would it worth getting the 35 1.4 for crop despite the 30 being specifically built for crop?

If you intend on going FF in the future, then getting the 35 f/1.4 makes sense.  There is a larger market for lenses that can be used for both crop and FF cameras.  The disadvantages are size, weight, cost.

62

Lenses / Re: I have just lost confidence with Canon Rumors & B&H

« on: April 17, 2013, 09:00:15 AM »

I saw the headline "new bigger savings from B&H". The lens I purchased yesterday, the 24-70 f2.8 ii is now $2099 vs $2049 I paid yesterday. How is this better??? My attempt at posting this earlier was blocked.

There is an ebb and flow to prices.  Prices tend to be lowest near Thanksgiving/Christmas/New Year's but there are multiple rebates throughout the year.  Take a look at canonpricewatch and you can see the price histories.  Know the rules of the game and play accordingly.  You can't guarantee getting the lowest price with a given rebate, but at least you'll know how the current price compares with its historical prices.  I got my 24-70 II for 1999 by negotiating with an authorized dealer through an Ebay listing through "make an offer" -- go figure!

63

Lenses / Re: Recommendation for lens 18-20 mm

« on: April 17, 2013, 08:44:21 AM »

Agree with eml58.  If the TS-E 17 is too large and you don't mind manual focus, then take a look at Zeiss's 18 and 21mm offerings.  The TS features of the 17 become addictive though, whether it's tilting down the focal plane for a field of wildflowers or shifting to get a perspective that you can not physically get to.  It might be worth giving it a try before deciding.

64

Lenses / Re: How good is 16-35 f/2.8 over 17-40 f/4?

« on: April 16, 2013, 10:05:55 PM »

I remember seeing in your previous posts that you had a 24-70.  If it is a version I, it might make more sense to upgrade to the version II and continue to use the 17-40 for the ultrawide range.  The 24-70 II will be better than either zoom at overlapping focal lengths.  The 16-35 gains you a stop, but if you're mostly using it for landscape, that won't matter too often.  If you already have a 24-70 II, it might make more sense to upgrade the 17-40 to a ultrawide prime (i.e. TS-E 17).

65

Lenses / Re: EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x Availability

« on: April 16, 2013, 03:34:50 PM »

So basically this is a 200-560mm f/4-5.6 lens? Now, due to the IS, if it is a highly portable (hand-holdable) lens ... great for sport and stalking game. If not, still, what's the point?

It's not made for you, and it's not made for me.

But there must be enough people out there or a big enough market for Canon to think it can make money with this lens.  If it can compete with the 70-200L f/2.8 IS II at 200, and come close to matching the performance of the 300, 400, 500/600 primes while losing a stop, then it will be worth that much to sports photographers, who often use multiple lenses on multiple bodies.

66

EOS Bodies / Re: *UPDATE* A Bit of EOS 70D Info [CR1-CR2]

« on: April 16, 2013, 11:30:17 AM »

[T]he 5D Mark III does not present such a technological leap[....]

Erm, that's complete bollocks.

Best autofocus system of any camera on the market at the time of its release, best high ISO performance of any camera on the market at the time of its release, best video of any consumer DSLR....

There's a whole hell of a lot more to a camera than just its megapickle count.

Anybody who claims that the 5DIII isn't a big deal isn't a photographer or is just plain clueless.

It may well be the case that the advancements made in the 5DIII aren't relevant to your particular type of photography. And, if all you do is low ISO work of static subjects, you'd be exactly right.

But that's such a marginal part of photography that's already been so well served that it's ludicrous to suggest that that's all that matters.

Cheers,

b&

So you are saying the 5D Mark III's AF and ISO performance is better than the 1DX?  My point is many people upgraded just to have the latest and greatest.  I would bet you 95% of 5D Mark III upgraders never go above ISO 640

The 5DIII should be compared to the 5DII, as your earlier post indicated.  Why are you now comparing it to the 1DX?

That would make for an interesting poll to see how 5DIII users use the camera.  Over 25% of the shots I keep are at ISO 3200 or above.

67

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.

68

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.

69

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. 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.

70

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.

71

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.

72

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.

73

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.

74

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.

75

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.