November 23, 2014, 07:23:48 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 ... 48 49 [50] 51 52 ... 93
Lenses / Re: EF 24-70mm F2.8 L ver 2 or 3 Prime Lens
« on: May 14, 2013, 09:31:08 PM »
Get the 24-70 II first, and if you need something faster later at a particular focal length, then supplement the zoom with a prime.  Plus it's always easier to get the less expensive items piecemeal later.   ::)

Lenses / Re: What other lenses for my 60D
« on: May 13, 2013, 04:51:06 PM »
Considering the new Sigma 30mm f1.4 Art lens is coming soon, is there any info as to when that will be released?

I can hold off on it for a little while if needed or get another lens. Reading up before impulsively buying anything.

Edit: It is available already, just not many reviews. Sounds like the corners may be sharper, but its $100 more at $500. First amazon review had a focus issue that needed to be recalibrated.

was there a forum post on this lens already?

Haven't seen all that much about the sigma 30, but the initial reviews indicate that it is closer to the previous sigma 30 in IQ rather than Sigma's 35mm f/1.4.  The link below shows a sample crop comparison between those two lenses.  There is also a drop down menu that allows you to compare the new sigma 30 with the old one or see the second link (harder to compare because the scaling is different).  If the Sigma 35 f/1.4 is wide enough for your purposed, that might be a better choice.

So I guess one really should use a tripod with  TS for optimal results. How would one work as a walkabout lens?
Cheers brian

It works fine if you don't mind manual focus -- they're also a bit bulkier/heavier than non TS lenses.  Shifts can also be done handheld and tilts for miniature effects too.  It's when you need to precisely aline the focal plane with live view precisely that tripods are necessary.

Lenses / Re: Can the 70-200 2.8L II IS replace my 100L and 135L?
« on: May 10, 2013, 11:16:45 AM »
The question is how often you use the 135L at f/2.  If you don't use it much wide open, then the 70-200 II can replace it.  And because you don't use the 100L for its magnification advantage, the 70-200 II can replace that as well (I find the two similar in IQ).  The 70-200 II is a bit heavier and will require better tripod setups.  Until recently, I was using a cheap tripod that did not handle the weight of the 70-200 II well, so by default I favored primes over it.  It got sand that I could not get out using it on a beach, and the head failed shortly after, which gave me reasons to get a good tripod.   ::)

The only big disadvantages of the 70-200II is its size and weight.  If you can hold onto the primes while having the 70-200 II for a while, you'll quickly find which ones become expendable.

Privatebydesign also mentions the potential harsh bokeh of the 70-200II.  In those cases, I find it helpful to shut off IS.  I haven't tested it rigorously, it but stands to reason that it could create a more jittery background with high contrast because the axis of rotation for the camera/user and the IS elements are not the same.  He is also right that the 100L does allow you to get closer because of its magnification advantage even if you don't get close to 1:1, which is why I end up carrying the 100L with me even though I have the focal length covered by other options.

Lenses / Re: Is An UWA Lens Useful on a Crop Sensor?
« on: May 10, 2013, 10:32:41 AM »
Cory, take a look at how much you use your 17-55 between 17-22.  When I had the Canon 10-22, I liked that it overlapped the midrange zoom a bit -- it really cuts down on the lens changes.  At a 35mm FF-equivalent angle of view, it worked well for environmental people pics while still giving you the 16mm equivalent angle of view for the scenic, artistic shot.

Lenses / Re: Is An UWA Lens Useful on a Crop Sensor?
« on: May 08, 2013, 07:29:15 PM »
I like it.  I don't use it that much percentagewise, but I'm glad to have it when I do want those attributes.  I tend to use it more traveling, for indoor shots (esp. during the holidays when everything is decorated) and when I want to emphasize a foreground subject while giving a environmental background.  You'll have to think about shots/perspective differently, but isn't that part of the fun?   :)

Lenses / Re: Would you rather buy used or refurbished?
« on: May 08, 2013, 10:00:01 AM »
Have done both, and it comes down to price.  Canon USA is easier to deal with with returns though, and the prices are nice when you snag a refurb unit on sale.  I avoid used units that are older and those that tend to wear badly (i.e. 24-70 I) when looking for used deals.

Pricewatch Deals / Re: Samyang 24mm f/3.5 ED Tilt-Shift in Stock
« on: May 07, 2013, 09:47:40 PM »
Me so sad. I was hoping that it might be a worthy consideration to the canon.  Anyone else noted the bulbous front lens element?

Why is that a concern?  It looks recessed enough and the front part of the housing has threads.  According to B&H's website, it takes 82mm filters.

EOS Bodies / Re: AF "Cases" for use with Dance Photography
« on: May 07, 2013, 11:12:10 AM »
Flash is cheap.

That's terrific information, but didn't answer her question really at all, in any capacity.  She is asking about AF tracking cases.

And, giving me an ulcer, the OP didn't tell us which camera she has, so who the heck knows which AF case she should use, since we don't know the camera.  I'm going to bed.

Hi, I was wondering if anyone could suggest optimal settings for Dance Photography.  I will be shooting in ambient/available light,no flash is permitted.  There will be "decent" light coming in through large windows, and the construction of the building is off-white marble.  I have a Canon 5D Mark III, and available lenses include a 24-105L, 70-200L.  Again no flash is permitted.

The OP has given us the camera model, and said Flash is not permitted.

Relax.  The OP's amended the original post to add additional information.  Those details were lacking in the original post.

I would try experimenting with case 1 or 2, but I find AF point selection may be a bigger factor.  AF point expansion works well for subjects isolated in space, but not so well when there are multiple targets spanning the spread.  In that case, I tend to fall back to single point.  The AF point selection and single point/expansion can all be changed via buttons with the right hand while in shooting position.  It will be to your benefit if you are comfortable changing these settings on the fly.  Good luck!

Lenses / Re: 50 1.2L back-focuses with lateral focus points
« on: May 05, 2013, 06:51:45 PM »
Mine focuses about as sharply using the outer points as the center point wide open on a 5DIII.  How much back-focusing are you talking about?

Lenses / Re: 35 & 85 or 50 & 100 for photographing kids
« on: May 05, 2013, 04:01:36 PM »
I'll definitely have to think more about this. First step, maybe I should see if I can get by with the 24-70 II indoors. I do have a 430 EX flash I sometimes use with a "black foamie thing" (as recommended here:, but frankly I don't like the extra bulk of flash.

The other question is whether I can live with a max aperture of 2.8 between 24-70mm from a depth of field perspective. In Justin's review of the Sigma 35/1.4 on this site, he says "The fast aperture and shallow depth of field will capture special moments with amazing clarity while isolating distracting backgrounds." I wouldn't have that ability with the 24-70.

That said, maybe the solution is to go with the 35 & 85 right now, since those are the focal lengths I think I'll use most, and get the 135 later. The 50 & 100 might not make as much sense if I plan to get the 135 eventually.

I find the 35L useful especially indoors.  My house is relatively dim.  On a cloudless day in the early afternoon, I'm already at ISO 800 at f/2.8 for about 1/200s.  At other times of the day, I'm easily at ISO 3200 or beyond.

In another case, I was shooting an indoor birthday party, and the house was cluttered.  The shallower DOF did help blur out the distracting background, which was only a couple feet behind the subject.

I do use the 24-70 II primarily outdoors, and it accounts for far more shots than the fast primes, but that's the purpose of a general purpose lens.  The 24-70 II is sharper than the Canon primes and holds its own against the Sigma 35 f/1.4 (according to TDP, Sigma might be slightly sharper in the center but the zoom is better toward the edge).  That said, I always find myself looking for a reason to bring a fast prime with the 24-70 II if I can.

Lenses / Re: Canon 85L II AF speed on 5D III???
« on: May 01, 2013, 05:32:33 PM »
AF speed is fine for stills, but not fast enough for "close" subjects moving toward/away from the camera.  24-70 II or 70-200 II is better for that type of shot.  You can still do it, but the keeper rate will be low.  For stills, AF accuracy is very good -- sharper/better than 35 or 50L.

Lenses / Re: Anyone upgraded from their 24-70L to 24-70L MKII?
« on: April 30, 2013, 08:34:50 AM »
Dylan, after getting the 24-70 MKII do you feel you have been using the 16-35 less and less for landscapes and wide shots? Or, the 16-35 still gets used quite often? I am asking because I have the 16-35 II, and wondering if I will end up using the 24-70 MKII more for landscapes than the 16-35 II and may end up giving up the wider focal length for better resolution.

I'm not Dylan, but for me, I've never been thrilled with the 16-35 II, and the 24-70 II does give me less incentive to use it.  The zoom is nice in some situations, but if I know I have time to set up the shot properly, I'd rather carry a wide prime (i.e. TS-E 17) instead of 16-35 II.  I'd still be carrying two lenses, but something like a TS-E would give me additional flexibility for losing the the ability to zoom.

Lenses / Re: EF 100-400 Replacement in 2013? [CR2]
« on: April 30, 2013, 07:44:15 AM »
Good for Canon to upgrade the lens, but as for everyone else, I wonder about the price.

Nikon is charging a ridiculous amount of money for their 80-400G (though prices are going down quickly). However, they could do it because the new lens is much better than the old 80-400.

Canon 100-400 is quite good. Can they do a so-much-better lens optically? I don't know, and if they do the price will be exorbitant. Certainly it will feature better IS, and I think they're going to smoothen the bokeh too - the biggest problem of the current version. So while I'm sure it will be a better lens overall, the margin could be slight to justify the difference in price. I think the MK1 will look like a much more attractive package to the most.

Talking about alternatives... never heard of Sigma 50-500? I'm holding on for my purchase of an expensive telezoom until Sigma and Tamron announce something in this range. In the meanwhile I enjoy the cheapolicius Tamron 70-300.

It's interesting.  Before the 6D came out, many people claimed they'd get a 5DII over the 6D, but it seems like the 6D has done just fine and people are happy with its advantages over the 5DII.  When the 24 IS, 28 IS and 35 IS came out, people complained about price gouging and said they'd never get those lenses, but some of those prices have fallen into the 400 range already.  When the 24-70 II came out, people complained that it lacked IS and was priced through the roof, but people are still buying it even though the Tamron 24-70 has VC and is significantly less costly.

The problem with the 100-400 is that it does some things well, and that other lenses have eroded many of the advantages it had when it was released.  The 70-200L II + 2x is said to come close in IQ at 400mm and is longer when stored and is slightly heavier with the 2x.  The 70-300L is more compact and lighter and has very good IQ.  I'd expect the new 100-400 to soundly beat the current 70-200L II, 70-300L and 400L f/5.6 IQ-wise, especially at the long end.  It might come out closer to 3k initialy but give it a year or two.  Early adopters pay a premium.

Lenses / Re: Do you still love 24-105L?
« on: April 26, 2013, 10:40:02 AM »
I still love mine and wouldn't sell it. Even if I got a 24-70II I would likely keep it as a secondary versatile lens. Looking at your lenses there would be a gap in your setup if you sold it for a 35.

Many shooters have this same decision, until they shoot with 24-70 II ;)

+1.  It really is too bad that its long end stops at 70 rather than 85 or 100mm.

Pages: 1 ... 48 49 [50] 51 52 ... 93