September 23, 2014, 10:56:18 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 ... 90
100L worked fine for me too.  I don't notice all that much difference between the 100L and the 70-200L II in practice.  My copy of the 100L might be a tad better than my 70-200L II at that focal length.  Printed 24"x36" canvas print and it looks good.  Chose the 100L because I did not have a sturdy enough tripod for the 70-200L II.

EOS Bodies / Re: 5D3 Firmware
« on: April 18, 2013, 08:52:52 AM »
At least it's not April 62nd (i.e. June 1st), lol.

Lenses / Re: Questions for 5D3 and 70-300L
« on: April 17, 2013, 07:10:22 PM »
The 70-300L is fine for outdoor stuff even when it is gloomy.  It does become a problem when indoors.  Even with the 5DIII, there is a big difference between ISO 6400 and 12800+.  Basically, it comes down to the difference between you using your 24-70 and you 24-105 indoors.  If you can get away with using the 24-105 indoors, then you'll be able to get away with using the 70-300L.  The nice thing about the 70-300L is that is gives you a good start to getting the 135L for indoor use.   ;D

Lenses / Re: what lenses for what shoot
« on: April 17, 2013, 03:51:33 PM »
18-55 as a general walk-around, 55-250 for a telephoto and the the 50 f/1.8 for ambient light when it starts getting dark.  Or you could leave the 50 f/1.8 at home if you don't plan to use it much.

Lenses / Re: One lens for vacation
« on: April 17, 2013, 03:46:33 PM »
If you're used to the 50L, just take the 50L.  It's what you and your kids are used to, but it just might mean that you get a bit more wet than with the 70-200 II.   ::)


I still believe that a prime is sharper than a zoom if they were made of the same quality around the same time (i.e. year of release).  The 24-70 II is the only flat-out exception to that rule that I've seen.

- A

It'll be interesting to see how Canon does with new 35L and 50L revisions.  I'm guessing they'll be better than the 24-70 II, else you might as well take your chances with less expensive 3rd party alternatives.

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.

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!

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.

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).

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.

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.



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.

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.

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.

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.

Pages: 1 ... 48 49 [50] 51 52 ... 90