July 30, 2014, 11:55:37 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 ... 49 50 [51] 52 53 ... 86
Lenses / Re: Is there anything I can improve on this gear list?
« on: March 16, 2013, 09:17:01 PM »
Try out what you have for a bit, and you'll know what to get next.

If you liked the 50 on the crop, then a fast 85 or 100 f/2 makes sense on FF for portraits and I'd suggest getting that next.

The question on whether or not to get the 24-105 depends on how often you'd prefer a single walk-around lens rather than bringing 2 or 3 lenses.  It's a matter of convenience.  If you choose to skip the 24-105, then the 35 f/2 makes more sense.

Lenses / Re: How's the 70-300L?
« on: March 16, 2013, 08:41:44 PM »
I have the 70-300L IS USM for use with my 5D3, and I find the images it provides excellent.

Build quality is outstanding, it seems to work decently in low light for me (never had any issues), and though I find the forward zoom ring a bit annoying, I adjust quickly enough.

But I will take issue with the folks who think it is "light".  Hardly.  It is sufficiently heavy that it gets used less than it might otherwise, in favor of the 24-105L and some "foot zoom".

However, it is great at air shows and the zoo - places where you can't adjust the framing by walking.

Very glad I didn't get the 28-300L (which I considered), as that lens is substantially heavier still.

Light is relative.  It's a bit lighter than the 70-200L II + ext or the 100-400L, which are the some other L zoom options.  It's also more compact than the 70-200 II, which helps because I can stuff in a a small camera bag.

Lenses / Re: TS-E 45mm & TS-E 90mm Finally Getting Replaced? [CR1]
« on: March 15, 2013, 04:00:34 PM »
Sensor(DR) is not the reason for switching. I'm perfectly fine with 5D III sensor. I simply want FF sensor in P&S body(like RX1) that can switch lenses.

My needs might not apply to the PROs, but hey...........why not ;D

Even if it means going to another lens system that will take advantage of the reduced distance, which will take years to fill out?

Lenses / Re: 5DIII+35mm or 50mm?
« on: March 14, 2013, 12:12:53 PM »
I like the 35 better for walk around and I like the 50 better for portrait.  The question you have to answer first is which focal length would you rather have large apertures.  If you don't intend to use the 50 much wide open, then something like the 24-70 II is a better choice.

EOS Bodies / Re: Help with Canon 6D Purchase
« on: March 11, 2013, 10:40:23 PM »
Depending on the price of the 6D + 24-105 kit, it might make sense to buy the kit now and sell the 24-105 later for a profit.  Right now, the difference between the kit and the body only is 550.  Used 24-105s go for a bit more than that, so you should be able to turn a profit when you want to trade in the 24-105 for a 24-70 VC.

Or you can get the kit now, sell the 24-105 and your Sigma 17-50 and get the 24-70 VC.  It's more economical to get ultrawide zooms for crop cameras, and a Tokina 11-16 or a Sigma 8-16 or a Canon 10-22 will be less expensive than a 16-35 II.

Lenses / Re: Tilt Shift Lenses - Looking for Advice
« on: March 11, 2013, 02:23:56 PM »
So... comparing the version II of the 24 mm TS-E and the 17 mm TS-E... which is actually sharper and has better image quality?
The TS-E 24L II is slightly better.  But if you need wider....

Could always stitch 3 shots using shift if one needs wider, no? (except with a fast moving sky or sea in the scene that is...)

You could, but then you loose some/all perspective correction abilty when you do that.

Lenses / Re: opinions about my future set?
« on: March 09, 2013, 09:20:13 AM »
Get the 6D as a kit, try it for a while and then decide what the next move will be.  If you decide to upgrade the midrange focal lengths you can always make a profit selling the 24-105.  You might also consider getting the plastic fantastic, 50 f/1.8, (even cheaper used) with a 24-105 and 70-200.  It won't add much to the cost and you get to decide how you like a 50mm prime before committing more to that focal length.

The 24-105 and 70-200 overlap, and for the overlap region, the 70-200 is better.  That said, sometimes you just want to use one lens when going on a short jaunt and don't want to bring a larger or multiple lenses, so the 70-105 range is nice and is better than having nothing at all.

When I moved FF, I sold the 17-55 and replaced it with a 50 prime.  So when I went anywhere, I found myself usually carrying at least two lenses:  16-35 and 50 or 50 and 70-200.  It was a bit of a pain.  The value of the 24-105 is its versatility; it'll lose the IQ battle to most other red rings.

Lenses / Re: DPReview: Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II Review
« on: March 07, 2013, 12:07:26 PM »
Yeah, I've decided that I'm getting the 24-70 II.  Just trying to decide if I should accelerate that purchase by selling the 24-105L to offset the cost. 

For normal use (shooting people), I'm not too fussed about giving up IS.  Looking at my stats for the 24-105L on the 1D X, less than 4% of my shots are at slower than 1/125 s (I set a 1/125 s minimum shutter speed) - and the ones that are slower are mostly 1/60 s (likely flash shots).  Of slightly more concern are the ~30% of shots taken between 70-105mm, but I suspect the better IQ will make that a worthwhile trade.  Also, the improved AF accuracy with the combination of the newer bodies and 2012- lenses is a big factor.

I just have this feeling that after getting the 24-70 II, I really won't use the 24-105L at all...and if that's going to be the case, why not get the new zoom that much sooner?

Probably true.  Never had the 24-105 and used primes instead after getting rid of the crop camera and the 17-55 f/2.8, so I'm used to not having IS at these FLs anymore.  I'll still opt for the primes for shallow DOF and for inside use (with and without flash) because of the lighting flexibility they give, but I'll probably use the 24-70 for most outdoor applications.

You might want to check how much of that 30% that is used at 105mm.  I often find large spikes in the usage spectrum at the focal length limits, which often tells me that I should have brought one additional lens.   :)

Lenses / Re: Considering lens upgrade options....
« on: March 06, 2013, 07:41:10 PM »
Took a look at your site, and I'd posit that option 3 might be a good choice, although it is a boring choice.  The IQ is prime-like.  Sharper than any of the Canon 50s, and matches well to the 24L II and 35L at comparable apertures.  Noticeably softer at 70mm at 100% compared to what it can do at shorter focal lengths, but still very good.  It will relegate your 16-35L II to the 16-20mm range and your 50 f/1.4 to wider than f/2.8.

Option 1 would be a good choice too.  IS is a godsend at longer FLs.

Lenses / Re: Full Frame Lens Choice to Match 7D and 17-55 2.8 IS.
« on: March 06, 2013, 04:46:18 PM »
FFs perform better at higher ISOs due to the larger sensor size.  You could use the lens at f/4 and double the ISO and still get a better/cleaner results than the current crop of Canon crop cameras.

In any case, it'd make sense to get a FF camera with 24-105.  Try it and sell it if it doesn't work for you.  You can sell it for more than the difference between the camera only/kit price.  You could also try renting the Tamron and see if it works for you in the way you shoot.

Nice images BTW.  :)

Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 85 f/1.2L II
« on: March 06, 2013, 03:39:40 PM »
My favourite question to get is "How many times zoom is that?" (something that applies mostly to point and shoots that go from 28mm-300mm... so 10x zoom" and my answer is usually "Two, two and half."  8)
I still haven't decided if the proper response to that question when I'm lugging the 400 f/2.8 should be one or zero....

The great white lenses are robust enough to be used as a club, if you think that's a more proper response.  Just sayin'...

Maybe so... but it'd be such a pain to re-AFMA them after.

Lenses / Re: Duplicate APS-C and 17-55 2.8 IS in Full Frame?
« on: March 06, 2013, 03:37:48 PM »
It depends on what your budget is.  The most affordable way is to get the 24-105 with 6D kit.  The 24-105 will most likely match the DOF and range that you were used to with the 17-55.  The 24-105 would give you slightly shallower DOF because it's paired with a larger sensor. 

If you can afford more, a step up on the lens side would be the Tamron 24-70 VC.  The Tamron would give you markedly shallower DOF at f/2.8 and give you less noise headroom than the crop camera.

Lenses / Re: 70-400/ f4.0-5.6 Zoom ... Canon, where are you?
« on: March 05, 2013, 12:55:22 PM »
why must everybody think that when Nikon/Sony/anybody does anything, canon needs to follow. that's not called leading.

Canon is following it's own plan.  Lenses take years to develop and bring to market.  What is being released now has been identified and funded years ago.

Since 2010, Canon has released the following FF lenses:

70-200 f/2.8L IS II
300L II
400L II
500L II
600L II
24-70 f/2.8L II
24 IS
28 IS
40 pancake
24-70 f/4L IS

Most of the lenses in the longer focal range have been updated recently, and it doesn't take an oracle to see that Canon will be replacing older lenses, shorter focal lenses and lenses that have more competition over the next few years.  Canon gains nothing for not bringing out a better design that they can sell for more profit than an existing model.

Lenses / Re: Recommendations for fast & sharp 24 ff prime?
« on: March 05, 2013, 08:26:58 AM »
IQ-wise: EF 24 2,8 IS compared to EF-L 24 1,4 II?

Is the 24-70 II really up to prime IQ at the wide-end wide-open?

The 24 2.8 IS is close to the 24L II IQ wise, although the 24L II is still a little bit sharper and has less vignetting at comparable f-stops.

And yes, the 24-70II can match the performance of the 24L II and 35L and is sharper than whatever exists at 50mm for Canon.  It is weaker at 70mm than at 24mm, but is still very good.  The main advantage of the L primes now is their max aperture.

Lenses / Re: 70-400/ f4.0-5.6 Zoom ... Canon, where are you?
« on: March 05, 2013, 07:30:56 AM »
The 200-400 is not available. And it is not affordable for 99% of non-Pro photogs. It is therefore NO alternative to a newly designed, excellent 100-400 II ... at a price not higher than the new Nikon 70-400.

If the Canon releases a better version, be ready to fork out at least as much... 2700.

Pages: 1 ... 49 50 [51] 52 53 ... 86