September 22, 2014, 12:26:13 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 ... 90
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.

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?


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.

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.

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.

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.

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.).

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.

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.

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.

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?

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. 

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.

Lenses / Re: Which one to get?
« on: April 10, 2013, 08:49:16 AM »
If it's between the 24L II or the 16-35L II, then I'd recommend the 24L II.  Most people that shoot the stars do not recommend using the 24L II wide open because of the coma.  The 16-35L II won't be able to be compete with the TS-E 17 or the 24L II, so what you'd be getting would be versatility up to 35mm.  Getting a 35mm prime or the shorty-forty would do better than the 16-35L II at the long end but going the prime way will require carrying more lenses.

EOS Bodies / Re: Impact of falling Yen on Prices
« on: April 09, 2013, 03:20:28 PM »
I'm guessing the MSRP would remain high.  Discounts might run a little deeper though.  Companies rarely reduce prices officially because it's bad business when they train customers to think that way.  Most companies are unable to transfer the total cost increase when their costs rise, so they're looking to pocket any gains attendant with a currency shift in their favor.

Reviews / Re: Most Objective and Less Objective REVIEWER?
« on: April 08, 2013, 07:11:39 PM »
No more fuel to the fire, but just out of interest:

From the Digital Picture:

"Tamron 24-70mm VC Lens Image Quality - Take 4
Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD Lens
If you have been following this blog/new page, you know that I have been making a big effort to get good image quality results from the Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD Lens. This is currently the only full frame-compatible lens available in the 24-70mm focal length range with both an f/2.8 max aperture and Vibration Control - a combination that many of us find very attractive.
Evaluating this lens, as I hinted, has been very problematic. The first lens I bought had a serious image quality issue - Tamron wanted it back for analysis.
The second lens I bought performed well, but was noticeably softer on the right side - the side that shows in the site's ISO 12233 image quality tool. I suspected decentering and sent the lens to Tamron for repair/adjustment.
The lens came back from repair performing worse than before I sent it in. Tamron sent me a shipping label to take a second try at the repair.
The results from the second repair, the fourth test, are now found on the Tamron 24-70mm VC Lens Image Quality page. And, <drumroll>, they look very good!
We spent over a full week testing this lens model for the ISO 12233 chart test alone, but persistence has paid off ... I think we have an as-good-as-it-gets copy in our hands now. This process has not said good things about the quality control for this lens model, but again, the image quality looks very nice to me.
What is not looking good is this lens' AI Servo AF performance. This lens has not been able to accurately focus on subjects moving toward or away from the camera. One Shot AF has been working fine, so this lens has plenty of great uses available for it. More to come."

P.S.  I took a look through some of the ISO 12233 charts and compared them with the chief competition (Canon 24-70l II).  Wide open, I would give the edge at most focal lengths to the Canon (24mm is debatable and might go Tamron - 35mm strongly favors the Canon) although they are quite close.  Interestingly, stopped down to f/4, it would appear that this sample of the Tamron is sharper at all tested focal lengths.

Yes, I saw it too; interesting.  TDP also mentioned that the Tamron's had more issues with Servo AF.  Have you found that to be the case?  Nice pics with your Tamoron, BTW.

Lenses / Re: Wedding with crop bodies, help with rentals.
« on: April 08, 2013, 03:43:46 PM »
So if we go for the f/2.8 should we get the non-IS or the IS version?

Lenses aren't a big deal for him. He can rent all the lenses he wants. It's the body that he really wants to wait for. He will not shoot with a FF camera until he has his own. He's set on that ideology. I've tried telling him that 5Dc's aren't that expensive.

70-200L f/2.8L IS II.  IS is handy for portraiture in bad light at the longer focal lengths.

Pages: 1 ... 49 50 [51] 52 53 ... 90