March 05, 2015, 11:10:35 AM

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 - jhpeterson

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 11
Key questions - are you talking about the MkII versions of these lenses, and what camera (FF, APS-H or -C)?  Neither of the MkI versions are handholdable. For birds/wildlife, I'd get the 600 II (in fact, I did), for use on FF.  I also routinely use the 1.4xIII or 2xIII. 
While the Mk I versions of both these lenses are on the heavy side, I have found them to be hand holdable. Not easy, but with practice one can get some very usable images. In fact, I've used them on the water, shooting boats from another boat, the 400 sometimes with a 1.4 x.

Today the latest copy of Sailing magazine came in the mail. There, taking up all of page five, was a photo I'd taken with the 400mm, admittedly from land, but with the addition of a 2 x.

1D X Sample Images / Re: Any Thing shot with a 1Dx
« on: April 16, 2013, 01:29:41 AM »
I was traveling in the Middle East for almost three weeks at the end of last year. I got up very early on Christmas morning to hike up Mt. Sinai, hoping to catch sunrise. It was cold and threatening to rain when I set off and halfway up the mountain it started snowing. After nearly three hours, I'd made it almost to the top, then waited in one of the huts until first light.

Shot with a 1DX, 24-105/4 IS at ISO 6400. I took countless scenes like this, at dusk as well as dawn, in tunnels under the pyramids and in dark museums, palaces,churches and temples. I am most definitely impressed with the low light capabilities of this camera.

EOS Bodies / Re: Bogus Canon Rebate Prices at B&H
« on: April 14, 2013, 11:10:47 PM »
After I sell the 70-300 IS for $300 and the 24-105mm for $700 I will have my $1200 6D body :)
More like $1400 ($2199 + $199 - $300 - $700  = $1398), but still a great deal!

I've had both the EX 1.4 and 2x in the II models. As East Wind already posted, the 1.4 is excellent on the 300/2.8. On the other hand, I used the 2x on my original 70-200/2.8 IS and the results were totally useless. Last year, when I replaced my zoom with the version II, I also got the latest 2x extender. The AF is a little slow, but still very useble and the IQ is so much better! 

Lenses / Re: EF 300mm 2.8 IS - Anybody seen anything like this?
« on: April 08, 2013, 10:30:48 PM »
So I got similar results with IS on and off. Perhaps the IS "element" was stuck in an odd position from the last use of the lens.
That might just well be the case.  If the lens was dropped or subject to a great amount of vibration, the group that moves about to produce IS could be off-axis.

Lenses / Re: 24-105L or 70-200L f/2.8?
« on: April 08, 2013, 10:20:16 PM »
But if you want a jack-of-all-trades lens, the 24-105 is it.
Yes, jack of all trades, but likely master of none!
Not to pan the 24-105, as it's a very good lens and I have one. I also have the 70-200/2.8, the IS II version. It's an even better one!
It sounds to me the longer zoom is more in line with the OP's needs. If you look at car publications, you'll find the ads as well as editorial shots of exteriors are primarily taken with a telephoto lens.

Lenses / Re: EF 300mm 2.8 IS - Anybody seen anything like this?
« on: April 08, 2013, 08:57:10 PM »
This looks like it may a problem with the image stabilization. I've seen it happen a couple times, but only on the first-generation lower-priced lenses.
Perhaps the stops that control the travel of the IS have stripped. Since it looks sharpest close to the center, much like a lens that tilts, you seem to have one where the plane of focus is not parallel with the sensor.

Lenses / Re: 300mm F/2.8 non-IS... worth it?
« on: April 05, 2013, 10:39:40 PM »
Stewbyyy, I too would recommend the 1.4 x teleconverter, and in particular the Canon EF model in either version II or III. I probably use it with this lens at least as much as I do without and I see little if any difference in image quality.  While one loses a bit of contrast and probably resolution in the corners, this lens still delivers where it counts.
One word of caution is that the autofocusing slows down in low light. But, if you are shooting action, you probably will want to remove the converter anyway.

Lenses / Re: 300mm F/2.8 non-IS... worth it?
« on: April 05, 2013, 09:38:17 AM »
Over the past 20+ years I've had two 300mm f:2.8 non-IS lenses. In that time they've been the source of much if not most of my published, as well as personally favorite, work.  In fact, I'm convinced that, during the interval I was without one, the quality of my photography suffered. Between the sharpness (on par with the best of L primes), its shallow depth of field and pleasing bokeh, is that good a lens that it is almost certain to make a better photographer out of you. 
That said, there are reasons to be cautious about purchasing one. Almost all are 15 or more years old now, and some are as much as 25, making the availability of replacement parts an issue. I don't think FBW, by itself, is too much of a problem, but, rather, that Canon no longer supports this lens. You will need to find an independent source that's sufficiently skilled and resourceful to perform repairs, which, depending on where you live, will be anywhere from a moderate challenge to being totally out of the question. Case in point, a couple years ago, I needed to replace the rear mount. Pretty straightforward, right? Seeing that I couldn't get the part from Canon (and I'm a CPS member) so I could fix it myself, I took it to this area's best repair shop (I live less than an hour from Minneapolis-St. Paul). It turned out to take more than a couple weeks, as they had to order the part for a 300/2.8 IS, then, when it came in, machine it so it fit. Something to think about as you consider this lens.
What I hope to convey to you is that I highly recommend the 300mm f:2.8 non-IS. Few, if any, other lenses or cameras would give you as much "bang for the buck". But, be aware that, if it breaks, you may not be able to get it fixed. And, seeing how much you're almost certain to develop an attachment to this lens, THAT could be your greatest problem.

Canon General / Re: European travel?
« on: April 03, 2013, 05:43:35 PM »
One piece of gear that I would most recommend is a second body. Perhaps I see this as essential because I'm a professional who spends much of the year traveling on business, but I'm amazed how many visit a place they've never been without backup equipment. Should your camera fail, it would render all your lenses and accessories irrelevant, or at the least you would be forced to spend time seeking out a replacement when you could have been out touring the sights.

I was in Prague a year ago and one of my favorite places was Old Town Square, a gathering place for locals and visitors alike. There is much medieval architecture to train your camera on (be sure to see the Astronomical Clock, best is on the hour when costumed guides proclaim the time from the tower) and walking the stone streets is another must.
Since you'll be there in spring, I would recommend you enjoy at least one afternoon along the river, both for  the excellent views it should afford and the many places to enjoy a meal or drink.  If it's a nice day, a cruise on the Vlatava would be time well spent. 

Lenses / Re: Cheap Canon 300mm or 400mm do I Choose?
« on: March 01, 2013, 02:16:18 PM »
Over the years I've owned a couple 300/4 lenses, both with and without IS, a 400/5.6 and several of the 70-200 variations, so let me weigh in. And, while I've had only limited experience with the 100-400, I found it to be only "adequate" in terms of sharpness at the long end of its range. I suppose it's just the price you pay for such convenience.
While the 300/4 non-IS is an older lens and no longer in production, I found its image quality to be superior to that of the IS version (I've borrowed others to be sure I didn't have unusually good/bad examples). If you could find an excellent copy of one used, I would consider it to be a "best" option, that is, if you don't need IS. (But then, if you did, you wouldn't consider the 400 either!)
The latest model of the 70-200/2.8 IS and adding 1.4 and 2x converters is another consideration, though I would insist on getting the III version of the latter. You get all your focal lengths in, plus the added advantage of a sharp f:2.8 lens when you don't need all that reach.
Still, none of these possibilities compares with the IQ from a 300/2.8, which, even with extenders, gives great results (hardly any loss with the 1.4x model, and much better with a 2x than a 1.4 on the 400). If you could put up with the size and weight, you'd have an excellent set-up for most any situation. You might even find an older non-IS version for little, if any more, than what you'd pay for a new 300 or 400.

I'd keep the 7d.

While the swivel screen and difference in price make the 60d appear more attractive NOW (you know, the "always greener..." sort of thing), you'll likely soon realize the advantages of the 7d (like the screen that doesn't black out when you press record) outweigh the negatives.

Besides, one more thing the 7d has going for it is its better build. You say you're plan to produce advertising videos. One of the most important factors in choosing equipment to do commercial work, is reliability. It is both personally embarrassing and costly in terms of business when an item breaks down, even if it is only for small-town clients (maybe more so, since you may have to live in the same community as them). The near-certainty that a piece of gear will keep working in difficult situations is what labels certain cameras as professional, and, in turn, gives the photographer greater confidence in appearing as a pro.

Coming from someone who doesn't really trust anything below the level of the 1D series, perhaps my advice should be taken with a grain of salt. And, as I shoot on the ocean about 100 days a year, my cameras have been know to acquire a few of them!

Lenses / Re: Which pair of lenses to get?
« on: February 11, 2013, 04:20:58 PM »
Omfg, now you got me thinking of the 70-200mm f/4 IS or 70-200mm f/2.8 IS.
Guess you have to ask yourself, what light levels you'll be working in, at what focal lengths and distances and how much depth of field you'll field.
I'd give the nod to the f/2.8 (though not the original IS version), not only for the brighter image in the viewfinder, but also (much like your eyes) because of better AF response.

Landscape / Re: Transmission tower
« on: February 11, 2013, 04:11:56 PM »
It's also a federal crime to photograph aircraft unless the flight is specifically being conducted for photographic opportunities.  Airshows would be considered photo ops.  A passenger airliner on approach for landing is not and can land you in a federal penitentiary.
Interesting! A few months ago, I was on the water photographing a sailboat regatta (something I do for advertising and editorial clients several dozen days each year), when I felt major pressure in my ears and heard this near-deafening sound. It takes a moment for me to realize that this is a military aircraft flying fast (subsonic but still several hundred feet per second) and LOW. But, years of training must have kicked in as I grabbed the camera with my longest lens and aimed into the sky where I thought it was heading. A moment later, I spotted the jet and another second gave me two good shots.

That evening I reported the overflight to the FAA, along with a picture. I hope I'm not in trouble now!  ;)

Landscape / Re: Transmission tower
« on: February 11, 2013, 03:56:33 PM »
I really like this photo, too.  :)

Trained as an engineer, I often find items of an industrial nature attractive, whether trains, planes, automobiles... bridges, highways, even transmission towers. Many articles of infrastructure have been the subject of my camera. Having long been an editorial and commercial photographer, in recent years I've come to do a good bit of work in the field of alternative energy, photographing wind and solar installations.

In fact, when I'm on the road (which, between work assignments and personal travel, I do for most of the year), I'll frequently stop for objects like this that catch my eye. So far, I've been fortunate in that law enforcement has never bothered me. Of course, with my equipment, it's pretty obvious what I am doing, and I'd like to think those who do this sort of thing with evil intent would be a little more clandestine.

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 11