April 23, 2014, 04:00:33 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 - Hector1970

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6
1
Lenses / Re: Sigma 300-800 - Anyone use this lens?
« on: April 20, 2014, 08:01:45 PM »
It has great reviews on Amazon
But not as good reviews as the Sigma 200-500 F2.8
  ;D

2
Lenses / Re: Thinking about this but wanting your thoughts....
« on: March 18, 2014, 03:14:32 PM »
Best of luck in your search for the right lens. The only thing I would say is I think the 70-200 II F2.8 is the best of all Canons zoom lens. It creates beautiful photograph. It locks on focus very fast. It's very adaptable to sport , portraits and even landscapes. Other than the cost you'd never regret buying it. I use the canon 1.4 and the Kenko 2x converters. Still good but maybe some of the magic disappears. Probably for what you are planning the existing 100-400 is good enough.

3
Landscape / Re: Slot Canyons- Canyon X and Upper Antelope, Grand Canyon
« on: December 02, 2013, 04:59:52 AM »
Thanks for sharing you experience . You were kind to do so and you made good use of the feedback here. Some lovely shots. A9586 being my favourite. Looks like tough conditions to photograph in. Others have complained about the crowding too. I suppose everyone has to make a buck. Glad you felt it was worth it. The crowds will be bigger next year because of your great photos.

4
Lenses / Re: 70-200mm F 2.8 IS 2 VS 70-200mm F4 IS
« on: November 21, 2013, 06:07:09 PM »
I own the 2.8 II but have used the F4.
Both are great. Of all my lens I think the 2.8 is the best .
It's absolutely brilliant for sports and for portraits.
The F4 is way lighter and cheaper and very very good. You will love it but maybe crave the 2.8
The 2.8 will either give you big muscles or a repetitive strain injury.
But it's wonderful and even after 2 years it hasn't lost its appeal .
I have the 85mm II and I wouldn't rate it anywhere near as good.
It's too tricky at times whereas the 70-200mm always comes up trumps.

5
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon EOS 5D Mk III handling annoyances
« on: November 20, 2013, 06:28:32 PM »
For me I think the Focus confirmation is poor on the 5D. The focus point should light when focus is made. Sometimes it does this in the dark but appears erratic. The focus confirmation on the view finder this green dot is not distinct enough.

6
Lenses / Re: Which TS lens is better
« on: October 23, 2013, 06:00:53 AM »
I had this dilemma 17 vs 24mm. I chose 24mm and haven't regretted it. I think it's a more flexible focal length.
I could see that if it were interiors that you want to use it for the 17mm might be more appropriate.
I mainly use it for landscape and 24mm is perfect for that. Stitching also works really well if you want a wider view. Filters were an important factor for me. The 17mm at the time wasn't so straightforward.
So thumbs up on the 24mm TSE II. I don't leave home without it  ( I am just praying that I don't ever break the knobs.)

I was interested in someones statement earlier about using it wide open
(I guess maybe astro photographers would a lot, though).
I am using a 14mm Samyang for Wide field Astrophotography.
I was wondering if the 24mm was commonly used for this.
I never thought of using it as maybe I thought it might be fiddly in the dark.


7
Hahnel are a very good and reputable company. Their batteries are good. Ive found them amongst the best. Opteka are good too. Their wireless trigger equipment is excellent.
I'm very confident in buying their gear. It's never let me down. Their HQ is in Ireland but they are a German family firm I believe. It's a good combination. German engineering with Irish ingenuity.

8
Lenses / Re: 85mm prime recommendation
« on: October 03, 2013, 07:04:47 PM »
I have the 70-200 2.8 II and the 85 1.2
In my opinion the 70-200 is much more flexible and gives great portraits .
The 85 1.2 is a specialised lens. Shooting at 1.2 is difficult. The depth of field is very thin.
It's a risky lens to use compared to a 70-200mm. The focusing is slowish and easily out of focus if either you or the subject budges an inch. It's easier to use stepped down but then you may as well buy the excellent 1.8.
My conclusion 70-200mm expensive but worth it
85mm 1.2 expensive not really worth it (but you do get some amazing shots with it.
(If scares people though', they see the shutter.

9
Lenses / Re: Ken Rockwell on Lens Sharpness
« on: September 24, 2013, 09:00:33 AM »
While I come to Canon Rumors to learn about interesting technical details from very knowledgable hobbyists I don't object to Ken Rockwell either. I've found his reviews pretty fair.
I personally prefer "The Digital Picture" reviews. I like his formatt of doing things (is it Bryan?).
I've no idea if either of them really know what they are talking about but I find them an interesting read.
I don't know if it's part of being male that comparing things is a natural instinct.
I see it in my son, which is better a Lamborgini or a Ferrari, is Messi better than Ronaldo?
These websites provide this is spades when comparing lens.

What's great about Canonrumors is the depth of knowledge of people like Neuroanatomist and Mt Spokane.
They are doing it for nothing.
I don't object to Ken making some money out of his reviews to feed his growing family (it must be around 20 children at this stage but maybe I've double counted), it's his life work I suppose.

10
Lenses / Re: 24mm TS-E II purple cast
« on: September 24, 2013, 08:38:22 AM »
Hi,
I haven't had this issue myself but at max tilt and max shift you will find some unusual results and the meter readings on the camera go all wrong.
I must say I love my one and use it alot for landscape photography.
I don't feel I've fully mastered it even after 6M or so practice with it.
I find it hard to predict the impact of shift or tilting in particular scenes.
Sometimes however you get images that you just can't get otherwise.
Definately I haven't seen a purple cast.
Maybe you have a special Velvia version.

11
Lenses / Re: 50mm 1.2
« on: September 24, 2013, 08:33:15 AM »
I was interested in finding out from users whether the 50mm 1.2L is worth it.
I have the 50mm 1.4 and I like it.
It's not the sharpest lens in the world at 1.4 but it does give pleasent images.
I also have the 85mm 1.2L and find it a difficult lens to use at 1.2.
I usually stop it down to F2 to ensure focus.
At 1.2 the Depth of Field is Razor thin.
At that rate it would have been alot cheaper to buy the 85mm 1.8 and it would weigh a fraction of the 1.2L.
The 85mm 1.2L is a pretty special lens when you do manage focus.
It's bokeh is great. I question though it's value for money.
I am wondering would I see great advantages in the 50mm 1.2L over the 50mm 1.4

12
Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L
« on: September 10, 2013, 08:48:14 AM »
These reviews are always interesting as is the wide variety of comments and experiences.
I had a choice between this and the 16-35 l and I went for 17-40 for reasons of price.
I wouldn't say the lens is the greatest ever but I think it's pretty good.
You can take very fine photographs with it. It's so a wide field of view that lack of sharpness in the corner isn't the end of the world. You can take a pretty sharp looking photograph with it.
Alot of photos nowadays are seen on an iPhone from Flickr and Facebook and you definately won't show up flaws then. It takes filters and this is very important for me for landscape photography. The fact it's 77mm is handy in terms of adapters (and lost lens caps).
Maybe my version is better than others (or more compatible with the tolerances in my camera (5D MIII).
I would have to say I am fairly happy with it.
I have a 24 TSE II and I can use that to combine 3 shots for a fairly wide angle view with shift but it's much more convenient to do it with a 17-40mm straight off. The 17-40mm may not be as sharp as the 24 TSE II but for me it's sharp enough and with Live view I can ensure what I definately want in focus is in focus.

I have the Sigma 10-20mm for an APS-C camera. I loved this when I got it first. I just loved Wide Angle at the time. I think I'm not so wide angly any more. The 17-40 was an attempt to replicate this.
I also have the Samyang 14mm which I've used very successfully for Wide Field Astrophotography. It's great for this. It gives me Super Wide Angle if needs be. It's pretty sharp. I have the Samyang 8mm Fisheye. I thought that was great fun on a APS-C camera.
I think now I'm more taking landscapes at 24mm. It's less distorted and I have to think harder about composition rather than fitting it all in.
Anyway a thumbs up from for the 17-40mm. Don't use it too often but it works for me when I do.
If you want to see what I do with this gear here is my Flickr Page.
I wouldn't claim to be the world's greatest photographer or anywhere near that.
I do enjoy it alot and I find Canon Rumors very interesting.
The technical knowledge here is remarkable.
www.flickr.com/fergalocallaghan

13
Lenses / Re: Lens selection for trip to Ireland
« on: September 08, 2013, 03:16:24 PM »
I live here. I use a 17-40 and a 24 tse quite a lot. My big recommendation would be to bring filters to get the best out of the sky. PM me if you want some location advice. It depends on what you like shooting. Weather I'd the biggest hazard bring a camera cover or a plastic bag

14
Lenses / Re: I just ordered my new 70-200 f2.8 MkII today!
« on: September 07, 2013, 07:08:32 AM »
You won't regret it. It's a fantastic lens. Brilliant for portraits and sport. Takes the 1.4 extender really well. I haven't used a better Canon lens. I think it's the best of all (I haven't tried the 135mm but maybe someday )

15
Lenses / Re: W/A zoom for 5D MkIII
« on: September 07, 2013, 07:04:33 AM »
You have the 17-40 L and the more expensive 16-35mm. The 17-40 is pretty good if not outstanding. A lens I like is the Samyang / Rokinon 14mm . I thinks it's great . It's manual but I think that makes you a better photographer. It's super for wide field astrophotography combined with the 5D. I understand what you are going through. I liked my Sigma too.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6