August 29, 2014, 06:10:55 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 - RLPhoto

Pages: 1 ... 91 92 [93] 94 95 ... 225
1381
Lenses / Re: Photozone spanks the 24-70 F4 USM L IS
« on: March 04, 2013, 07:40:18 PM »
Which of those options offers a high quality weather-sealed compact mid-range zoom with built-in macro?  None.  There are substitutes, perhaps better for some applications, but no one-lens equivalents.

Good reasoning but does being a unique one-lens option provide that sort of value?   One could think of it in the opposite direction too; it is only f/4, not a true macro at 0.7, and neither much (if) better than the competition optically.

After all, I guess we all agree,  it is worth for those who purchase and not worth for those who do not. If the market consists mainly of the latter, the price goes down and vice versa... This lens might become the kit lens replacing the 24-105 eventually which would be unfortunate for us who like the 24-105 and would like to see a v2 of it. I recall even calls for a f/2.8 version of it...

Cheers!

+1

I've been around some other photogs in my area, and not a single one of them had any interest in this lens. It's not a bad product, its just bad @ 1499$. If it was around 649$, along with a 70-200 f/4, then yes it would make sense.

At its current price, a 100L + 24-105L is what you could get used for the same monies.

There is no ideal one lens solution, afterall that's the whole point of SLRs.

1382
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: The Next Zeiss Lenses? [CR2]
« on: March 04, 2013, 05:25:03 PM »
If Zeiss would just put AF, I'd never own any canon lenses.

I wonder why they don't make AF lenses for Canon or Nikon bodies?

Because $0ny doesn't want to.  >:(

Don't they make AF lenses for Sony DSLR systems?

Yes. If Zeiss made AF Lenses for Canon & Nikon, $0ny would lose a selling point.

1383
Lenses / Re: Photozone spanks the 24-70 F4 USM L IS
« on: March 04, 2013, 05:21:36 PM »
This lens was DOA @ 1499$. IQ wouldn't of mattered at that price.
+1
Cannot really see the point with this lens, one could get tammy 24-70 + 100 mm non-L macro lens for that amount and these two are f/2.8 lenses after all...

Cheers!

Or even

28mm 1.8
50mm 1.4/1.8
100mm F/2

or

24-105L (Used) + 100L (used)

or

5Dc + 24-105 + 50mm 1.8

or

1500$ worth of frito lays.

Which of those options offers a high quality weather-sealed compact mid-range zoom with built-in macro?  None.  There are substitutes, perhaps better for some applications, but no one-lens equivalents.

Image quality wouldn't matter at $1499?  Then the 24-70/2.8II was DOA at its introductory price of $2299.  But it wasn't.

Its funny you say "Built in Macro" because my old powershot has a "Built in macro" feature. Just because it can focus really close doesn't mean its a macro lens just as my powershot lens isn't really a macro.

And yes, the IQ didn't matter @ 1499$, Because this lenses IQ is laughable for said price. Its marginally better than the 24-105L for twice the price.

While the 24-70II is the very best 24-70 ever made by any manufacturer, thus worth the 2300$ price tag.

Jack of all trades, Master of some, and chosen by none. IE: DOA.

1384
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: The Next Zeiss Lenses? [CR2]
« on: March 04, 2013, 04:42:07 PM »
If Zeiss would just put AF, I'd never own any canon lenses.

I wonder why they don't make AF lenses for Canon or Nikon bodies?

Because $0ny doesn't want to.  >:(

1385
Lenses / Re: Photozone spanks the 24-70 F4 USM L IS
« on: March 04, 2013, 03:21:53 PM »
This lens was DOA @ 1499$. IQ wouldn't of mattered at that price.
+1
Cannot really see the point with this lens, one could get tammy 24-70 + 100 mm non-L macro lens for that amount and these two are f/2.8 lenses after all...

Cheers!

Or even

28mm 1.8
50mm 1.4/1.8
100mm F/2

or

24-105L (Used) + 100L (used)

or

5Dc + 24-105 + 50mm 1.8

or

1500$ worth of frito lays.

1386
A little late to the 1998 USM party nikon?

1387
It should be Ok-Good. Decently sharp @ F/5.6, Really sharp @ F/8

1388
EOS Bodies / Re: What about a more versatile sensor dimensions?
« on: March 04, 2013, 02:21:39 PM »
If it was square, It would save my need's for battery grips.

1389
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: The Next Zeiss Lenses? [CR2]
« on: March 04, 2013, 02:19:17 PM »
If Zeiss would just put AF, I'd never own any canon lenses.

1390
Lenses / Re: UV filters (any difference?)
« on: March 04, 2013, 02:16:14 PM »
Proven to make your images softer but protect your lens from a tree. your call.

Noticeably softer?  I would like to see the source of that fact (unless you are referring to cheap filters).

+1

I was thinking the same thing, at the same time.

1391
Pricewatch Deals / Re: Deals: Canon EOS 5D Mark III & Canon EOS 6D
« on: March 04, 2013, 02:15:13 PM »
Or you can get a canon refurbish 5d iii for $2379.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/News/News-Post.aspx?News=4318

Whoa, And I thought I had a good deal for 2499$.

1392
Pricewatch Deals / Re: Deals: Canon EOS 5D Mark III & Canon EOS 6D
« on: March 04, 2013, 01:35:42 PM »
If you wait till Holidays, 5D3's could be as low as 2499$.  8)

1393
Lenses / Re: Photozone spanks the 24-70 F4 USM L IS
« on: March 04, 2013, 01:32:57 PM »
This lens was DOA @ 1499$. IQ wouldn't of mattered at that price.

1394
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Nikon finally Admits D600 Dust Problem
« on: March 04, 2013, 01:17:38 PM »
Being a Canon user, I was completely unaware of such faults. No need to panic, continue to shoot canon.


:|

1395
Lighting / Re: Which flash for a 5d mkIII
« on: March 04, 2013, 01:14:17 PM »
If you've got the $$$, Get the 600-RT

If less, Get the 580EXII.

If even less, Get the 430EXII

If even less, Third-party options are available.

If no Budget, Grab a flashlight. :P

Pages: 1 ... 91 92 [93] 94 95 ... 225