March 06, 2015, 08:59:31 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 ... 111 112 [113] 114 115 ... 245
1681
Lenses / Re: What happened to DO?
« on: March 05, 2013, 12:55:44 PM »
If canon we're to revamp DO tech, I believe they'd release several major lenses at one time and ditch the older ones immediately to rid themselves of the stigma of the Old DO tech.

Personally, I'd love a 200mm F/2 IS DO the size/weight of a 135L.

1682
Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 85 f/1.2L II
« on: March 05, 2013, 12:50:04 PM »
Call me a snob but unless the glass is made by Canon, Nikon or Zeiss you're better off without it.

That's not snobbery, it's idealism.

1683
Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 85 f/1.2L II
« on: March 05, 2013, 12:43:26 PM »
I still shake my head when I see a cheap filter on a premium lens such as the photo posted with the review.

Would you shake your head if it said "Made In Germany - B&W"?

1684
Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 85 f/1.2L II
« on: March 05, 2013, 10:58:11 AM »
The 85L is a legendary level lens. Everyone shooting SLRs on any platform want or envy this lens or atleast know about it. Unfortunately, I couldn't find a use for one in my bag yet. The 135L is just as good for me.

1685
EOS Bodies / Re: refurbished 5d III, what do you think?
« on: March 04, 2013, 08:22:14 PM »
I bought my 7D refurb and it was perfect, no issues. I got in 2010 for 1050$, which was a steal at the time. Glad I did it. :D

1686
Lenses / Re: Photozone spanks the 24-70 F4 USM L IS
« on: March 04, 2013, 08:04:40 PM »
Ok, before this thread goes on any further. Lets define what DOA is and isn't.

If a 14-24L were released tomarrow, I can guarantee that lens will not be DOA. No matter the cost. It's a lens everyone wants. Orders would line up for months.

The 24-70 f/4L was released, and I haven't seen or heard much about it up to now. Many of my photogs buddies don't care and I don't see a lot of them at local rental stores or camera shops. I heard that almost nobody bought one.

That is DOA to me, but, but, it could be resurrected if its price is cut significantly. I want to like this lens but my copy of the 24-105L is just so good, why canon?

Edit: I use my 24-105 a lot for eBay shots. It's a tack.

1687
Lenses / Re: UV filters (any difference?)
« on: March 04, 2013, 07:50:01 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).

http://www.digitalrev.com/article/uv-filter-vs-no-uv/OTMwNA_A_A

6:30 in.

also stated in this is the earlier made point that modern chips don't pick up uv rays anyway.

proof: conclusive  8)

Lol Kai is entertaining. I'm subscribed to DRTV.

I've never liked hoyas. B&Ws are so good, you would not be able to tell the difference. Lets compare some images made and point out which had a filter.

1688
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.

1689
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.

1690
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.

1691
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.  >:(

1692
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.

1693
A little late to the 1998 USM party nikon?

1694
It should be Ok-Good. Decently sharp @ F/5.6, Really sharp @ F/8

1695
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.

Pages: 1 ... 111 112 [113] 114 115 ... 245