November 22, 2014, 08:14:58 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 ... 129 130 [131] 132 133 ... 235
1951
EOS Bodies / Re: 50(+)Mp price expectancy
« on: December 28, 2012, 07:42:12 PM »
I might buy a 1DXs if and only if canon truly updates the sensor tech behind the megapixels.

1952
Lenses / Re: Second lens for first time FF user
« on: December 27, 2012, 01:22:40 PM »
24-105L + 50mm is a fantastic GP combo. Also 24-105Ls used are not too expensive.

1953
Lenses / Re: What 2nd lens for a designer
« on: December 27, 2012, 12:06:02 PM »
100mm F/2
50mm 1.8/1.4

Both are fantastic.

You have 3 lenses listed sir.  :) :) :)

Not quite. It was a choice of the 50mm 1.8 or 1.4 which are both fantastic.

1954
Lenses / Re: What 2nd lens for a designer
« on: December 26, 2012, 10:56:11 PM »
100mm F/2
50mm 1.8/1.4

Both are fantastic.

1955
EOS Bodies / Re: 5d3 is the 2012 camera of the year!
« on: December 24, 2012, 10:20:04 PM »
I believe the 5D3 is the camera of the year but... Just not for 3500$ :/

1956
EOS Bodies / Re: Digital equivalence: film tab holders
« on: December 24, 2012, 10:17:31 PM »
Gaffers tape. :|

1957
Software & Accessories / Re: Best panorama photo stitching software.
« on: December 24, 2012, 10:15:07 PM »
Automate panoramics in CS3 for me. It just works.

1958
LR4 is far better than LR3 for IQ retention. I could push my RAW files harder in LR4 than in LR3, and it also handles highlight recover much better.

If your willing to upgrade, it's well worth the $$$.

1959
Lenses / Re: 135 mm IS anywhere?
« on: December 24, 2012, 12:56:47 PM »
I seriously want a 135 f/1.8L IS.

1960
70-200 first but if you like primes, you could squeeze a 135L and a sigma 35mm for the same $$$. After all, the 100-400 is doing most tele work right?

1961
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Please explain expanded ISO
« on: December 24, 2012, 08:58:26 AM »
Horrible 1 and Horrible 2 are indeed, pretty horrible. :|

1962
Lenses / Re: New lenses for 46mp camera?
« on: December 24, 2012, 08:54:02 AM »
I see no reason for L grade lenses like the 24-70II and the 70-200II to out resolve 46mp. Even most primes could do Even better.

1963
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5d2 officially discontinued.
« on: December 23, 2012, 09:12:06 PM »
Never wanted, nor owned a 5D2. Still, many did enjoy their 5D2's.

1964
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sigma 35 f/1.4 DG HSM First Impressions
« on: December 21, 2012, 02:27:26 PM »
I really can't understand the nitpicking with the bokeh... I haven't met any photog who would choose bokeh over sharpness. Well, I guess if you've paid $1000+ for a 35L then the sigma has to be THAT bad...

Not me. I'm sold - I'm getting the sigma.

what about the 50L?

1965
Lenses / Re: EF 24-70 f/2.8L IS Exists as a Working Prototype [CR2]
« on: December 21, 2012, 02:25:55 PM »
Tamrons are junk. They're good starter lenses but that's about it.

Have you looked at the new Tamron 24-70? From the limited time I rented it and the images I'm seeing, it's quite good. Also from the reviews I've read, it's very good. IQ, not quite up to the 24-70 v2, sure, but still around as good or a bit more than the 24-70 v1. Build quality seems quite good, although again, not quite up to L standards. But it's $1300, not $2100-2300 or whatever the 24-70 v2 is going for right now.

Now, most of the rest of the Tamron glass, far as I know you're mostly correct, but if their 24-70 is the new direction they are going it, they're likely to become a serious off-brand competitor for people who can't quite afford L and don't want to pay the vastly more expensive new non-L primes with IS.

+1 The Tamron 24-70 VC and 70-200 VC are a huge shift in IQ and quality from them. Add the Sigma 35mm 1.4 and you've got a superb third party kit.

Pages: 1 ... 129 130 [131] 132 133 ... 235