December 22, 2014, 07:56:13 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 - Scarpz13

Pages: [1] 2 3 4
1
Lenses / Re: Another Lens Suggestion Post… looking for a gift for myself.
« on: December 05, 2013, 01:08:43 PM »
Hi Everyone one… going to be fortunate enough to have a little commission/Christmas bonus money left over after taking care of all the gifts for the wife & kiddies, family and friends….

Haven't added to my lens collection since about this time last year; and will have around $1000 or so to spend. Considering the lenses I already have, my first inclination was to pick up a 100L Macro, since none of my lenses are macro. Then I considered the 135L because I don't have a long range prime, and like everyone,  I like fast glass.

But as my kids are getting older and into dance recitals and indoor sports, plays, etc… the 135L might be good, but I am considering on of the new Tamron 2.8 zooms. I used to own a 17-50 Tammy for my 60D and found it was great… and I know Dustin from TWI has posted some great reviews here on the Tamron lenses.

I know everyone is going to say the Canon is better, but I'm not in place to spend 2K+ on a lens, at least not without taking away from more important things- I feel guilty enough as it is not spending all my extra money on the kids!

I appreciate any thoughts- and I am a bit concerned that I am more likely to get a "bad copy" of a Tamron, but I think it may be the best value right now. In Toronto they are on sale everywhere… $1000 or so for the 24-70 and $1300ish for the 70-200

thanks!

I have heard the Tamron 24-70 is pretty darn good, but have heard much less good things about the 70-200.  Given Canon's fantastic telephoto selection, I would recommend staying with Canon in this focal length range.

In any case, the Canon lenses do offer more reliable performance even though they may lack features and be more expensive at times.

I can vouch that the 100mm f/2.8L Macro is an amazing lens you might want to consider.  If you have the slightest inclination towards Macro, it is the perfect lens to start with in that category; good working distance, excellent IQ, and much more compact than the 180mm macro.  In addition, by flipping a switch it becomes a portrait lens w/ IS, plus some of the best edge-to-edge sharpness you have ever seen.  So it is an extremely versatile lens that will let you take close ups (I use it for ring shots) as well as highly detailed portraits that ooze expression.

Another lens in this pricerange you may want to consider is the 70-200 f/4L IS or 70-300 f/4-5.6L IS.  If you are not getting paid to take pictures, I'd actually advise to skip the 70-200 f/2.8 - it is just so darn heavy and huge that for a photographer doing things for fun it may actually dissuade you from usage!  I have one, and it does give excellent results, but you really need to have a secondary lens to use that does not weigh a ton for non-pro events.  So, before you go the 70-200 2.8 route, make sure you handle it in the store and that is a weight/size you are comfortable handling all the time, on hiking trips, outings, etc.

Regarding the 70-200 f/4L IS and 70-300 f/4-5.6L IS, I actually prefer the latter because I already have a 70-200 2.8 and the former is too close in focal length.  The 70-200 f/4, while lighter, is too long for some venues - while the 70-300L's compact length allows you to get into certain places where the 70-200 f/4 would be banned.  The extra reach on the 70-300 is nice, too, and unlike the non-L 70-300 lenses the 70-300L is extremely sharp throughout the whole range!

The 135L is a nice lens, but I believe we will see it trumped by a non-L IS prime in 2014 for half the price, much like we saw with the 35mm f/2 IS trumping the 35mm f/1.4L this year.  Also consider with the 135mm focal length, Image Stabilization is very much desired due to the longer focal length - a lot of times you may need 1/100 or 1/60 shutter speed, and without IS you may be doomed to motion blur handheld with the 135L.  Again, a non-L IS prime that will likely arrive next year will fix this for much less money while retaining the superior optics if the 35mm f/2 IS is any indication.

So my recommendations - 100L Macro or 70-300L.

Thanks Ruined!
I already have the 70-200 F4 IS, and I agree... the 2.8L IS is probably too big for what I need. the F4 is more than sufficient for taking photos of my kids playing outside at the park, etc... where most of my long range photos are taken.
I had been leaning towards the 100L Macro before your post, as I do prefer the IS it has over the 135L, and the versatility it brings to my kit (being able to do some macro work which I would like to try, and also a sharp portrait lens!)

thanks for taking the time to respond.

2
Lenses / Another Lens Suggestion Post… looking for a gift for myself.
« on: December 03, 2013, 07:24:55 AM »
Hi Everyone one… going to be fortunate enough to have a little commission/Christmas bonus money left over after taking care of all the gifts for the wife & kiddies, family and friends….

Haven't added to my lens collection since about this time last year; and will have around $1000 or so to spend. Considering the lenses I already have, my first inclination was to pick up a 100L Macro, since none of my lenses are macro. Then I considered the 135L because I don't have a long range prime, and like everyone,  I like fast glass.

But as my kids are getting older and into dance recitals and indoor sports, plays, etc… the 135L might be good, but I am considering on of the new Tamron 2.8 zooms. I used to own a 17-50 Tammy for my 60D and found it was great… and I know Dustin from TWI has posted some great reviews here on the Tamron lenses.

I know everyone is going to say the Canon is better, but I'm not in place to spend 2K+ on a lens, at least not without taking away from more important things- I feel guilty enough as it is not spending all my extra money on the kids!

I appreciate any thoughts- and I am a bit concerned that I am more likely to get a "bad copy" of a Tamron, but I think it may be the best value right now. In Toronto they are on sale everywhere… $1000 or so for the 24-70 and $1300ish for the 70-200

thanks!

3
Shoot! Kind of figured as much.
Thanks for the replies!

4
Hi everyone

Thinking about swapping my backup/travel 60D body for a 70D. I see that this new camera has brought back AFMA... After remembering the hours locked up calibrating all my leses with FoCal on my 5Diii, i was wondering if this has to be done all over again with a new body?
Or will the values calculated previously be pretty accurate?
My gut is telling me i should do it all over again but im hoping some one will tell me otherwise!

The biggest improvement by far was with my 50 1.4 lens, the rest were less noticeable.

Thanks!

5
I picked one up my self after seeing this deal on CR... the intention was for my wife to use it, as her P&S Elph really produces sub par photos (as far as I am concerned). I have to say playing around with it for a couple days I have been really impressed. Sure, it is not a 5D Mark III but it is 1/10 of the price. The image quality is on par with my 60D, and yes the focus is a bit slower, but again, for $300 I don't think you can get better image quality; especially not in this size.

I had been keeping my 60D as backup to the 5Diii for places I didn't want to haul all my gear and have a slightly lighter kit; in all honesty at $299 I am considering selling the 60D and picking up my own EOS-M. For family trips to the amusement park, etc, I think this little guy seems more than adequate!

6
Lenses / Re: 17-40mm advice please!
« on: March 01, 2013, 06:41:44 AM »
I had the Tamron 17-50 but sold it for the 17-40 a couple months before i moved to full frame. The tamron is faster (obviously) and sharper; but Cannot be used on full frame. The 17-40 proved a nice walkround lens on my 60d, but i seem to rarely reach for it with my 5Diii. It is VERY wide on full frame; my 24-105 is plenty wide for me, but i have not really been a landscape shooter up to this point.

Granted you may not have alot of options comparable to the 17-40 in the $600 range. Id say its a nice choice; but only if you plan to go full frame sooner than later. If full frame is a couple years away still, id go with the Tamron. It takes great sharp pictures and is a bit more versatile; the 17-40 only beats it in build quality and of course full frame compatibilty.


7
Software & Accessories / Re: Topaz DeNoise or other plugin
« on: February 11, 2013, 08:54:49 AM »
I have been using light room 4 for a awhile now and find it works quite well, and has a simple interface for noise reduction. I happened to try a trial of Topaz DeNoise last week as I had heard good things, and had recently taken some photos at 20,000 ISO with my Mark iii that I wanted to clean up.

Long story short, maybe I didn't spend enough time learning the program but I found lightroom better & easier to use. If Topaz did do a better job it wasn't noticeable, at least not to me. If you are working off Elements, Topaz might be useful to you, but since I already have lightroom I saw no reason for me to spend the extra money for an additional noise reduction program.

8
Yea, I'm pretty sure my wife would kill me if I bought yet ANOTHER camera. I don't mind carrying the 60D with me on family trips either. In fact, since getting the 5Diii, it seems rather light!

I am not sure I would be willing to sacrifice the picture quality & speed of the 60D to get the SX50, even though I am sure it is a fine camera.

9
Hello
Anyone have any experience/sample images with this lens? I know it is probably not great; but B&H has it on for $399 on sale. Thought it might be ok to stick on my 60D for when the family goes to amusement parks, zoo, etc, for when I don't want to change lenses or carry a large kit.

Thanks for your two cents!

10
Software & Accessories / Re: Any value in using DPP along side Lightroom?
« on: January 28, 2013, 07:51:53 AM »
First off, thank you all for taking the time for writing such long & thorough replies, appreciate it! This site has helped me learn more than the couple of part time camera courses I took at a local college for fun :)

I already own lightroom 4.... but after reading all of your advice, I think I will leave DDP installed. At the very least to help decide my keepers vs. deletes faster, and perhaps if I want to "edit" RAW a little faster using picture styles so my wife doesn't keep bugging me to finish editing her niece's 2nd bday pics :) I did notice the noise adjustment to be VERY slow...

And I can't seem to show the autofocus points... I can in ImageBrowser... don't seem to find that option in DPP. That is one thing I find useful... that way I can see if the camera/lens missed focus, or if I aimed in the wrong spot ;)

cheers! 

11
Software & Accessories / Any value in using DPP along side Lightroom?
« on: January 27, 2013, 10:39:32 AM »
Hello,

I have been using Lightroom since long before I had an EOS camera, so I have to admit when I got my 60d two years ago I never bothered at all with the Canon software and have always used lightroom and elements for my workflow.

Having recently gotten a 5D iii, I thougt I would install the software (mostly for the EOS utility). DPP seems pretty neat; but is there anything it does that lightroom cant? Is anyone using both in conjunction, or any of the other canon supplied software?

Wondering if DPP handles noise reduction better... Or maybe makes workflow faster for processing simple RAW changes, using picture styles perhaps.

Thanks!

12
Lenses / Re: 200mm F2 IS OR 135mm F2
« on: January 24, 2013, 02:44:24 PM »
The 200 2.8L II is an extremely affordable lens when compared to the 200L or even the 85L, which many consider as the "king of portrait" lenses. It's a stellar lens in my opinion, very much underrated.


The Girl Who Catches Snowflakes by Standard Deluxe, on Flickr

That is a fantastic photo!
May I ask what you settings were? Or if this was processed alot in post? I would love for my portraits to look like this...

13
Reviews / Re: Review - Tamron SP 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD with Pictures
« on: January 23, 2013, 09:32:26 AM »
So more goodness from this lens.  It's nice sharpness, relatively low vignetting, and far less distortion than the 24-105L make it a very nice landscape lens - better than I originally thought.


What Comes Next? (Thanks for 200,000 views) by Thousand Word Images by Dustin Abbott, on Flickr

I have really enjoyed your review of this lens, Dustin. As a fellow Canuck, I hope that you have been using it indoors rather than outside these past couple days! I had a Tamron 17-50 non VC I was happy with until I started concentrating on collecting full frame compatible lenses... I think you have convinced me to put this newest Tamron on my list of "Wants". Guess I will have to get used to the reverse zoom ring again!

Not sure if anyone has asked this already, but are you planning on trying the new Tamron 70-200 2.8 VC, since you are so pleased with this one? Hopefully it is just as good.

cheers,

Scarpz

14
Lenses / Re: 24mm 35mm 70mm FoV
« on: January 22, 2013, 09:40:38 AM »
I don't think this is considered "field of view", but I have a similar inquiry.
I am finding my 50mm is too close to my 40mm & 85mm... plus it is the hardest to use wide open (lowest keeper rate) so I may get rid of it.
What are the "zoom ratios" if that makes sense of these primes? IE, to get the same framing on my 40mm do I basically have to be 1/2 as close to the subject as with the 85mm?
I am trying to figure out what 3 or 4 fast primes might be of use to start collecting, to complement my F4 zooms (probably getting used 70-200mm F4 soon as well)
I was thinking 35-85-135 or something to that extent... no sure how much foot room/running back and forth that would require.

cheers,

15
Lenses / Re: 70-200 F4 IS + 135L or 70-200 F2.8 IS
« on: January 20, 2013, 11:30:36 AM »
Thanks Ray...
To be honest that is what I was thinking. I know the 70-200 F2.8 IS on a fantastic lens, but if I don't carry it around with me it's kind of an expensive paper weight. Plus I'm no pro; never "missed" a shot because I didn't have time to swap out lenses.

I think I am leaning heavily towards F4 IS + 135L... at least for my needs!

thanks!

Pages: [1] 2 3 4