December 18, 2014, 05:47:21 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 - robbymack

Pages: 1 ... 9 10 [11] 12 13 ... 28
151
EOS Bodies / Re: 6D AF and Focal Plane issues by recomposing
« on: January 13, 2013, 12:36:16 PM »
I see... I just foud out what you can not do with the 6D. I was just interested in this cam, but I think not anymore.

I wouldn't call it a deal breaker just something you have to be mindful of. It also something that can't be overcome with good technique or simply realizing the limitations of what you and cant do. Is it fool proof?  No, but then again nothing really is.

152
EOS Bodies / Re: 6D AF and Focal Plane issues by recomposing
« on: January 13, 2013, 10:58:04 AM »
No more difficult than any other camera using the same technique.

153
Lenses / Re: Going to get the 24-70 2.8 II. Want a 70-200 as well
« on: January 12, 2013, 05:51:03 PM »
Shooting surfing with the 70-200 do you find yourself wanting a teleconverter or do you have some other longer glass?  If you want a teleconverter then I'd definitely wait till I could afford the IS ii. Most (all) surfing shots will be done in relatively decent light so I don't think you'd be at all disappointed in a 70-200 f4IS for surfing for events its also not bad just cant be afraid to crank the iso or bring a speedlight. My copy is bonkers wide open and even though I would love the IS ii I just can't see how it's going to be twice as good (by price) especially for my needs. Personally I'd rather spend the cash on a 300 or 400mm prime than upgrade my 70-200. 

154
Lenses / Re: 17-40 vs 16-35, which one got the mojo ?
« on: January 12, 2013, 05:37:03 PM »
I think if your waiting for wow with a canon uw zoom and If the 10-22 wasn't doing it for you then I don't think the 17-40 or 16-35 will do it for you either. So if that's the case and you want/need a ff uw zoom save some cash and buy a 17-40.

155
Reviews / Re: Any thoughts yet on the Canon 24-70 f/4 IS
« on: January 11, 2013, 07:14:23 PM »
My thoughts are why would you buy this over the tamron?  Iq is the same, yet you get f2.8 with the tamron and also pocket $200. Unless you really (and I mean really) care about saving a few grams of weight it's a no brainier.
I've got the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC as well so i'll have a comparison review up shortly. So far, the Canon does focus faster than the Tamron, but the Tamron is still very accurate which is what matters the most. But i'll have a detailed review up shortly. You don't get the macro abilities with the Tamron either which may influence some people but for me, i'd prefer having a 2.8 lens any day to a macro. I wish Canon made a 24-70 f/2.8 IS.

Don't you have to be extremely close for the macro to even work?  Seems like an excuse to charge more IMHO. I am with you though 2.8 trumps macro for me. Happy owner of a tamron here. The 2.8 canon while great is just silly money when it has no IS. Im also Looking forward to more reviews of the tamron 70-200, looks to be very close to the canon which would be pretty remarkable.

156
Reviews / Re: Any thoughts yet on the Canon 24-70 f/4 IS
« on: January 11, 2013, 10:32:01 AM »
My thoughts are why would you buy this over the tamron?  Iq is the same, yet you get f2.8 with the tamron and also pocket $200. Unless you really (and I mean really) care about saving a few grams of weight it's a no brainier.

157
Lenses / Re: Will Canon be making a 16-35 f/2.8 IS anytime soon?
« on: January 11, 2013, 10:26:06 AM »
Yes and it will be $6000

158
Curious what this means for the x pro, obviously Fuji isn't resting on their laurels so I could see myself with one of these puppies by year end 2013.

159
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Thinking of downgrading my 5d3 system
« on: January 06, 2013, 10:48:24 PM »
Sell 70-200 2.8 buy any of the following, nex 6/7, Fuji x pro, or micro 4/3. When you feel you need the tele length again go with 70-200 f4 or the IS version. Or maybe just buy a telephoto for one of the systems above.

160
Lenses / Re: Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 or Canon 24-105 f/4
« on: January 04, 2013, 05:12:11 PM »
For me it was the tamron. F2.8 and IS were important. If I find a good quality 24-105 used for maybe 500-600 I'll probably buy it as its a great travel lens and I do like a little more length than 70mm when traveling.  24-104 f2.8 IS pretty please canon?  I'd even be willing to pay the $5k you'd ask for it.

161
Lenses / Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS Resolution Tests
« on: January 04, 2013, 05:05:23 PM »
And the winner is............Tamron

Honestly there is no real reason to chose the 24-70 f4 IS unless you really (and i mean really) care about saving a little weight.  Seems to me the 24-105 now has to go the way of the dinosaurs for canon to move this lens in bulk.

162
Lenses / Re: Canon 24-70mm F4 IS - anybody bought one yet ?
« on: January 03, 2013, 03:05:14 PM »
I'm also interested. I just bought a 24-105mm and this lens was in the running, so I kind of need to read some negative reviews so I don't get buyer's remorse  ;D

I wouldn't worry too much. The 24-105 is great. Even if you bought the 24-105 brand new this new lens would have to be 40% better to justify the price. That won't be the case. Honestly if you want a 24-70 right now and money matters the new tamron seems to be the clear choice. 2.8 and IS, it's a no brainer, at least it was for me.

163
Lenses / Re: Soon to be Launched EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x
« on: January 03, 2013, 10:54:56 AM »
Woohoo...oh right I'll never be able to afford it. 200-400 without the extender please canon at maybe a price similar to the Nikon?

164
Lenses / Re: Glacier National Park - New lens?
« on: January 03, 2013, 10:52:57 AM »
Montana may be my favorite place to visit.  Been several times now as a old college buddy is border patrol out of whitefish.  Be sure to drive out to polebridge for pizza, seriously its worth it. Plus the drive is spectacular and once you get there you realize having beer and pizza in the middle of nowhere is pretty special. As others have suggested the 10-22 is a no brainer on crop. Rent that plus one of the extenders and you should be set.

165
Depends what you are into. If low light af, high iso performance, wifi, and GPS are important to you then the 6d is clearly not inferior. If you care about low iso dr and mega "pickles" then the Nikon is clearly not inferior. Pick your tool and start shooting with it. Both options are very capable and this nonsense over which is "better" is a subjective exercise.

Pages: 1 ... 9 10 [11] 12 13 ... 28