February 27, 2015, 08:40:17 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 ... 10 11 [12] 13 14 ... 28
it will certainly not be 3k. I would suspect 1799.A few hundred more than the 16-35 yet still priced under the 14 and 17 TS.

You're dreaming...

Since af doesn't sound like a deal breaker you could always try the Samyang 14mm 2.8  If a 14-24 does indeed get released it will be probably close to $3000. That certainly gives me pause and would likely need a stead income stream from that lens alone to justify its purpose. I'm looking for a good quality used sigma 12-24 or canon 17-40 myself as neither the 16-35 or a rumored 14-24 make my bank account happy.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Is it hard not to buy 3rd party lenses now?
« on: December 28, 2012, 04:42:47 PM »
Dylan you always seem like a level headed guy so i hope youre not taking offense to some of the comments above.  I think all folks are saying is that for most people (obviously this does not include you) the results you get from the tamron are more than adequate especially when one considers the price. I'm on the iPad right now but I will happily take a shot with the tamron tonight at f2.8 and post it...will it be as sharp as your 24-70ii? no, so i am not exactly sure what that will prove. all anyone is saying is that if you like the feel of an extra $1000 in your pocket and think IS is important then the tamron is a splendid option especially if you already thought the canon 24-70i was adequate from an iq standpoint as it certainly offers an improvement over that older version. Does iq improve by spending the extra $1000?  Yes, again no one disputes that, however to a lot of folks the improvement over the tamron will not be worth the extra money.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Is it hard not to buy 3rd party lenses now?
« on: December 28, 2012, 10:07:09 AM »

So we now comparing 2012 model lenses from 3rd party Vs Canon +10yrs old lenses?

For those saying the new Tamron 24-70 is almost near good as new Canon 24-70 II, I want to see your images in real life situation,, not controlled. Besides IQ, we need to put all the factors on the table - AF speed, build quality, resale value etc...

There are video reviews of the Tamron 24-70 vs Canon 24-70 Mk II (and 70-200) that look into AF speed.

Strangely, none of the reviews I read consider resale value, rather what they all consider is the cost to buy.

long term reliability and optical performance are the main reasons i will not buy 3rd party lenses (excluding zeiss though i only own that brand for my hassi).

even with the hype of matching or exceeding performance, these new 3rd party lenses haven't been tested for durability or reliance. only time in the field will tell if they hold up.

Your "L" lenses are so good that Canon will only provide warranty for 1 year.

Tamron will provide warranty for 6 years.

It is good to see that Canon back up their excellent build quality with a warranty to match, isn't it?

The length of warranty period tells me what the manufacturer expects from the product they make.

I don't comment on the products that I haven't touched nor giving advices based on 3rd party reviews. I'm more hands on type of guy. Tamron sharpness at f2.8 is no where near Canon ver II. AF speed is a joke...If you find my statement is not true, let go down to local camera shop and try both lenses. I had the opt. to shoot with Tamron before my 24-70 II arrived, if this was good as the new Sigma 35, I wouldn't spent that much money into Canon ver II.

I don't plan to keep my 24-70 II forever and do not wish to lose 1/2 of what I paid for when newer and better lens comes out in the future.

I don't think anyone is saying the tamron is sharper than the 24-70ii. It is however by and large sharper than the 24-70i plus has IS. For 95% or more of users that is going to be more than adequate especially when you consider the price difference. Even if resale value on the tamron ends up sucking (which I don't think it will) you'd still have to lose more than $1000 to come out negative with respect to the canon and that assumes the canon loses no value. Different strokes for different folks I guess. At least for me, the price difference was not enough to overcome the relatively small iq difference and very slightly slower af performance especially when I considered the IS of the tamron.  If the canon were say only $500 more I may have gone that direction but at a $1000 IMHO it wasn't worth it. That being said those that buy the canon do so for a reason. I am sure you had yours and no doubt they are valid.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon T4i or wait for T5i?
« on: December 27, 2012, 10:04:54 AM »
Wait for the t9i I hear it will have a shrink ray so you can macro anything.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 6D or wait for New 7D?
« on: December 26, 2012, 06:52:53 PM »
If your in no rush there probably isn't any reason not to wait a bit. Plus you'll benefit from a few $100 in savings if you wait and still go with a 6d.

Rc-6. Already came in handy for the family Christmas photo

Macro / Re: Which extension tubes to buy?
« on: December 25, 2012, 10:31:52 PM »
Thanks for the feedback guys.

Neuro...probably mainly use it with my 24-70, but thought it would be fun to also slap it on my 70-200, any issues you foresee?

Macro / Which extension tubes to buy?
« on: December 25, 2012, 01:20:19 PM »
Anyone have suggestions?  I'm thinking extension tubes would be better for me than a dedicated macro simply because I don't foresee myself doing a lot of macro, and figure id be more inclined to throw a tube or two in the bag than actually a separate lens.  Open to anything really, but ideally something that also offers electronic contacts etc.  Also if you think a used macro is just a better bet overall let me know

Lenses / Re: Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 or Canon 24-105 f/4
« on: December 22, 2012, 03:36:25 PM »
The Tamron is f/2.8 and has superior optics and image stabilization (> 1 stop). It will be better for low light and action shooting.

I took a few shots in the store with the Tamron vs my Canon 17-55mm, and it seemed quite a bit softer than the Canon. But then again, my 17-55 is very sharp, and it was the Tamron copy with the messed up AF too.  If I could be convinced that the Tamron 24-70 was the sharper lens and that the messed up copy that I saw in one store was just an anomaly, then I'd probably go for the Tamron. Otherwise I'd go for the Canon 24-105.

Just about every review out there of the tamron says its sharper than the canon 24-70i. That doesn't mean that there will not be some copy variation. I don't know how many times I've heard someone say well I tested a lens once for 5 mins and it sucked so I'll never buy it despite all the people out there that own it and produce stunning results with it. given your budget and what you want (fast standard zoom) the tamron is the only real choice here. Sure you could by a used canon 24-70i and in good shape it would be about the same price as the canon, but you'd lose IS and unless it was the cream of the crop it would likely be less sharp than your average tamron. Buy from a reputable seller and return it if you think you got a lemon. And with 6 years of warrantee and tamron offering maybe the best service outside of cps I doubt you'll have much to complain about. 

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Is it hard not to buy 3rd party lenses now?
« on: December 22, 2012, 11:38:38 AM »
No, for me, it is not hard to not buy third party lenses.

I foresee a similar situation to the one Sigma had in the early 2000's, Canon will change or break the lens communication protocol and third party lens owners will be screwed, and the more successful third party manufacturers are the more inclined Canon are to do it and the sooner it will happen.

I don't care how good the Tamron 24-70 f2.8 IS is, or how much less it will be compared to a Canon version, should they ever decide to actually sell one, I wouldn't buy it. I might be in a very small minority here but to me that is a very important consideration in lens purchases.

For instance, I bought a 300 f2.8 IS nearly ten years ago, I could sell it today for the same as I paid for it, that kind of depreciation is unheard of for buisness capital purchases, same with my 70-200 f2.8 IS and 24-70! They hold their value like that for a reason, on the other hand your new Sigma tele zoom is worth half what you paid for it one second after your return policy runs out.

I don't buy the "resale" argument. If its a good piece of kit it holds its value whether canikon or otherwise. It's also maybe the worst reason to not buy something, I buy gear to use it, if it fits my needs and budget, resale value is the last thing on my mind. If it was first thing on my mind I'd buy nothing but used gear.

Lenses / Re: Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 or Canon 24-105 f/4
« on: December 21, 2012, 06:56:09 PM »
You said you would use f2.8 so there is your answer. Also whomever mentioned the tamron doesn't use the outer af points on a 5diii, that is simply untrue. It is however true that the f4 lens doesn't take advantage of the double cross f2.8 points on a 5diii. I own the tamron it is excellent better than my old canon 24-70i plus with 6 years of warrantee and roger at lens rentals singing the praises of tamron service it is by far the best deal out there in a fast mid range zoom IMHO.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Cannot Keep Screwing It's Customers Over
« on: December 21, 2012, 01:36:57 AM »
Did that make you feel better?

My primary income is from investments. I really have no personal feelings when it comes to taking a loss on something. It's business.

My point is simply that Canon is actively trying to screw over it's customers without lube with absurd and insulting markups.

I am simply pointing out facts, and giving both photographers and Canon business advice. Photography product sales are not driven by mark ups and mark downs, they are however driven by stability and trust. Once Canon starts to burn customers they may never see those customers return. Canon has very capable competition, and trust and stability may be all it takes to convert people.

So you bought a depreciating asset and you're upset it depreciated?  Do you return to the Mercedes dealership seconds after driving off the lot with the new s class and complain its now worth 20% less than you paid for it? 

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Cannot Keep Screwing It's Customers Over
« on: December 21, 2012, 12:04:20 AM »
Did that make you feel better? 

Portrait / Re: Need some advice- shooting at Staples Center
« on: December 20, 2012, 11:55:31 PM »
Had to pay for the tix, but they did a nice job with upgrading us ;). Given the chance to do it again, I'd rent a 17-55 2.8, I think the extra stop would have put my shutter up little closer to where it needed to be (>1/300).  A lot of the images are softer than they appeared in the camera.  I'll get a sample or two up when I get to my computer later.

That's a pretty awesome deal, plus the clip show is much better than the lake show right now.

One thing I would say is that often times opening up that extra stop is at the expense of dof and some of your soft images could have been from mis focus especially with a Rebel even at f4. Too bad you can go back tonight and play around again  ;)

Pages: 1 ... 10 11 [12] 13 14 ... 28