December 22, 2014, 03:57:31 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 ... 25 26 [27] 28
391
I wet myself reading this thread...I blame the 1DX...and I'm selling all my gear and moving to Nikon

392
Lenses / Re: Moving to India
« on: June 23, 2012, 12:55:48 AM »
70-200 f4 is, lighter, cheaper, and just as sharp as the 2.8

393
Lenses / Re: Faster cheapish prime for a wedding?
« on: June 22, 2012, 03:55:21 PM »
to the OP: honestly you are are going to be fine with your current set up.  If anything do as others have suggested and buy/rent a FF body. 

Obviously if you are doing this for friends you want to make sure their day is special, but since you aren't being paid don't go over board with a bunch of stuff you have to cart around with you all day.  After all I assume you want to enjoy the day celebrating your friends as much as you want to also capture it.  Set expecations low, then they will be pleasantly surprised when you deliver the goods! 

If it was me, I'd bring the 7D, 24-70, a flash, and be done with it. 

394
Lenses / Re: Recommendations for a fast sub-28mm lens for ~$1k?
« on: June 12, 2012, 12:45:17 AM »
That's a tough one for under a grand the tokina 11-16 is a good bet, but thats only 2.8.  I find f2.8 generally just ok stopping indoor action, not the best but adequate in most situations. It seems you feel the same way hence the question.  don't worry about the pixel peepers who complain about the 28 1.8. If it fits your needs and your budget you won't regret it, I never have. There really isnt a whole lot of choices in canon only. You could try the 35 f2 but no usm on that lens, not sure if that is a deal breaker or not.

How about just adding a decent flash to your current kit?

 Good luck keep us posted on what you decide and how your getting on with it.

395
i've found from a workflow perspective and ease of use nothing beats Aperture 3, I find LR just a bit more cumbersome to deal with.  That being said I don't think you can go wrong with either.  I've never really seen the point of using DPP if you also use LR or Aperture, but I know some people who swear by it.  For me it just adds another unnecessary step.  A better question is what is the usefulness of Photoshop any more?  I honestly only use it for 5% or less of what I do as Aperture can handle everything else.  Certainly for the price tag of the current version it's not worth it IMHO, just buy a older copy and save some $ if you need it. 

396
and they will call it the iPhone 5

397
since you are self described as lazy, I'd say zooms will be more friendly than primes.  Since you also aren't afraid to spend money either then the 2.8 zoom trinity would do you fine.  You could also get a 50L for those really low light situations. 

Honestly, my best advice, buy the kit 24-105, use it for a bit then decide what else you need.  You might find that after 10 years your brother has nothing of yours to sell on ebay...

398
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Gig photography tips.
« on: May 30, 2012, 12:42:22 PM »
I just realised there is a 28mm 1.8. Is this a touch on the 24mm 1.4? Its a lot cheaper so i could get an extra lens if its decent!

The 28mm f/1.8 is a pretty bad lens, while the 24 1.4 is f'n amazing, no comparison whatsoever.  But at the same time the 24 1.4 may feel a little wide, so the 35mm f/1.4 may be a better option.  If you want something longer try the 85mm f/1.8, you can find them used for around $300 and they perform beautifully.

I wouldn't call the 28 1.8 "pretty bad", maybe in comparision to L glass, but that is comparing apples to oranges, and honestly the 24 1.4 is probably not 3-4 times better (as price would dictate) than the 28 1.8 for 99% of the population.  To the OP point, where $ is an issue I'd say the 28. 1.8 is acceptable.  That being said if the OP is going to be shooting a lot of concerts wide glass is probably not going to be the most needed, he needs long reasonably priced glass, so the 85 1.8, 135L, 200 f2.8L, 300 f4L, or 70-200 2.8L are probably better options.  You may even consider the 70-300L if reach is of paramount importance with zoom flexibility.  If you're going to be shooting a lot of concerts don't worry about IS and save some money with the 70-200 non IS as IS won't help you stop the action and buy a mono/tri pod instead.  If you are going to use flash then you can get away with f2.8 as long as you aren't so far away the flash is of no use.   If you are going to be up close and use flash you could even get away with the 70-200 f4 which for $600-700 is a fantastic bargain lens that is extremely sharp and versitile.   

If I were the OP and trying to squeeze the best I could out of $2K and maintain some flexibility with my set up I'd probably go with the 85 1.8, 135 L and a 580ex, if you could stretch the budget a bit the 70-200 non IS and the 135L would probably be a good bets as well.  Good luck, and welcome to a lifetime of always wanting something new and shiny with a red ring on the end. 

399
Lenses / Re: No Optimal Option for 7D Standard Zoom
« on: May 26, 2012, 01:18:51 AM »
Since you have a tokina and a sigma you're obviously not opposed to 3rd party, price seems to be a concern so why not the tamron 17-50 2.8 non is version, then fill in the gaps with a 85 1.8 and a 100 macro or 135l. You could manage all 3 under 2k if you bought used. that gives you speed in the primes and a good walk around zoom.

400
I don't know if this is asked more or if the endless 24-70 vs 24-105 debate is more popular...the funny thing is it really isn't all that hard.  They are both excellent lenses, you'll be happy with either.  It comes down to whether you want f 2.8 or f4?  For me it was easy, f4 IS, because weight matters, and to be honest when I want to stop action in low light my 85 1.8 and 135 L are much better than any 2.8 zoom, but I also don't usually need to rapidly switch between focal lengths.  If I did then a 2.8 zoom would probably be better.  These days on that rare occasion I just use my f4IS and add a strobe, easy peasy. 

401
congrats on a awesome buy.  Don't let the haters get you down by spending a boat load of money on your new toy, I am sure you work hard, so treat yourself from time to time.  "Understanding Exposure" is a great place to start, honestly I don't think there is anything else more you need to read in the next 3-4 years of your new hobby.  Read it, try to take one or two pieces of information with you on your shoot and try it out.  Then read it again, and go out shooting again, repeat, repeat, repeat.  Av mode is great for shooting from the hip, Tv mode great for sports or the kids.  If you're like me and like taking pics of the family then learn/experiment/play with manual mode especially in low light and within a few weeks you'll really understand how to make quick adjustments.  Other than that, have fun, oh and be certain to purchase a bunch of lenses you probably don't need, but you are sure you want, that's 99% of the fun :)

402
Lenses / Re: Wide Angle Lens Recommendations
« on: May 22, 2012, 02:48:42 PM »
since you say your primary interest in a wide angle is landscape, why not consider the 17-40 f4.  You probably won't be using f2.8 for many, if any, landscape work and the little video you may shoot may not be worth the price difference for 1MM on the wide end and f2.8.  You could then have a head start saving some dough for a fish eye, or the 17mm tilt, or the 24 1.4, or the...well I am getting carried away now...

My pro friend did exactly that.  He wanted the 24L anyways, regardless of zoom lens he was purchasing at the time.  So instead of 16-35L II and 24L, he went 17-40 f/4L and 24L, for $800 cheaper.  That $800 can go towards saving up for another prime lens if you want to, and the 17-40 does everything, at least in his case, that the 16-35 would have done.  Besides, the 17-40 lens is an L lens too.  I wasn't buying a 24 prime, so I bought the 16-35L because that suited my needs.  You could have a killer zoom lens range if you had the 17-40, 24-70, and 70-200, OR the 17-40, 24-105, and 70-200.  When purchasing future lenses, that $800 will be come in handly.  The above is just my opinion of course, you need to determine what you NEED vs. what you WANT.  I'm addicted too, don't worry!  When I see a new piece of L glass come out I gotta have it, whether I NEED it or not! ;)

not to get gear envy but your sig lines does it for me! 

403
Lenses / Re: Lens of toddler stills and video
« on: May 22, 2012, 02:43:26 PM »
Why no flash?  A good external flash is about the first thing I recommend to new photographers.  Especially now when you can pick up a 430exii for a few $$$.  Just learn to bounce it (later learn to gel it) and don't worry about f stops, ISO, or prime lenses.   

Since you say you don't want to use flash I'll second the comments above that f2.8 is not fast enough IMHO to freeze action in low light without going to ISO 6400 and above, especially with little ones (I have a 9mo old, speaking from experience).  You need a good prime vs a zoom for that.  For the budget friendly, you can't go wrong with a 50 1.8.  But other slightly more expensive options like the 50 1.4, 28 1.8, or even 85 1.8, the latter maybe a bit long, all are quite adequate.  The sigma 50 1.4 or 85 1.4 gets nice reviews as well.  Of course you could also go L and get a 24, 35, 50, or 85L, but since you are asking the question I'm assuming you're not a pro, so the benefits of the added costs of L Prime's would be suspect at best for your use hence I wonder why you want to spend the dough on a Ziess?  With a 5dIII you'll get very clean images at iso 3200/6400 and probably 12800 especially if these are just for personal consumption.  In fact my favorite photo of my munchkin is at 6400 on a t3i which is 2 stops higher than what I think the acceptable high ISO is for that particular camera model but I like it and other than family/friends no one else is going to see it. 

404
Lenses / Re: Wide Angle Lens Recommendations
« on: May 22, 2012, 02:15:45 PM »
since you say your primary interest in a wide angle is landscape, why not consider the 17-40 f4.  You probably won't be using f2.8 for many, if any, landscape work and the little video you may shoot may not be worth the price difference for 1MM on the wide end and f2.8.  You could then have a head start saving some dough for a fish eye, or the 17mm tilt, or the 24 1.4, or the...well I am getting carried away now...

405
Canon General / Re: Suggestions on new Canon DSLR -- thinking 60D
« on: May 19, 2012, 01:54:22 AM »
I'll say it again for the one millionth time, buy the lens for the camera you own TODAY no the camera you will own tomorrow. Who knows what you will want in a few years time?  Tech moves so fast don't worry about it. In 6 months canon could introduce a mirror less ff so why worry about that which you cannot control. You're buying a crop sensor so make use of it and save some cash with ef-s lens where reasonable. The 17-55 2.8 should be at the top of your list.

Pages: 1 ... 25 26 [27] 28