September 30, 2014, 01:53:07 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 - alan_k

Pages: 1 [2] 3
Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 40 f/2.8 STM
« on: February 14, 2013, 02:10:48 PM »
I have a shorty forty but haven't used it much yet. The list price is $200, but over the holidays it was $40 or $50 less with rebates. Throw some store discounts on top of that and it was too cheap to pass up.

I've got that mid-range focal length well represented already- it's a stop faster than my 17-40L, it's slower than my Sigma 30/1.4 and nifty 50. I'm tempted to get a cheap rebel body just for this lens- is that crazy?

Animal Kingdom / Re: Show your Bird Portraits
« on: February 12, 2013, 01:03:50 PM »
A couple from Montana last May.

adult_gho_montana 221  on Flickr

40-year-old-owl 219  on Flickr

Lenses / Re: UWA (to complement 35/100/200)?
« on: February 12, 2013, 01:57:42 AM »
I would think you might want something wider than 35mm, and also a TC for wildlife as well to stick on your 200mm. I bet you could find some flickr groups of Alaskan photography and see what lenses people are using. If you're going in the summer, you won't have to worry so much about low light, so you might be able to leave your 35/1.4 at home if you were worried about space.

Lenses / Re: Need advice on telephoto zoom Lens
« on: February 11, 2013, 11:49:31 PM »
Sparrow was ~100% crop, eagle was cropped but not as much, both potentially sharpened a little in post.

This next set might be a better set to look at actually, the one I listed earlier I was leaning awkwardly out of a car window for most of the shots. Try this one:

I don't know the details of this, but there are psychological studies showing the benefits of offering multiple items at different price points. You need at least 3- a low end option, something in the middle, and a most expensive option. Consumers like to go for the middle option- by rejecting the most expensive option, they can justify passing up the cheapest option for the middle option even if the cheapest option is objectively the best deal.

Obviously this doesn't explain the full proliferation of Canon P&S, I think the points about competing for shelf space make a lot of sense. It's kind of like political ads- sure most are superfluous, but you can't know which ones, and you can't risk not putting them out there.

Lenses / Re: Please help me.
« on: February 11, 2013, 06:38:37 PM »
I can only go by my experience, but I love the Sig 8-16. It's hard enough to go wide on APS-C, and I found myself using it primarily at the 8mm end. My use has been primarily outdoors and sometimes on a tripod. It doesn't play well with filters so that would be my main reason I would recommend against it (that and it's fish-eye-y which you may or may not want to deal with).

I moved from the Tamron 17-50 to the Canon 17-40L. The Tamron (nonVC) is a really nice lens but is kind of noisy  and lacks full time MF. I debated between the 17-55 EF-s and the 17-40L, and decided the weather sealing was important enough for me- I spend a couple months a year in a very dusty environment and I saw some complaints about dust getting in the 17-55. I bought a Sigma 30mm/1.4 if I need to work in low light.

Lenses / Re: Need advice on telephoto zoom Lens
« on: February 11, 2013, 01:36:49 AM »
Granted I'm on a crop sensor (60D), but don't overlook the wide end of those zooms. I've got the 70-300L, and 70 is a pretty useful for landscape and portraits.

I do a lot of bird photography with this lens as well.  I've never used the 100-400, but my guess is that in many situations you won't do any worse with the 70-300L. You're going to be cropping with both lenses (because, you know, birds are jerks), and the extra sharpness and better IS of the 70-300L will at least make up for the extra reach of the 100-400L.

Here's a recent set.

I had the 70-300 IS USM, and yeah, the 70-300L is definitely a great upgrade from the nonL lens.

Lenses / Re: Would you buy a new 28-300 L IS II lens and for how much?
« on: February 06, 2013, 05:59:47 PM »
It would need a focus limiter (maybe the old one already has this?).
If this is an all-around lens, I'd probably take 3.5-5.6 for the cost and portability factor. Not that 2.8-4.5 wouldn't be great, but the whole point of this would be a walk-around lens.

I shoot on a crop body so I'm not sure this would ever be a one-lens solution for me, but it might pair well with a UWA zoom. The amount I'd be willing to pay for it is probably a lot lower than what it would actually go for.

I'd guess if it was 2.8-5.6, it would be 2700, if it was 3.5-5.6, it might come down to 2000 or so. If I remember right even lenses like the Tamron 18-270 pushing $800, so imagine an L version of that, and you've got to imagine it will be ~3x as expensive.

Lenses / Re: Good telephoto option for birds.
« on: February 04, 2013, 08:11:32 PM »
I have the 70-300L and it certainly works well for birds, although you'll always be cropping. Unless you are looking for something lighter than your 70-200/2.8, you'd likely be better off with that + one of the TCs.  Or skip the TCs and get the 400/5.6.

Animal Kingdom / Re: Show your Bird Portraits
« on: February 04, 2013, 01:01:54 AM »
Just got a 100L Macro and wish I could take all my bird photos with it (or conversely, afford something longer and F/2.8 )
(captive birds)

ominousalbatross 653 on Flickr

tinyplover 670  on Flickr

Wild bird from yesterday with a 70-300L

SacNWR 1008, on Flickr

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sigma Announces New 30mm f/1.4 for APS-C
« on: January 29, 2013, 12:58:47 PM »
I just purchased a sigma 30/1.4 before Christmas. I haven't found many chances to use it yet but it's been great so far. I can't see that I'd need the dock, but if I ended up with another new sigma lens, who knows, maybe I'd think about replacing with the new model.

Lenses / Re: Sigma 8-16mm on FF & Crop Vs Fisheye on FF & 15-85 @ 15
« on: January 15, 2013, 01:27:49 PM »
Not sure what you mean by a "fixed" lens hood on the 8-16- it is entirely removable, but when attached to the lens it is radially symmetric so there is no advantage to rotating it one way or the other.

I'll be waiting for reviews of the new Sigma 120-300/2.8 + tc.  Might be a tad higher than your price point but that seems like the only thing filling in the gap between < $2k "telephoto" and >$4k "!!TELEPHOTO!!"

Lenses / Re: Canon 100mm macro IS vs non-IS - any further input?
« on: January 14, 2013, 03:13:20 PM »
I recently upgraded from the USM to the L (100mm macro). I haven't been able to play with it much, but I was recently at the Monterey Bay Aquarium and it was the lens I used the most (hauled around a ton of other glass- everything from a 30/1.4, 17-40L, 8-16, 70-300L). I was really pleased with the portrait-type photos I was getting of some of the fishes and captive birds. I didn't have my old lens to compare side by side but I've got to think the AF was a little faster from what I remember, and the AF limiter was awesome to have. Photos came out great. Maybe I should have given my old USM more of a chance, but I really don't think I would have reached for it in this circumstance.

PowerShot / Re: Down to the RX100 or G15...
« on: January 03, 2013, 06:13:29 PM »
Just curious, is the Fuji X10 already "old news"?  I thought that had a lot going for it.

Pages: 1 [2] 3