Messages

16

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.

17

Lenses / Re: Glacier National Park - New lens?

« on: January 03, 2013, 06:00:25 PM »

I've only been there early season when the high passes were still closed, but it's a beautiful place. If you want some wildlife shots and won't be going through Yellowstone, you might check out the National Bison Reserve which is a couple hours south of Glacier. It's got an auto-route with excellent photo opportunities for Bison and Pronghorn, and the valley it's in has some good opportunities for waterfowl photos.

I'd suggest the 2x converter if you're only bringing one- unless you get lucky you'll want as much reach as you can get, and from what I've heard the 70-200 /2.8mkii does quite well with the 2x.

I'd also put a plug in for the Sigma 8-16 if there's any chance you'd consider an aps-c lens and don't use ND filters a lot.

18

Lenses / Re: Just bought a new Canon EF 70-300L IS USM lens.

« on: January 03, 2013, 05:48:01 PM »

Great lens. If you don't need the extra stop and/or canon TC, I think you'll be happy with it. The IS is fantastic.

19

Lenses / Re: Please help me decide between the EF 300 f/4 L and the EF 70-300 f/4-5.6 L

« on: December 14, 2012, 01:59:56 AM »

I'll echo that the 70-300L is phenomenal. I'd love something longer and faster for wildlife, but I haven't won the lottery yet. I'm not convinced I'd do a lot better with any of the similar level lenses (100-400, 400/5.6, 300/4 +1.4tc) compared to cropping a bit more from the 70-300L. I haven't tried any of these though-just my suspicion.

As has been mentioned, it's pretty redundant with the 70-200/4.

20

Lenses / Re: 70-300L for Outdoors?

« on: December 08, 2012, 11:32:32 AM »

I've certainly had no cause to suspect the lens, so it is possible I have a bad or mis-matched TC. To be honest I just used it a few times, wasn't terribly happy with it, and haven't gone back to it. All I can go by is my experience with this one model.

The AF is definitely slower with the TC, but it's not impossible to use. I felt like this was a case where a focus limiter would be handy, as the slowness was compounded by missing focus a little more often, and having to rack through the range. Even so, I was able to hand-hold 300mm in fairly low light and get ok results.

A bit more perspective, my 70-300L was an upgrade from the older version of the 70-300 IS (non-L). This was the first L lens I had. Perhaps if you already have a stable full of L lenses your perspective might be different, but I think this lens is the bees knees.

21

Lenses / Re: 70-300L for Outdoors?

« on: December 07, 2012, 06:58:14 PM »

I have a 60D, and use the 70-300L quite a bit. It is a really great lens given the size/weight. The AF is fast, IS is fantastic. I think the IS makes up a bit for not being as fast as an f/4 or f/2.8, although you miss the control over depth of field, and fast moving sports could be a bit of a problem. Most of my use is with distant wildlife where that isn't as much of a concern. If you are a lot closer to your subjects you might opt for one of the 70-200s.

I bought the kenko 1.4x 300 Pro teleconverter, and I don't think this is a worthwhile purchase (in my case). I did some informal tests and in my experience cropping a bit more on a photo w/o the converter leads to similar IQ as a photo with the kenko on.  I think the only advantage might be in very small subjects that would be missed by the AF at 300mm but would be caught by the AF with the extra magnification.

I did get a 3rd party tripod collar and if you plan to use this on a tripod at all I think it's a good purchase. It's pretty frustrating to frame a shot on a ball-head when you have something so front-heavy. You certainly don't need a tripod though- this lens is very hand-holdable.

Getting a grip for your camera will make the balance a lot better, gives you added battery life, controls for vertical shooting, and makes you look cool! 


Male Greater Sage-grouse  in flight by alankrakauer, on Flickr


super_moon1_50 108 by alankrakauer, on Flickr


glacier_deer 208 by alankrakauer, on Flickr

22

Lenses / Re: 100mm macro VS 180mm macro

« on: December 06, 2012, 07:51:23 PM »

I haven't used the L, but I've got one coming from Canon Refurb as we speak.  The 100 USM is a lot of fun.

I'm upgrading because of
-build quality
-IS for macro (when I don't have my tripod, flash, and bracket with me)
-superior for non-macro uses (IS, AF, etc).

If your use is primarily macro in your studio, I haven't seen much to suggest a huge benefit to the L.

23

Contests / Re: Gura Gear Giveaway!

« on: December 06, 2012, 07:37:24 PM »

Yes please, I'd love to win.

24

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 100-400 f/4-5.6L IS [CR2]

« on: June 25, 2012, 07:17:28 PM »

I don't get the hype about this lens.  There is already a 70-300L out, which does have 100mm less, but you can get that with a 1.4x TC for cheaper than this 100-400 is supposed to be.

For every f/2.8 70-200 II owner, this 100-400 lens is just pretty useless. 

First, you're blowing away 100mm worth of f/2.8 super high IQ goodness
Then, if you need the reach, just add a TC and you got it with probably similar IQ.

What any 70-200 II owner needs is a 200-400 f/4 and not this rubbish.

If you dont have a tele lens at all, 100-400mm gets you covered nicely in once package, but if you have a 70-200, it's kinda useless.

I have the 70-300L + Kenko 1.4x TC (one of the only ones that will fit). I've done a couple of tests and didn't see much point to the TC. Slows down af, and you can crop @300mm and get something that looked as good as if it were shot with the tc. At least in my experience.

That said, not everyone wants to drag the 70-200 2.8 around due to the weight. If I were hiking around for a few hours, I'd much rather have the 70-300L or 100-400L.

25

Lenses / Re: Looking for reviews of the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8

« on: June 16, 2012, 03:48:40 PM »

I like my non-VC Tamron. As mentioned, it is not a USM lens, so be prepared for a) noisy AF b) no full time MF. I'd consider it a good value, a worthwhile upgrade from the kit, and considerably cheaper than the canon alternative. Can't speak to comparing it to the sigma, but I've heard if you really want IS/USM, then get the sigma over the tamron. IS is not necessarily very critical with this focal range unless you shoot video or shoot a lot of static subjects in low light w/o tripod.

26

Lenses / Re: 100-400mm vs. 70-300L for basically the same exact price used? Which one?

« on: June 14, 2012, 06:07:43 PM »

I have the 70-300L- really like the size and weight, and the IS is amazing. Very sharp and fast to focus in most cases. It is wide enough to be useful for portraits, tight landscape shots, etc. It is sharp enough that I'm usually able to crop with no problem. I think the only time I've felt like the extra reach of the 100-400 would be worth it is when photographing very distant, small animals (birds), when they are small enough that AF can't figure out what I'm pointing at. These aren't going to be great photos no matter what, but it takes me longer to get the shot since I have to try focus manually.

If you are always shooting small, far away things, the 100-400 is probably a good call. If you want more flexibility, maybe look at the 70-300L.

27

EOS Bodies / Re: Used 60D or new 650D/T4i?

« on: June 13, 2012, 09:13:36 PM »

I have had some issues with poor AI Servo function on the 60D, but only with fast, small objects (flying birds). Otherwise I'm pretty happy to use center point combined with back-button focus.

At least for my own use, I think I'd miss more shots from accidentally turning the mode dial and inadvertently setting it to some completely inappropriate setting than I would from some difference in AF ability. The mode dial lock was a big reason I upgraded from the t2i. That being said, I don't do much video so that isn't a factor for me.

28

EOS Bodies / Re: 60D owners...help, i need reassurance before i pull the trigger

« on: June 13, 2012, 07:01:42 PM »

I have a 60D and love it. I moved up from a T2i for the ergonomics. Some of that can be overcome with a grip (and I ended up getting a 3rd party grip for my 60D). That helps with balance and overall handling, although the mode wheel lock, back wheel, etc make a big difference if you fiddle with the controls. If you shoot on auto-everything mode, then they probably won't be that much of an advantage, and I'd go for the t4i for the newer sensor and hybrid AF.

For my "kit" lens, I have a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 non-VC. Very good image quality, but it is not a USM AF, so don't get if you want full time MF and/or a quiet autofocus. Also no IS, but that is not usually too big of a deal unless you plan to shoot a lot of video.

I also have the 100mm nonL Macro. AWESOME lens- but I've used it mainly for critters. Can not speak to it as a portrait lens. I have a ring flash, but now shoot more with a diffused 430EX on an adjustable flash bracket.

I'm in love with the 70-300L- if you don't shoot wildlife, probably one of the 70-200L might be a good purchase.

I've only run into AF problems in extreme situations (e.g. shooting flying birds). I could see an argument for a better AF camera if you were shooting a ton of fast sports, but in most cases the center point is good enough (I keep my AF on center point, use back-button focus, and recompose or crop for composition).

I have the nifty fifty, which is hard to turn down given the price, but to be honest I don't use it very much.

I also recently got the Sigma 8-16, but that's really not a lens you want to use with people for the most part (in my experience).

If you want more examples-
here's a BBQ I took photos at last weekend
Most of these albums were with the 60D

29

EOS Bodies / Re: 4 More DSLRs Coming in 2012? [CR2]

« on: June 12, 2012, 06:20:55 PM »

I agree with the guess about an XXXXD upgrade. Adding a touch screen and Digic 5 without the fancy hybrid AF would be enough to warrant a new version. It all depends on what they do with their mirrorless offerings. If they really push mirrorless as a big new part of their line, they may want to avoid a low-end DSLR that might impact their mirrorless sales. However, those entry rebels are the perfect gateway drug for their higher end DSLRs, and they may not want to abandon that so quickly.

30

PowerShot Cameras / Re: Is this a G1X killer?

« on: June 07, 2012, 06:46:26 PM »

I don't know about lowering the price of the G1-X, but personally I'd trade-off sensor size for macro capability. Add the smaller size and manual focus (and the price difference), and I think this Sony has some serious upside.
The S100 already seems entrenched as the king of the quality P&S, so I'm not actually sure this will hurt it's sales so much. My feeling is that $500 is sort of a psychological barrier for gadgets like this, with the S100 sitting at the extreme end of the "normal" cameras and the X10, G1-X, etc sitting in "high end" territory.