March 03, 2015, 07:23:49 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 - bluenoser1993

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5
Lots of interesting comments and suggestions, glad to see others are also plagued with similar decisions.  A change is always good for a different perspective as well I think.  If it wasn't for my wife (and young family) I'd probably continue to just fill up my closet, but having that to keep me in check has added the element of carefully thinking out my purchases and trade offs between different kits.  fortunately, lenses chosen carefully do hold their value well with Canon.

I liked the idea of 17-55, 70-200/2.8, 100-400II, 1.4X.  That's a great range, and close to the same net value (based on used prices of my primes), but I would miss using the f/1.2 to f/2 range.  Portraits by candle light and by the campfire are a nice change of pace that often have a memory attached instead of just a pretty face.  :)

I'm away from home, but the plan is coming together.  Just need to get back and package up the 7D + 10-22 (still working on the buyer to take the 24-105 as it's cash and saves the listing).  The 17-55 and 135L are in the mail, and I've decided to keep the primes I have for now and skip the 85mm and see if I'm happy with the coverage.

7DII (to order yet), 17-55/2.8, 35L, 50L, 135L, 70-200/2.8 IS II  + 2xIII pending reviews of the 100-400II

Assuming the new 100-400 is all we hope it to be and the swap occurs with the f/2.8, I may some day have to choose between the 35L and 50L, and trade one for the 70-200/4 IS.  I'll be that one guy in the world to have made that trade between the 70-200's :-\   

The 70-200 2.8 IS II seems to sell pretty well, so I'm not too worried and will definitely hold onto it until satisfied with the performance of the 100-400II, with plenty of reassurance to my darling that only one will remain.  Seeing as she still takes photos on her phone more often than with the M I bought her, she might not be able to tell the two of them apart ::).....  I'll say no more about that.

Good comment regarding the MTF information with the 1.4x attached.  It looks very good on the MTF, but I hadn't thought about the diffraction at f8 keeping you from attaining the theoretical.  At f8 that is only getting started, so I'll keep my fingers crossed.  I'm still hoping that the resulting 560mm will be better than the 400mm I'm getting on the 70-200.  If the testing shows it isn't, then that will probably cause an all stop on the changes I'm making on the long end of my kit.  Depends how good it is with just the lens.   

Some good comments regarding the prime choices.  The evolution in thinking is that I want the 135L to replace what  I loved most about the 70-200 2.8, extreme sharpness across the whole frame and the low light ability I'd lose with the 100-400.  So that lens was a priority for me, and it has the AF speed to match.  That left a big gap in focal length coverage from 55 to 100, so the 85 was more of an add in to cover it and it's pretty cheep.  Maybe I'd be better off keeping the 24-105 and skipping the 85 1.8.  The thing is that I can see going for a hike/bike ride with the 17-55 and picking one prime to compliment.  I don't see me leaving the house carrying both 17-55 and 24-105.

Maybe the right way to go is stick with the plan above, but retain the 35L and skip the 85 at first.  If the gap doesn't bother me, great.  If it does, then maybe add the 70-200/4.  I think that would be a good supplement to the 100-400.  I'm not saying that I never carry the 70-200/2.8, but more often it accompanies a driving destination (or close to home).  I see the 100-400 being the same, so a 70-200/4 may end up getting in the back pack more often.  I haven't used a 7DII yet, but from all accounts it has gained some ISO performance (amount to be argued), so going from a 2.8 to 4 on the 70-200 won't really be  performance loss.  Provided I never compare the two, I'll never know what I'm missing.  :D   

EDIT:  Plan above meant in the first post of the thread, not the first paragraph above.

Thanks for the boost of confidence, I respect all of your opinions.  I've learned quite a bit from your posts since I've been visiting here the last couple years.  Should have listened more to the advice about buying lenses for the body you have, not the one you might have some day, and skipped the 24-105.  I've slowly come to grips with the fact that I enjoy reach, but just can't swing the long whites.  A 7DII is never going to compete with a FF, but from what I see the banding issue seems to be addressed, which even from my amateur view was enough to bother me on the original. 

I know I will miss the 70-200 2.8, but I'm sure the 100-400 II will be great.  Maybe I'll eventually add a 70-200 f4 if it just isn't working out not have a mid-long zoom - it's almost as good image wise.

I'd really like to wait and see some reviews, I haven't placed the order yet.  Any advice on popular new releases as to how many months before supply and demand start to leave units on the store shelf, or at least a reasonable delivery time?  I don't really need it until the spring, as late as May/June maybe.  Would you recommend ordering soon for that date, or is there still time?  I realize I'm asking a crystal ball question, but in relation to other big release items from Canon.   

I bought a 7D as my first DSLR mainly because of what I read about the 70-200.  I loved the idea of the 2.8 plus it allowed me to add a 2xIII for what I thought would be occasional use.  Well, with 4 kids and my wife all in sprint canoe and kayaking the 2x is on more than not, and frankly still not enough lens often.  I love using the 70-200 alone, but find that if it isn't at 200, it is mid-range wide open and has made many of my favorite candids of the family.

The announcement of the 100-400 II has had me constantly in deep thought about my entire lens line-up (wouldn't my employer love to know that).  Ultimately owning both these zooms would be great, and it isn't so much a financial decision, but if I ever want my wife to smile at me again, there is only room for one of these in my house!  So I'm going with the advise I've read over and over here, buy the lens for the focal length you need, and for me that is the 100-400.

At the other end of things, when I have the 24-105 mounted I more often than not wish I could get wider, and when the 10-22 is mounted I always wish I could reach a little further.  Also, 90% of the time the 10-22 doesn't get below 16. 

7D, 70-200 2.8 IS II, 2x III, 10-22, 24-105L, 35L, 50L

7DII, 100-400 II, 1.4x III, 17-55 f2.8, 50L, 85 f1.8, 135L

The process has already begun, the 7D is sold (at an obvious loss, but not bad as it was a used purchase), the 10-22 is sold and I replaced it with a 17-55 for even money.  The 35L will be tough to let go, but it is mint and I should be in money when I swap for a used 135.  The 17-55 is obviously no 35L substitute, but with IS it can actually get non action shots in lower light, and I need the 135L to not miss the 70-200 soooo much.

Am I making crazy moves?  I see it as a reduction in flexibility, but covering more of the range I need with zoom, while covering the remaining areas I gravitated to with the current zooms with quality primes.

All comments or suggestions welcome.       

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 6D & 1.4X -or- 7D Mk II?
« on: November 15, 2014, 08:16:46 PM »
I have a 7D as well, but quite a different spectrum of lenses.  I had been careful with all lens choices (except a 10-22) to be sure I was lining myself up for my future FF upgrade I was sure I was going to do. Turns out I'm quite satisfied with the DOF I get with the crop and my uses tend to require more reach, fast shutter, and great AF.  So coming to realize this I'm very excited about upgrading to a 7DII because it is a perfect match to my uses around water sports given my budget.  As someone already mentioned, the 7DII alone is more versatile, and when the 6D eventually gets upgraded, it will be cheaper to buy a 6D body then any L glass and will put a whole new perspective on everything in your kit.

One question about your 135, as I've thought long and hard about that one.  Great for tight portrait, but on a 7D/7DII I think it would be the poor man's 200 f2 for sports.  What's your primary use for it, and is it the best you could imagine for that.

I'll be the first to admit to not being an MTF expert, but based on the released information at the tel end without converters it appears to be about on par with 70-200 2.8 IS II.  Adding the 1.4x the 100-400 II is reduced in the center slightly, but by mid frame it is still on par with the naked 70-200!  Can this be accurate, or am I just that bad at reading the info?

In addition to these two lenses, I wonder how big the increase in 70-200 IS II on the market will be?  I'm sure I'm not the only one to have bought it with a 2x because it seemed like a versatile option to the very old 100-400, but then discovered 2.8 wasn't really required for my use and not completely happy with the 400 the combo provides.  As soon as I see image quality of the new 100-400, my 70-200 is for sale.  I'm excited about the new lens bare, as well as with 1.4x on a 7DII.  Provided the price is still good for the 70-200, I don't want that much of a hit after only 2 years of light use.   

Lenses / Re: First Image of the EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II Lens
« on: November 07, 2014, 11:03:17 AM »

Focal length markings: If the first photo we saw is right, then the ring between the zoom and focus rings may be a zoom lock in the manner of the current 100-400. Since that ring rotates against the focus ring, has no fixed position, so you could not put markings on that ring. My thought is the markings are on the top of the extending barrel, just like the current 100-400.

Good point about the rotating locking ring, and the markings may well end up on the top in production models, but the angle of the second picture is such that it should be just slightly visible.  Maybe down the other side of the barrel as that would work with the right hand operation of DSLRs?

Lots of comparisons regarding signal/noise ratios, DR, and resolution.  If banding has been eliminated, isn't that something that the 7D was criticized the most by many?  How quickly we forget.

Lenses / Re: First Image of the EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II Lens
« on: November 06, 2014, 05:13:52 PM »
Second  look (who am I kidding), after several looks I noticed there are no focal length markings, which by reference to 70-200 and 70-300 layout should be visible wrapping over the top.  Excitement fading  :'(

It is probably racked all the way around to the short focal length setting and the last mark is top/center in that position and not visible from this particular viewing side.

Agreed. If you look at the comparison picture from ahsanford on page 4 of this thread, the top view of the 70-300 shows that the numbers go down the side of the lens that we do not see in this leaked 100-400 image (when zoomed all the way out).

Good to see some "the cup is half full" attitudes, I tend to go with "the cup is too big", but in this case I'm looking forward to some big glass. :D

Lenses / Re: First Image of the EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II Lens
« on: November 06, 2014, 03:42:31 PM »
Second  look (who am I kidding), after several looks I noticed there are no focal length markings, which by reference to 70-200 and 70-300 layout should be visible wrapping over the top.  Excitement fading  :'( 

Lenses / Re: First Image of the EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II Lens
« on: November 06, 2014, 12:30:45 PM »
This will make for tough choices.  I bought 70-200 2.8 II primarily so I could have the 2.8, but also to use with 2x III on my 7D and still have AF.  This is for shooting paddling from dry land.  Not so satisfied with this - still not quite enough reach, but for other uses the 70-200 has made a lot of my favorite shots.  Now upgrading to 7DII, i'm tempted to sell the 70-200 plus 2x and get the new 100-400 plus 1.4x if the sharpness is there.  Maybe then add a 135 f2 later, as that falls in the range of where I've gotten my favorite non-sporting shots (+- 20mm to make up with feet).

The plus, will never have to explain to parents around me why I can't see the other end of the lake with something so big!


 I need more! You see, I have grown and you have remained static. You're not willing to change. You sit idly by while my new friend, Nikon, keeps growing.

Wow ! You must indeed be a man among men ! I've been in photography over thirty years and rarely can I keep up with the mk II. Be aware your new love may just be after your wallet, especially as she is so young and you no doubt, are a tad older  ;)

Sporgon, that was brilliant!

Lenses / Re: Sigma vs Zeiss vs Canon
« on: April 18, 2014, 09:24:38 AM »
Excellent examples from the Nikon lens.  Does it's adjustable range take it further in regards to the affect than the 50 1.2?

I am disappointed that there wasn't a rebuttal to the $46,000 lens, it had the potential to be very entertaining.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5