March 06, 2015, 11:37:14 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 - TexPhoto

Pages: 1 ... 35 36 [37] 38 39 ... 72
Lenses / Re: Glacier National Park - New lens?
« on: January 03, 2013, 09:38:24 AM »
I think you definitely need something wide.  Don't let the FF monkey on your back keep you from buying the lens you need. 10-20 is a great lens, and some of the 3rd party lenses are great as well. 

If your going to rent, and the $$ don't scare you too much, rent a 16-35mm and a 6D, or 5D II / III.  Then you'd have 2 bodies, the ability to go really wide and some FF pics when you get home.

Lenses / Re: 4 weeks Trip around California
« on: January 03, 2013, 09:09:14 AM »
I did not suggest lenses you do not have, but I too am a wide angle fan, and prefer something wider than 24mm to be at least with me.  But that is a personal choice, make your own decisions. 

My current light weight walk around kit is the 24-105, 8-15 (told yo I liked wide), and the 300mm f4 IS.   

Lenses / Re: 4 weeks Trip around California
« on: January 03, 2013, 07:47:47 AM »
i would take the 200, and the 40.  The 200 because you will want some telephoto at some point.  The 40 because it is so small and light is seems silly not to take it.

Lenses / Re: Football (soccer) lens
« on: January 02, 2013, 08:03:50 AM »
The 70-200 f2.8 II is a fantastic sports lens, and is the way to go if you can afford it, and will only have 1 camera.  It's also a great lens in general for almost any type of photography.

Soccer involves similar distances to American football, but play tends to move over the field much faster.  There is no one lens that will cover it all, and no one place to stand to cover it all.

I shoot sports professionally (maybe semiprofessionally) including soccer and football, and I use a 400mm f2.8 IS, and the 70-200 f2.8 IS II, on 2 separate bodies. For shooting the actual game play, I will alternate between the 2.  When the game stops, I will trade the 400 for something wide and shoot the player / fans / stadium with that and the 70-200.

I would not recommend the 100-400 because it does not focus as fast, or as well.  In my opinion is a great wildlife lens, not a sports lens) Also in a night game, the f2.8 is critical. The 70-200 f2.8 IS II works great with Canon extenders, I'd go that way for more reach.  And possibly add a 7D to your kit if you want to add a 2nd body.

All that said, don't feel like you have to buy V II or this lens, or the 300/400 2.8 (when you are ready for that)  Version I of these lenses or even the non-IS versions are great lenses assuming you can get a used one in decent shape.  I bought my 400 used for $4500, and the $8500 saved vs a new vII goes  long way toward other equipment.  It's nice to have the latest and greatest, but it's better to show off your awsome photos than your new shinny lens.

C28F0143 by RexPhoto91, on Flickr

REX_5990 by RexPhoto91, on Flickr

Untitled by RexPhoto91, on Flickr

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Vertical Grips not coming off 5D2 bodies..
« on: January 01, 2013, 04:52:22 PM »
Wow, that stinks.  i had a monopod one time that could not be removed from my 5D2 Grip.  Eventually was able to saw the monopod apart untill I got down to just the bolt.

Lenses / Re: Worth it to upgrade Extender 1.4 II to a Mk III?
« on: December 31, 2012, 02:42:12 PM »
I had a 1.4X V I and  2X V II. I upgraded both to V III and was very happy.  The 1.4 went from acceptable to I swear I owned a 600mm prime (well 560, when attached to my 400mm f2.8 IS)  The 2X was an improvement, but still not sharp like a bare lens, or the 1.4. 

I am thinking of selling my 2X V III, because I don't see a ton of difference in a 800mm shot, and crop from 560mm.  I keep hoping to run into someone with a VIII 2X to compare mine to.  Maybe mine is off a little.

Canon General / Re: some money left. what should I buy?
« on: December 19, 2012, 10:18:15 AM »
I'd add an 8-15mm fisheye, cause well... I love fisheye.  After that maybe some big glass, but you'd have to buy used.  A 300 or 400mm IS 2.8 Ver 1.  I have the 400 and love it.

Lenses / Re: Long lens recommendation for surveillance.
« on: December 18, 2012, 04:25:05 PM »

Every few days I get emails from the director of the FBI. I also get lots of offers of millions of dollars and apparantly there are several women in Russia that want to marry my cat..... don't believe everything you see on the internet.


You mean I really didn't win $100 billion USD in the Nigerian lottery?  :o

My all time favorite spam message claims the BMW corp is awarding me 800 million Euro (about $1.2B at the time)  and... a Jeep.  Seriously BMW is giving me 1.2 Billion and a Jeep!  No extra Beemers laying around I guess.

Lenses / Re: Long lens recommendation for surveillance.
« on: December 18, 2012, 11:47:57 AM »
No problem! One thing people rarely consider with surveillance photography is you must capture the scene, the place. what was happening where? Headshots with wonderful bokeh from a 600 f4 will be a nice souvenir for the bad guy, but will not do much in court.  The bad guy need only be recognizable, he is not selling underwear.  And the photos are only meant to compliment officer testimony, not replace it. 

Of course monster lenses do have their place, but the opportunity to use one from waaaaaay far away is rare.  Long shots must be set up way in advance, and buildings, trees, damn SUVs!, etc tend to get in the way.  A guy in a car with a kit lens can move, and can blend.

Remind your friend to set his camera clock.  Nothing worse than having t explain in court that all your photos are digitally dated and time stamped, but... the camera was off by 2 minutes, 1 hour, and 9 years.  Oh and cover any lights on the front of the camera with black electrical tape. (for obvious reasons)  Use P mode with Auto ISO instead of full auto (green box, idiot mode) because full auto will deploy the flash when it wants to.  Or more complex settings if he is comfortable with that.

Good luck to your friend, hope he stays safe. 

Lenses / Re: Long lens recommendation for surveillance.
« on: December 17, 2012, 10:56:56 PM »
You guys are funny.  ;D You think Law Enforcement is like in the movies.  Unlimited budgets and computers that show you the fingerprints with cool noises as they check them.

If your friend is sitting in a parking lot, that means he needs something reasonable for the inside of a car ( a 5 year old american sedan with lousy shocks and brakes).  A crop DSLR and an 18-200 is probably where he wants to start. It is not unusual to shoot surveillance photos from 6 feet away, and the 18-200 gives tremendous range while easily handheld, and relatively inconspicuous.  A large aperture lens like a 70-200 f2.8 will add to the night shooting ability.

Very cool.  What were the settings?  How many photos per minute?

Canon EF Zoom Lenses / Re: Canon EF 8-15mm f/4L Fisheye USM
« on: December 14, 2012, 11:30:56 PM »

REX_6826 by RexPhoto91, on Flickr

REX_6821 by RexPhoto91, on Flickr

REX_7426 by RexPhoto91, on Flickr

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: digital camera as light meter
« on: December 12, 2012, 08:03:50 AM »
Yes, you can use your DSLR as a light meter, transferring settings from one camera to another.  I own a Widelux 1500 medium format panoramic camera, and do this all the time with great results.  My exposures on Fuji Velvia are dead on are dead on.  When i first started i thought there would be some adjustment factor, but I had no issues.

I did this because I did not want to carry a separate meter, or pay for it, and I was going to have a DSLR with me anyway.  Now that I think about this, I started with film doing this with a Nikon D90 about 15 years ago.  The Widelux does not get much action as of late, but I still like to use it from time to time.

Obviously flash exposures are not gong to work this way.

Lenses / Re: 100mm macro L on a 7d
« on: December 11, 2012, 03:17:18 PM »
It's a great macro lens, but it is very long for portraits, (except maybe headshots) and seems like a really bad choice to be your only lens.

Having L Glass is a nice, but the wrong L lens will not make for the right photo.  I'd keep the gear you have over trading those lenses for a 100mm L Macro.  If you read to much here, you will begin to think photography is all about the gear.  it's not. It's about the photos.

Do you sell Microstock at iStockPhoto or similar?  If not, why not?  Takes a bit to start earning, but the money in your pocket will buy more gear, and get you closer to a bag full of L glass.

Lenses / Re: Canon 50mm 1.8iii... L... Real or fake?
« on: December 11, 2012, 11:19:44 AM »
The red ring is auto pinstriping tape if I am not mistaken. And I should know.

IMG_7437 by RexPhoto91, on Flickr

I did the above to tweak my friends a little who complained that I only shot L-glass.  When we had a "let's shoot 50mm" day, I showed up with the above and one guy started shouting something about GD Fing... an something about his Mom or my mom, i was not sure.  Anyway, I brought the tape and did up L-lens for anyone who wanted one.  $4 for 10 meters, so pretty cheap.  (and about 30 sec vs. painting)  The tape is from an auto paint and body shop.

Pages: 1 ... 35 36 [37] 38 39 ... 72