August 30, 2014, 10:50:31 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 - Etienne

Pages: 1 ... 28 29 [30] 31 32 ... 40
436
Lenses / Re: New Wide Angle Zoom Discussion & Opinion
« on: August 16, 2012, 12:39:03 AM »
I'm against a 16-24, because current 16-35 in terms of focal length, is perfect match of 70-200 and a 50 prime. Not everyone care about the joe six-pack 24-70 zoom lens.

I have that setup (16-35 f2.8II, 50 f1.4, 70-200 f2.8 IS II), and while it's good, I would prefer :

16-24 f2.8 sharp and contrasty awesomeness at all focal lengths
35 f1.4 II- awesome sharp and contrasty
70-200 2.8 IS II - incredible (already in my bag)

437
Lenses / Re: New Wide Angle Zoom Discussion & Opinion
« on: August 15, 2012, 02:43:40 PM »
I'd actually like to see a 14-24 to fill in the gap behind the 24-70II and the 70-200 2.8II, as I don't feel the 16-35II is up to the standards of these two.  Maybe even a 16-24 and keep the 82mm filters.

A sharp, light 16-24 f2.8 or 20-35 f2.8 would suit me best too, but I think we are hopelessly outnumbered by those who want a 2.5 lb brick with a bulby lens.

438
Lenses / Re: New Wide Angle Zoom Discussion & Opinion
« on: August 15, 2012, 01:59:34 PM »
I own a 16-35mkII and it worked perfectly with the 1Dmk3 I had.

After I replaced the 1Dmk3 with a 5Dmk3 the 16-35mkII wasn't good enough anymore: the off-center unsharpness is just too visible. I bought the 17-40 which is a lot sharper (but obviously lacks the F/2.8).

I really like the 16/17 to 35/40mm focal range, so I'm really hoping they are going to release a sharp 16-35mm F2.8. The 14-24mm F2.8 sounds as a nice addition to the 24-70mm, but for the type of photography I'm doing I'd rather use a 16-35 + 70-200mm combo.

Just my 2 cents.

Mark.

You must have a really bad copy of the 16-35 mkII. The 16-35 is sharper than the 17-40 at every aperture and focal length except borders at 35 mm. This is confirmed by every review including photozone.de, and at the wide end it is as sharp at 2.8 as the 17-40 is at f4.

439
EOS Bodies / Re: Cool Stuff - PimpYourCam.com
« on: August 10, 2012, 12:28:46 PM »
From the designers who brought you pink cameras

440
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 35 f/1.4L II [CR2]
« on: August 09, 2012, 10:35:15 AM »
at risk of of going way off topic how is the tokina 50-135 f2.8 ?

I didn't sell the Tokina 50-135 2.8 after moving to FF 5DII because it is a great lens. Now my son uses it on his 60D. It is sharp, clear, pretty much right from 2.8 . It's a little slow to focus, but it's light weight for 2.8 tele-zoom.

It has some other rare qualities: it is parfocal, which is not a big deal in photography, but it is awesome for video. It means you can focus at one focal length then zoom in (or out) while recording, and you will maintain focus!

It also does not exhibit much focus breathing, again good for video.

It is discontinued, and I doubt I'll ever sell it.

441
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 STM Product Advisory
« on: August 09, 2012, 08:45:44 AM »
When was the last time Canon put out a glitch-free product?

442
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 35 f/1.4L II [CR2]
« on: August 08, 2012, 03:53:20 PM »
After months of choosing between the 24 1.4 mkii and 35 1.4 i just bought the 35mm 1.4. Im a bit gutted now because i would have rather had a weather sealed lens. I only paid £750 on ebay though! I wonder if the price of the new lens will increase the value of mine, or if I should consider selling it before it loses too much value.

Ive justified buying L glass to myself that it should hold its value incase I ever need to sell it, but I guess its value really depends on the new price.

Canon glass, especially L glass, holds it's value well. I've actually sold some lenses for more than I paid.

But the new 35L II will be very pricey to be sure.

Yeah i think it will be pricey, and hopefully mean that my copy holds its value. I definately noticed this as I missed out on the chanced to buy the 24-70 mki just before the new version was released, and now the mki costs an extra 30% used easily.

Thanks for easing my mind though!

The 35 1.4 is a pretty safe investment. It costs about $100/week to rent it here. You may own it for two - three years, and get many thousands of shot with it, and then resell it at nearly what you paid. It's a bargain in that light.

Several years ago I bought a 40D on sale for $900 and a 17-55 2.8 IS for $850 (Adorama had a one day sale, and B&H matched it). After about 18 months, and perhaps 40,000 shots, I sold the 40D for $600 and the 17-55 for $950. My net cost was about $200 (all figures approximate). You couldn't by a crappy point and shoot for that.

In my experience, buying good gear is cost effective.

I now have the following lenses:

Canon 16-35 II, 24-105 f4 IS, 70-200 2.8L IS II, 50 1.4, 50 1.8
Tokina 11-16 2.8, 50-135 2.8

On 5DII, and 60D(bought for my son)

If I sold all my lenses, I'd get pretty close to what I paid, so no regrets. BTW ... good sales come up regularly. Take advantage of them and you'll do very well with pro gear.

Tip: look at kits and their discounts. I bought the 60D kit with 55-250 IS, for $59 more than without the zoom. I immediately sold the zoom for about $200 and the kit 18-55 for $95 (net $295) new in boxes on eBay.  B&H was also offering the 70-200 at an additional $200 off the existing $200 off sale when paired with the camera. So in the end, my price on a new 70-200 2.8L IS II was $1850!

443
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 35 f/1.4L II [CR2]
« on: August 08, 2012, 01:39:38 PM »
After months of choosing between the 24 1.4 mkii and 35 1.4 i just bought the 35mm 1.4. Im a bit gutted now because i would have rather had a weather sealed lens. I only paid £750 on ebay though! I wonder if the price of the new lens will increase the value of mine, or if I should consider selling it before it loses too much value.

Ive justified buying L glass to myself that it should hold its value incase I ever need to sell it, but I guess its value really depends on the new price.

Canon glass, especially L glass, holds it's value well. I've actually sold some lenses for more than I paid.

But the new 35L II will be very pricey to be sure.

444
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 35 f/1.4L II [CR2]
« on: August 08, 2012, 12:14:22 PM »

This has to be one of the oldest on-going rumors on the site.

445
Lenses / Re: EF 500 f/4L IS II & EF 600 f/4L IS II Stock News
« on: August 08, 2012, 12:13:24 PM »
Yeah!

More stuff I can't afford may be available for others to buy soon!

446
Lenses / Re: *UPDATE* Canon EF 135 f/1.8L IS
« on: August 02, 2012, 09:48:36 AM »
Just add IS to one of:

135 2.0 or
200 2.8

So I can have a lightweight telephoto with IS. And make sure it works with the teleconverters

447
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 135 f/1.8L IS
« on: August 01, 2012, 04:56:01 PM »
I'd love one of these

448
EOS Bodies / Re: More Coverage of the Canon EOS M
« on: July 23, 2012, 12:07:44 PM »
No swivel screen is the biggest let-down. Otherwise it's probably a great little video camera

449
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS M Hands On Via Tech Radar
« on: July 23, 2012, 09:28:57 AM »
That Tech Radar video is lame. For people with their hands on the camera, they managed to learn very very little about it.

All their videos are super lame, they are the most soul destroyingly boring review videos ever made
i think if they got a corpse to perform the view it would be more animated and appealing.
I am not sure i've managed to make it past 30 seconds of listening to that womans voice before i cant take any more and turn it off.

at least fro and digital rev add some entertainment value into the mix with their reviews
cant wait for the digital rev review and a destruction test! ;)

I too hate boring videos that tell you nothing that the written review doesn't.  I'm waiting for the DigitalRev video to see how well it stands up to being set on fire and throw down steps, not to mention how 'bokehlicious' the 22mm f/2 STM lens is...  ;)

Me too. I like Kai. Sure, he seems to clown around but that makes his reviews entertaining and he is pretty good at finding real world advantages and disadvantages in each walkabout. Obviously, he's not going to go into every last technical detail, but there are plenty of other options out there if that's what you want.

And if that doesn't float your boat, you can just admire the amazing Hong Kong streets and pretty girls he shoots.

i agree with all you guys. Tech Radar is a "non-review"

450
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS M Hands On Via Tech Radar
« on: July 23, 2012, 01:31:07 AM »
That Tech Radar video is lame. For people with their hands on the camera, they managed to learn very very little about it.

Pages: 1 ... 28 29 [30] 31 32 ... 40