September 22, 2014, 08:32:19 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 - AudioGlenn

Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10 ... 24
106
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 60d or t5i, your help?
« on: April 24, 2013, 04:58:42 AM »
If she doesn't need the control features or the robustness of the 60D, or she values compactness and ease of use, I would suggest the T4i and save considerable coin to invest in a nice lens...


http://www.ebay.com/itm/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=221146351229&item=221146351229&lgeo=1&vectorid=229466

+1

107
Lenses / Re: Canon 50mm f1.2 worth?
« on: April 21, 2013, 01:16:24 PM »
I know this is a little off topic but I found I was using my 50mm f/1.4 at 2.8 or smaller most of the time so i sold it and got the 24-70 f/2.8 II instead. 

If you need to use the lens wider than 2.8, I always hear that the 50 1.2L outperforms the 50 1.4, but only marginally.

108
Software & Accessories / Re: Wrist or Neck strap
« on: April 19, 2013, 02:24:44 PM »
I think that quite a few folks don't know about shoulder straps or don't carry heavier cameras or lenses.  Once they do, I don't think they will ever go back to a neck strap...  :o

+1

exactly my thoughts

109
Lenses / Re: 16-35 f/2.8II vs 17-40 f/4
« on: April 18, 2013, 07:29:19 PM »
It was me who started this thread 14 months ago. I had been a staunch defender of the 17-40, and most of that hold true if shooting from f/5.6-11. Last year I switched to the 16-35 f/2.8II and while there is a quality/economy role for the 17-40, the 16-35 f/2.8II does push it aside in a number of subtle, almost unexplainable ways. And so it should!

At the subtle level, now my UWA images just look better. Regardless of aperture. I'm at a loss to explain why. But I'm reaching for the 16-35 a lot more often than I did the 17-40. At a less subtle level, at least I can expect pretty good centre sharpness wide open. That couldn't be said for my copy of the 17-40.

At the end of the day, they're both lenses that will satisfy most shooters UWA needs, and deliver commercial quality results.

-PW

This is great feedback on both of these lenses.  This is why I'm saving up for the 16-35.

110

you don't see the real value because you are a beginner. This lens is meant for creative photographers who can think of depth, perspective, composition and intelligent framing.

Those 2 photos you posted are snapshot and can be easily taken using an iphone.

even though this was put rather rudely, I have to agree on some level.  (although I think "learncanon" needs to learn a little tact)

an UWA is a special lens and from the examples you posted, it looks like a 24-70 might've been more up your alley...or at least a standard zoom.  the distortion is something you can learn to play with.  sounds to me like you purchased the lens without really knowing what you wanted from it.

111
Lenses / Re: One lens for vacation
« on: April 17, 2013, 10:14:28 PM »
+1 for the 24-70 2.8 II.  I used mine on my cruise to the Bahamas WAAAAAy more than I thought.  BTW, I brought everything but used this most of the time.

112
Software & Accessories / Re: iPhoto or Aperture´╝č
« on: April 14, 2013, 01:51:07 PM »
I used both iPhoto and Aperture for a while before I switched to Lightroom 4.  iPhoto was used to manage any pictures I took with my iPhone.  Aperture was used for photos I took with my DSLR. 

In the end, "upgrading" to Lightroom was one of the best investments I ever made.  I wish I would've done it sooner.  The abilities you gain in the photo editing process (to me) far outweigh the initial learning time taken to re-learn software.  i.e. 1) the noise reduction slider actually does something to reduce noise.  2) the single-click lens profile correction is awesome 3) the clarity slider does wonders for a lot of my pictures.  I know this might vary according to your style but I can organize and edit my photos in 1/4th of the time with Lightroom and I've only been using it since December 2012.  Just my 2 cents

113
Lenses / Re: Prime vs zoom
« on: March 29, 2013, 02:00:53 AM »

114
Lenses / Re: 40mm f/2.8 Wow what a lens
« on: March 28, 2013, 04:39:08 AM »
I love my 40!

Same here, it's such a perfect pairing for unobtrusive general photography on my 5D.  I think it and a 6D would make a wonderful compact/stealth kit.  Canon really needs to make an equivalent lens for EF-S mount, the shorty 40's just a bit too much telephoto for my tastes on APS-C.

Felt the same with my 60D.  I like it much more on FF

115
EOS Bodies / Re: How to spend money
« on: March 27, 2013, 02:03:00 PM »
How about a 5DIII and a 300/2.8L IS II?   :)

+1

sounds like you want to splurge a little on the 1DX (which I think is totally fine if you have the money for it).  If you want an immediate upgrade, I think the mk3 would make you happy too....I'd get the mk3 and the 300 2.8 IS II and save up for a 1DX AS WELL!  =)  happy shopping.

btw, get the wife a little something that she would like while you're at it.

116
Lenses / Re: 40mm f/2.8 Wow what a lens
« on: March 27, 2013, 01:55:39 PM »
I love my 40!

117
Lenses / Re: How Much do you use your Canon EF 16-35mm L ??
« on: March 27, 2013, 01:46:46 PM »
ugh...i want one!  i need it to complete my f/2.8 zoom trinity.  I tried out some test shots at a local camera store this week.  quality and sharpness at 2.8 aren't as "bad" as some have exaggerated here on the forums.  I was able to get what I wanted after some minor work in LR4.

118
Lenses / Re: Need your opinions on selling my 50L and 24/70L
« on: March 25, 2013, 05:05:54 AM »
I just rented the 50L this weekend.  It was a good copy with no issues but to be honest, I really missed my 24-70 2.8 II.  It a perfect complement to my 70-200 2.8 IS II.  Yes, the bokeh on the 50L is creamy but wasn't really all that.  I sold my 50 1.4 when I got the 24-70 II 'cause I was stopping it down to 2.8 when I used it anyway.  I guess if you're really into the blur, then cool.  I find I can get similar blur with the 70-200 zoomed in from farther back AND my images are sharper.  just my thoughts

119
well I think the SL1 is "cute" and my wife might be the perfect customer for it.  The EOS M wasn't what we were looking for.  I thought she might like using my 60D after I got a mk3 but that was too big for her.  pair it (SL1) up with the 40mm and she's got a kick ass little setup for her needs... no she's not a pro photographer.  It would just be a toy.... honestly, she's fine just taking pictures with her new iPhone. 

So the gear announcement wasn't what some of you expected... so what!  don't you guys already have great cameras?   I too wanted to see a 70D upgrade but meh, I'm doin' just fine with the gear I have.  I think the complainers need to go shoot more. 

As with my recording studio gear, I buy what I need when I need it.  don't sweat the small stuff people.

120
Lenses / Re: Do I need the EF 85mm f/1.8 USM?
« on: March 20, 2013, 03:06:50 AM »
I've been considering getting an 85mm since I sold my 50 (which I liked for portraits on a crop) but found that my 70-200 covers that need quite well.  Every time I start to consider it again, I read something somewhere that reiterates how redundant it would be to have both the 70-200 and an 85mm.  If or when I do get around to making that purchase, I'll have to go for the L.  2 stops of light might be worth it for me but it really isn't a big need right now.

Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10 ... 24