March 03, 2015, 02:13:05 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
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...


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.

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


exactly my thoughts

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.


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


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.

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.

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

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

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

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?   :)


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.

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

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.

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

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.

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