March 03, 2015, 08:01:58 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 - AudioGlenn

Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10 11 ... 24
EOS Bodies / Re: $2,800.00 budget
« on: March 20, 2013, 02:50:51 AM »

Lenses / Re: 24-70 IS ii v 70-200 IS ii
« on: March 20, 2013, 02:45:52 AM »
since you have a 50, I'd sell the 24-70 I and get a 70-200.  I love that lens.  I sold my 50mm 1.4 when I got the 24-70 II.

EOS Bodies / Re: Should I buy the 5D mark III ?
« on: March 18, 2013, 05:47:29 AM »
yes u should!

Lenses / Re: Is there anything I can improve on this gear list?
« on: March 17, 2013, 05:38:50 AM »
looks like you've got lots to play with!  +1 for the tripod recommendation if you don't have one already.  don't go cheap on this one, it's a waste of money.  you'll end up buying a nice one eventually

Lenses / Re: 16-35II vs 24-70II IQ?
« on: March 16, 2013, 01:51:34 AM »
What Dylan said...

I really didn't care for the IQ of my 16-35 F/2.8 II and sold it to fund the 24-70 F/2.8 II.

Once I got the 24-70 II  F/2.8 II in mu hands, I tested the 24 F/1.4 II that I had against it.
My 24-70 was sharper @ F/2.8 upwards than the prime, which left me with a prime that vignettes badly @ F/1.4 is usable at F/2 and not as good onwards.
I sold the 24 F/1.4 II the next day.

I've also had 2 copies of the new Sigma 35mm F/1.4 and neither of them could out resolve the 24-70 @ F/2.8.

I sold all my Canon lenses except the 70-200 F/2.8 II and the 24-70 F/2.8 II.
Both are excellent and nothing much in the Canon mount comes close.
I'll wait for the new Canon UW (12 - 24 or 14 - 24) to get the third part of the trinity.


nice to hear i'm not the only one who did something like this.  Although I still keep my 35L for when I really need the low light capabilities or for shooting video.  I too am waiting for a new awesome UWA.  In the meantime, I'm having lots of fun with the 8-15mm fisheye!

Lenses / Re: 5DIII+35mm or 50mm?
« on: March 14, 2013, 02:21:29 PM »

Lenses / Re: Bridge not sharp - why?
« on: March 11, 2013, 07:21:31 AM »
I have another idea (laugh if you want). 

If the camera isn't moving, and the air/humidity isn't what's affecting how the light hits the sensor, wouldn't it be reasonable to think that the bridge might have some slight movement?  maybe enough flex in the wind to show motion blur at 1/20?  I mean, the top tip of the Empire State Building sways from side to side.  Either the bridge is moving slightly or the platform you're standing on is moving.  Any civil engineers on the forum?

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Canon 5D Mark 2 or 5D Mark 3??
« on: March 10, 2013, 06:16:39 PM »
first off... don't buy it from best buy.  you're getting ripped off. 

secondly, get the mk3 from the b&h link earlier.  the price difference isn't that much between the 2 bodies and especially for video...YES get the mk3.

Lenses / Re: DPReview: Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II Review
« on: March 07, 2013, 03:20:29 PM »
Of slightly more concern are the ~30% of shots taken between 70-105mm

I would think that the higher sharpness at 70mm, especially stopped down to f/4, would give you the latitude to crop your photos to at least 85 or 90mm and still match the sharpness of the 24-105. This starts getting pretty close to matching the 24-105's usefulness as a walkaround lens, especially if you're not worried about shutter speed.


Lenses / Re: DPReview: Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II Review
« on: March 07, 2013, 03:18:48 PM »
More high praise for the 24-70 II, with the usual caveat of price.

Question for people who've bought the 24-70 II and had/have the 24-105mm f/4L IS 'kit lens'.  Did you keep the 24-105L, and if so, now that you have the 24-70/2.8 II, do you use the 24-105L any more?

I sold my 24-105 after I got the 24-70 II.  I found it was a little redundant.  I do miss the flexibility of the extra reach but I have the 70-200 for that anyway.  I also sold my 50mm 1.4 when I got the 24-70 as I was only using it (the 50) at 2.8 or smaller anyway.  Also, since then, I've found that I probably could've lived with the 24-105 and 50 instead of upgrading.  I've improved my skills in PP since last year (made the jump to Lightroom) so the difference between the old setup and the new setup is even less but I like not having to switch lenses as often when I need a little more light.

The biggest difference I "feel" is in the sharpness and clarity of my pics.  I have less to do in post which I'm sure adds up to a lot of time saved.  Colors are better.  I'm overall very happy with the new setup.  To me, it was worth the difference of ~$1000 (after selling off the old lenses). 

Lenses / Re: Considering lens upgrade options....
« on: March 07, 2013, 03:12:24 PM »
I vote for option 1.

The 70-200 2.8 IS II is amazing.  I try to use it more often than I use my 24-70 2.8 II.  If I have the ability to step back a little, it's awesome.

Lenses / Re: Any difference bw used and new 24-105mm lens?
« on: March 05, 2013, 06:57:11 AM »
125 then keep the new one...   will hold value over time better than the old one...


Lenses / Re: your goto everyday lens and why?
« on: March 04, 2013, 01:57:48 PM »
50mm 1.4 on 5Diii

no matter what lenses I take to do anything I end up just sticking the 50mm on and it seems to get exactly what I want from it. if I'm using the 24-105 I end up getting annoyed and take it off, if I'm using a 70-300 I end up getting annoyed and take it off. I shoot everything with it. It's crazy.

It used to be 28mm 1.8 on my 7D. A little wider side by side and a bit more forgiving on the DOF but when I bought the 5D I couldn't use a crop sensor as a back up as the focal lengths just make no sense when swapping quickly between bodies. the curse of the 5Diii, you never want/need to use anything else. I bought a 2nd hand 5Dii as a second body and that's only been used to test if it works even though I planned on doing weddings with both and not having to swap lenses over. I sold everything crop and EF-s including an ultra wide as landscapes generally escape me or hate me.

the only time I ever reach for the 24-105 is for the groups and it bores the hell out of me. maybe I'd get on better with the 24-70 2.8 shooting around f3.5.

I feel like I'm cheating on the 28mm now, it's like the girl you've always had around that's great but then the 50mm turns up and steals the show. I'd equate the 24-105 being the lady of questionable morals in a bag of lenses that you should really avoid unless absolutely necessary... 70-300, she's not pretty but sometimes that's what you need to get the job done.

I love the analogies.

Personally, it's very hard for me to pick just ONE lens.  It depends on the situation. 

A day at Disneyland, I want my young and skinny 40mm. 

Studio portraits, and wedding candids, I want the 70-200 2.8 IS II all day (my "big, busty, and beautiful").

Casual shooting: the 24-70 II, plain but effective

Night time events, low light w/o flash, the 35 L (my late night mistress)

Lenses / Re: your goto everyday lens and why?
« on: March 04, 2013, 05:17:59 AM »
(And my walk around prime is the 35L - a perfect all-round focal length)

+1 for this prime as well

Lenses / Re: your goto everyday lens and why?
« on: March 04, 2013, 05:17:34 AM »
24-70 2.8 ii. Blindingly kick arse walk around lens.


Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10 11 ... 24