Messages

136

Lighting / Re: Purchase advice for second Speedlite

« on: December 16, 2012, 01:14:16 PM »

Glad you're liking your new toy. 

Yes, I saw the post on the rumored 430-ish ex-rt.  Very excited to get into work with a handful of speedlights. I mean, I know 1 or 2 is good for most uses.  I just want to start getting more creative with it.

(Side Note) My wife is getting me another (my 3rd) speed light for Christmas (another 600 ex-rt). 

137

Lighting / Re: New to off camera flash, any tips/guides for beginners?

« on: December 16, 2012, 01:08:02 PM »

+1 for "The Speedlighter's Handbook".  I've read it a couple of times already.  It had LOTs of great info.  I like strobist.com too. 

Start with the reading, go play with your flash, read some more, play again.  It's made a world of difference in my photography.

(Side note) One major thing for me: learning how to sculpt light and make "interesting shadows" has helped me realize that for MY style of photography, I don't need ALL the prime lenses Canon has to offer.  I used to think that was the only way to get good low light pictures.  With the use of 2 or 3 flashes and a good 2.8 zoom, and maybe some light modifiers (umbrellas, soft boxes, diffusers, etc.),  I get much more flexibility, and don't have to worry so much about noise.  The shallow DOF I get from a 2.8 zoom is more than enough for my style and is saving my tons of money not having to buy all the prime lenses I initially wanted. 

138

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Crop vs FF for landscape photography

« on: December 15, 2012, 06:35:14 PM »

so to sum it all up, the majority of responses vote for "FF for landscape photography".  You can use the APS-C sensor with a 10-22 if you'd like but it might take a little extra work in post. 

I just went full frame so I'm still a noob.  What I can say is that I notice qualities in my photos from the 5D mkiii that I NEVER noticed from my 60D.  It was as if I could "feel" textures in the photos... and that's with the same lenses.  I'm saving for a 16-35 2.8 II to complete my 2.8 zoom trinity.  For now, 24mm is wide enough for some casual landscape shots.  I have the 60D and 10-22mm on hand until I can sell it to put more money towards the new 16-35...or hopefully a 14-24 2.8L.

As far as opinions go, I think neuro does a great job of helping others (on CR) out with real world experience and accurate data.  I've done my share of reading too much into what's written on the forums and getting offended when I didn't need to be.  Let's all just enjoy the holidays and post up some great Winter Landscape pictures!  I hear winter time is great for that style of photography =)

139

Lighting / Re: Does it normal with my 600 EX-RT ??

« on: December 15, 2012, 01:21:54 AM »

mine makes noise while zooming too. 

140

Lighting / Re: Purchase advice for second Speedlite

« on: December 15, 2012, 12:15:13 AM »

I love my 600ex-rt.  i have a 430 ex ii as well.  I will eventually sell it to get another 600 (or 2) unless they come out with a 430-ish speed light that acts as a RT slave. 

It's not just more powerful, the controls on it are much nicer to use IMO.  It's much easier to set power levels, etc.

141

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: [crop + 35L] versus [FF + 50 f/1.4]

« on: December 14, 2012, 04:02:15 AM »

without knowing much about you and your shooting, I'd advise you to keep the 35L.  I recently made the jump to a 5D mkiii from a 60D.  I just sold my 50 1.4 today.  One of the main uses of a prime lens is to use it wide open (or close to wide open).  I was having to stop down my aperture to f/4 or f/5.6 to get really sharp images.  at 1.4, it was so so.  The 35L looks much better wide open...well, at least when stopped down to about 1.8-2.8, but still nice enough for my style at 1.4.  I'll be saving for the 50L eventually.

142

Lenses / Re: A final goodbye to my 50mm f1.4 lens

« on: December 14, 2012, 03:45:09 AM »

I finally posted my 50mm f1.4 on CL yesterday around 3:30PM and the lens got sold by 6PM same day for $290 cash.

When I opened my camera bag this morning, I see an empty spot in my bag - where the 50mm sits when not in use. 

My feeling right now =    to 

Sadly, i just sold mine today(for $280).  There's an empty slot in my bag now, too where the 50 would sit.     My wife brought up a good point though.  I should be happy that I have the new 24-70 II.  After I purchase an UWA and a Macro lens, I'll save up for the 50L.  In the meantime, the 35L will do.

143

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 14-24 f/2.8L in Late 2013 [CR2]

« on: December 14, 2012, 03:35:55 AM »

Dear Santa,
Please make this CR2 comes true

+1 Lol!

+1  i need this lens to go with my new mark III, 24-70 II, and 70-200 IS II.  I had to give up my EF-S 10-22 and am currently without an UWA!!!!

144

Lenses / Re: Did you use a UV filter on 70-200 f2.8L IS (I or II) during its last use? (Poll)

« on: December 11, 2012, 12:31:43 PM »

I have a Hoya HD1 UV Filter on there for protection.  For my 24-70 II, I purchased a Hoya HD1 Clear Protecter instead of a UV Filter

145

Lenses / Re: Next lens, round 2

« on: December 11, 2012, 12:29:40 PM »

this is all good info.  I'm selling my 10-22, 24-105, and 60D as well.  I already have the 24-70 II but I think I need to take my lenses to Canon (down the street) to get everything calibrated.  Do you guys think I should just get FoCal instead?.... or both Canon Service and use FoCal?

146

Lenses / Re: Zoom vs Primes?

« on: December 11, 2012, 04:45:00 AM »

as a newer shooter, I'd recommend going for a good zoom like the 24-70 II.  I had the 24-105 to begin with but was never wowed by it.  I personally feel primes are for more experienced shooters who know that they want to work with a particular focal length. 

147

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Only 1 lens

« on: December 11, 2012, 04:25:16 AM »

Your current 5DII + 40mm f/2.8 pancake makes a great package.  That is a very sweet lens and only $149.  Baby and family photos will look just as good with the little 40mm as with the big 24-70/2.8.  The 40mm is great for landscape too (if you like the focal length).  Also, Rebel T4i with kit lens for $599 can do a lot.

I agree. Best of luck.

+1 good luck to u buddy. 

148

Lenses / Re: 17-40mm F/4 L or 16/35mm F/2.8 L I

« on: December 09, 2012, 01:45:43 AM »

I'm in a similar predicament.  coming from the 10-22 on a crop, I really liked 10mm.  My main concern isn't the extra stop of light as I will probably be shooting at f/5.6 to f/8 anyway.  I've read that in UWA lenses, 1 mm makes a big difference.  Is the difference between 16mm and 17mm significant?

149

Lenses / Re: 24-105 or 24-70 for weddings, events, travelling (priority in that order)

« on: December 09, 2012, 01:15:44 AM »

Yes! the 24-70 II is a special lens. The 24-105, while a fine lens, doesnt come close to comparison in image quality. Also low light focusing will be much nicer @ 2.8.  It is THE finest zoom in that focal length available.   .

I agree. I just did a lot of research on the 24-70 II...balanced against primes. I already own a 50mm f/1.4 Sigma and the  Canon 85L...so I was considering puchasing the Canon 24mm L & the new Sigma 35mm f/1.4 or the new Canon zoom.  Either way I would be spending the same amount of money.
I had sold my Canon 24-105 back in the spring to buy the new 24-70mm...but then there were all of the delays...and this GREAT Sigma 35mm appeared out of nowhere.  I was torn. The price of the new zoom really put me off.
In the end I bought the new Canon Zoom.  It is REALLY sharp and many times it is just great to have that zoom range in your hands an not be changing out primes. Way more interactive..with trade-offs.
The 24-105 is a good lens...but I was never WOWED by it.
Check out this comparison of it to the new 24-70mm II:
http://www.ronmartblog.com/2012/09/comparison-canon-24-70-f28l-ii-vs-24.html
..from a sharpness and DOF the new 24-70mm blows the 24-105mm out of the water. (but the 24-105mm is a very good zoom for the money).
I LOVE primes....but I am a little wowed by this new zoom. Could just be the honeymoon period...but my feeling is that it is very prime-like, both in contrast and sharpness (even wide open)....and...unfortunately, you are DEFINITELY paying for that privilege! I do not think you would be unhappy if you bought this lens. I know that I am very content with the decision I have made.
(SteenerMe...I just noticed that U and I have almost the EXACT same range of lenses...no wonder I agreed with you! LOL.)

+1 for the 24-70 2.8 II.  I'm selling my 24-105 because it just doesn't compare in sharpness/IQ, etc.  The shallower DOF is nice too but if I really want to isolate my subject, i'll use the 70-200 2.8 IS II...remember that longer focal lengths also contribute to shallower DOF so at 2.8 on that lens, your DOF is even shallower). 

The 24-105 f/4L  just didn't wow me either.  And if you're planning on doing video, get a tripod.  Don't use/rely on IS.  Also, f/4 for video isn't that great.  I personally ALWAYS use primes for video anyway and since you already have some..you're set there.

One more minor thing is that at 2.8, your flash doesn't have to work as hard compared to f/4 to get the same amount of exposure.  The wider aperture will allow more light from the speed light in at the same power level.  This equates to lower recycle times and overall less battery usage.

150

Technical Support / Re: I solved my own problem, but thought I would share

« on: December 07, 2012, 01:48:01 PM »

good info, thanks for sharing