Messages

181

Canon General / Re: your scariest photography moment?

« on: March 12, 2013, 12:11:50 PM »

Friend and I entered a large park through one of the many entrances...had about 20K of equipment amongst the two of us and some obvious lenses and 1 series bodies.... after a long shoot (he shot, I mostly made snide remarks about the sillyness of shooting birds and trees) we walked out through a different exit and found ourselves in an interesting neighborhood... teens in wife-beaters standing at the corner in groups, car windows blown out with garbage bags as covers...you get the idea...

Nothing came of it...and perhaps we judge unfairly folks in some neighborhoods, a few stares and may be a comment or two... but it was the longest walk to the larger road from that pot-holed street. I have had a closer call close to my own house few years back, but that only goes to tell you perhaps neighborhoods don't matter afterall.

I pay more attention now to where I am and how I carry my equipment in less obvious ways.

182

Canon General / Re: Should I upgrade to FF or invest in lenses instead?

« on: March 12, 2013, 12:01:23 PM »

A full fledged move given your current line up of lenses to full frame will not keep you content unless you plan to invest heavily in FF lenses. The current crop of full frame sensors are also not very forgiving with the shortcomings of mediocre lenses. 

If you are a macro shooter, given your current line up of lenses, APS-C is a fair platform... should you invest in lenses, consider those that will augment your current style but will also transition nicely to FF.

183

Lighting / Re: Trouble finding focus

« on: March 11, 2013, 04:17:23 PM »

I am shooting with 70-200mm II 2.8 and 85mm 1.2, both pretty snappy lenses.

Dump the 85L f/1.2;  it is probably the worst lens for what you are describing.... though very high quality, it is notoriously slow in AF performance.  70-200 f/2.8 II you list is a good fit. If you absolutely must use a prime, then use the ones with faster AF's depending on what is available to you.... 85 f/1.8 or 135L or 200 f/2 etc all come to mind. 200 f/2 is rather pricey and not in everyone's bag; the other two, especially 135L  autofocuses quickly and is a longer medium tele.

But putting autofocus aside, as RLphoto suggested, prefocusing in the zone may be a better bet.

And, take shots in burst mode. While 5D3's 6FPS may not be blazing fast... it is probably better than taking single shots. Best of luck!

184

Lenses / Re: EF70-200 f/2.8L IS ll refurbished @ Canon for $1699.20 & I'm screwed

« on: March 11, 2013, 12:30:31 PM »

Well I just bought one of these from Canon and now I will feel guilty (at least until I do some shooting with it). You see, the problem is I already have the most excellent f/4 IS version and so do not really need this monster. So I have convinced myself that this purchase was an investment, so I should be able to sell it for not too much loss if I should so choose. Fine. The problem is that I am afraid that I wont want to sell my f/4 due to size/weight etc. and will have two 70-200 zooms, which seems more than just a little silly. I am hoping that, after seeing the magic that comes from the 2.8, I will willingly part with my little girlyman zoom, but I think that in reality I am screwed...

I am in the same boat!! Bought one yesterday morning also!! I  am going to sell my 70-200 F4 IS that I bought 4 months ago....This is one expensive hobby. I have purchased a 24-70mm 2.8 MKI, 135mm F2L, 100mm IS F2.8 Macro, 35mm F1.4L, 1.4x Kenco and 2X III teleconvertors and now the 70-200mm IS 2.8 IS  in less than 4 months...just for vacation shots and family photos.. explain that one to your wife (That's after buying the 5D MKIII for my Christmas gift to myself..lol)

At some point you get to know your style "exactly" and you cherish the lenses that fit that style...It takes a while to get there. It is always great to be at that zen point where realization occurs that "one of each" lens and genre is not necessary...but by the time we get to that point...we frequently have, not one, but many of each.

185

Lenses / Re: Help!

« on: March 11, 2013, 10:01:00 AM »

100-400L is a great aviation and ballooning lens...can't beat the versatility of the zoom and price when bought used. As Neuro said, get yourself a 85 f/1.8 with the money you save and you will have portraits covered. 

186

Technical Support / Re: Random Massive light blasts from 580Exii

« on: March 10, 2013, 08:23:16 PM »

"Random Massive light blasts" ....sounds like a gamma ray death star!!! 

187

5D MK III Sample Images / Re: 5D MK III Images

« on: March 10, 2013, 03:20:39 PM »

Pacific Tree Frog on Japanese Maple, stacked image, 180mm macro.  Early morning dew.

Gorgeous.

188

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Why does Canon watermark their manuals

« on: March 10, 2013, 03:05:07 PM »

If memory serves me, some time back Canon stated that their PDF files viewed with older versions of Acrobat Reader would show the watermark, but not the later versions.  It may have something to do with the version of Acrobat Reader you are using.  I think.

I have the most recent full version acrobat....but it still shows the annoying "copy" watermark... may be the settings can be changed to not show it? I don't really know...but I don't have the patience to research it in detail...its not that big of a distraction.

189

Lenses / Re: Weddings - prime only advice

« on: March 10, 2013, 02:45:08 PM »

As the OP specifically mentions 85mm...just my 2 cents...  I can't recommend the much hyped 85L for events of any type at all...it is really hit or miss and it is very difficult to judge focus hit based on LCD. You can always blow it up and do live view but this is cumbersome in events. It is truly designed as a studio lens meant for more sedate and deliberative style of shooting.

I do see some great shots of the bride posed with the 85L...I always think these are likely well prepared shots either before or after the ceremony than on the fly shots. The 85 f/1.8 on the other hand I think will produce more keepers...all things considered, it is a reliable fast-AF prime.

190

Lenses / Re: EF70-200 f/2.8L IS ll refurbished @ Canon for $1699.20 & I'm screwed

« on: March 10, 2013, 02:32:40 PM »

Naah, you just need an attitude adjustment.  As for me, #14 is getting ordered next week.

If 'n' is the number of lenses you have now, the ideal number would be 'n+1'

And the "rational" number would be "n - 3" 

191

Lenses / Re: EF70-200 f/2.8L IS ll refurbished @ Canon for $1699.20 & I'm screwed

« on: March 10, 2013, 02:12:17 PM »

Only read the following if this thread is making you twitch, tempting you to go spend that ~$1830 at the Canon store....the following is not meant for humorless fanboys 

1) Canon Refurbished price though at first blush seems low at $1700, in the US, they do add tax (unlike many online stores), and that would be about ~$130 more on top of that price....so you hit that ~$1830 mark easy while you can have a new lens during rebate season for a few bucks more and get a a real box as opposed to the refurbished one and importantly a full year warranty as opposed to 90 days. Clearly, this is not a big deal, but if you need reasons to stall.

2) Let me think of other terrible things to dampen your ardor...lets see... The weight is significant as the sane already pointed out, it is also that obvious "look-at-me" lens for regular folk at venues, also keep in mind you get warts when you touch it and it leaks green gooey stuff when you are sleeping in your ears... and did I mention this lens stinks when you take it out of the bag? It smells like a mix between nerd and fanboy...

3) Let's see...and the bokeh they say isn't all that pleasing...to see this you have to pick shots from the greyest winter day with a grey statue and grey bare twigs taken by someone totally unbiased and sweet shivering in the cemetery...can you live with something like the bokeh in that picture that I ...er...completely randomly chose?! Seriously! You don't need this... it is not good at all... awful... and if none of this makes a dent...think of the poor starving children of the world!

Note to fanboys: I am just trying to bring down the purchase fever others may have after the gormless fawing and lovefest that goes on here over this zoom. Relax.... I think it is a good piece of glass.

192

Lenses / Re: EF70-200 f/2.8L IS ll refurbished @ Canon for $1699.20 & I'm screwed

« on: March 10, 2013, 11:35:59 AM »

You see, the problem is I already have the most excellent f/4 IS version and so do not really need this monster. So I have convinced myself that this purchase was an investment, so I should be able to sell it for not too much loss if I should so choose. Fine. The problem is that I am afraid that I wont want to sell my f/4 due to size/weight etc. and will have two 70-200 zooms, which seems more than just a little silly. I am hoping that, after seeing the magic that comes from the 2.8, I will willingly part with my little girlyman zoom, but I think that in reality I am screwed...

A lot of folks probably end up with duplicates in this range and keep them for one reason or the other. It is a slippery slope though...I have somehow ended up with four, yes, four of the zooms in this range with much overlap: 70-200 f4, 70-200 f2.8II, 70-300L IS, and 100-400L IS.

Owing to weight, I favor the 70-200 f/4 and the 70-300L IS. The other two are underused if at all. Yet, I just can't seem to bring myself to sell the 70-200 f/2.8II as it is a great zoom inspite of the shortcomings on weight and obviousness which leads me to rag on it quite a bit here... The 100-400L I bought used at a price I couldn't pass up. Only wild life I see in my life is a mangy squirrel now and then. I have always said I am gonna get rid of the last two...eventually...in due course of time...when the time is ripe...

So yeah, slippery slope... sign up for "L.A" ...Lenses Anonymous. 
 

193

Lenses / Re: Any news about the 200-400

« on: March 09, 2013, 11:00:00 PM »

I can't afford it...why bother when it is released...

Most hobbyists don't buy these lenses.  They are simply too expensive.  On the other hand, I would very much like to rent one for a trip I'm taking this summer.  So Canon, up your game and get this lens out in the marketplace!

200-400 is well past my usual focal range use and even the 100-400L would fall under hobby for typical people photographer... I own the 100-400L IS and 100-300L IS, but rarely use either.

So I have no interest in even renting this new zoom. But, I am happy for those of you who will enjoy its release.

194

Lenses / Re: Need help with choosing a telephoto for $800 and under

« on: March 09, 2013, 10:30:16 PM »

Normally I'd recommend the 135L, but it's pretty close to your 105mm.

Yes, I missed that...if you plan to keep your Sigma 105, yes, the 135L would be pretty close and redundant in focal length (but not quality).  But I can't really say the 200mm is all that far in real reach... its a smidge longer not a great leap.  But price wise yes, it will fit your bill.

If you can part with something you don't need (I don't know what) and swing for the recent 100-300 L IS or veteran 100-400L IS, you will actually see a notable difference in reach from 105mm. Both zooms will fall under good quality telephoto category and can be bought in the used market for ~$1000 to ~1100. But you need to up the budget by probably $200 to $300 more. 100-300L has a new IS and is crisp. 100-400 gets used a lot in surfing settings, not just birds.

Given it is a sunny trip, and both these zooms are outdoors oriented, I don't think aperture is a big deal here...also keeping the budget in mind they are within striking range.

195

Lenses / Re: Need help with choosing a telephoto for $800 and under

« on: March 09, 2013, 10:00:20 PM »

great shots...

I find 200 f/2.8 a tad too long for general portraits even if you step back...  135L is a gem and can be had for about ~$800.  It can go from tight shots to shoulder portraits depending on space...Plus you gain a stop of light at f/2. Overall build quality and AF is also superb. Cheers!