Messages

31

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II is a Peerless Performer

« on: January 28, 2013, 08:50:38 AM »

Remember everyone that DxO reviews are useless and biased towards Nikon.

So DxO saying the 24-70/2.8L II is great means nothing.

Well it's outstanding regardless. DxO's reviews are still rubbish.

32

Animal Kingdom / Re: Show your Bird Portraits

« on: January 28, 2013, 08:19:53 AM »

Last one!

33

Animal Kingdom / Re: Show your Bird Portraits

« on: January 28, 2013, 08:17:44 AM »

 

34

Animal Kingdom / Re: Show your Bird Portraits

« on: January 28, 2013, 08:15:39 AM »

A few oldies... all T2i with 400 f/5.6L prime.

The comb crested jacana is an interesting one because it carries the young birds across the water under its wings...you can see a few pairs of legs!

35

Lenses / Re: 24mm 35mm 70mm FoV

« on: January 23, 2013, 12:09:42 AM »

I had the 35L and sold it not long after I got the 24-70 ii. Just wasn't using the prime anymore.

At f/2.8 I found the zoom outperformed the 35L significantly. I didn't like the IQ of the 35L below f/2.8 anyway so I couldn't justify keeping both. You may love it in that range.

Why don't you rent the lens and test it out? It really is the only way to know if it is going to meet your needs...or purchase from somewhere with a reliable returns policy.

36

Canon General / Re: Canon U.S.A. Raises Awareness About Counterfeit Accessories For Digital Cameras And Camcorders A

« on: January 20, 2013, 07:32:16 PM »

That slogan sounds like it should be a condom advertisement.

37

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 6D + 24-105 vs T4i + 24-70 II

« on: January 14, 2013, 06:32:38 PM »

Normally, I would go for the better glass over a body.  But, the 24-70 II is only a marginal upgrade over the 24-105 and the 6D is vastly better than the T4i.

Have owned both and the 24-70mm ii is absolutely not merely a marginal upgrade over the 24-105mm L. The 24-105 is a great, versatile lens. The 24-70 ii is stunningly good.

38

Lenses / Re: Your favorite lens is?

« on: January 14, 2013, 07:22:59 AM »

24-70 ii

39

Lenses / Re: Lenses for Ice Cream Photography

« on: November 21, 2012, 10:24:12 PM »

The OP didn't necessarily say the camera was solely for taking photos of ice cream, so advising against a 5D3 seems not to answer the question.

The 135 f/2 would take some nice photos if you didn't need macro. Everyone always describes it as creamy. Seems a good match. You'd also be able to take great headshots of people licking the delicious ice creams.

Anyway we need some ice-cream photos on this thread to make everyone hungry. This is the only one I have on me. Ambient light. 5D Mark II with Canon 35 f/1.4L. Cropped SOOC jpeg.

40

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Does anybody think the 1dx price will come down for the holidays...why?

« on: November 15, 2012, 07:09:41 PM »

Looking to buy a 1dx but wondering about a price drop for the holidays.  Does anybody remember from past experience how long after release the 1 series bodies price declined?

Seriously, if you're considering the 1D-X as a purchase then I don't think money should be an issue. It's a pro camera for a pro user. It should paid for itself within the first few gigs. And no. I don't think Canon's flagship camera will be dropping in price over the holidays anytime soon.

Seriously, that is garbage. 

I don't make money off my photography but will buy a 1Dx when I holiday in the US (cheaper than Australia - oh the shame) because of the subjects I like to photograph and how good the camera is. However, simply paying whatever the asking price is without considering it...no, that is ludicrous.

Suppose you do actually have a budget:

Based on fairly commonly had prices...

5D3 at $2800
200 f/2 at 5999

Total $8800

1Dx at 6700
70-200mm f/2,8 ii $2100

Total $8800

For $8800 the first combination would slaughter the second for certain uses and vice versa. You buy gear that meets your needs. I am sorry if I am not a pro, but I actually try to buy things that will help improve MY photos the most.

41

Lenses / Re: Hold out for EF 35/2 IS or jump in with classic 35 1.4L

« on: November 08, 2012, 11:22:56 PM »

I cant agree that the 35L and the 50 1.4 are of similar build quality. The 35L is a league ahead in that regard, despite it's age, IMO.

Agreed, having owned the 50/1.4 I can say the 35L's build quality is superior to the 50/1.4.

have owned both and +1

42

Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II

« on: November 07, 2012, 11:24:13 PM »

It seems like a great lens, but the price just kills it for me. I still can't understand how Canon keeps coming out with new products at higher price points than ever while the world has been in a global recession and economies continue to suffer. It's very short sighted and clueless of Canon. I would buy this in a heart beat if it was $1,700.

I'd buy a 1D X, 600mm f/4 and so on if they cost less than a week's pay. But they don't. So I work out what I want most and save until I can afford it.

Find a company that makes a better 24-70mm for $1700 and buy it. Canon are among the best few in the world at what they do and charge the price that suits them based on the market as it fluctuates and evolves. Blame the consumers because they are the ones who really set the prices (See 5D Mark iii).

To me, the 35L and 24L ii and 85L ii are not cost-effective - but the 24-70mm ii is. An appropriate price is judged against your use and your needs. What you are saying is that you feel the 24-70mm ii is worth $1700 to you. Fair enough. It just means waiting.

43

Lenses / Re: 24-70 F/4L IS - Why I will Buy/Not Buy this lens.

« on: November 06, 2012, 06:38:48 PM »

800 + 800 = 2300  ?

 At 1000 US yes, any higher, no. I like my recently purchased 24-105.

I was referring to the difference between the new 24-70 f/4 IS lens and the f/2.8 ii, not the 24-105L. i amended to make it clearer.

I am not criticising the 24-105L. For $749 as was recently offered it is a cracker. However, I would imagine the new lens will offer some good improvements for those that are interested.

I guess when it comes down to it, I like the variety that is available and, for me, I like Canon pursuing optimal image quality more than absolute versatility in focal length.

44

Lenses / Re: 24-70 F/4L IS - Why I will Buy/Not Buy this lens.

« on: November 06, 2012, 06:25:32 PM »

I think this lens provides a really good option.

If people want a 24-105 it is still available for around $800 reasonably often. The 24-70L f/2.8 ii is $2300, which makes it $800 more than the 24-70 f/4 IS.

Clearly not everyone will want this lens, but I think judging by the MTF charts, MFD and latest IS, the lens potentially offers much greater value than some of the recent releases.

45

Lenses / Re: Two Lenses to be Announced Shortly.....

« on: November 05, 2012, 04:59:53 AM »

Sounds like rubbish to me.

The 24-70 will be more than $850 and the 50 won't have IS.