Messages

46

Lenses / Re: Choosing a kit thinking long term

« on: November 02, 2012, 06:09:45 AM »

I would test the 35L and 24-70L ii if you can before choosing. I wasn't impressed with the image quality of the 35L below 2.8 and the 24-70mmii is just as good at f/2.8 or above. There is not a particularly large difference in size between the two either - neither are tiny but they are not hugely intrusive either.

You should consider replacing the 60D with a body that has AFMA before investing much in high speed glass.  It makes a big difference.  It makes a difference with f/2.8 lenses but the difference is much more signficant at f/1.4 or f/1.2.

I like the 35L as a low light option.  135L is too long on a a crop body esp. indoors, but you can confirm that once you have a chance to play with the 70-200.

+ 1 on the AFMA.

Rather than a 135L, which is a cracker, with your 70-200 coming I would aim for a body that will do well at high ISO's

47

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 24-70 f/4L IS Coming [CR3]

« on: October 31, 2012, 06:49:19 AM »

Its probably the kitlens for the 6d, but then it has to be small, light and cheap. So 450g and around 500$ street price? Everything else, doesn't make sense in my eyes.

I love the long end of the 24-105mm and that is the only reason i never switched to the 24-70/2.8.

Small, cheap AND L lens. That would be a pretty odd about-face from Canon, given their recent history.

How many L lenses are $500... And with IS.

If it is $500 I'll donate my 5d2 to sandymandy.

48

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 24-70 f/4L IS Coming [CR3]

« on: October 30, 2012, 08:48:43 PM »

I am sorry but I don't get all the complaining. The 70-200 F/4L IS an absolute cracker.

Frequently we find ourselves discussing image quality. If an affordable improved standard zoom becomes available with great image quality I can't see it being DOA. If people love the 24-105 well then it will probably become a little cheaper anyway so they can get it and everyone wins.

I reckon $1200.

...and for real, why is IS all of sudden only for videographers. Nasty Canon - always pandering to the needs of those fools who should just buy a real video camera.

I'm in the minority in believing that IS is great at any focal length.  IS buys me more handholdability in low light.  I can keep my ISO sub-stratospheric and still net the shot.

It also means if we accidently drink too much coffee, we still have a fighting chance at a decent photo

49

Lenses / Re: Canon 24-70mm F4L IS

« on: October 30, 2012, 08:43:32 PM »

@dave

I think it's more for those of us with the 24-105, we're all going "meh, this lens does nothing for me." Those with the 24-70 f/2.8 (either version) look at it with disdain/envy since it's f/4 and they need f/2.8, and it has IS which many of them would love.

Nearly all of us are a bit confused, because unless it's quite a bit cheaper than the 24-105 for something like a 6D bundle, why should Canon go ahead with yet another lens that seems less useful than one they already have that they've been making for years and many, many people are happy with. If indeed it is quite a bit cheaper, even if it's around the same IQ as the 24-105, it makes a lot of sense. If it's a bit cheaper or about the same, and much better IQ than the 24-105, maybe we have a new FF kit lens and the 24-105 is going away without an update   Either way, I think it really depends on the price this will be as to how well it will be received.

Sounds pretty reasonable. Just like the 70-200mm range you pay such a whack for that extra stop of light.

I would have thought, though, that we could expect better IQ than the 24-105. I'd be surprised if it was not quite a bit better.

50

Lenses / Re: Canon 24-70mm F4L IS

« on: October 30, 2012, 08:32:26 PM »

The seems to all of a sudden be quite a choice in the standard zoom range. I wonder how much longer people will keep being able to sell their 24-70 original 2.8's for $1400-1700 as you see here in Australia.

I added a bit to suit your response, Drizzt. Apologies for the intial omission.

51

Lenses / Canon 24-70mm F4L IS

« on: October 30, 2012, 08:20:48 PM »

OK, OK.

I know that we are dealing with hypotheticals but lets go with some assumptions:

- Image quality is somewhere 10-15% either side of the 24-70 f/2.8L II. I have to say this because of the variation in the 24-70L II. It is possible that a single 24-70L f/4 IS could be both 10% better and worse than the 24-70mm f/2.8L.
- In particular the distortion from the 24-105 is eased, especially at the wide end
- The lens has 4-5 stop IS

52

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 24-70 f/4L IS Coming [CR3]

« on: October 30, 2012, 08:03:30 PM »

I am sorry but I don't get all the complaining. The 70-200 F/4L IS an absolute cracker.

Frequently we find ourselves discussing image quality. If an affordable improved standard zoom becomes available with great image quality I can't see it being DOA. If people love the 24-105 well then it will probably become a little cheaper anyway so they can get it and everyone wins.

I reckon $1200.

...and for real, why is IS all of sudden only for videographers. Nasty Canon - always pandering to the needs of those fools who should just buy a real video camera.

53

Lenses / Re: 24-70II or 17-40+5DMARK II

« on: October 30, 2012, 08:29:18 AM »

Hi,

I don't like the 17-40 on full frame.

What about the 5d2 and 24-105L. This is almost the best value going around at the moment.

With what you currently have you would get great flexibility.

Cheers

54

Lenses / Re: New camera or new lens? Need advice

« on: October 30, 2012, 08:20:27 AM »

I think you have already answered part of the question. For not much you could swap your 200L for the 135L. I find the 135 a stunner and if you weren't going to use the 200mm what would you be missing.

I think the 50L is an upgrade over he 50/1.4 but $1000, I am not sure.

If you can afford it I would swap the 5D and 200 for the 5D2 and 135L. Just my 2 cents.

55

Canon General / Re: Canon Can't Even Make a Billion Dollars Anymore

« on: October 29, 2012, 05:16:57 AM »

Some of Canon's problem is the world economy...but much of it has to do with the RIDICULOUS prices that Canon is attaching to MANY of their products. WAY out of line with their competitors.  I feel some massive rebates coming on sometime soon...I for one am buying NOTHING Canon until the company gets real...I bought a 5DIii 4 months ago...and now see it online for $700 less than I paid for it? Canon....that is insulting to your customers. I expect the price to drop...but nothing like this. Also delivering products that are far below their hardware capabilities and having hackers embarrassingly shoewng your own firmware ?
Everyone...let's do a Canon boycott for 6 months...right thru the holidays and bring this arrogant behaving company to its knees!

These price drops may not be good for early adopters.  That's why patience is always a virtue.  But you had enjoyed your camera 4 months earlier than the rest of us.  Right?

To me...it should be 1st come 1st serve, regardless when you placed your order.

But that's not how the law of supply and demand works.  During introduction, there will be a lot more buyers so demand will be high and supply will be low.  After initial spike in sales, it will go down and the manufacturing speed (supply) will be able to recover.  I think this is very normal even for non-photography market sales.

+1

Ummm. Computers, Televisions and most electronics are similar - prices drop. Clothes go on sale all the time - even from high status brands.Nobody actually forced you to pay the asking price. I shelled out $2300 for the supposedly ridiculous 24-70 ii and love it and if other people are able to get one for $1500 in a couple of months I'd be happy for them. Canon are a business and will behave in a way that suits them. You need to make your purchase decisions based on your own evaluation of your needs/wants. Once you purchase and choose not to return it after testing you've made the decision. Presumably you aren't buying a body as a capital producing investment so you may as well be happy.

56

Street & City / Re: rock chick street shot in blackpool

« on: October 28, 2012, 10:41:55 PM »

This is really good!

57

Lenses / Re: Rationalise my kit!

« on: October 28, 2012, 09:47:42 PM »

Given you haven't really specified what you like to shoot or the specific budget i'll take some liberties. If I was going to have two lenses to cover the wide to normal range they would be the 17mm TS-E and 24-70L ii.

A good copy of the 24-70mm ii is significantly better than the 24-105, which makes a difference because at least 60% of my photos would fall into the 24-70mm focal length range.

The TS-E offers a perspective that is rarely (Ok, basically not at all) found elsewhere. Eliminating converging verticals is important when shooting that wide. If you like architecture and industrial landscapes it is an absolute beast.

I can't really do anything other than say that the 5D2 is a great camera with crappy focus, but you have a 1D4 for that

This is simply my approach and I am sure there will be others.

58

Landscape / Re: Post Your Best Landscapes

« on: October 28, 2012, 10:13:29 AM »

Kakadu National Park in Australia's Northern Territory:

59

Lenses / Re: Another 135L vs. 70-200 f/2.8 II question...

« on: October 27, 2012, 04:31:21 AM »

Hi,

The 135mm is special, no doubt about it. I don't see a sharpness increase from the 70-200 to the 135, but the bokeh is significantly nicer. I use it more than the 70-200. Interestingly, I used to use my f4 version of the 70-200 more because it is much more pleasant to carry around

The 5D2, is an excellent camera at a great price.

The bottom line is that you can actually take photos ith the 5d2/135 combo, whereas this is obviously not the case on with the 70-200 on it's own. Not helpful if you have gotten over our 60D.

My only suggestion is maybe take a look at the 6D. It is designed for low light focus, which for weddings could be super useful. Who knows, but the new sensor may also be a but nicer.

60

Pricewatch Deals / Re: The 5D Mark II & 5D Mark III Get Cheaper

« on: October 25, 2012, 06:08:26 AM »

I'm interested how you get to that conclusion The 5D2 is really good, but the 6D is largely unknown. Have you had chance to play with one?

According to this site, we're looking at a plastic body, fewer AF points, not weather sealed...With those specs, I think they've successfully Rebelized the xD line.

According to this site, we're looking at better noise, less banding, more AF points, more sensitive AF points, less weight... but yeah, I can see how all of these are bad .

I think you both make fair points that basically sum up the divisiveness of the coming camera. Based on your signature line EOBeav, I can see how the 5D2 is great as a landscape camera (ruggedness, resolution, auto-focus less critical). However for many I am sure that low light auto focus improvements must be welcomed. Who knows what the sensor will bring.