March 04, 2015, 09:44:50 PM

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 - dave

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 9
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 can see a few pairs of legs!

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.

That slogan sounds like it should be a condom advertisement. ::)

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.

Lenses / Re: Your favorite lens is?
« on: January 14, 2013, 07:22:59 AM »
24-70 ii

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.

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, 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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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 :)

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 9