September 01, 2014, 08:56:17 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 - Act444

Pages: 1 ... 16 17 [18] 19 20 ... 22
256
Lenses / Re: 28-300 L lens- thoughts?
« on: May 31, 2012, 01:01:44 PM »
Ah, I see. Thanks, I really appreciate it!

_______________________

Anyone use this lens on a crop (1.6x) camera?

257
Lenses / Re: 28-300 L lens- thoughts?
« on: May 31, 2012, 12:07:15 PM »
Thanks for your responses!

Quote
IQ is pretty much on par with the 24-105 L - quite good, very useable images.  Size, weight, and handling are pretty much the same as the 100-400mm.

Hmm...that's interesting to hear. I have the 24-105L myself, used it as a walkaround at a local event last year and I'm always pleased with the quality. It's not quite on the level of the 35L or 100 macro (both are simply amazing) but it is a big step up from a P&S or the junk 18-55 that came with my old Rebel. I looked at images from the (much cheaper & lighter) 18-200 and they just weren't good enough- too soft.

Quote
There's always the issue of getting a good one versus an average one from Canon.  I've got a good one.

Really? QC issues with this lens?  :o It's $2600 for goodness sake!! I know there's always a risk of getting a lemon with any electronic device no matter the price, but...among the working ones you'd think they'd tighten up with the premier lenses...right?

Quote
It focuses down to 2.3 feet at all focal lengths making it a near macro lens at 300mm.

wow...nice! I'm sure it's likely no substitute for a true macro lens, but still, for a lens that supposed to be able to "do it all", not bad...

Quote
1  It is one of Canon's push/pull lens designs making it a "dust pump" on the front of your camera so you need to zoom it slowly if possible.
  2  It looks like a telephoto zoom even at 28mm making it hard to do any street photography with it when traveling without getting harrassed by people thinking you're zoomed in on them.

Man...the first one might kill it for me right there...I'm always VERY careful with lens changes- try to do it quickly + always indoors to minimize dust collection. After a little over a year, haven't needed to clean it or remove any large spots, although I do see small ones beginning to accumulate.

As for the second one, yeah, I never really was comfortable walking around city streets with a big white lens  ;)...it's bad enough at events where I'm almost ALWAYS approached by someone curious or wanting pics or some other deal. To me, the 24-105L is a good middle ground- while it is bigger than the stock lenses on most DSLRs, it tends not to grab people's attention nearly as much as a white lens would, and it makes it easier to go about and do your thing.


As for the bird pic- nice shot! It does seem to be a bit soft for my personal taste though- is it straight out of camera or processed? Maybe with some DPP sharpening it would be fine. I know I have to do that to a few images taken with my other lenses too.

258
Lenses / 28-300 L lens- thoughts?
« on: May 30, 2012, 09:52:23 PM »
Hey all,

Just wanted to ask what people's thoughts on this lens were. They don't have this lens at my local camera store (I think when I asked them why, they said something along the lines of "we don't like it" or "it doesn't sell"), and internet reviews seem to be rather sparse. I really want to try out this lens for size but can't really seem to do so.

I've heard mixed thoughts about the image quality- some say it can hold its own with the more specialized lenses, others complain about softness at various focal lengths, so I just wanted to see if there are any owners (or former owners) here and see what they think.

259
Lenses / Re: Recommendation for a small budget?
« on: May 29, 2012, 05:36:24 PM »
If you want only ONE walkaround lens, either the 17-55 2.8 or the 24-105 4 would be solid choices. Depends on what you want to shoot, though.

If you want wide, the 15-85 3.5/5.6 is worth a look as well. All three lenses are within your budget (even new).

260
Lenses / Re: Im confused between IS and fstop advantages
« on: May 29, 2012, 04:52:23 PM »
The 35L offers a very natural FOV on my 60D. I suppose it approximates the revered 50mm that FF shooters seem to love so much.

I don't do video but if I did, that lens would be my choice.

261
Lenses / Re: 24-70 f/2.8L mk 1 or 24-105 f/4L
« on: May 28, 2012, 05:54:21 PM »
I faced this decision a couple of years ago when I was deciding on a replacement lens for the 18-55 that came with my T2i. I went with the 24-105 mainly due to IS and more versatile range (70-105 could- and has!- come in handy). the 24-70 was 2.8, sure, but the lack of IS killed it for me. If the object is still, you can get much sharper shots with the IS anyway than with 2.8.

262
Lenses / Re: 70-300L on 5D Mark III
« on: May 28, 2012, 02:46:11 PM »
Quote
Yeah Act, I agree that the main thing here is the f/5.6 at 300mm, and it's quite capable of delivering great results though. I'm sad to hear that 70-200 f/2.8 II is a pain to carry around though - I was looking forward to maybe getting it sometime in the future, but since it's impossible to walk all day with it... Then it appears like I've just saved myself some $2500 worth of equipment :-)

Don't get me wrong- the 70-200 2.8 is an EXCELLENT lens and for what it does, there's nothing else like it. It is best for sporting events (if you are close) as well as autograph/book signings, which often take place indoors (and f5.6 just won't cut it- I hate using flash). It is extremely versatile and I like that. But, it is not a lens I would want to sling around my neck and walk around with all day long...even for the couple of hours I use it, it gets tiring. But it is worth it when you view the images afterward!

The 70-300L is the telephoto lens I use when it is not worth lugging the extra weight of the 70-200. Basically, outdoor events in good lighting and animal shots where the variable aperture isn't an issue. Plus, 100mm of extra reach is gained and for animal shots, it can make a BIG difference!
Well, I was hoping 5d mark III's ISO performance would allow me to use it indoors. We'll see about that :-)

I have a 60D so I typically will not shoot above ISO 3200. With the 5DIII you might be able to go up to 6400 comfortably- it seems that camera has REALLY good high ISO performance.

263
Lenses / Re: 70-300L on 5D Mark III
« on: May 28, 2012, 02:10:34 PM »
Is the 70-300mmL worth the extra dough over the standard 70-300mm? Thats the Question... 8)

I tried the regular 70-300 in-store before settling on the L version eventually. I didn't evaluate its image quality but there is a HUGE difference between the 2 in build quality. You really do get what you pay for.

The regular 70-300 felt like a camera toy in my hand- the 70-300L feels like a serious piece of professional photographic equipment. Ultimately it's about the IQ for me and I've heard that the regular 70-300 is pretty weak at the 300mm end, so that's why I went for the L version.

Best thing is to try both out (if you can), then weigh the pros and cons of each. The regular one IS lighter, and 1/3 the price, so if weight and/or budget is an issue that's probably the way to go. But if you demand the highest in IQ it's probably worth it to save up.

Quote
...is the 70-200 II noticeably better than the 70-300L in image quality, and is the f2.8 worth the added bulk and weight.

depends on what you're shooting, and on what environment you will be shooting in. For me, the two lenses are interchangeable depending on what my telephoto needs are, exactly. Sports or indoors? f2.8 wins. Outdoors in daylight or animal photography? 70-300 with extra reach.

As for IQ, the 70-200 wins at the 70mm end, certainly. I'd even say the 70-200 at 70/2.8 outperforms the 70-300 at 70/4! At the 200mm end they seem to be quite close, though. I don't think you'd notice a difference in everyday shots...and in good light, the lighter weight of the 70-300 in that case is certainly appreciated. (Note that at 200mm the 70-300 has you at f5 minimum so it is nearly 2 stops slower here.)

264
Lenses / Re: 70-300L on 5D Mark III
« on: May 28, 2012, 01:35:16 PM »
Quote
Yeah Act, I agree that the main thing here is the f/5.6 at 300mm, and it's quite capable of delivering great results though. I'm sad to hear that 70-200 f/2.8 II is a pain to carry around though - I was looking forward to maybe getting it sometime in the future, but since it's impossible to walk all day with it... Then it appears like I've just saved myself some $2500 worth of equipment :-)

Don't get me wrong- the 70-200 2.8 is an EXCELLENT lens and for what it does, there's nothing else like it. It is best for sporting events (if you are close) as well as autograph/book signings, which often take place indoors (and f5.6 just won't cut it- I hate using flash). It is extremely versatile and I like that. But, it is not a lens I would want to sling around my neck and walk around with all day long...even for the couple of hours I use it, it gets tiring. But it is worth it when you view the images afterward!

The 70-300L is the telephoto lens I use when it is not worth lugging the extra weight of the 70-200. Basically, outdoor events in good lighting and animal shots where the variable aperture isn't an issue. Plus, 100mm of extra reach is gained and for animal shots, it can make a BIG difference!

265
Lenses / Re: 70-300L on 5D Mark III
« on: May 28, 2012, 12:03:22 PM »
I used to have the 70-200 f4: since I traded up to the f2.8 version I also got the 70-300.

The 70-300, although still big & white (and thus an attention-grabber) is MUCH easier to walk around with than the 70-200 2.8. I don't even mind hiking with it- it's probably at the limit of what I'm willing to carry around all day long on a camera.

As for IQ, compared to the 70-200 f4 I think it holds its own pretty well. The extra 100mm, although not really that much TBH, CAN make a difference in the appropriate situations. I think the 70-300 is weaker at the wide-end though- specifically wide open at f4 it can be soft. But it shines at the most important setting: 300mm at f5.6. No need to stop down at the long end to get sharp shots!

266
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 70D & EOS 7D Mark II Speculation [CR1]
« on: May 21, 2012, 02:14:04 PM »
Normally don't comment on rumors but just want to say I'd rather Canon stick with 18MP but make improvements in DR and high ISO performance than increase MP count at the expense of those two highly important items. 18MP is honestly enough for me, and seems to already be pushing certain lenses to the edge of their performance capabilities, so...

267
Lenses / Re: varying aperture zoom lenses
« on: May 18, 2012, 07:30:40 PM »
Amen.

The ONE exception I've since allowed is the 70-300 f4-5.6 L, and that's because of what I'm using it for (outdoor concerts & events, animal & bird shots around the immediate area)- and I'm almost always using f5.6-f11 for these shots anyway.

268
Canon General / Re: Suggestions on new Canon DSLR -- thinking 60D
« on: May 18, 2012, 11:04:15 AM »
Hi,

First of all, welcome!

Two and a half years ago, I was in the same exact position you were, just starting out with a DSLR, frustrated with the awful, red-eye-laden shots my P&S was taking in indoor, low-light situations. There was definitely a learning curve once I did get my DSLR (I started out with a Rebel T2i)- my initial shots weren't much better than my P&S shots, kept getting blurry/OOF shots and wasn't really sure why it was happening. Long story short, to take full advantage of the new features and additional control I now had, I had to read up all on the basics of photography, talk to people, and practice- learn through trial and error. You'll find out that things as small as the way you hold the camera, your stance, etc. can affect the quality of pictures you get. Until good technique is achieved, it really doesn't matter what lens you start out with- the photos will likely look the same.

What I did was I got my T2i/kit lens combo, used that to get comfortable with the camera, learn it, etc. As soon as I was ready to do some serious work with it though, I immediately ditched the kit lens and went for something better (the 24-105 f4). You can go ahead and start out with the 60D and 18-135 if you want- but I think you'll find that as you improve, you'll want a better quality lens. The T3i/60D/7D/5DIII are truly high-megapixel beasts that demand high-quality lenses if you ever want to see their full potential. If you want to jump right in, you might want to think about a cheaper body (a Rebel series) and use the money saved to get something like the 15-85mm lens (praised highly by many people here). When it comes to picture quality, the lens is really what's most important. You'll get higher quality shots with a Rebel and a 15-85 or 50mm than you would with a 60D or 7D with 18-135 or 18-200.

Kind of long, but hope this helps.

269
Lenses / Re: 70-200: 2.8L vs 4L IS?
« on: May 18, 2012, 12:46:25 AM »
I had the f4 IS. I since traded it in for the 2.8 IS II (since I was really pushing the ISO limit indoors with f4) and absolutely love it. Since you mentioned you don't do sports, you probably don't need the extra stop of the 2.8- instead, IS will come in handy (and would probably be much more useful than the extra stop to you). I think the IS version has better image quality, too.

270
Lenses / Re: 24-105mm f/4 L IS on a crop camera
« on: May 17, 2012, 11:44:42 AM »
I use 24-105 as a walkaround on the 60D. Great range, but most importantly, it's constant aperture (I don't like variable aperture general zoom lenses) and it has weather sealing, also unlike the consumer zooms. Not to mention I think it's a better long-term investment as well. I don't think the 15-85 was out yet at the time I got mine, but if I had to choose between the two I would get the 24-105 again because of the above mentioned benefits. I find I use the long end much more frequently than the wide end, anyway- and the only time I find 24mm too long is in crowded indoor spaces. But I have the 17-55 for that.

I guess it depends on one's needs though. Photographers who do more landscape work may prefer the wide 15mm end of the 15-85. I happen to prefer the extra reach I get on the 85-105mm end and it's not often I wish I had something wider while walking about, but that's just my personal style.

Pages: 1 ... 16 17 [18] 19 20 ... 22