December 18, 2014, 12:26:14 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 ... 23
Lenses / Re: 70-300L or 70-200 2.8 IS II?
« on: August 14, 2012, 04:05:08 PM »
I have both lenses- the one question I would ask to make this decision is whether you'll be shooting majority OUTDOORS or INDOORS. If OUTDOORS, go with the 70-300 because it is (much!) lighter, and there is plenty of light available so the variable aperture isn't really a problem. If INDOORS, go with the 70-200 because the extra stop(s) will be extremely valuable, especially if you dislike shooting w/flash (like myself).

Lenses / Re: If you can have ONLY 3 lenses, what would they...???
« on: August 14, 2012, 01:53:54 PM »
I have several lenses but if I chose only 3:

24-105 4
70-200 2.8
35 1.4

Lenses / Re: Travelling zoom
« on: August 14, 2012, 12:58:37 AM »
If you're willing to give up some range (but get better IQ for it) then have a look at the 24-105 as well. Great walkaround for me, in terms of general photography.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D3 for sports/action?
« on: August 13, 2012, 05:05:16 PM »
Interesting comments, all.

I'm not a sports photographer but I have tried to shoot a few action events with my 60D. I get relatively mixed results. I wouldn't recommend it if your job depends on it, or you MUST get *THE* shot, but for casual everyday shooting it is OK. Coupled with a 70-200 2.8 lens the hit rate is OK- many non-keepers were my bad, but there were others where the camera did miss focus. Other times I find myself having to wait for the camera to clear buffer, missing a shot or two in the process (I shoot RAW). I feel that it just might be the limits of an aging 9-pt AF system though.

I started a similar thread earlier as I was looking at the 28-300 for the same reason- at certain events I find the 24-105 not long enough for some shots, and when I have the 70-300 sometimes I find myself wanting to go wider. From reading reviews It seems the 28-300 delivers comparable performance to the 24-105 at the respective focal lengths, but once you get past 100mm it can't deliver the IQ of a decent telephoto. (seems like very average or even mediocre performance, especially considering the $2500 price tag & weight).

My take is that this is a lens you use when you want a good quality general walkaround (focal lengths 28-100mm), but would also like telephoto coverage (100-300mm) when necessary, without the hassle of switching lenses. In that case, an average-quality shot is better than a missed shot.

Heat is one thing- how about humidity though? Sometimes it can get rather sticky here. (I'm not talking about the condensing type like after you shower, but the sticky outdoor summer type humidity)

EOS Bodies / Re: A New 100-400 & Coming Announcements [CR2]
« on: July 26, 2012, 12:09:41 AM »
Might be alone here, but curious to see what other EF-M lenses may be coming...

Focus seemed to be faster when using the center point(s). The corners of the frame rely on the (much) slower contrast-detect focus, and that's what this user was using so it makes sense. How does it do with a regular EF lens when focusing with those center points?

Also, I wonder how tough it would be to get a sharp image particularly since you are forced to hold the camera away from your body, which removes one aid in stabilization. Particularly with longer non-IS lenses (say, 85 1.8 ), probably would need pretty fast shutter speeds, I would take it? Hopefully an EF-M lens in the 60-80 mm range with IS materializes to fill this gap.

Perhaps a EF-M telephoto option (even the EF-S 55-250 looks pretty ridiculous on that tiny camera, haha) might be in the works too, but that wouldn't really matter to me personally anyway.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon EOS M System Announced
« on: July 23, 2012, 10:32:49 PM »
You first I wrote this off- saw the pics, saw it had no viewfinder or control dials...but thing is, I've always had an eye out for a capable compact camera to be a good P&S companion to my primary DSLR kit. I currently have a Canon SD950IS for that, and while it is a great convenience as a second-shooter, I've always been disappointed with its IQ in less-than-ideal lighting. I've looked at the G1X (was disappointed with IQ, size and slowness)....but if it turns out that this new EOS M offers DSLR-type quality and AF responsiveness in its package, I might actually take a closer look at a potential replacement for the 950IS.

The big negative is price, though...if it were, say, $599 it would be a LOT more tempting. It's quite a high price point so it'd better deliver on the IQ and the AF to be worthy.

Wow, great shots!

Lenses / Re: 28-300 L lens- thoughts?
« on: July 21, 2012, 10:13:36 PM »
Interesting comparison here with the 24-105 lens...

Hmm. Not bad.

Lenses / Re: 28-300 L lens- thoughts?
« on: July 21, 2012, 01:25:15 PM »
I love the 28-300L lens. If you are doing professional shoots, maybe it's not the best (slower lens), but under nearly all conditions i have had an awesome time with it. I travel and hike a lot, and it's great to have a mostly all-around lens. On the 7D the wide end is not so wide, but the long end is really long (I take a 10-22 with me to get wider). It's a little heavy, but that can be accommodated for with the right strap (black rapid is great for me), and people will notice it - i've had several people come up to me and comment on the lens or ask how much i spent on it, so i am disguising it a little by putting some bike handlebar cork tape on it in different colors, and that also helps with the locking ring which is metal, but with the tape it's really easy to lock/unlock with one hand. Over two years of mountains, beaches, sand dunes, rain, desert, etc, never had any dust problems inside the camera. Some sand got in between the barrels and made some grinding noise, but a rocket blower got it out. The IQ is good enough for me, and I have blown pictures up to 60" and looked great. I'm not a professional and don't pixel peep much, but for myself, as gifts to other people and putting up at art shows, you can make some really nice, large images with this lens. Bokeh can be achieved with your subject well in front of a background, and the 2.3 ft focus distance does make it close to macro-like (though IQ is much better with dedicated macro). And if you're worried about changing lenses in the field, this is a great one to have. I rented one before buying (and a 100-400 to compare) from some strange place called lensrentals, and sealed my decision almost immediately.

Cool, thanks for the feedback! I assume the pop-up flash on 60D/7D would be blocked or cast a huge shadow due to the size of the lens, right? I know this is an issue with the 17-55 lens, but I'm almost always using an external flash head with it anyway. Of course the 28-300 is a much bigger beast though.

Hmmmm...and did you do this 'research' by placing various bodies with a 28-300L mounted inside a two-chamber isolator, with colored indicator smoke, to trace the air flow?  Or read a document describing such testing?   

Haha, no. But one guy DID mention experiencing more sensor dust when he used push-pull zooms as opposed to regular ones. HOWEVER, these were on old bodies- 10D, D60, etc...not sure if current models are much better sealed than those were. (plus I know the older bodies didn't have the auto-clean feature, not sure how big a difference that makes)

The 5DII and 60D have the same level of dust resistance, and I didn't notice and dust issues with the 28-300L.


It's certainly not a cheap lens, but consider - the IQ is equal to the 24-105L, and it's an 11x superzoom.  That's very good IQ in an absolute sense, and unmatched in a lens with that range.

Still, I don't think it would make a good one-lens solution, for me, on APS-C.  On FF, though, it's great.

The 24-105 is a great compromise/walkaround lens for me and delivers decent, if not outstanding, quality. However, I find 105 to be not long enough for a shot MUCH more frequently than I find 24 to be not wide enough for one. But I also know that there is a noticeable difference between 24 and 28...just like there is between 17 and 24- on crop, 17 (for me) is a must for any tight indoor shooting. For outdoor events or travel, 24 is usually sufficient.

For the type of shooting I enjoy, I like the extra reach I get from the APS-C sensor. I could never give that up for FF, personally. Eventually, I might look into trying one out, or I may just go ahead and take the plunge.

Lenses / Re: New 17-55 coming soon?
« on: July 21, 2012, 12:06:35 AM »
I was in the same boat...I was relatively new to CR when I saw the article a year ago about a possible 15-60mm 2.8 coming out and I was totally sucked in...time came by and no announcement- decided I couldn't wait and just bought the current model. Glad I did. A clear step up from the Tamron I was using before.

Lenses / Re: 28-300 L lens- thoughts?
« on: July 21, 2012, 12:01:57 AM »
If the 28-300 is a better "dust-sucker" than the other lenses, probably negates the dust reduction purpose somewhat, I think? Disappointing...even for travel use where only one lens would be desirable.

The 28-300L is a dust- and weather-sealed lens.  Even the 100-400L has a sealed zoom ring and sealed switches, and lacks only the mount gasket (which the 28-300mm has) to be a sealed lens. Neither of them is a 'dust pump' any more than any extending zoom (the 24-105, for example, produces enough eye-blow to trigger a reflexive blink).

I'm on a weekend family excursion right now, brought only the gripped 5DII and 28-300mm, in a Lowepro Toploader Pro 75 AW - and it's delivering the convenience and versatility I need and the IQ I want.

I did some more research on this issue. It seems that what happens when you put one of the "push-pull" design lenses (either the 100-400 or 28-300) on a NON-sealed body (a Rebel or perhaps an XXD model), it sucks in air through the cracks in the camera body- I've heard through the battery compartment, or the viewfinder, or other areas. So this might potentially stir more dust up than a regular zoom, particularly if you zoom in and out quickly...from what I understand, the 60D (the camera I have) is non-sealed.

Man, I'm still on the fence here. The lens seems a bit overpriced for what it does and the quality it delivers. 28 is not necessarily WIDE on crop, but it's still a great range. There have been times when I'm out shooting events with the 70-300, I'm asked to take someone's pic, then their whole group comes in and I can no longer get everyone in the shot, lol. Primarily, though, it would be a good lens to take on a trip. Just one lens, stick it on and forget it. I avoid changing lenses outside my home at all costs to minimize dust and risk of accidents. (and yet, that money might be useful for other things, too)

Lenses / Re: Keep 70-200 f4 IS or go for f2.8 IS II?
« on: July 20, 2012, 11:33:13 PM »
Having had both lenses (well, used to have the 4, traded up to the 2.8 which I have now), I find both equally sharp/impressive. As to which one you should go for, well, it depends on your use. I upgraded mine since I found myself using it more indoors than out, shooting special events and the like. With the 60D, I found I was really reaching the limits of the F4 model indoors (I hate using flash) so once I had the $$, I decided to trade it in for the 2.8 version. Don't regret the move one bit. Pros: same high level of performance, extra stop, quieter IS operation; Cons: extra weight & bulk (arm hurts after shooting continuously for an hour), price

Ultimately for outdoor tele shooting I got myself the 70-300L, which effectively replaced what I used to use the 70-200 f4 for. Much lighter than the 2.8 and has 100mm extra reach so it's great for outdoor daytime shooting when I don't want (or need) to carry around the extra weight.

Pages: 1 ... 16 17 [18] 19 20 ... 23