October 01, 2014, 11:30:32 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 2 [3] 4 5 ... 22
31
This will be something to look into for my M. As long as the lens isn't too big, heavy or cumbersome, and has decent quality at least at the wide end of the range, it should be a good option...

And it's available stateside as well. Even better.

32
EOS-M / Re: Canon EF-M 55-200 f/4.5-6.3 IS STM Gets Official
« on: June 17, 2014, 07:52:03 PM »
Looks like Canada will get it too so for those in the US that want this lens but don't want to pay crazy Euro/Asian prices, Canadian retailers should stock it for around $420:

http://www.canon.ca/inetCA/newsroom?m=getPress&pid=2167

33
EOS Bodies / Re: More EOS 7D Replacement Buzz Going Around [CR2]
« on: June 10, 2014, 08:18:04 PM »
There's one situation where that's not true, though.  Depending on the mix of full-frame and EF-S lenses that you own, some 7D users who decide to upgrade to full-frame might end up selling several of their lenses anyway, not to mention upgrading to lenses with longer focal lengths to make up for the lack of the 1.6x crop factor.
Entirely fair.  Current EF-S mount users choosing between a 6D/5D3 or waiting for a 7D2 absolutely are out there.  But I don't really see that as a Nikon conversion risk.  I see that as a one-time ripping off of the EF-S band-aid that you have to do to migrate to FF regardless of what company's products you use.

I see that less as a "Because I am mad at waiting for Canon" and more of a "Movin' on up (movin' on up) to deeeeluxe apartment in the sky-hiiiiiiigh".   ::)

But yes, you are right.  Leaving crop altogether costs money, well above the cost of the body itself.  This burden varies depending on what you shoot:

  • Best case:  You just have a standard EF-S zoom, like an 18-55 or 18-135 --> You go and get a 'pried-from-a-kit' 24-105L for $750ish or a 28-135 for $475ish.  Ouch, but small change compared to a FF rig. 
    ([Sigh] "Yeah, there's that... But it's worth it.")

  • Slightly painful case:  You have a standard EF-S zoom and an ultrawide --> Same as above, but now you need a 17-40L for $800ish as well.  Painful. But doable. 
    ([Deep breaths] "I can do this...  I'll just get that 17-40L next year.")
     
  • Really painful case:  You have have a standard EF-S zoom, an ultrawide and a 55-250 and enjoy shooting around 250 on the crop --> Same as above, but now you need a 100-400L as well.  Oof. 
    (The value proposition is starting to take on water rapidly...)

  • You-are-totally-screwed case:  You are a seasoned vet who shoots a 300 or higher prime on your 7D for wildlife or birding.  You have the comically painful choice of settling for the downsides of T/Cs, investing in $10K superteles, or simply not ever making the jump to FF because the glass will bankrupt you for what you shoot.  That's a buckler.
    (Hint to Canon:  You kind of own these people.  The 7D2 could be $4k and these people might still the first in line for pre-orders, b/c $4k is still less than Supertele prices.  Check and mate.) 

Thank goodness I had a succession plan when I bought my third and fourth lenses.  I opted for EF glass long before I made the move to FF and my only headache was doing without a 16-24mm FL option after I migrated (sold the EF-S 10-22 but the 24-70 I owned covered the wide end on FF pretty well).

- A

Or this case: you use a 1.6x with a 70-200 2.8 in low-light venues...there is no real FF equivalent that gives you that kind of reach while remaining fast. At least there isn't one that's really practical...

34
EOS Bodies / Re: More EOS 7D Replacement Buzz Going Around [CR2]
« on: June 10, 2014, 04:27:41 PM »
The 7D is a great camera. BUT...its high ISO performance leaves a lot to be desired. As I find myself at dimly lit sporting events with it, I'd appreciate an upgrade here...I was hoping a 7D2 would be here by Sept but that's obviously not going to happen. I've been starting to investigate the 1D4 (sounds like it may only be a marginal improvement though).

35
When I had it, I loved it. It was great. Ultimately I parted with it to help finance a FF camera (wanted better low-light performance at indoor events), but especially at that price it's definitely a great value.

36
EOS Bodies / Re: More EOS 7D Replacement Buzz Going Around [CR2]
« on: June 09, 2014, 04:57:16 PM »
I have used the 55-250 STM as a test for concerts and animal shooting. I haven't measured it, but to me the STM seems to work just fine, although it feels a tad slower (?) than USM (still significantly quicker than non-USM though). The one thing to keep in mind is that the focus on these STM lenses is electronic, so you can't "full-time manual focus" without power to the camera.

I don't want to be a lens snob, but as a still shooter with a bag full of USM glass, I only see STM as an improvement over the non-USM lenses I left behind years ago.  I have yet to hear of a single thing it does better than USM for stills.

So STM, for me, says 'for video', and as such, won't be getting any of my money.

- A

As a stills shooter I prefer USM. But as you said, STM is a nice improvement over the stiff, noisy AF motor it replaces. So it's good when viewed in that respect, but it is no replacement for USM (and probably why we haven't seen an "L" lens with STM at this point).

But, even with that said, I think the only times you'll notice a difference are when 1) you are tracking a moving subject in Servo (less snappy although still quick enough in most situations) and 2) when manual focusing, unless you have an electronic USM lens like the 85 1.2.

I wouldn't recommend any of the STM lenses for serious (stills) work but for everyday/travel use, I gotta say they're quite nice...pleasantly surprised. Good if you don't want to risk more expensive stuff on a trip, etc.

37
EOS Bodies / Re: More EOS 7D Replacement Buzz Going Around [CR2]
« on: June 09, 2014, 04:03:58 PM »
I take it all ranges will get an "STM" lens. They've got normal (18-55, 18-135), telephoto (55-250), and now wide-angle (10-18). Only things left are super zoom (18-200 or 18-300) and macro. Canon's 18-200 is quite old and lacks USM so I all but expect an STM update of that lens at some point. I think this would be a good time to do so.


Just to throw this out there... If Dual pixel tech is ever going to hit full frame cameras like the 5d4 or 6d2 or 4d then FF will need a compatable STM lens too.

Good point. We already have the 40, but a slow zoom is the typical deployment of such technology. These EF-S zooms so far been optically very good, and very cheap. Does anyone see an EF 28-135/3.5-5.6 IS STM on the horizon? Nikon recently refreshed their budget full frame variable aperture zoom.

This is entirely ignorance on my part as the only STM I own is the pancake, so I'll ask:

1) Do any still shooters who are shooting moving subjects use STM glass at all? 

2) Has STM focusing speed improved to catch up with USM speed? 

3) Does STM work well in Servo for moving subjects?

Please educate me, as I think my first go at STM with the pancake was not impressive on those three fronts.   That lens is a marvel, but only for static shots in my book.

Maybe more recent STM glass is better?

- A

I have used the 55-250 STM as a test for concerts and animal shooting. I haven't measured it, but to me the STM seems to work just fine, although it feels a tad slower (?) than USM (still significantly quicker than non-USM though). The one thing to keep in mind is that the focus on these STM lenses is electronic, so you can't "full-time manual focus" without power to the camera.

38
Lenses / Re: What was your first L lens?
« on: June 05, 2014, 02:45:05 PM »
The 24-105, which I still have (albeit a different copy).

39
Lenses / Re: 24-105 vs 24-70 2.8 ii
« on: June 03, 2014, 07:24:06 AM »
Yeah, the f4 24-70, or at least the one I tried at the local store, is DEFINITELY weakest at 50mm. Dare I say that one was worse than my 24-105 is at 24, its weakest point (w/o the distortion)...there was NO sharp area of the image at 50mm f4. Anyway, I'd like to try another copy - maybe that was just a mediocre one.

Between the 24-105 and the 2.8 24-70 - unless you shoot a lot of indoor social events (and thus need the 2.8 / IS mattering less in those situations), or you have a big budget, then the 24-105 is still a good lens with decent sharpness and great value for price. Plus IS makes it more versatile, too.

40
Lenses / Re: Review: Canon EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM
« on: June 02, 2014, 08:32:59 PM »
At the moment, Canon's message seems to be that if you want anything more exotic that a slow zoom, you need to go full frame.

Not really, TBH...you can still use FF lenses on the Rebels after all. The only issue would be cost, I suppose - can they make an EF-S 70-200 2.8 equivalent for $1K or less? If not, no use trying IMO.

41
Lenses / Re: EF-S 10-18 review
« on: June 02, 2014, 02:25:34 PM »
I did get a little flare in one shot- think I was shooting a building with the sun JUST to the left of the camera.

42
Lenses / Re: EF-S 10-18 review
« on: June 02, 2014, 10:28:12 AM »
Overall I agree with the review. It's a decent enough lens for the price and even though it's not necessarily a small lens, it is very light...and as a result, it handles well on an SL1.

Image quality wise, it didn't knock my socks off but it's good enough for travel and everyday use.

43
Lenses / Re: EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM Image Samples
« on: May 31, 2014, 11:33:37 PM »
So, I'd thought I'd stop by my local store to see when these would be coming in...and to my surprise, they already had some! Long story short, I walked out with one. I do not have any experience with the 10-22, although I do have the 11-22 for the EOS M (and the 16-35 2.8 for FF).

First impressions...

- The one thing that jumped out at me immediately is how LIGHT this thing is...definitely easy on the arms - balances well on the SL1, too. Great size for traveling.

- Unlike the 16-35 (and 10-22, I believe), but similar to the 11-22, this is NOT an internal zooming lens...the barrel is slightly extended at 10mm, retracts into the body until about 15mm and then extends again SLIGHTLY until 18mm. It barely extends out, though - probably a centimeter at most.

- This has the "STM" focusing mechanism just like all of Canon's newer entry-level lenses...mainly optimized for video. It is virtually silent in a normal environment (in a super-quiet room, you CAN hear a faint, high-pitched whine as the lens focuses).

- The filter size is 67mm, and the front thread (?) does not rotate when focusing.

- For those that have the M + adapter: there is a noticeable difference in FOV between 11mm and 10mm (this lens can go wider), and this lens is light enough so this could be another UWA option to consider.
_______________

So, overall thoughts...

Positives

- Light, compact, easy for travel

- Very good center sharpness throughout the range

- IS works well (I was able to get keepers down to 1/4...for those using it with a 70D or larger camera you can likely do better)
 
- Very affordable at $300, and very high price/performance ratio

Negatives

- Some edge/corner softness observed, particularly at 10mm

- Purple fringing showed up in a few of my shots (wide end)

__________________

So...I think that this is a great lens for the money, although those looking for top UWA performance will want to look elsewhere (and likely will, anyway). Compared to the 11-22, I found the 10-18 to be softer near the corners...but that's more of a testament to how outstanding the 11-22 is, more so than a condemnation of the 10-18. Compared to the 16-35 on FF, the difference between center and corner sharpness seems less drastic on the 10-18. Unfortunately I cannot compare it to the 10-22, so I'll leave that one to someone else...

In the end, I wasn't blown away...then again, I didn't necessarily expect to be. But it is what it is - an entry-level/travel-sized UWA lens, and for $300, I'm not going to complain too much. It is plenty good enough for vacation snapshots and casual shooting. I can be pretty demanding when it comes to IQ, anyway.

44
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon 1D Mark IV or 1Dx?
« on: May 30, 2014, 07:45:38 PM »
General questions I have along the same line of the topic...

How about these two cameras (specifically a 1D IV) vs, say, a 7D? There's nothing like the 7D but on occasion I will find myself shooting at a poorly lit ice show and I find the 7D can really struggle in those conditions. Yet, I don't want to give up the reach it offers over FF (I'm willing to give up SOME quality for greater reach to put more pixels on the subject)...I'm part of that long line queuing up for a 7D II...sold my 60D thinking it would be out last year and since the 70D wasn't available in time, picked up a used 7D. Great drive, much faster but really had a tough time in the dimly-lit arena. I *could* get by with the 7D for this year but I find myself looking for alternatives.

Thoughts?

45
Lenses / Re: buy the 24-70 4 IS... or wait for the 2.8 IS?
« on: May 29, 2014, 01:19:55 PM »
I think you could be waiting a while. Better to get what you need now and then whenever it comes out, trade up.

Only reason to wait is if you have no real need for such a lens in the near future.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 22