Messages

241

Lenses / Re: Buying/Selling/Renting Lenses

« on: June 02, 2012, 10:07:47 PM »

Thanks for the replies, everybody. Part of the reason I was going to do the buy/sell thing was that I have a stepson who will be playing high school basketball this year, and that seemed like a decent lens for that purpose. So, it's still up in the air, but I'm leaning toward renting for now.

242

Lenses / Buying/Selling/Renting Lenses

« on: June 01, 2012, 02:31:40 PM »

I'm shooting an indoor event later this summer, so I need a fairly fast lens with a longer focal length, something like a 135mm f/2 L.  I can buy one, use it for the event, keep it for awhile and then sell it if need be. I can see a need for this lens after the event, but I could probably get along without it also.  Or, I can just rent it for that time period and then send it back when I'm done.

I'd rather buy it, then sell it. The problem is that I live in a fairly rural area, and the market for specialty lenses like that are fairly small. I'm 3-4 hours away from the nearest big cities. Selling it locally on Craigslist or similar would likely not be a practical option. And, I don't do eBay, nor am I convinced that it would pay off to sign up and learn how to sell it just for this one item.

In my situation, am I better off financially to just rent that glass for ~$65USD for four days? What's the best way to sell a higher-end lens if you don't live near a populated area? Thanks in advance for participating in the discussion.

243

Lenses / Re: Most requested lenses for replacement?

« on: May 31, 2012, 02:36:22 PM »

#4 135/2 L IS - A new design with IS and that's all

Why does this lens need IS? Others have mentioned that as well. A mkII version of this lens with IS gets knocked out of the price range into the 'why bother' category, IMO. The two categories where this lens shines--portraits and low-light sports--rarely benefit from IS. As you can tell, I'm not a fan of IS in general, at least I don't find myself in situations where it would be useful. To me, it just adds bulk and cost to a lens that doesn't need any more of either.

244

Lenses / Re: Bokeh...is the look getting dated?

« on: May 31, 2012, 11:05:33 AM »

Good points, these last few comments. For me, I knew I was ready to move up from a p/s to a dslr when I realized I couldn't control aperture the way I wanted to.

245

Lenses / Re: Bokeh...is the look getting dated?

« on: May 30, 2012, 12:01:29 AM »

How much DOF do you want?
50mm f/177 gives hyperfocal at 74cm, that's everything sharp from 37cm to infinity...
('sharp' being a relative term, of course)

No. An aperture that size will not be sharp. Everything will have the same focus, maybe, but it will not be sharp.

246

Lenses / Re: Recommendation for a small budget?

« on: May 28, 2012, 05:22:59 PM »

But why is this a good combo? Please explain to a novice photographer haha.

Because you've got some different focal lengths covered this way:

• Wide (10-22mm)
• Medium range (50mm)
• closer range (100mm)

And they're all reasonably fast, so you should have some glass to use no matter what situation you're in. Unless, of course, you're planning on going to Yellowstone and shooting grizzlies from 500 yard away, but those lenses are a little out of your $1k budget. :-)

247

Lenses / Re: 17-40mm and DPP

« on: May 28, 2012, 12:15:15 PM »

Just ordered my 5D mk3 plus 24-105mm and wanting either a 17-40mm or maybe the 16-35mm if my piggybank can stand it. I know the 17-40mm has more CA and distortion but wondered how well images can be cleaned up using the Lens Optimiser part of DPP - any comments?

Thanks for any opinions,

Guy.

I tend to agree with the comments on here, depending on what you are shooting. For my money, it's outstanding from f/7.1 on down. I shoot mostly landscapes, so I rarely go wider than that with this lens.

248

Lenses / Re: Most requested lenses for replacement?

« on: May 28, 2012, 12:11:49 PM »

Folks, they're not going to update the 135mm f/2 SF just so that it can compete with the current 135mm f/2 L.

I assume you're talking about the 135 f/2.8SF, an old design with film era relevance which will probably quietly disappear from Canon's inventory sometime soon. I wonder how many they sell per year? It's the venerable 135 f/2L which also hales from last century, April 1996 to be exact which I'm hoping to see upgraded.

PW

I stand corrected: The 135mm "Soft Focus" lens is an f/2.8.  My point is that there were some calls on here to upgrade that lens, and I just don't see it happening. Personally I'd like to see the 135mm f/2 L get upgraded AFTER I buy this current version. A new one will undoubtedly be out of my price range.

249

Lenses / Re: Most requested lenses for replacement?

« on: May 27, 2012, 10:00:54 PM »

Folks, they're not going to update the 135mm f/2 SF just so that it can compete with the current 135mm f/2 L. Remember, and updated version isn't going to come out at ~$500USD where the current one is. The hypothetical lens would come out more like ~$1000USD, where the 135mm f/2 L currently sits. It's just not gonna happen.

250

Lenses / Re: Recommendation for landscape lens on 5DMk111.

« on: May 27, 2012, 02:08:36 PM »

If money is no object, and you're shooting with a 5DmkIII, you might want to toss in a 70-200 f/2.8 IS L.  Sometimes in landscape photography you want to zoom in rather than going wider, and this lens would be a great focal range for that purpose.

251

Lenses / Re: Most requested lenses for replacement?

« on: May 27, 2012, 01:52:31 PM »

#4 - 135mm f/2.0 - aperture, image stabilization (16 year old design, there are plenty of 135mm f/1.8 lenses around, would love to see f/1.8 + IS, like a mini 200mm f/2.0 IS)

It's interesting that you mention this. I was just looking at both 135mm's today online, this one and the f/2 L that is a far more recent design. If they did redesign this one, added IS, maybe a little wider aperture, I wonder if they would need to price it at the level of the current 135mm f/2 L. I'm not sure that they would have two similarly priced primes of the same focal length on the market at the same time. My take is that they'll keep producing the non-L 135mm as long as there is a market for it, then discontinue it altogether. I could be wrong, though.

252

Black & White / Re: Black and White Landscapes!

« on: May 26, 2012, 10:27:42 AM »

IMG_1420-Edit by Rick.Scheibner, on Flickr


White River Falls, monochrome, plate 2 by Rick.Scheibner, on Flickr


Prophetic by Rick.Scheibner, on Flickr

253

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 Pancake Coming [CR3]

« on: May 25, 2012, 05:12:26 PM »

So...what I hear you saying is, size matters?

RIGHT, Let us talk about phsical laws. A small sensor will only need a shorter focal length to give the same angle for a bigger sensor.  Micro 3/4 has a mutiplicayion factor of 2.  So the 14 mm Panasonic ancake lens will be equilvalent to a 28mm lens on a full frame.  The 14mm will need a total of 40mm (20mm for the lense, 20mm for the fringe depth). That is a ration of  2.86. Now apply this ration for the 28mm for FF. than it will need 80mm. That is physical Law. Sensor size does not matter???  The bigger the sensor, the bigger the lense for the same viewing angle.

Thr Fringe diatance can be set to anything by the manufacturer to suit the usage. NEX fringe is set so thin for the using of adapter for the OLD range finder lenses,like Leica, Canon etc.  The fringe distance can be set independent of the back focal plane distance.  For mirrorless, the lenses have the luxury of going inside of the body and into the body. Have you look at  the Leica wide angle lenses lately???  As the the rumores 1mm back focal distance lens from Canon, it is going to be huge. In order for it to work, the rear element of the lens MUST cover the whole sensor. What it mean is the lense will ge going inside of the fringe and way into the body. You just cannot make a cmera body with a 1mm fringe distance.

Here comes the phsical law again. the size of the optic is determined by the focal length, speed of the lens and the associated mechanical and electronics part. It got nothing to do wit hthe fringe distance (except for wide angle lens for range finder cameras, that is another story). Just look at the pancake lens from Panasonics. The optics are small, the lens dismeter is large. That is for the mechanical and theelectronis component. It has got nothing to do with the fringe distance.

254

Pricewatch Deals / Re: Canon EF 500 f/4L IS II & EF 600 f/4L IS II Available for Preorder

« on: May 25, 2012, 08:37:40 AM »

Any chance they'll kit this with the next Rebel?

255

Lenses / Re: 70-200 f4L USM - Price Increasing... ??

« on: May 24, 2012, 12:58:08 AM »

I have this lens and I love it. If you check the Canon Price Watch site, you'll see that it took a dip six months or so ago, and looks ready to climb up again. http://www.canonpricewatch.com/product/00055/Canon-EF-70-200mm-f4L-USM-price.html