Messages

1036

EOS Bodies / Re: 5d Mark iii price?

« on: February 19, 2012, 07:44:25 PM »

I'm guessing $3299-$3499 and $4999 for the cinema dslr.

1037

Lenses / Re: 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 vs 17-40mm f/4L for a crop camera

« on: February 19, 2012, 03:40:26 PM »

The best lens (IMO) is the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8.  I have this lens, and it is as sharp as both my L lenses (24-105, and 70-200 f/2.8 IS).  It is the best general purpose lens, and the first one I would get for a crop camera.  It handles low light well, has good IS, very good IQ - it is essentially the 24-70 f/2.8L for the crop cameras.  I waited over a year before I got it and wondered why I waited so long.

The extra $150 over the 15-85 is well worth it.

For an outdoor walk-around lens, I would get the 24-105 f/4L or the 15-85.  Both have very good IQ and IS.  The primary difference is the focal length.

I agree 100%, also the variable aperture on the 15-85 can be limiting in certain situations.

1038

EOS Bodies / Re: 4K DSLR?

« on: February 19, 2012, 01:28:19 PM »

Is this going to be announced along with the 5D, or is it not even developed yet, just a prototype? Any news on the Cinema 4K DSLR?

They mentioned it and showed prototype pictures during the Nov. 3rd announcement of the C300 and said at that point that it should be out within a year.  Also the patent for 4k raw video was submitted in July 2010, so its most likely been in development for quite some time. 

I'm not sure if they'll announce it alongside the 5D Mark III, but they may at least give us some specs/release date to stop video shooters from buying the 5DIII.  It would be pretty frustrating if a bunch of people went out and bought the 5DIII only to have a better solution arrive just a few months later.  Not sure how Canon will play this one.

1039

Video & Movie / Re: what's your favorite lens for shooting video?

« on: February 19, 2012, 12:32:03 AM »

just wondering what lens' other people like using for shooting video...

I usually run a 3 camera setup for recording live music.  Main cam is a 5DII/14L II, 7D/35L or 50L on rig, 5DII/85LII or 135L on fluid head.

I probably use the 50L and 85L the most overall.  16-35 gets a decent amount of use as well, but I definitely prefer primes.

1040

Video & Movie / Re: what's your favorite lens for shooting video?

« on: February 19, 2012, 12:29:53 AM »

Shooting handheld with a 55-250 is surprisingly difficult!

Baggin': Day 1

Considering the ergonomics of a DSLR, you shouldn't be shooting handheld at all.

1041

Lenses / Re: Considering 14MM 2.8L II Lens Purchase

« on: February 18, 2012, 08:05:01 PM »

I'd also wait until you got your full frame.  14mm is equivalent to 8.75mm on a crop.  Its extremely wide. 

  This surprises me. I would have said a little over 22 on a crop.

He meant you would need an 8.75mm lens on an aps-c camera to have the equivalent field of view of a 14mm on full frame.  You were talking about the FF equivalent if you put the 14mm on an aps-c camera.

1042

Lenses / Re: Canon 135mm f2 mk2?

« on: February 18, 2012, 01:11:43 PM »

Dude just go for it and buy the damn thing, it's an awesome lens and you can always resell it if a new one comes out.  And it's very cheap for an L lens, so all the more reason to go for it.  If you keep waiting on new equipment you'll never get anything, as there is always something new in the works.

1043

EOS Bodies / Re: Announcement Soon [CR3]

« on: February 17, 2012, 07:22:31 PM »

YES, best birthday present ever

1044

Lenses / Re: Canon 14mm + 24 1.4 vs. 16-35 and 135mm vs. 70-200 IS

« on: February 16, 2012, 03:39:19 PM »

I have to say I envy you the 14mm F2.8L:) I borrowed it for more than a week, and it is great. I have the 16-35II and I love the versatility of it, while with the 14 you are stuck with 14... But if I get the money it is definitly on the list of lenses I would like to buy. You mention the 200mm F2.0L IS USM. I would borrow/rent it first.. I borrowed it for a week from a friend of mine, and I went out to shoot with another friend of mine who is a photographer, and we both agreed that it is too heavy and big. For its specific use there is no equal, but as you are a wedding photographer, I doubt that you would find yourself carrying it around for hours. The 135 is in my opinion a cream machine, and I wondered for a long time if I should get that one and a double extender (when I need the reach) instead of the 70-200 F2.8L IS II USM. I ended up having both and like them both.

Posting a shot I took with the 14mm. I miss that baby so much...

It is a sweet lens, but hard to justify the price (especially if you already have a 16-35mm).  I never could have paid retail for one, but for $1100 I was all over it.

1045

Lenses / Re: Canon 14mm + 24 1.4 vs. 16-35 and 135mm vs. 70-200 IS

« on: February 16, 2012, 03:37:39 PM »

Here is a Tip.

I use Craigs Pal to monitor Craigslist.  Sure, it cost a few dollars, but has paid for its self many times over.  Search multiple locations, or by a radius in miles and get a e-mail or mobile phone message when a new listing appears that matches your  search terms.  You'll be the first one to know about any good deals.  I've bought many cameras and lenses that way.  Good deals can disappear in minutes, so you never know you missed them.

 I use the equipment, and keep the ones I find that I use, and resell the others, usually for a higher price.  I don't buy unless I can resell without losing money.  Just let the overpriced stuff pass.

You actually mentioned this in another thread a while back and I tried searching further (geographically). I found most people aren't willing to ship and I'm not willing to drive out of state for a lens unless it's a once in a lifetime deal.  But the whole keyword notification seems like it would be useful.  CraigsPro for iPad works well for searching in-state, as you can add whatever cities you want.

1046

Lenses / Re: Canon 14mm + 24 1.4 vs. 16-35 and 135mm vs. 70-200 IS

« on: February 16, 2012, 01:19:00 PM »

Hey thanks for the advice axilrod......So I see you have the 14mm II and 16-35 II....how are those lenses compared to each other? The 14 II is killing my 16-35 version 1..is it the same with the version II of the zoom or what do you think?

No problem, that advice got my buddy a 17-55 f/2.8 IS for a pretty damn good deal the other day.  He kept telling me he couldn't find any on CL, he was searching 17-55mm f/2.8 and it took me about 15 seconds to find one.  The guy had listed it as "Canon 17-55 2.8," so I'm sure anyone looking for that lens specifically missed it. 

Yes the 14L II is definitely much sharper and has much better color rendition than the 16-35mm.  Of course the 16-35 is more versatile, and is definitely sharp for a zoom, not so much wide open, but at f/4-f/8 it's really sharp.  I think the 16-35 II is definitely a big improvement from the v1 of the lens, but still not better than the 14L II. 

1047

Lenses / Re: A Brief Hands-On With the 3 New Lenses

« on: February 16, 2012, 01:14:06 PM »

The MTFs for the 24-70 do hint it might be one of the best consumer zooms ever made. And the new primes should blow away the 24-105 for FF edge to edge sharpness for landscapes.

I agree the charts look great, but do you really consider a $2k+ lens to be a "consumer" zoom? 

1048

EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Mark III/X Information [CR1]

« on: February 15, 2012, 03:01:43 PM »

Canon do not care about me, as a customer. I need to wait to long for the new product which for me is 5dmarkIII. To be honest I do not think that they will do enything worth staying with them. Despite the fact i am heavy invested in Canon's gear, now i am considering switching back to nikon with it d800 and great AF and many many other benefits. I originally came from Nikon D300, to Canon's team, but i am really dissapointed with the gear. In my opinion Canon does not move forward, they make everything to let us think they make a huge steps, but thats only marketing., thats only few paid photographers who push good opinions in the web. I will lost a lot selling my Canon gear, but i really think thay its not worth staying with them. It's strange i know but-Canon is a step behing Nikon, they just dont have good ideas, they dont think in revolutionary way, they only slightly rebuild old products, the dont satisfy thier costumers, imho they just look at Nikon product and want to have something similar, but worse...why not...well...people  will not sell their gear and switch to Nikon.

You're right, I don't think Canon cares about your individual wants/needs, you're just one person in a giant market.  It's arrogant to even think that a multi-billion dollar company should do everything based around what YOU want.  Just because you aren't happy with a product doesn't mean that other people feel the same.  "They don't satisfy their customers?"  Then WHY does ANYONE own a 5DII, 7D, or anything else?  Why are you on this rumor site trying to figure out what they are releasing next?  That's crazy logic, "This company sucks, I'm not satisfied, what are they releasing next?!"  Go ahead and head over to Nikon rumors, because bitching about Canon on this forum isn't going to bring about whatever it is you're looking for. 

You're pretty much saying you are going to switch to a Nikon camera (that was just announced, that you have never used) based on the idea that Canon's next camera won't be any good (even though it hasn't been announced).  And it's kinda hard to say that Canon is a "step behind Nikon," this is all based on the D800 specs, Canon hasn't even had a chance to counter. 

Everyone just needs to chill out, we have 2 weeks until announcement, if the camera sucks then you can complain all you want.  But until then everyone is just guessing and comparing numbers, none of these arguments are based on performance. 

1049

EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Mark III/X Information [CR1]

« on: February 15, 2012, 02:49:20 PM »

You can be certain that they will not offer a clean HDMI output.

How/why are you so sure that they won't offer a clean HDMI out?  Nikon did it with the D800, why does it seem so out of the question for Canon to follow suit?

I can understand if you're suggesting it based on the idea that the 5D series is a still camera at heart, and a clean HDMI out may be a feature that only a small percentage of buyers would use.  But to suggest Canon is deliberately releasing a crummy camera just sounds kind of crazy.  The next 5D is one of the most anticipated cameras of all time and people have been waiting on it for years.  Canon would have to be run by a bunch of morons to only make minor updates.

This is a rumors forum, you can't be certain of anything...

1050

Lenses / Re: New canon 24 2.8 USM - consumer or Pro ?

« on: February 14, 2012, 08:28:21 PM »

Not sure about your camera, but my 5DmkII isn't that much bigger than my 60D -- any reason you've shied away from Zooms?  The 15-85mm is a really nice lens and is 'everything but' an "L" lens in terms of build quality and IQ.

I, too, am curious what the two new primes are going to emerge as . . . hopefully they'll be the same high-quality as the better EF-S lenses they've released the past few years instead of the mass-market stuff.

You're right about the size of the bodies, but with all the primes he has I think he would be disappointed with the 15-85's sharpness.  It's a decent lens, but I would say that the 17-55 f/2.8 IS is the one that's closer to an L lens.  Also he'd have a lot of focal length overlap.

Like I said, if he wants wide the Tokina 11-16mm would be a great choice.  But if you can live with the variable aperture or just want to stick with Canon the 10-22mm is a good alternative.