July 30, 2014, 09:48:35 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 - Axilrod

Pages: 1 ... 79 80 [81] 82 83 ... 92
1201
Lenses / Re: What lenses should I get for my 7d? (16 year old)
« on: January 20, 2012, 07:18:32 PM »
24-105 is a great lens for FF, on a crop, it is not wide enough. I'd get a Wide or UWA lens and then a tele.

Your choices for wides depend on how much you have to spend:

$250 - Sigma 15-30mm F3.5 DG EX IF
$400 - Samyang 14mm (MF)
$671 - EF 17-40 F4 L refurbed from Canon
$900 - EF-S 10-22mm

If you want something on the long end in roughly that price range, the 70-200mm F4 L IS is a great and very sharp lens. You could get a used one for your budget.

Hope this helps.

Did you read what he said?  He can get the 70-200 f/2.8 IS for $750, the 100L macro for $350, and the 10-22 for $450.  And he supposedly already got the 24-105 for $450. 

The only way I could see any of those prices being realistic is:
1) They are stolen
2) Your friend is rich and/or a complete fool that doesn't care about money
3) You meant the 70-200 f/4 non-IS instead of 70-200 f/2.8 IS, and the non-L 100 macro instead of the 100L macro. 

1202
Lenses / Re: What lenses should I get for my 7d? (16 year old)
« on: January 20, 2012, 07:10:06 PM »
I would just buy everything that your friend is selling because those prices are absolutely unreal, buy all of them and resell them and you'll get double what you paid for them.  Even if you had a Nikon I would say buy all of those.  The 24-105 for $450 is ridiculous, they are $850-$950 used.

Maybe not the 10-22 for 450 (even though thats a pretty solid deal still), but the 100L Macro for $350?  Are you sure it's not the non-L macro?   A A 70-200 f/2.8 IS for $750?  That's a $2k lens and the cheapest I've EVER seen one was maybe $1100 used.  I paid $1500 for mine and I paid $900 for the 100L and thought that was a great deal.

As for the 70-200 having "soft focus," I'm not sure exactly what you mean, but the 70-200 is one of the sharpest zoom lenses I've ever used, so if you heard it's not sharp you heard wrong.

Something just doesn't sound right, your friend has literally the best deal I have ever seen on every single one of those lenses.....They are all like 1/2 the normal used price.


1203
Lenses / Re: 50mm f/1.2L and 85 f/1.8 VS. 50 f/1.4 and 85 1.2L
« on: January 20, 2012, 07:03:58 PM »
I have to say that IQ wise, there's little difference between the 50 1.2L and 50 1.4. The bokeh is slightly better but the build quality is significantly better on the L. Thats one of the reason I only buy L lenses.

I agree, I've had all the lenses mentioned, and while the the 85L II and 50L are amazing lenses their cheaper counterparts are very very solid lenses (especially for the money).  But it's $800 worth of lenses vs $3500. 

As for the OP, I think it just depends on what you do more.  If you shoot a lot of portraits, I would go 85L/50 1.4, but if not I would definitely go 50L/85 1.8.  My 85L sits on the shelf a little more than I'd like, but I can't bring myself to get rid of it, it's unbelievably sharp even wide open.  But I use my 50L more than all my other lenses I'd say, it's super versatile and a lot of fun.

1204
Lenses / Re: Going Wide on FF but which.
« on: January 20, 2012, 06:59:38 PM »
canon is lacking in wide zoom L lenses. hands down. this is where nikon kicks the crap out of canon.

come on canon, give us a FF 10-20mm f/2.8 L

As fun as that would be, it would take some serious engineering to make that happen.  But I do agree that the Nikon 14-24 f/2.8 is a bad ass lens and I really wish Canon would make one.

1205
Lenses / Re: Going Wide on FF but which.
« on: January 20, 2012, 04:39:29 PM »

Haven't tried the 50 f/1.4 yet, although it's on my list to buy (replace the 50 f/1.8 I have). 85 f/1.8 I love as well. Classic portraiture length, and pretty large aperture. Great value for the money in my book, even if supposedly it isn't as good as the 85 f/1.2.

The 85mm 1.2 isn't supposedly better than the 85 1.8, its a much better lens, no question.  The 85 1.8 is a great value and performs very well, but after using the 85L I could never go back. 

1206
Lenses / Re: fill the void -17mm to 24mm
« on: January 20, 2012, 04:36:24 PM »
maybe the Zeiss ZE 21mm f2.8?

That's an awesome one, I'm having a tough time deciding between that and the 24L II.  I really only used my 16-35mm for the wide end and with the 14mm it seems unnecessary, so I guess I'm going to sell it for the Zeiss 21 or 24L

1207
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Is the AF really that bad on the 5Dmk2
« on: January 19, 2012, 02:17:35 PM »
I don't think its "bad" at all, although it's subjective I suppose.  I think there are a lot of different settings that affect AF performance and lots of different combinations of said settings. If you use the wrong ones for the situation it could lead one to believe that the autofocus is bad.  I remember thinking it was initially, but after messing with the settings I feel it performs just fine. 

1208
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: What makes a photographer, a photographer?
« on: January 18, 2012, 07:07:11 PM »
Amateurs worry about gear, pros worry about sales, photographers worry about light.     ;D

I like that, but what do you mean by worry about gear?  Like someone worried that they are lacking gear or worried about getting new gear?  Or just putting too much emphasis on gear in the general?  I know a guy that makes stupid amounts of money off stock and he loves his toys.  But he'll admit that his favorite pics were his 5DII/24-70 even though he has tons of other lenses and a that 40mp Hasselblad cam.  That's a pro. 

1209
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: What makes a photographer, a photographer?
« on: January 18, 2012, 07:02:58 PM »
I'm not sure what you're asking either, but randomly/accidentally hitting a button without any thought on why you're doing it is definitely NOT it.   ;D

Are you high?

1210
Landscape / Re: Winter Milky Way Time Lapse - (Canon 5D MK II)
« on: January 18, 2012, 02:28:08 PM »
I shoot Manual, @ f2.8 , in Raw.

Also to add: 30 second exposures, ISO 3200, White Balance 3400K. I don't think I mentioned those settings on here.

Harles99 - I was blown away by your video - truly well done.

One question though...  if you're taking 30 second exposures, how have you not got star trails?

Inspired by your pictures, I tried taking some images of the stars a few nights ago and found that above 15 seconds the stars start to trail   :-\

It depends on the focal length, the wider you're shooting the longer exposure you can use.  What lens were you using?

1211
Lenses / Re: 35mm L vs. 135mm L. IQ?
« on: January 18, 2012, 10:59:07 AM »
This is kind of like comparing a Mercedes S600 with a Ferrari 458 Italia, they are both bad ass cars but serve different purposes.  35L and 135L are both AWESOME lenses and both have amazing IQ, but I just don't see the sense in comparing the two, seeing as the focal lengths are so far apart.

1212
Lenses / Re: Need advice from filmmakers concerning my lens collection
« on: January 18, 2012, 10:57:12 AM »
So far I have the 24L ii, 35L, 50L, and 70-200 2.8.  Someone has offered to trader their 24-70mm 2.8 for my 50L.  I find myself a little bit frustrated changing my primes when I'm recording unplanned and unpredictable material.  Do you think i should just get a cheap Sigma/Tamron zoom and just get the nice L primes?

I wouldn't do it, I've thought of giving up my 50 before but just can't do it.  If anything maybe ADD a 24-70 to your collection, you can find them for $900 used and if you could swing that it would probably be your best option.  It is a great walk around lens, but not worth sacrificing any of those primes for. 

1213
Landscape / Re: Time Lapse
« on: January 18, 2012, 10:55:15 AM »
You know you can use Quicktime 7 to do this without scripts....go to "create new image sequence" and you select the folder with all of the pics in it and select a framerate and you're good to go. 

1214
Landscape / Re: Winter Milky Way Time Lapse - (Canon 5D MK II)
« on: January 18, 2012, 10:53:53 AM »
Great work, really enjoyed it.

Two questions:
1/ which mode did you shoot in (P, Av, Tv, M) ?
2/ What was the aperture?
3/ did you shoot in Raw or Jpeg ?

Best regards,
Thomas


I would always do manual for these types of things, and you usually want to shoot pretty close to wide open.  If you're in a place with very little light pollution you can get away with much shorter exposures.  I've gotten some amazing results shooting at f/2, ISO 1600 for 5 seconds. 

I saw the OP didn't like the DP dolly, but I LOVE it.  It's super easy to set up and the intervalometer is built in to the controller.  You can set it up to move anywhere from .12 inches per minute to 30 inches per minute, or you can put it in SMS (shoot, move, shoot) mode and that will give you the smoothest motion possible. 

You can also mount it upside down and get some really cool shots (since the track is no longer visible).  This is an example of that :
Small | Large


Sure it's kinda pricey for the money, but it's not that bad carrying it around in a ski bag.  I'm just going to ship the rail to the west coast when I fly out there. 

1215
EOS Bodies / Re: Still waiting for 5d mkiii but should I be?
« on: January 17, 2012, 08:11:02 PM »
The only cost to waiting is an intangible "oppertunity" cost. 

I agree with everything you said, but it's "opportunity"  ;)

Pages: 1 ... 79 80 [81] 82 83 ... 92