February 27, 2015, 10:41:43 AM

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 ... 85 86 [87] 88 89 ... 92
Got this guy in mint condition for $1100 yesterday : )

Congratulations - I've been looking for a few months now and haven't found anything I wanted to take a chance on. Do you think you will still use your 16-35? I have that too and am thinking about selling it to help pay for the new 14.

I don't know, the 16-35 is a damn versatile lens and the last of the zooms I've owned (70-200 f/2.8 IS, 24-70).  14mm is definitely super wide and I feel like in some situations it may be nice to still have 16-24mm covered.  But at the same time the 14mm is much sharper than the 16-35 (at the wide end).  More than likely I'll end up selling the 16-35mm and get the 24L II or the Zeiss 21mm f/2.8 to fill the gap. 

Lenses / Re: New lenses for me
« on: December 21, 2011, 04:43:50 PM »
Ive been reading here for a while and there is a lot of good advice that I have read, thus I want more!  I know most of you peeps shoot with mostly L glass, so my desires below might be a little low end but as a broke college kid i can only afford so much.  I have and XSi, 18-55 kit lens, nifty fifty (been having a lot of fun with this in low light) and some tamron superzoom that has less contrast than a fog bank.  I will not be a pro, just a someone who likes to shoot stuff and has another 30 years to get the perfect kit together.

Here is the deal, Ive been saving up for a while for a 70-200 f/4L IS, as I convinced myself that I needed it more than oxygen and was going to finally pull the trigger.  Wicked lens I know and sharp like a fox is quick.  Then I thought about how that lens would probably get used roughly 10-20% of the time.  I also want the EF-S 15-85 (I want the expanded range over the 17-55 fast apature for a walk around lens and cant justify the price for a 17-55) and the Sigma 30 f/1.4 or Canon 35 f/2 (an appropriate length on a crop rather than the nifty, and still the low light/DOF that I am having fun playing around with).

I bought a 70-200 f/4L NON-IS at my local camera shop (I have since learned that this shop is less than decent) and returned it a week after because I wasn't happy with the sharpness.  When I returned it, the guy processing the transaction laughed and said that THAT lens has been returned a number of times for the same reason so I am not sure that I want to completely write off the non-IS version.

I also know that I will get a new body within the next 2 years (I want higher than 800 useable ISO and better AF, dont care about higher MP), thinking whatever replaces the 7D or 60D and maybe whatever the low end full frame is out at the time.  With the FF, I know that the 15-85 and Sigma will be incompatible and am not opposed to selling them later down the line.

Here is what I can't decide: get the 70-200 f/4 IS and only have mediocre everything else, or get 2 of the others (70-200 f/4 non-IS, 15-85 or fast-ish prime) and have a more complete/quality range knowing I will probably get the 70-200 IS down the line.

I'm leaning toward the 70-200 non-IS and the Sigma 30 f/1.4.  I know the 15-85 would get more use than the 30 f/1.4 but would not let me learn DOF and low light as much.  I'm also thinking that the 30 f/1.4 would change my mind about the 17-55 or maybe twist my arm into a 24-70L.

I'm just not sure what to get but know that I want more than the kit lens.  Go forth and tell me how to spend my money!

With a APSC sensor I don't think you'll get as much use out of the 70-200 as you would the others.  All of the 70-200s are great, but I think you would get much more use out of the 17-55 or 15-85.  And although I've never used the 15-85, I LOVED the 17-55 (there is a reason its that much more %).  IS works very well, f/2.8 all the way through, and razor sharp (I thought it was easily sharper than the 24-70L and definitely the best non-L lens that I've used).
I would seriously consider looking for a used 17-55, it's a great walk around lens ands very versatile.  You could probably find one for $850-$900 used, I would recommend at least renting it for a bit before you buy the 15-85. 

As for the Sigma, I used the Sigma 20mm f/1.8 back when I had a T2i and it was a nice focal length, but wasn't sharp at all and the colors looked strange.  If you're looking for primes maybe try the 100mm Macro (non-L), as you can use it for portraits or close-up photography.  Or maybe a used 85mm f/1.8 (300-350 used). 

I'm not saying don't get a 70-200, I just think you would get much more use out of the 17-55 f/2.8 IS (and you could always get a 70-200 later).

EOS Bodies / Re: What if - interchengeable sensors
« on: December 21, 2011, 04:35:41 PM »
What if next 5d would have interchangeable sensors?
I don't think it's not possible from technical point of view. You can change a processor in a computer or put more memory. Some kind of transport and microadjustment would allow to avoid not proper embedding.
From marketing point of view - wouldn't you like to have a body with a choice of having ie 18MP 51200 ISO or 36MP 12800ISO?
What if they would also allow change (or add another) signal processor? 3 types of AF board?
Let's say 800$ sensor, 500$ - digic.

With some restrictions this idea wouldn't canibalize 1dx. You could for instance build a body of same capabilities but higher price summing all parts' prices than 1dx itself.

Red is going some simpler way with it's skeleton (they don't allow to change sensors but why not?)
What do you think?

I'm almost certain I read that one of the advantages of the RED Scarlet was the fact that it was "future proof" since you could upgrade the sensor later on....

EOS Bodies / Re: How often do you shoot video with your DSLR?
« on: December 21, 2011, 11:32:06 AM »
90% video/10% stills - I shoot live music all over the country usually the setup is:
5DII with 14L or 16-35L II as static cam
5DII with 85L or 135L on fluid head
7D with 35L or 50L on Shoulder rig
+$60k worth of audio gear = Pretty awesome quality
As much of a pain in the ass as these things can be to shoot with, the results speak for themselves.

Got this guy in mint condition for $1100 yesterday : )

Lenses / Re: Canon 24-105mm and 100mm lenses with impurities
« on: December 20, 2011, 06:53:48 PM »
He may be talking about some of the tiny bubbles that you see in the glass?
I think thats actually a sign of quality glass...
How do the pictures look?  If good, don't worry about it. 

The likelihood that you ended up with 2 different bad L lenses in the same order is slim to none.

Lenses / Re: Prime Lenses
« on: December 20, 2011, 06:49:51 PM »
Of the primes you mentioned, i have some concern with the 50/1.2 with the things i've read.
The 50/1.4 and Sigma 50/1.4 is often compared and i'm not sure if i would go with the 50/1.2L for what you get with the price.
I definitely would go with the 24/1.4, 85/1.2 and 100/2.8IS Macro II. I'd have to looking into the 35/1.4 and others.

I love my 50mm, sure the AF is a little slow (but not as bad as the 85L II) but when you "get the shot" damn does it look good.  A lot of people say its inconsistent, but I suspect this may have more to do with the super short hyper focal length...if the subject moves even an inch it can throw off the focus.

Lenses / Re: Prime Lenses
« on: December 20, 2011, 06:42:47 PM »
I would seriously recommend not buying more than a couple lenses when you are just starting.  I went crazy and ended up with like 11 or 12 different lenses and all it did was make things harder.  I gradually narrowed them down to what's left in my signature.  But you have to take the time to learn each lens and its quirks, and sometimes having too many choices just makes things harder. 

You will be happy with any of the previously mentioned lenses, but it doesnt really make sense to buy one of the three you mentioned if its going to be your only lens.  But if you have to have one, I'd go for the 35L, like they said its pretty versatile on APS-C (7D, 60D) and FF sensors (5DII, 1Ds3). 

I also agree with the other poster about photography classes, as it does kind of sound like you know more about the equipment than photography itself. 

I have easy $10k in photo gear and I don't call myself a Photographer.

I didn't lay a hand on a DSLR until March 2010 (T2i), had no idea what aperture, ISO, etc. was.  All I knew was that I loved the way the video looked and that if I wanted to shoot it properly I had to learn about it.  But even after a year and a half, 25,000 pictures, countless hours shooting video, I still wouldn't call myself a photographer.  I've always been a video freak, just because I can use a camera and compose properly doesn't mean I'm a photographer, I think that's an insult to the people that have spent their lives doing it.

Everyone has seen it...you're on Facebook, suddenly you see "so and so Photography" pop up, and you have never seen "so and so" shooting or mentioning photography EVER.  Then they offer $20 portraits and devalue the craft, I would be pissed if I were a photographer. 

I got a 180L Macro for $910 a few weeks ago.  Was in great shape and am VERY happy with that one.


Exc cond used 180mmL $899
70-200f2.8mk.II $1974 New
24-105f4L $899  New (kit version though)  Got it 3-4 months back before the current great sale prices

Same here on 70-200mm f2.8 IS II for $1974 (NEW) from B&H

Wow a lot of you guys got in on that deal huh?  I thought the V1 was sick but I've heard nothing but great things about the Mark II.  I've debated selling my 85L and 135L for it, but I just can't bear to get rid of them.

Sweet deal!  My personal policy is that I only buy lenses in excellent condition, and I won't pay more than 70% of current retail pricing for a used lens.   

Some good deals I've gotten in the past:

  • EF 200mm f/2.8L II for $450 (62% of retail at the time)
  • EF 300mm f/4L IS for $725 (60% of retail at the time)
  • MP-E 65mm f/2.8 1-5x Macro for $500 (50% of retail at the time)

All from Craigslist.  I subsequently sold the 200/2.8 and 300/4 (after getting the 70-200 II and 100-400, respectively), and for a decent profit in both cases.  I still have the MP-E 65mm.

I agree, I've purchased almost every lens I have through Craigslist.  In the last year I've gotten:
2 different EF 24-70 f/2.8 - One was $1050, the other was $1000
16-35mm f/2.8L II - $1250 w/$100 B+W filter
35mm f/1.4L- $1100
50mm f/1.2L- $1100
85mm f/1.2L - $1800 (not the best deal, but not retail)
70-200 f/2.8 IS (v1) - $1450

All of them were in great shape, didn't have any problems with the sellers, etc.  CL is great for higher end stuff, camera stuff is so specific you would be able to tell pretty quickly if the person didn't know what they were talking about.

Just won the auction on eBay the other day for a Brand New Canon 85mm 1.2L II for $1500. I've been hunting for a deal on this lens for a while. Can't wait to get it!
I chased this lens around for nearly 6 months, every time one would come up I would come so close and barely miss.  It even got to the point that I "bought it now" on ebay for $1800 and woke up to an email from the guy saying he had sold it 30 minutes before I bid on it.  But when I did finally get it, it was wonderful.  Great deal, you'll love that one.

Lenses / What's the best deal you've ever gotten on a lens?
« on: December 19, 2011, 03:02:21 PM »
I got a mint 14mm f/2.8L II for $1100 earlier today 8)   I've wanted this lens forever, I rent it here and there, but couldn't justify the purchase with a 16-35mm II in my bag already.  Saw the ad pop up on Craigslist, thought it had to be a Mark I, but sure enough it was a II.  Not a scratch on the thing, box and everything included.  Win!

Which made me wonder what kind of other random great deals people have gotten on photo equipment...

Canon EF-S and EF-M Lenses / Re: Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM
« on: December 14, 2011, 10:29:29 AM »
The EF-S lens that has had some full frame users jealous for a while. 

Not the educated ones, who would know that the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS on a crop body is out-spec'd by the EF 24-105mm f/4L IS used on FF, since the FF-equivalent of 17-55mm f/2.8 is 27-88mm f/4.5 (becuase the crop factor affects aperture in terms of DoF for equivalent framing), and the 1-stop effect on shutter speed is more than compensated for bu the 1.33-stop improvement in ISO noise with the additional light gathering ability of a FF sensor).  So, the 24-105 on FF is wider, longer, and faster than the 17-55mm on crop, still has IS, and is weather-sealed with L-quality build to match.

I think what they mean by making FF owners jealous is that the closer equivilent lens would be the 24-70 2.8 which lacks IS.. Because if they added the IS to that lens, that would be the choice for a all around lens for FF bodies.

I've used both, and the 17-55 on a T2i was sharper than both copies of the 24-70 I've had on a 5D.  I was really shocked the first time I used that lens.

Lenses / Re: EF 35 f/1.4L II & EF 24-70 f/2.8L II on January 3, 2012? [CR2]
« on: December 12, 2011, 11:34:51 AM »
I'm still not sure - buying the current 24-70 now is safe in terms of good/money or stupid idea?

The fact that it's on sale for around $1100 right now doesnt hurt, and considering it's been $1399 in the last few years I would say you're fine.  Id say youd still be able to get $1k out of it in a year

Pages: 1 ... 85 86 [87] 88 89 ... 92