September 22, 2014, 02:23:53 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 - CANONisOK

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 9
Lenses / Re: Canon 24-105mm f/4 IS : Seller's remorse?
« on: August 23, 2013, 09:51:38 PM »
I'm having a hard time selling the 17-55. Damn thing is in mint condition, cleaned by Canon inside and out and shoved straight back in the box. $799 but nada. I wonder if the Sigma 18-35 is swaying peoples decision?
I've had the exact same problem for probably six months. Still no takers at $700. :(
I think part of my problem is I am in a small market. I can't tell you how many people have asked why it is so expensive even though it is "almost the same as the kit lens".  ???

Lenses / Re: Canon 24-105mm f/4 IS : Seller's remorse?
« on: August 23, 2013, 09:46:19 PM »
I doubt you would have hard time selling 17-55 and 50 f1.4. Those are great lenses.
The question is, what are you going to do with the money? ::)

1. 1D X
2. 300 f2.8 IS II
4. 400 f2.8 IS II
5. 200-400
Only one of each?  :P
For now, any equipment sold will go toward defraying the cost of my new RRS tripod setup.  ;)

Lenses / Re: Canon 24-105mm f/4 IS : Seller's remorse?
« on: August 23, 2013, 06:10:42 PM »

Thanks for all the feedback. It seemed like a really good price for a not-spectacular copy (but in all fairness, it was also in pristine condition). The buyer was also at a point in her hobby where I could see the 24-105mm as a big step-up in quality. Her enthusiasm made me feel good about selling it.

Maybe someday there will be an amazing mark ii version which can be the ultimate walkaround lens, but I'm plenty happy with my other current options. Now, if I can find some takers for my 17-55mm, 50 1.4, an old 18-200mm(!), etc...

Lenses / Re: Canon 24-105mm f/4 IS : Seller's remorse?
« on: August 23, 2013, 02:22:50 PM »
If you are using the 24-105 on a cropped-frame camera, it will never be anywhere near as sharp as if you use it on a full-frame camera.
I agree completely. Shortly after getting the 24-105, I moved to a 5D3... where its flaws are even more apparent IMO. Thanks for the feedback!

Lenses / Canon 24-105mm f/4 IS : Seller's remorse?
« on: August 23, 2013, 12:08:07 PM »
So I have a buyer lined up through CL to sell off my hardly-ever used 24-105mm for $800. Ever since purchasing the 24-70mm mk2, it has been gathering dust. I'm not lacking anything over that FL range, so it shouldn't bother me, but...

I just wonder, am I missing something obvious about this lens? I have wanted to love it since I bought it over a year ago. So many people on this forum and others extoll its virtues (IQ, versatility, IS). To be frank - I just haven't seen it. And I think it sounds great on paper - good FL range, IS, compactness. It SHOULD be my go-to walkaround lens. But it isn't.

I did the AFMA on focal, but I've never been able to get true sharpness from this lens in darn near any situation. My prior workhorse was a Canon 17-55mm 2.8 on a T3i, and I didn't observe signiciant difference in the "upgrade" to the 24-105 (although, I felt color was noticeably better).

I'd hate to have seller's remorse if there is some secret to its awesomeness I just haven't unlocked yet. Or maybe I just have a crap copy. I suppose since I'm getting about the same as I paid for it. No loss, and hopefully prices will be similar in the future if I want to try to jump in again. What do you think; will I regret it?

Speedlites, Printers, Accessories / Re: Ideas for a new Tripod
« on: August 22, 2013, 02:36:54 PM »
Well... in my typical fashion I talked myself into a RRS 34L instead of the GT3541L. I decided that if I'm going to spend that kind of money on a tripod system anyway... why compromise just to save $400? I'd just end up wanting to upgrade sooner or later anyway.

I'm looking forward to my very first "high quality" tripod setup. Can't wait for the doorbell to ring!

Speedlites, Printers, Accessories / Re: Ideas for a new Tripod
« on: August 21, 2013, 07:28:05 PM »
After posting I did find a very similar thread:

Of course, that one confused me a bit more. I'm about 6' tall and I think when you have the GT3541L fully extended plus the ballhead, then camera & bg it would fit my eye level just fine... but it doesn't leave a lot of room for uneven terrain. I know I don't need the extra load rating of the 34L, but I would probably welcome the extra height sometimes.

Bummer... I guess I just have to make the decision and move forward.  ???

Speedlites, Printers, Accessories / Re: Ideas for a new Tripod
« on: August 21, 2013, 05:51:33 PM »
I hope I'm not hijacking this thread, but I have a scenario I'd like to run by the tripod pros: I have been eyeballing a RRS TVC-34L for a while and was planning to get one. Of course, the $1045 price tag is something that prevents me from buying it on impulse.

I see Gitzo is having some cash back on their Mountaineer legs, and I have been considering a GT3541L (and removing the center column). It's currently $830 with $200 cash back, making it effectively $630. That $415 difference vs the RRS set will exactly cover the cost of a BH-55 Pro setup.

Of course, the specs don't align perfectly. They are both 4.7 lb (Gitzo should be modestly less with CC removed). The Gitzo will only be 59" tall vs the RRS's 68", and the Gitzo has a 40 lb rating while the RRS has a 50 lb load rating. However, I will not be mounting anything bigger than a 70-200mm 2.8 IS II for the near term.

Anyway, I guess I'm just shamelessly asking for opinions from knowledgable individuals if the savings is worth the offset in specifications. I don't want to fall into the trap of upgrade-itis (a familiar affliction to me), but I would think the Gitzo base will serve the needs of an advanced amateur for the forseeable future.

Thanks in advance for any guidance or opinions you all could offer.

Lenses / Re: Patent: Canon EF 50 f/1.8 IS
« on: July 24, 2013, 09:51:39 AM »
Oh good, a "nifty-850."

Canon General / Re: POLL: Satisfaction Level With Canon products.
« on: July 19, 2013, 12:11:40 AM »
I think they are OK.

(crickets) :-\

This is my exact response!! Thanks.
There was a time when OK referred to something being "all correct"...
There was also a time (now) when OK referred to the state where I live...  ;)

Canon General / Re: POLL: Satisfaction Level With Canon products.
« on: July 18, 2013, 09:46:11 PM »
90% isn't perfect.
Eh, polling is an inexact science. It's within the margin or error.   ;D

Canon General / Re: POLL: Satisfaction Level With Canon products.
« on: July 18, 2013, 06:50:52 PM »
I think they are OK.

(crickets) :-\

Where is the radio button for "it doesn't matter, i'm not upgrading"?

The only true limitation in my current setup is me, not my 5D3! I will happily skip whatever comes next and keep working on the true bottleneck.  ;)

Seriously, buy the smallest DSLR and put a grip on it?
The OM-D has a battery grip. I know it's not exactly the same thing. I'm just saying'...  :-\

Lenses / Re: 50 F1.4 durabilty question
« on: July 16, 2013, 11:13:48 AM »
I swear 50% of the "build quality" of L lenses is purely a marketing tactic.  They could have just as easily made plastic the "premium" material and dubbed it with some fancy name like "ultralight" line.  Metal has just as many downsides as it does positives, if you ask me.

I know one anecdote does not a study make... but about a month ago my stomach turned as I saw my 85L get knocked over and roll off a table and fall 3 feet onto the (carpeted) floor. Lots of pics since then have confirmed that it is no worse for wear WRT functionality and focusing accuracy.

Maybe the circumstances (fall distance, impact velocity/rotation/angle, floor material, etc.) were "ideal". Maybe it was just plain old luck. I don't plan on performing any more tests to see if I can duplicate the results under different conditions!  ;)

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 9