March 04, 2015, 02:30:41 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 - Nishi Drew

Pages: 1 ... 11 12 [13] 14 15 ... 17
Sigma did reintroduce the 120-300 F/2.8 and that didn't quite need an update, they just bumped it up with the new design, likely with no optical difference. But, since 35 is the other 'normal' and too close in application to the 50 I think Sigma went for getting good reviews with the 35 to then move forward with the new reputation and would introduce another 50mm. I don't think we'll see an update soon though, and the 85 1.4 is great so they might bring back some of their fast wide primes eventually?

Concerning the price, I think many of you forget there's a Zeiss 35mm f/2 in front of that tiny thing :)
It's a Zeiss that costs 800-1000 tops!

What I heard though, is that's no Zeiss lens, it's a design collaboration between Zeiss and Sony, Sony made the lens with some Zeiss expertise, or just enough support to justify slapping a Zeiss logo on the thing. If it were actually a Zeiss lens, the RX1 wouldn't be $2800

Lenses / Re: 50mm 1.2
« on: November 29, 2012, 03:05:34 AM »
Once I moved to the 5DII my 50 f/1.4 just sunk itself, it was good enough even wide open on a crop body, but now the overall image with that harsh bokeh is not pleasing to me. I shoot mostly at F/2 ~ F/2.8, and those settings produce better bokeh, though highlights begin to show octagon shape and that's not always cool.
So for me it's either the 50L or Sigma 50, or I just go with the new Sigma 35 for something different~

55-250 AND 70-300??? Kit makes no senses at all, yeah, just getting rid of stock, and the T3i is jumped by the similar-in-every-way T4i, but you'll only get a T3 if it were cheap.... the inclusion of the card is nice though, not the usual Transcend deal, although, I add a bit more to this price and it's a used 7D, even with good use as a pro body it'll probably still outlast an unused cheapo one

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sigma 35 f/1.4 DG HSM First Impressions
« on: November 24, 2012, 11:29:11 AM »
I had the 35L. simply amazing lens!! If price was near equal, why buy Sigma? I'm not put off by 3rd party glass, a I love Tokina and some Tammys I've owned. I would try to get a used copy for about 700 or so once plenty are in the market....assuming the lens is as good as advertised.

because the sigma is a better lens than canon optically and mechanically? also someone would prefere the gold ring than red one

Don't you mean, you'd rather a silver "A" than the red ring?

Canon General / Re: Photography websites. Where are you posting?
« on: November 19, 2012, 02:40:07 AM »
I find that facebook is a good place to post photos I want to share with family, friends, and bands I shoot, and.....

I've removed all my photos from facebook. I found it's too easy to steal from facebook and had issues with a "friend" who had copied some of my photos and posted them on her page and presented them as if she had taken them. All without my consent and no credit given. The security settings on my albums are set to prevent copying and printing.

There's no way to secure photos posted on the web. One can always pull a copy of the photo out of the browser's cache, make a screenshot of the browser and crop the photo out of it, etc.

True, it's a question of whether or not you do/how you watermark. A small signature can get cropped out, sure, but it's that much more work to 'steal'

Portrait / Re: Shooting a soccer portrait for a friend
« on: November 14, 2012, 08:17:36 AM »
My eyes go to the lights first, to the face, then wander back to the lights.
I like the shot, the lights give the stadium feel, but they are quite bright

EOS Bodies / Re: A Brief 2013 Canon Roadmap [CR1]
« on: November 13, 2012, 10:59:26 PM »

135 F/1.8L IS USM <----- I Really wants one.

135 f/1.4L IS USM

That would put it in relative aperture size and MSRP to the 200 f/2.0L IS USM ....   ;D

There exists a Vivitar 135 F/1.5 from times past, and creates interesting imagery, but it's huge and not very light weight, something that the 135L has that is nice is it's good size, weight and sharpness. If the bokeh is great, creamy and without much CA then that's better than simply going shallower IMO (it can "feel" shallower too). It would be nice to shoot faster for those definite low light shoots, but ISO performance is getting better and better, so what compromises do we mind or don't for going for a faster 135L? It'll be cool though

EOS Bodies / Re: Has Canon entered the Graveyard Spiral?
« on: November 12, 2012, 09:14:30 PM »
Ahh yes, OP is complaining that Canon has been pathetically behind since the D300, a now 5 year old camera. Why haven't you switched five years ago then? Obviously smart enough to see that Canon was behind and would remain behind and useless because you can't figure out how to set your bloody ISO!!... oh wait... troll bait....?
If only I could lavish in those L glass and 1D bodies... well then the tech will be better than what I am capable of I'll admit that, I'm happy with the more-than-capable 5DII and my Siggy lenses, the direction of manufacturers based on their top-speced gear matters to the few that will actually be able to make such an investment, so by the time (if ever, of course) Canon can meet or exceed Sonikon then I might be able to actually purchase good tech, and in the mean time it's time take more pictures.

Lenses / Re: 50mm
« on: November 09, 2012, 06:20:25 AM »
I just moved to FF, and my canon 50mm 1.4 isn't so grand anymore, it's still sharp where it needs to be, but the bokeh really could be a lot better. On crop the lens performs nicely wide open, the center sharpness and what bokeh you get is smooth, but with the whole image circle I don't like the harsh background, also need 8+ afma. My Sigma 70-200 OS is beautiful in comparison, and convinces again that the Sigma 50 would be nice, sharpness is important, but I would rather have creamy bokeh than the best sharpness when I'm already shooting wide open. Since, if I'm going to be stopping down so often then why not get a zoom lens, one gets a fast prime to shoot fast right?

Lenses / Re: 35mm lenses vs 24-70
« on: November 07, 2012, 07:27:56 PM »
*Sigh* so little love for Sigma, go ahead and break the bank for outdated Canon equivalents but the AF issues with Sigma haven't come up much at all with the upper end lenses in recent times, most issues are AFMA-able anyways, and my Sigma 70-200 OS needed less AFMA adjustment then my Canon 50 1.4 while all I see anywhere is how the Sigma 50 is superior to the Canon shot wide open. While the Sigma 85 is sharp and produces great bokeh for half of what the 85L goes for. SO, judging by recent trends I'm looking at the new 35, the bokeh could be smoother than the 35L and probably be as sharp or better in the center wide open. We will see, the 35 f2 IS is in the same league for price, and for video use that lens would be great for general shooting...

Lenses / Re: Canon Announces New Lens Caps!
« on: November 06, 2012, 01:27:01 AM »
Still no solution to caps just getting in my way and remaining as just another part of a kit that needs to be looked out for

Lenses / Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS
« on: November 05, 2012, 06:51:11 AM »
The 24-70 better be cheaper than Tamron's 2.8 VC equivalent, although I feel the Canon would be better weather sealed and the macro option is good. It just comes down to price, this thing will either be way over what anyone expects it to be at (canon mentality of "half" of 24-70 2.8?), or it will be so cheap people will buy it just because, like the pancake!

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Nikon Sales Rising
« on: November 05, 2012, 06:32:37 AM »
Nikon has been targeting newer markets, where Canon stays where they've always sold. Nikon practically took over India with Canon barely on the sales ranking. Nikon at the top and I think Sony right after for DSLRs. As an emerging economy with lots of people in this age of social media Nikon jumped in for the opportunity and are scoring.

Lenses / Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS
« on: November 05, 2012, 06:21:29 AM »
Ah, finally an "affordable" 35 that will replace the previous affordable one that's not too great? Nope, Sigma beat them with their 35mm 1.4 which would be coming out this month some time? Or not, maybe these two will be priced around the same seeing how the new IS wide primes are, and how Siggy primes aren't "that" cheap, only in comparison to L.
But it is funny how third party lens manufacturers are beating the big companies to the punch with lenses

Pages: 1 ... 11 12 [13] 14 15 ... 17