March 03, 2015, 12:06:46 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 - SJTstudios

Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10
Lenses / Re: Next Lens
« on: October 16, 2012, 08:29:29 PM »
I'd go for the 24-70 ii, it is a perfect 1 lens setup for weddings and portraits.

Regarding the 50mm vs the 85mm, a 50 would go really well with FF, and the 1.2 is great. It is a necessary step up from the 1.2. The 85 is great for bokeh, but is a specialty lens. The 1.8 85 is swell, and gives you an ok depth of field, as well as fast focusing. My friend has the 85 1.2, and I have the 100mm l as well, so we did a comparison. The dofis amazing on the 85, but the 100's telephoto capabilities reall blew out the background and gave great image compression. The 50 is a better lens for weddings, especially since that is where you'd need it most (since you have the 1.8 now) and the 85 1.8 is stellar, carrying around the 1.2 at a wedding will really be a hindrance, because you'll see a perfect moment, and then have to switch to another lens.

Get the 50, once you get more into static portraiture, get the 85.

Animal Kingdom / Re: A day at Disney's Animal Kingdom - Orlando
« on: October 14, 2012, 09:48:23 PM »
I love disney, we live right in Florida, so we go over for a day or 2 just about every other month. I find it to be a really good street shooting places, and that is where I always test drive my new gear . I never carry lots of stuff, because then you just miss the Disney atmosphere. I never bring a gimp, but I dod bring my 75-300, sometimes just to go light.

If photography is all all about the photo and the mood, why not
 Use a prime, it turns into a run and gun style for me, and I get some stunning photographs.

Lenses / Re: Canon fd lenses
« on: October 12, 2012, 12:08:51 PM »
I'm just probably put in the cash for the canon, but more importantly, I need to find some lenses that may be worth paying for. I thing I've already decided on the fd 85mm 1.2

Lenses / Re: Which Prime: 50L or 35L?
« on: October 12, 2012, 12:07:08 PM »
I'd go for the 35 l, for same reasons everyone else says, just for a more usable prime than a 50. Your 24-70, and 70-200 may work better for portraiture if you stand back, so get the 35 first. Than, if you really want bokeh, the 85mm 1.2 l ii would work better than a 50 for portraits. A fifty is a specialized lens, so is the 85, but if you really need to ask the question, perhaps the 50mm l 1.2 isn't for you. It is after-all "the fast-fifty" the 35 will work well as a general first prime, the 50 was made to replace the 50mm 1.0 and fill in the gap between the 35 and 85, for those who use primes. Get the 35, and then the 85 for the "real" bokeh, because a zoom fills the gap better than a 50mm.

Also, for those who say its hard to use the 35 up close, they're right, but a zoom is better for candies and headshots, a 35 fits more in, and that's hard to mess up a shot with, you need to be quick to move if you want to capture that moment with a 50

Lenses / Canon fd lenses
« on: October 11, 2012, 08:41:24 PM »
Hey, I'm looking at some old canon fd bodies, for a film class I'm doing.
I'd like to know what some good fd primes would be.
I'd like to stay under 1000 for the total, and I'm going to get an fd to ef adapter, so I can use them mf.
I'd like a fast 50, a short telephoto, and maybe a wideangle and an ultrawide

Lenses / Re: If you could only have 2 lenses for a wedding...
« on: October 04, 2012, 06:03:55 PM »
#1: a canon 24-70 mk ii, for the versatility and speed

#2: canon 85 1.2 L ii/my 100mm 2.8 L/canon 135 f2 for extra length, and the bokeh telephoto capabilities.

Lenses / Re: 70-200 f/4 vs. 200 f/2.8
« on: October 04, 2012, 11:35:00 AM »
I'd go for a 70-200 f4, because if you ever need low light, you can just stick on the 85, and crop in later, it just seems like the versatility would help in your case.
Unless, you shoot static subjects like portraits, or you need all the zoom you can get, just get the 200mm.

And I don't mean to be rude, but this is a relatively easy question, unless you haven't decided what path you want to take.

They both are equally as sharp when stopped down, so it is all based on your preference.

I stuck with my 75-300, and got a 100mm macro l.

If you still have a 70/75-300 keep it, and get either a 135 f2 or a sigma 150 2.8.
F4 isn't that much of a change, because a 70-300 at 200 is 4.5

That way, you get a telephoto for distance with good light, and when you need low light, you have an fast lens with good enough quality to crop in on.

I've alway been told, you should get the lens that improve your photography, that is why I got some prime rather than a 70-200. And now, since all I need to get better is some more l glass, that is where I go.
So in finale, get the 200 or the 135 f2. And I don't mean to be rude, but getting a 70-200 f4 as your first lens (after having an 18-55 and 70/75-300) is one of the worst moves. All it does is give you sharper images, rather than getting a prime, which makes you think about your image.

Lenses / Sigma 300mm
« on: October 01, 2012, 06:43:14 PM »
Popular 3rd party 300mm
Sigma 300mm 2.8-$3,399
Sigma 120-300 2.8 os-$3,199

Why is this???

The 120-300 is newer, is a zoom, so it should be more expensive, has os, and apparently faster af.

Why is the prime more expensive?

Lenses / Canon 200mm 2.8 l ii: what's the deal
« on: September 30, 2012, 11:15:33 PM »
Ive seen lately that this les is one of canons most undersold lenses, why.
The only reason I've heard why people haven't upgraded, is because most people with a 70-300 or 75-300 go to a 70-200 f4. But this lens is even cheaper, and it is 2.8.

Lenses / Canon 50mm f1.4 is (L?)
« on: September 29, 2012, 09:36:56 PM »
What do you expect to seein this new lens if it comes out any time soon

Lenses / The sports and wildlife king.
« on: September 29, 2012, 08:57:33 PM »
This poll is not based on what your line of expertise, this is a wildlife/sports competition.
Pretend you aone going on a wildlife expedition, or to a sports game. You are going to use this lens handheld, with a monopod, a tripod, extenders, etc.
Which would you choose.

Like neuro said, these primes are more suited for portraiture.  The Canon is better wide open.  If you want corner to corner sharpness for more landscape type shots, then the 24-70 II is sharper (according to the TDP ISO comparison) and would be a better choice.

I've already determined that for the time being, I don't need a 24-70, I just don't need one right now

My question is clear, sigma has a cheaper 50mm 1.4, that is newer, and made for digital camera, with all it's coatings, and apparently it has a special digital focusing system. But, then there is the 1.2 l, it has about half a stop of luminosity more, which I don't know what difference that makes, and it's an "l" lens.

Please keep in mind that I'm asking which is better in total and in different ways.

This is to fill a gap in my range, (16-35 and 70-200 2.8 is ii), so I'm looking for one that won't fail me

Lenses / Canon 300 2.8 (is)
« on: September 29, 2012, 09:48:13 AM »
Hey guys, I'm working on some wildlife now, and my 70-200 2.8 is ii and my extenders aren't giving me enough reach.
I found a local photographer wanting to sell his canon 300 2.8 l non-is.

My question is, will using the lens with the extenders even on a monopod case blurry photos?
Sharpness is also important since I'm doing some large prints.
Should I try to negotiate a deal with him, or should I just save up and get the is 1 or 2?

Lenses / Re: Manual Focus Lenses: Smarter in F-Mount?
« on: September 29, 2012, 09:40:49 AM »
Sorry for the misinterpretation befor.
You could always get some canon fd L lenses, they are decent quality (unless heavily used), pretty cheap, nice mf, and they won't loose any resale value. All you have to do is buy an adapter, and then you don't have to worry about switching to Nikon if you want to use af. An adapter and 3 lenses will cost you about $1000.
That way you can stay in the canon game with the good dslrs and good af lenses.

This is one of the cheapest ways to get good manual focus lenses, because remember, years ago when mf was the only way to focus, canon was still at the top with their mf l lenses.

Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10