October 02, 2014, 08:57:53 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 - sagittariansrock

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 95
Lenses / Re: Inexpensive standard walk around lens question
« on: September 24, 2014, 02:38:24 PM »
You are spot on- it is the high risk of robbery especially for street photography.

Is Houston especially sketchy or something?  Maybe you should open carry an AR-15 around as well as the 24-70.  :D

I would feel more at risk carrying a gun without combat training :D
Without it, I can lose my camera; with it, someone can lose his/her life.
To answer the question- I saw a girl being relieved of her mobile phone at the bus stop just as the bus was arriving (I was in the bus), and there were at least another 10 people at the bus stop.

So yes, there is a bit of opportunistic crime and I think it is best not to tempt someone for whom selling the camera might mean food for the next week (or drugs, either the way the motivation is strong).

Thanks to CanonPriceWatch, I was about to spend another $ 373 on a 600EX-RT when I stopped at the last moment.
But it is a great price for the flash. Use the code TEDDYRFD. Shipping is free. I understand some low-end lenses are also included, but don't know which ones.

Lenses / Re: Inexpensive standard walk around lens question
« on: September 24, 2014, 12:55:30 PM »
Is there any reason why you don't want to carry an expensive lens? Do you live in an area high risk for robbery? I am not mocking you but I don't understand the logic.

I bought the same lens for almost 2 grands. I use it as much as possible to get the money's worth.

If you are bothered by the weight, that's a different matter but you didn't complain about that.

You are spot on- it is the high risk of robbery especially for street photography. My 5Dc+40mm costs ~$ 500. Not cheap, but not something I will claim insurance for.
I am not particularly strong, but the 24-70 doesn't feel heavy. It is actually an extremely balanced lens. Nothing wrong with wanting to use it as much as possible. I rarely never find a reason to keep it home other than security.

Lenses / Re: Inexpensive standard walk around lens question
« on: September 24, 2014, 12:52:57 PM »
I hate to say this, as I used to LOVE my old 24-105 as the IS was a great bonus...however since getting the 24-70 II....its made the camera almost a fixed lens as it hardly gets swapped out these days for much else.

I agree, the 24-70II is a lens killer. It most other lenses in the range redundant, and comes out shining every time- be it in the drenching conditions of Maid of the Mist or the dust of the Oregon dunes.

My walk around is the 5D3 with the 24-105/f4 IS L on it. Nice combo and lens offers sufficient versatility.

Hi FEBS, unfortunately the 24-105L is also at least $ 550 and a bit too much to pay for a zoom with the same range (70-105 doesn't matter much as I can easily crop if need be).

@sagittariansrock  and @brad-man  thanks for the info and link

@sagittariansrock: I would risk the 35 1.4L instead of putting more money for something you don't really need.
It is old, subject to upgrade and at the same time cheaper than the super 24-70 2.8 II.

Thanks for the logic. As you all have said the 35L makes most sense.
FYI, Henry's responded today saying US customers will be eligible for the CAD 2300 (approx USD 2100) price for the 7DII + 24-70, just won't get the gifts. So I guess I will have the opportunity to try the merits of the zoom after all, and at $ 300 it is a steal!

For your need. I vote Canon 24-105 STM, assuming it has high picture quality. The STM engine is very fast in 18-135mm and see no reason to believe that will slow the new 24-105mm.
Stay away from 28-135mm because the image quality is mediocre, and mechanics is disappointing. :-[

Its MTF curves are quite similar to 24-105L. The question is microcontrast, colours, flare resistence and etc. But for the price, it should be a bargain lens :)

Thanks for the suggestion, Ajfotofilm! Unfortunately the 24-105 is also more than $ 500, and in my books the constant aperture L counterpart is still a better lens all around for a still photographer. And both are a bit too pricey for an occasional replacement. Both are great bargains as the main lens, tho'.

Fuji X-E2 + 35 1.4

Best walk around. DSLR's are for work, mirrorless is for fun with friends.

Someday I might be able to afford to keep the vaunted Fuji cameras as a parallel line. At this point Canon is getting all my money by dint of compatibility  :)

I've found that my wife's G1X MK II is pretty good for a walk around camera, it does not match my 5D MK III for IQ, but its still very good.  The New G7 X is also going to have a lot of fans, I noticed on DPR that views have outnumbered 2-1 over the 7D MK II, so many people are looking at it.  It has a nice zoom range and many want a small size.    Having a 2nd camera is also nice.

I do have a 5Dc as a back up (getting more and more use nowadays for the street photography bit) and an M. But the G series suggestion is a good one, thanks!

I find the 24mm f2.8 IS quite a good choice. Interesting for larger subjects...

What about inexpensive 50mm lenses like EF 50 f/1.4 or even EF 50 f/1.8. It has a "hammer" price and IQ is just not bad for that price. For street photography wouldn't it be a good value especially on a FF body?

Another would be EF 40mm f/2.8 STM, but overlaps with your EF 35.


Thanks, Helios. I used to own the 50/1.8 and briefly owned the 50/1.4 thrice. They are quite capable lenses, but I think I am looking for something wider if it has to sometimes replace the zoom.
I do have the 40mm, but as I said when I CAN carry the 24-70, the 40mm becomes quite useless on its own.

Lenses / Re: Inexpensive standard walk around lens question
« on: September 24, 2014, 06:04:30 AM »
My walk around set up is a 6D with Sigma 35/1.4. It's kinda heavy, but 35mm makes an excellent "generic" focal length, imho, and the large aperture allows me to shoot handeld in very low light, or to creatively use the shallow DoF.
The 40/2.8 would be a great choice, but you say it doesn't offer any advantage other than weight and size over the zoom, but that's a lens costing 10 times the former. If you aren't satisfied with the small pancake, and want something cool to play with, i would try taking either a shorter focal length (24 or 28 IS), or biting the bullet and carry the heavier but fantastic 35/1.4. I wouldn't consider lens without USM or STM: i have a 50/1.8 II, and its AF motor is irritating.

I have the 35/1.4, as Tron had pointed out, and it's actually lighter than the Sigma (which I owned briefly). Problem is, it also costs north of 1K.

Lenses / Re: Inexpensive standard walk around lens question
« on: September 24, 2014, 05:48:07 AM »
Since you already have the 35/1.4L, why not carry that lens instead of 24-70/2.8L II?
+1...You've already got it.  :)


For me the 35mm 1.4 is one of the best choices for street photography.
For a trip or friends I would risk the 24-70 2.8 II.

Khalai, Paul and Tron- thanks for the advice. It is undoubtedly the most logical one. I am just worried that the 35/1.4 isn't exactly cheap either. But I guess I will rest easy thinking of Hill and Usher :)

Khalai, I feel the 35/2 IS will not interfere with the 50/1.4. The focal lengths are quite different. I am not a big fan of the 50/1.4, since it's not great wide open (and the 24-70II makes any f/2.8 and slower prime in the range redundant). I have heard great things about the 35/2 IS OTOH.

I can only fit in one body and one lens for a trip to Easter Island and Macho Picchu and it will be the 24-105mm and a 6D.  You can buy a used 24-105mm any day on Craigslist. It helps if you have a friend in a larger city it you are in a small town.  The last one I bought for a friend cost $500 and it was in the original retail box with all the original accessory items. 

For versatility nothing beats the 24-105mm on FF and you will be able to find one for less than 600 you can pick them up in the UK for £450.
There is a thread here of a guy selling one on the forum.

I was thinking about the 24-105, especially since it has IS. But the price is a bit too high for a lens of pretty much overlapping FL. Even used ones don't go below $ 550 on FredMiranda and the asking price on local CL is $ 600- it seems people are holding on to them still as the 24-70/4 hasn't come down in price yet. But it will, and the resale value of the 24-105s will go crashing.

I have emailed Henry's to confirm if US residents can avail of the discounted price on the lens [I don't think they can get the gift, and frankly I don't care about that]. If so, I shall keep the preorder and see how the 24-70/4 IS turns out. For $ 300, it is a big bargain (7DII plus 24-70 is CAD 2300, comes to about USD 2100 incl. shipping; 7DII is USD 1800). If not, I think it's the 35/1.4 then.
Anyone with personal experience of using the 28/1.8 and 35/2 lenses? I have heard mixed opinions- most people think they are mediocre and there are a few who swear by them.

Lenses / Re: Value of a 24-105
« on: September 24, 2014, 03:12:38 AM »
I sold one that was white box, new with US warranty for $ 700 with slight wait involved. So I would say about 60-70% of that, meaning $ $ 420-490.

Lenses / Inexpensive standard walk around lens question
« on: September 24, 2014, 03:09:36 AM »
Often I don't want to carry the expensive 24-70II with me and pick an inexpensive lens. The use is generally street photography, or a gathering of friends, or a short trip.

For the past few months it had been the 40mm which was perfectly fine if somewhat limited. It only replicates one FL of the amazingly versatile zoom but doesn't offer any additional advantage.

So I made a shortlist of some choices that are within the 24-70 range, below $ 500 and have some unique advantage  in addition to being a mere cheaper stand-in. None of them seem an obvious choice though (primarily due to the 35/1.4 being there, so if y'all can weigh in on one or the other or add other choices, I shall be much obliged.

1. 24mm f/2.8 IS (only as fast as the 24-70, but has IS- I don't own any other IS lens below 70mm, wider so overlaps less with my 35/1.4)
2. 28mm f/1.8 (cheaper and faster, but I am not sure of the IQ- if it is usable at f/1.8 and sharp at f/2.8 that should be good tho', FL too close to 35/1.4)
3. 28mm f/2.8 IS (same IS advantage, cheaper than the 24 IS, overlaps with my 35/1.4)
4. 35mm f/2 IS (arguably a very good lens, has IS, but overlaps too much with my 35/1.4)
5. 35mm f/2 (used)- (cheaper but again overlaps with the 35/1.4)
6. 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS (old and not such great image quality, but cheap and has IS and is a zoom)
7. 24-105mm f/4L IS (slight advantage of range, but a bit too costly at >$ 600)
8. 24-70mm f/4L IS (included here as I have pre-ordered it with the 7DII and it might end up costing just $ 300, but completely overlaps with my 24-70II)
9. 24-105mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM (slow and I am not a big fan of STM- don't do video and prefer the speed of USM)

Thanks so much!

Lenses / Re: Canon APS-C<Speedbooster<EF Lens. Possible?
« on: September 23, 2014, 10:53:50 PM »
Hi people!

I am sorry if this a stupid question but I have to ask in order to learn.

Is possible such a combination?: A Canon crop camera with a (I think not existing)speedbooster and any EF lens in order to gather the "extra" light the lens is providing and the sensor, due to its smaller surface, is not able to use. Would it improve APS-C sensor ISO performance?

Thanks in advance and sorry if it is a completly dumb question.
    Speedbooster is basically a focal reducer. IMHO, it's had nothing to do with sensor size as long as the original lens produce an image circle that can cover the sensor, but focal reducer will usually reduce the distance where the image is focus on, so it's difficult (if possible) to maintain flange focal distance of any lens and mount of the same type. That's why speedbooster only appear for SLR lens to mirrorless mount, so speedbooster for EF lens to EF mount might not be possible, but speedbooster for EF lens to EF-M mount is possible.

    Have a nice day.

Actually, it's a question of a physical entity (set of lenses) being interposed between the rearmost lens element and the camera mount. It might not be impossible with the Canon telephoto lenses that can take a teleconverter (and consequently have free space behind the rearmost lens element). The Speedbooster is essentially the exact opposite of a teleconverter.

To answer a question the OP had asked, yes- it does increase the amount of light. The Metabones one increases the equivalent angle of view by .71x and the light by 1 stop IIRC. And I am probably generalizing- these numbers might be specific to FF>APS-C. Too late for me to think it out :)

Lenses / Re: Canon APS-C<Speedbooster<EF Lens. Possible?
« on: September 23, 2014, 10:26:14 PM »
I believe it is technically possible with the mirror less EF-M due to the small flange distance from the mount to the mirror (so additional converging elements like a speed booster can be interposed). Most likely not with a EF-S SLR mount.
I think the hangup with the EF-M is that Metabones probably doesn't want to commit resources into developing it until they know whether or not Canon will continue the line.

Edit: FYI, Metabones already makes Speedboosters for the NEX line of MILCs.

Lenses / Re: Do you keep all your boxes?
« on: September 23, 2014, 06:01:13 PM »
I generally keep my boxes for the resale value thing, but could not keep those for my 24-70II, 35L, 135L, TS-E 17mm and the 1.4xIII and 2xIII tele-converters because they got shipped to my family home.

Now, hopefully I will not have to resell any of these (confident about the 24-70II, TS-E 17mm and the tele-converters not so much about the others), and the space saving has been enormous. However, it does worry me. Where can one get used boxes? Would it not have a different serial number? If detected, wouldn't that create a worse impression than not having a box? Dunno...

Photography Technique / Re: Square or not?
« on: September 22, 2014, 07:33:35 PM »
I liked the rectangular orientation better. Two reasons:
The orientation of the subject in the rectangular frame is more appealing to me as it feels like it's slowly spreading (spilling?) outwards on two sides.
The black space on the sides seem to enhance the brightness of the subject and acts as a negative space where the spill (as above) would spread out.

I generally crop this kind of images square, but this special case seems to need a different treatment in my opinion.

EOS-M / Re: EOS M Accessory question
« on: September 21, 2014, 10:57:01 PM »

The Dashpoint 20 is a good fit for the M+22.  I use a hard case for storage and travel with my M system now.  I use the Think Tank Mirrorless Mover 20 to carry the M, 2 lenses, batteries, etc when I'm out and about.  I also have a 3" aluminum rod tube to carry my M, 2 lenses, and accessories when I'm hiking/backpacking.

The Dashpoint 20 has arrived, and I love it!
What is a rod tube?!?

Sorry, custom aluminum tube for fly rods that I had made to carry my M safely in a backpack when I was getting one made for a new Tenkara fly rod.  Here's the post

Here's the local shop that made mine - http://www.landmarkflyrodtubes.com/

Wow! That's very innovative!

Photography Technique / Re: POLL: Did you peak and what did you do about it?
« on: September 21, 2014, 08:21:16 PM »
voted option one and adding- 'hopefully'.

EOS Bodies / Re: Interview hints to future new Canon mount type
« on: September 21, 2014, 03:11:28 PM »
Whatever improvements Canon might make elsewhere, they won't be competitive in the sub-APS-C market unless they really improve their sensors.
That is only my opinion, of course.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 95