April 21, 2014, 11:54:14 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 ... 48
I had the Canon and I experimented with the Tokina before buying it.
I think the Canon is a better choice due to excellent IQ, wider FL, surprisingly little distortion for an ultrawide, full time manual override, and now you can get it for great prices (although that totally throws the resale value argument out the window, it has probably gone as low as it can go).
Unless you think f/2.8 is worth trading ALL the above for, the answer is clear to me (ok, except the IQ- they are more or less at par).

And part of the reason I was asking is because I did have the 135L at $635 and change and now buying the 85L mkii at $1440, it doesn't seem like as much of a bargain... and that is what I have having a tough time wrapping my head around.

Makes sense. In that case, I noticed that while Canon sells refurbs at $ 1400-ish, people sell used lenses for nothing less than $ 1600. So that makes $ 1440 sound like a good deal- but only if you aren't able to take advantage of Canon's deals.
For that matter even used 135L's sell for not less than $ 900 nowadays...

Both are great for portraits, the 85mm focal length is more versatile, IMO.  135mm is good for individual headshots.  Your signature indicates you have the 70-200 II, f/2 is close, f/1.2 isn't so close.

While I agree the 85mm FL is more versatile, would you say the 85L as a lens is more versatile than the 135L?
On the other hand, the OP does say the main focus is portraiture- so the 85L is a better lens on an FF camera (from the perspective point of view, pun unintended, in strictly my opinion).
JD, my suggestion to buy the 135L is purely based on the assumption you will get the 85L later. I was merely responding to your original post before you changed it, where you wanted to know which was a better deal.

135L for 635-ish, if your State doesn't have sales tax. Refurbished 135L goes for $ 696 and 85L II for $ 1407, with 20% discounts (which you will surely get :) )

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Advise Please
« on: April 19, 2014, 11:41:03 AM »
I don't know if shooting on Auto will help learn though.
Frankly I shoot horribly on Auto, and that is since I ditched my last fixed focus film camera (means has nothing to do with using SLRs), and consequently have a hard time with smartphones and elph cameras.
Fast movement- go with Tv, auto ISO, auto WB at least. Try to shoot RAW if possible, or both- then you get flexibility of tweaking and practicing with some of the images while not holding up the pipeline.
My humble 2c.

Software & Accessories / Re: Chuck a 5dmk iii in a rucksack
« on: April 19, 2014, 01:39:22 AM »
I have heard keeping the lens detached is safer as the mount is the part which gets stressed most (unless you are using a customized camera padding).
So the bodybag or similar stuff might be better.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Ants nesting in my 5D!
« on: April 19, 2014, 01:36:16 AM »
I'll see what I can do, but since I evicted the twenty or so I first discovered I only see the occasionally and less often inside the camera, more on the outside. If I get them I will try and post a video. No promises though!

Um... is this a 5D classic by any chance...  :-X

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Ants nesting in my 5D!
« on: April 19, 2014, 12:12:04 AM »
Sorry, no advice - but can you post a picture if you see one crawling around?
Good Luck!

The ants are only in the viewfinder. They don't get between the lens and sensor, I could take a photo of an ant on my camera but a black ant on a black camera would have poor contrast and make a terrible photo!

I'll take a wild guess and say Ahab referred to taking a photo with a different camera. I suggest a video instead though. Doubtless it will go viral!

Anyway, maybe you can try putting it in a ziplock bag and filling the bag with something that replaces oxygen (they won't use it up until doomsday otherwise)? Like dry ice? You might have a few dead ants in the camera though.


Jon, I see your point. However, purchasing a more advanced camera will defeat the point of having a cheap second fiddle for me. Even the 5DII doesn't go for lower than 1K, and for that money I'd rather pay extra and get the 6D.


Lenses / Re: EF 24-70 f2.8L II Shutter Speedss
« on: April 18, 2014, 10:47:33 PM »
The 1/FL 'rule' should be 1/2xFL or more for today's higher resolution digital sensors (and higher still for crop sensors).

Personally, I use a minimum shutter speed setting of 1/125 s.

+1. There is a setting on 5DIII to restrict speeds slower than a set point (with auto ISO).

Thanks for the suggestions aj, gshocked and Don regarding the 7D/70D, however:
I just sold my 7D after buying my 5DIII because I simply don't see a role for APS-C camera for me any more.
While the 7D and 70D are excellent cameras,

1. They aren't as cheap.
2. They won't replace my FF focal lengths or replicate the DoF I can get (this really is the most important aspect I want my backup to have the same sensor size- which is why I am not considering the 60D either).
3. Won't be as good in high ISO- now that, of course, is a presumption. I am presuming the 5Dc will be better than any crop sensor camera at ISO, say 1600. Is that true? I am only thinking theoretically having never used the 5D. The 5DII, of course, blows the 7D out of the water.

Now what you say about getting a used 5DII instead makes more sense, except that won't be possible for me right now.
I suppose I can always wait a few months and save a bit more, and hope 5DII prices come down as well. Of course, the 5DII is a fantastic camera- just could never stand missing the 7D AF. But for a 2nd camera it isn't a problem. Hmmm (THOUGHTFUL SMILEY)

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: How to Annoy a Photography Snob
« on: April 18, 2014, 12:54:42 PM »
Some highly amusing banter going on here. Just my two cents to the 'must shoot RAW' snob line, for which I am sure I will get flamed...

I think that probably for many posters on this forum, the use of jpeg is the more sensible choice. The file sizes are a lot smaller and you have to be fairly decent at photoshop before you get any overall noticeable improvement in final picture quality with RAW. Just coming from looking at the 'Show us your best landscape picture' thread where some peoples best pictures are IMO not great (a tree branch in flat light). Not intentially trying to knock those people or their pictures per se but there is little evidence they have sufficient post-processing ability to ensure the careful, artistic and selective use of what are essentially extremely heavy handed techniques such as de-noising, sharpening etc necessary to improve on most DSLR's in-camera processing. Having out of the camera useable jpegs also might get round the 'death by editing' syndrome, where all objectivity goes out the window in favour of a faux-HDR, totally over-processed look. I should know, I've been there myself!

While I decry those who advocate RAW shooting as the be all, end all of photography- I have a similar feeling about those who strongly criticize shooting in RAW and PP-ing. Shooting RAW has a lot of benefits, and actually just ONE disadvantage- file size.

A person isn't born with 'decent' Photoshop talents- he learns his way, and he learns by making mistakes and getting feedback.

Snobbishness implies thinking of oneself as superior to others, and I feel the proponents of 'getting it in the camera' are as guilty as the other camp in this case.

Canon General / Re: Helen Oster
« on: April 18, 2014, 12:38:08 PM »
Many happy returns of the day, Helen!

Also kudos to Sanj and the CR members. This was a beautiful gesture of appreciation.

There isn't anything wrong with your plan to buy a 5D for use as a 2nd body, but I wouldn't do it. For the money, I'd rather buy a more modern crop body with controls and interface more similar to the 5D3.

Jon, I see your point. However, purchasing a more advanced camera will defeat the point of having a cheap second fiddle for me. Even the 5DII doesn't go for lower than 1K, and for that money I'd rather pay extra and get the 6D. Maybe if I shoot 20K pictures in 2014 I will reward myself with a second 5DIII (not a question of quantity really, just challenging myself to go out and shoot more).

It's all good, and I certainly understand your objective of not wanting to risk damage to -- or loss of -- an expensive body in hazardous environments.

I also agree that you could get a good-quality 5D for well under $1K, but it wasn't clear to me that that was your price ceiling.

Given the low prices for 5D bodies, my concern would then shift to how expensive a lens you plan to mount on it when you're roaming about risky terrain. After all, the body is only half of the (camera / investment) equation.

That's easy, it would be either my 50 1.8 or my 35A.

Lenses / Re: Sigma vs Zeiss vs Canon
« on: April 18, 2014, 03:05:46 AM »
Hah! That is actually an old technique used in cinematography for the dreamy effect. It doesn't give you spherical blur circles, though, just the soft highlights.

Isn't there a net-like filter or something for that?

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 48