October 22, 2014, 03:11:57 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 5 ... 96
31
Lenses / Re: Inexpensive standard walk around lens question
« on: September 24, 2014, 10:28:12 PM »
Thanks all for the very sensible advice. This was probably a great example of an anti-G.A.S. thread where a simple and available solution was eluding me and everyone pitched in to open my eyes. Once again, I am very grateful to this great forum.

Now, I have to decide whether to cancel the 24-70 order or to resell it after test-driving the 7D...

32
Lenses / Re: Inexpensive standard walk around lens question
« on: September 24, 2014, 10:23:00 PM »
I bought the eos M because I want to hand over a cheap camera to strangers when I need to be in the picture. It proved to be a great idea after a recent vacation. People have no problem using it and were surprised by how fast the camera shoots. Yup, people who are used to p&s and phone camera have no idea the M can shoot so fast.
I think you should keep your 5d mk 3 and your standard lens in your bag. Then shoot with your M. When you see something you really like and you know you're safe, you use your 5d. That's what I'd do if I was in your situation.
I don't think getting a cheaper lens would solve any problem other than relieving GAS. As long as you have something big around your neck, it draws attention. If you use M, which you shady have anyway, you can keep it in your jacket or your pocket if you have baggy pants.

Indeed I also bought the M because bystanders feel comfortable using a camera with LCD for composition.
Your observation makes a ton of sense. Keep the 5D in the bag and use M if I feel unsafe. And indeed, I do not use a neck strap with the M.
I think that is great advice. Thanks!

The answer is simple, use a 35mm lens. You already have the 35mm 1.4, I carry with my 5D3 the 35mm f2IS, it's the best in image quality, weight and IS.

Indeed, sometimes simple answers are difficult to see until someone points them out :) thanks a lot!

I would vote for insuring your gear and using some combination you already have.

I do have them insured, and once again, very sound advice.

33
Lenses / Re: EF 24-70mm
« on: September 24, 2014, 10:16:09 PM »
just checked out their website. Sounds pretty straightforward and legit. Anyone who has direct experience with them?

I have not bought through street prices, but here are some things that they advertise and these are easily verified (and should be verified, IMO):
1. You will be dealing directly with the dealer.
2. It will be the same as buying from the dealer with warranty, returns, etc. as applicable.
3. Only authorized Canon dealers participate.
The reason for street prices to exist is the dealers cannot advertise the discounted prices openly, so CPW acts as a middleman bringing in potential buyers at the actual discounted price (or maybe a bit higher, taking commissions into consideration). So you are not buying from CPW.

34
Lenses / Re: EF 24-70mm
« on: September 24, 2014, 07:50:03 PM »
Canon price watch offers a street price of about $ 1900, no tax and full US warranty from an authorized dealer.
The lens is simply superb. Tough as nails, and exceptional even wide open (I hardly stop it down unless I am looking for higher DoF).

35
Lenses / Re: Inexpensive standard walk around lens question
« on: September 24, 2014, 03:12:12 PM »
People that want to rob your camera are likely cannot tell if it is a 5Dc or 5DIII. All they know is a BIG ( read it as expensive) camera. May be you should stay away from the area that is not safe. Your EOS-M should serve you well. It is small and cheap.

+1  The EOS-M looks (and is priced like) an inexpensive P&S, so most thieves would probably not look at it twice.  The M and 22/2 lens make a terrific general purpose option with very good to excellent IQ.


That's it. A thief does not know if his target is the old 5D, or the venerable 5D Mark iii. When the thief get close, he will not say:
 :-["Sorry, I'm not going to steal because I saw that it is an old camera." :P

I understand that the tranquility is part of the pleasure of photographing, and be discreet about it helps a lot. Although the OP did not ask Suggested camera, I have to say what a great set would be:
Rebel SL1 + 24mm STM + 40mm STM.

+2. That's exactly why I got the M. Also inconspicuousness makes for better poses.

36
Lenses / Re: Inexpensive standard walk around lens question
« on: September 24, 2014, 02:46:31 PM »
I'd vote for the 35 f/2 IS. It's the lens I covet most (excluding crazily expensive ones). Supposedly excellent image quality, and although you're losing a stop of aperture, you're gaining ~4 in IS, which in lots of situations will help. But that's just me :)

I agree with the logic. I decided to go with the 35/1.4 and I am not sure if that was the right decision yet. It is a very nice lens, but I haven't used it to its potential yet. OTOH I have no IS-enabled lens in the standard range.
However, I have noticed that speeds less than 1/30 is pretty useless for anyone who is moving. So I haven't really *missed* IS yet.

37
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).

38
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.

39
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.

40
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.

Regards, 


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.



41
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.

42
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.  :)

-pw


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.
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=22888.msg444303;topicseen#new

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.

43
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.

44
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!

45
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.
Hi,
    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 :)

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 96