Messages

91

Lenses / Re: EF 24-70 F/2.8L II USM on 7D

« on: December 13, 2012, 06:19:02 AM »

I was basically in your situation, except with a 60D (i've got a 10-22 as well as a 70-200 f/4 IS).
I was thinking of getting a 17-55 IS, and I was pleased with the results using it on a 60D for a day.  But then I actually bought the 24-70 II (without even testing it) and I'm not regretting it.  But then again, I am planning to upgrade to full frame in the early quarter of next year.

Even on a crop sensor camera, this lens still has so much potential.  It's just full frame can bring out all it's potential.

Plus, with your 7D (if you're keeping it for a while), you've got a good coverage of focal lengths- 10-22 + 24-70.

My friend BrandonKing96, how about this lens perform at low light?

i mean when you shot using this lens at low light place like church, hall & etc (without using speedlight) at f/2.8, ISO around 800-1600 & shutter 1/125 (base on focal X 1.6 to avoid camera shake when hand held) its still enough light? or need to boost ISO over 1600?

im sorry asking this noob question, because i dont have any lens faster than f/3.5 

btw, thanks for sharing

To me, it performs brilliantly! Even though I've only got that 9 AF point compared to your 19 (lol I think it's that).
You'll be blown away by it's f/2.8 performance for low light.  I was! I only had 3.5 as my fastest before as well (coincidentally, the 10-22).  But even so I think when I finally add some primes after I upgrade to 5D III, those low light performances will absolutely shock me at what I've been missing out on haha
And also, it may just be harder to get the sharper shots due to the weight of the lens.  But you get used to it.  I'm used to it now after only 2 weeks of having it! But I've learned not to be afraide to jump up to ISO 2500 now.. even 3200 (although i'm using it on a 60D). But I think you'll find you'll be quite please with this lens if you choose to get it. 
But this is me talking about the 24-70 II still, not including the 17-55.  perhaps someone would come along with information to sway your decision.  But both lenses are amazing lenses.  The 17-55 is good for it's price, but pointless if you upgrade to full frame in the near future, and the 24-70 II is worth it's money!

92

Lenses / Re: EF 24-70 F/2.8L II USM on 7D

« on: December 12, 2012, 06:48:17 PM »

I was basically in your situation, except with a 60D (i've got a 10-22 as well as a 70-200 f/4 IS).
I was thinking of getting a 17-55 IS, and I was pleased with the results using it on a 60D for a day.  But then I actually bought the 24-70 II (without even testing it) and I'm not regretting it.  But then again, I am planning to upgrade to full frame in the early quarter of next year.

Even on a crop sensor camera, this lens still has so much potential.  It's just full frame can bring out all it's potential.

Plus, with your 7D (if you're keeping it for a while), you've got a good coverage of focal lengths- 10-22 + 24-70.

93

Lenses / Re: What's your dream lens

« on: December 05, 2012, 12:23:19 AM »

My realistic dream lens was the 24-70 II but now I own that..  But I suppose adding IS to the 24-70 f/2.8 and 85 f/1.2L would be nice.
And an EF 14-24 f/2.8L would definitely be on the top of my wishlist if/when it is created.
Perhaps even an EF 50 f/0.95L USM (I wouldn't mind it being manual focus because it could be faster in some instances).
I better stop there before I get way too far out of hand and less realistic.

94

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 6D High ISO Noise Tests

« on: December 05, 2012, 12:20:09 AM »

Ill be testing out the Wifi Features tomorrow (from what I saw tonight...they are impressive. Say goodbye to tethered shooting!)

I'm curious as to how the Wifi features work.  If I understand correctly, you can trigger the shutter release from your phone.  Is that correct?  If so, how much of a delay is there between when you press the "shutter release" button on your phone to when the camera makes the exposure?  Thanks in advance for any input.

Watch Digitalrevs review of the 6D on youtube.  There's a moment where he shows the usage of the shutter release from his iPhone.

95

EOS Bodies / Re: First Round of EOS 7D Mark II Specs [CR1]

« on: November 27, 2012, 12:16:50 AM »

If there's one thing that stood out to me (more than the other things), it would be the "new battery".  Why?

96

Lenses / Re: 24-70 or 70-200??

« on: November 21, 2012, 12:58:35 AM »

Depends on what you're using it for.  Both are great lenses, but it really depends on what you're using it for.  If you want the longer reach go for the 70-200 but if you want a wider lens, then the 24-70.  But that's all I can say for now.
Best of luck

97

Lenses / Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS

« on: November 06, 2012, 04:59:53 AM »

What the point of having a 24-70 4L IS AND 24-105 4L IS in the line-up? Isn't it a no-brainer to just get the 105?

Wouldn't be a no-brainer thinking the 24-70 f/4 would have better optic quality than an older lens?  Sorry if I sound sarcastic, but it is the truth.  And most people wouldn't need the extra reach.

98

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 1d4 or 1d3 +lens

« on: November 03, 2012, 09:42:38 PM »

I'd go for the 1D III over the 1D IV in your situation.  (I'd only go for the 1D IV because I use video as well)

If you pick up the 70-200 f/2.8 as well, I'd be inclined to sell your 70-300 and 50D.. And if you could afford it, possibly sell your 28-135 and pick up a 24-70 f/2.8 mark I   Or pick up some primes. 

Best of luck!

99

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Nikon's new 70-200mm f/4 VR rated 5-stops

« on: October 31, 2012, 06:14:06 AM »

Being realistic, the Nikon would most likely out perform the Canon. 
Realistic? What ever do I mean?!

The Canon 70-200 f/4 IS was released in 2006.  No doubt a great light and more affordable option compared to the f/2.8, but it is a little old (I wouldn't mind Canon releasing a mark II of this, to be honest.  the f/4 IS is so outdated now, although a great option).  Even though it does perform magnificently with it's optics, AF, etc., the Nikon would most like be using more recent technology.  I guess we'll see with comparisons, but Nikon should take the cake because of how new it is. 

I'll just wait and see what it's like though (not insinuating that I'm going to switch to Nikon.  NEVER WOULD I!).

The 70-200 f4 IS a little old? For a lens, 6 years are the equivalent of 20 years in human terms - you would not call a 20something old, would you? . Re the performance, the new Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS II barely outperformes the f4 IS, which is still a magnificent lens and I don't think it can be improved that much. Truth be told, I expect the Nikon to, at the very best, edge it slightly, but that would be that.

No doubt is the 70-200 f4 IS a great lens (I own it and just love the portability.  Forget lugging around an extra kilogram).  And it definitely has stood the test of time.  But Nikon should defeat Canon in this case.  Well, if they play it right that "should" will become a "will".  I'd probably still go into a camera store and play with the Nikon 70-200 f/4 anyway. 

100

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Nikon's new 70-200mm f/4 VR rated 5-stops

« on: October 25, 2012, 04:17:09 AM »

Being realistic, the Nikon would most likely out perform the Canon. 
Realistic? What ever do I mean?!

The Canon 70-200 f/4 IS was released in 2006.  No doubt a great light and more affordable option compared to the f/2.8, but it is a little old (I wouldn't mind Canon releasing a mark II of this, to be honest.  the f/4 IS is so outdated now, although a great option).  Even though it does perform magnificently with it's optics, AF, etc., the Nikon would most like be using more recent technology.  I guess we'll see with comparisons, but Nikon should take the cake because of how new it is. 

I'll just wait and see what it's like though (not insinuating that I'm going to switch to Nikon.  NEVER WOULD I!).

101

Lenses / Re: Upgrading and looking for lens advice.

« on: October 09, 2012, 01:40:37 AM »

My 2 cents:
Sell: T41 + EF-S lenses + 85 1.8 + 100 2.8 L and 70-200 f4 = $3200ish

Buy: 5D III + 24-70 II  and 5D II + 70-200 IS f2.8 IS I or version II

Keep: 35L

You can always rent 16-35 II if needed or buy one a year from now.

This is a great plan (Still go for the IS I.. really good bang for your buck but you can only find used).

However the original still works, but a 5D III and II combination would go good together!  Or if you didn't mind, 2x 5D IIs (just chucking out there.  Good quality for a cheaper price).

But still, your original plan was good.  I just think it would be more effective with 2 FF's though.

102

Lenses / Re: 70-200 f/4 vs. 200 f/2.8

« on: October 03, 2012, 09:57:41 PM »

Do you think you could stretch your budget for an f/4 IS? Or an f/2.8 without IS?
Because those two are are amazing lenses.
I'm not sure about the 200 f/2.8, but I know that the 70-200 f/4 is a pretty good lens too Although, you're not going to get anywhere near the light capabilities of your 85 (unfortunately)

103

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Camera choice mark ii? 7d? wait?

« on: September 27, 2012, 05:54:47 AM »

If your priority is filming, I'd go with the 5D mark II. It's also good for photography.  I never bother about FPS

104

Lenses / Re: What 3 lenses do you dream of and long to own?

« on: September 27, 2012, 05:43:12 AM »

Tough one.  As I don't have a lot of gear...

Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS II (simple one, but when I use it at other places its a hell of a dream)
24-70 II (I'm getting one soon.. so a 14mm f/2.8L would suffice)
Canon TS-E 17mm f/4L 

Mine's a pretty basic one.  If I got enough jobs I could easily achieve that.

105

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 60D actually doesn't need AFMA?

« on: September 25, 2012, 09:32:27 PM »

As I started to become more experienced with my photography, I realised how much it backfocused, but I think I suddenly got lucky because it rarely backfocuses on me now (THANKFULLY).  But then again I'm rarely using fast glass and I shoot mainly with a wide angle.