April 19, 2014, 07:22:06 PM

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 - Zv

Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10 11 ... 70
121
Lenses / Re: Lens nicknames
« on: January 17, 2014, 04:35:16 AM »
Here (China) the 70-200s are nicknamed "Xiao bai" litterally "Little white". Cute.

Yeah I heard about that. Thanks for sharing!


122
I remember saying to myself about 3 years ago that I had all the gear I need when all I had was the T2i + kit lens!  ;D

Trying to not buy anything this year but I feel that Sigma has other plans for me!!  :P

123
Lenses / Lens nicknames
« on: January 17, 2014, 02:05:31 AM »
I know it's been done on other forums (prob this one too) but I thought it might be fun to see what we all call our lenses!

Also, there seems to be some lenses that have no fixed nickname. Let's see who can come up with the funniest name!

Who's up for some Friday fun??

My pitiful attempt -

Samyang 14mm f/2.8 = Samshroom
17-40 f/4L = Diet Coke Bottle
24-105 f/4L IS = Genralux
70-200 f/4L IS = Meatgrinder
135L = Pipe Dream

Am sure you guys can do better than me!!


124
Lenses / Re: 7D user - advice on my best option for a 'go to' lens?
« on: January 16, 2014, 11:25:46 AM »
I've used both on a 7D and I reckon the 17-55 is the better choice. The extra stop is essential on the 7D. Also the 17-55 is tack sharp at f/4 whereas the 24-105 is a little soft. On crop f/2.8 is good for portraits, you get some shallow dof with a little margin for error. F/4 is nice too when I want more detail.

The only adv for the 24-105 is reach. However, I would opt for a cheap tele like the 85 1.8 as it would compliment the 17-55. Together you'd cover the portrait range (50mm - 135mm) quite nicely.

To be honest am not a big fan of the 24-105, it hasn't impressed me after selling my 17-55 for it. Seems mushy at the ends and f/4 is not that great. Very limiting on a 7D when you have to stop down to 5.6 or 8. 35-70mm is good though (those are good portrait lengths on crop too funnily enough).


125
Lenses / Re: New Wide Angles Lenses in 2013 [CR2]
« on: January 15, 2014, 10:24:38 AM »
A 16-50 f/4 IS would be just the ticket.
I like the idea of that, but would still love something really wide like the Sigma 12-24 II I used to own.  I fear that Canon considers our dreams of a super wide covered by the 8-15 f/4.  A lot of their articles have pitched it as a wide angle lens, but at least to me, I don't care for the fisheye distortion even if it can be minimized with a perfectly level shot.

Oh totally! They need something in that ultra wide range other than the costly 14L. Their foolin no one with the 8-15 fisheye! I opted for the Samyang 14mm f/2.8 instead as I got fed up waiting. It's a pity I can't use filters with it though. Blasted bulbous ends! Haha!

What is the widest you can get without going bulbous end? Is it 16mm? I imagine a 12-24 or 14-24 would be quite expensive anyway and wouldn't take filters.

I may get rid of my 17-40l because I use my Sigma 15mm fisheye instead.  To me, it's a better solution in almost all circumstances.

I've also considered selling my 17-40L but it has some things that I like - my copy is fairly sharp from 17-24mm f/5.6 + and that's where I use it most. Fast AF. It takes 77mm filters so I can CP-L it and ND it for waterfalls and long exposure stuff.

For just sheer wide angle fun I use the Sammy 14mm f/2.8.

126
EOS Bodies / Re: A New Rebel for CP+? [CR1]
« on: January 15, 2014, 10:13:06 AM »
I almost bought the Canon Rebel t2i over my 50D. Rebel is nothing to sneeze at. It's a damn fine camera. Any Canon DSLR. I was at Best Buy the other day and playing with their SL1.  I would love one of those little guys!

Oh not at all, the rebels are fine cameras, no ones sneezing at them or anywhere near them it's just the way that they are "upgraded" is very humdrum and not worth getting excited about! We'd rather hear about a 7D replacement than a new rebel. Just more curious about the higher end specs.

I started out with a t2i myself. Gave it to my GF to use when upgraded. Still work flawlessly after years of service. I have nothing but respect for my humble rebel. I learned a lot from it. I actually get annoyed when people under use it or never use anything other than the kit lens. It's so cheap that almost every ones got one. Trouble is they don't all get the most of this amazing machine! Shame really as it can take stunning pics. That's how I feel about the EOS M too. I reckon in the right hands it can do wonders.

Those are really good cameras when in the right hands, indeed. I just feel they are a little too small for my hands. To be honest, I fail to see much advantage in the reduced size of the SL1, since it will not fit in a pocket anyway.
Daniel

Ultimately it was the small size of the rebel that made me want to go for a bigger model. Taking 1000 shots in one day gave me cramp! The first time I held a 7D was like finding a perfect fitting glove! The 5D2 feels good too but man the 7D just begs to be held! And then there's the shutter sound. Rebel is like a cat sneezing. The 7D is a deep satisfying cough!

I'm weird about stuff like that! But hey if you're not comfortable with your gear you won't wanna use it right?

127
Lenses / Re: New Wide Angles Lenses in 2013 [CR2]
« on: January 15, 2014, 07:36:30 AM »
I opted for the Samyang 14mm f/2.8 instead as I got fed up waiting. It's a pity I can't use filters with it though. Blasted bulbous ends! Haha!


Actually, there is a (very expensive) Hitech Lucroit Filter Holder.  It was originally designed for the Nikon 14-24, but they made adapter rings for other lenses, including the Samyang.  It can be found on their site and places like B&H, Adorama, & Amazon.  You'll also probably need to buy new large, expensive filters to go with it of course.

http://lucroit.com/SHOP/category.php?id_category=5

Also I believe Samyang posted something on their FB page about working on their own filter holder for it.  As I recall they were hoping to release it around now. 

There are also a number of home-made filter holders I've seen, you can google them and see if they look like something you'd like to try to duplicate.


Cool thanks!

I'll look out for the Samyang ones. They'll likely be cheap!

128
Lenses / Re: New Wide Angles Lenses in 2013 [CR2]
« on: January 15, 2014, 12:52:30 AM »
Oh totally! They need something in that ultra wide range other than the costly 14L. Their foolin no one with the 8-15 fisheye! I opted for the Samyang 14mm f/2.8 instead as I got fed up waiting. It's a pity I can't use filters with it though. Blasted bulbous ends! Haha!

What is the widest you can get without going bulbous end? Is it 16mm? I imagine a 12-24 or 14-24 would be quite expensive anyway and wouldn't take filters.

Zeiss' 15mm takes filters -- 95mm filters.   :o

The TS-E 17 takes filters, 145mm filters.

You say that like you can just buy those at the dollar store! I mean sure I bet the Hubble space telescope takes filters too!  ;D

(I meant what regular folk consider a filter - 77mm / 82mm max.)

129
EOS Bodies / Re: A New Rebel for CP+? [CR1]
« on: January 14, 2014, 11:59:16 PM »
I almost bought the Canon Rebel t2i over my 50D. Rebel is nothing to sneeze at. It's a damn fine camera. Any Canon DSLR. I was at Best Buy the other day and playing with their SL1.  I would love one of those little guys!

Oh not at all, the rebels are fine cameras, no ones sneezing at them or anywhere near them it's just the way that they are "upgraded" is very humdrum and not worth getting excited about! We'd rather hear about a 7D replacement than a new rebel. Just more curious about the higher end specs.

I started out with a t2i myself. Gave it to my GF to use when upgraded. Still work flawlessly after years of service. I have nothing but respect for my humble rebel. I learned a lot from it. I actually get annoyed when people under use it or never use anything other than the kit lens. It's so cheap that almost every ones got one. Trouble is they don't all get the most of this amazing machine! Shame really as it can take stunning pics. That's how I feel about the EOS M too. I reckon in the right hands it can do wonders.

130
Lenses / Re: New Wide Angles Lenses in 2013 [CR2]
« on: January 14, 2014, 08:50:43 PM »
A 16-50 f/4 IS would be just the ticket.
I like the idea of that, but would still love something really wide like the Sigma 12-24 II I used to own.  I fear that Canon considers our dreams of a super wide covered by the 8-15 f/4.  A lot of their articles have pitched it as a wide angle lens, but at least to me, I don't care for the fisheye distortion even if it can be minimized with a perfectly level shot.

Oh totally! They need something in that ultra wide range other than the costly 14L. Their foolin no one with the 8-15 fisheye! I opted for the Samyang 14mm f/2.8 instead as I got fed up waiting. It's a pity I can't use filters with it though. Blasted bulbous ends! Haha!

What is the widest you can get without going bulbous end? Is it 16mm? I imagine a 12-24 or 14-24 would be quite expensive anyway and wouldn't take filters.

131
EOS Bodies / Re: A New Rebel for CP+? [CR1]
« on: January 14, 2014, 08:37:44 PM »
Ah yes! I knew it was far too optimistic to hope for a 7D2 announcement. Come to think of it we are due new rebel since it has been, what 5 months or so (don't know exact time) since the last one. What will it be this time? Perhaps we shall be indulged with yet more, wait for it, picture styles!

Marvelous.  :P




132
Lenses / Re: New Wide Angles Lenses in 2013 [CR2]
« on: January 14, 2014, 10:55:33 AM »
I really like the "normal" front end of the 16-35 and would rather Canon come out with a souped-up version of that lens vs. a 14-24 (or any other range) with a bulbous front-end.

Agreed. I'd rather have something I can walk about with that covers a good range. 14-24mm would be less than ideal for groups or street. I've used the 17-40 for street and general mucking about and it's quite useful with a CP-L and light enough that you can carry it about all day, wish it had IS though. A 16-50 f/4 IS would be just the ticket.

133
EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: Microadjustment Automated
« on: January 14, 2014, 03:54:52 AM »
Does this mean no more trying to line up targets? Or is it just that the software to determine if the lens is out of whack is now installed in the cameras firmware as opposed to your laptop? And would it set just one value or more?

Would be awesome if it could learn and adjust as you shoot.

134
I made a ahem paper "replica" to get my head around the size. Seems about the same size and thickness as an average coffee mug.

Observe.

135
It all depends on the price of both the Sigma and Canon (if we ever see the Canon that is!). I got rid off my 50 1.8 a while ago and have missed having something relatively small and light to use as a walk around lens. The Sigma looks like it might be a bit on the heavy side, prob better suited to studio work than hiking and outdoor activities. For that kinda thing a 50 IS would make more sense. I really love IS, it's a life saver. I don't want to carry a tripod all day for the small possibility that i might need it for one or two low light shots in the evening. Just want a well built 50 that has reliable AF.

I can see both the Canon and Sigma being around the same price, a bit like the 35s.

Canon, the time to announce your 50 1.8 IS is now!

The new Sigma is almost the same diam/length as the Canon 24-70 F/4L IS, which is certainly big for a 50 prime!

But the weight is less than you'd think for its size -- the new Sigma is about halfway between the Canon F/1.4 and F/1.2, and right around a pound, I think. 

Interesting!  They pulled the weight from their webpage! It was around 16 oz when I first read it today.

P.S.  OT to Zv:  I use that 24-70 F/4 for hiking myself and it's not been a bother, it's quite ideal actually (macro/wide/solid AF for wildlife/weather seal/IS for lower light), and I'm not a big guy by any means.  I put that on a BlackRapid mounted body and I'm off.

Oh! Sorry I misread somewhere and thought the Sigma was the same size as the 24-70LII, that's my fault! Yeah the 24-70 f/4L is quite manageable esp on a 6D. I've considered swapping my 24-105 for it but I like having the 105mm option.

Where is everyone getting the specs for size weight and price btw?? (Found it, duh their website. I'm on fire today!)


Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10 11 ... 70