October 31, 2014, 05:43:32 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 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 86
76
Lenses / Re: Rent, adapt or tele-convert?
« on: September 10, 2014, 12:19:33 AM »
This is what I'm aiming for.

77
Lenses / Re: Rent, adapt or tele-convert?
« on: September 09, 2014, 08:54:37 PM »
Glad you were able to decide on a solution.  The thing to keep in mind with 3rd party TCs is possible incompatibility esp. if you use AFMA.  You might find yourself picking up a TC in the future to use with your 5D/70-200.  Are you using a monopod/tripod?  I've tried an EOS-M + 70-200 + 2x TC and can get unweildy without support.

Thanks for the tip! I was just gonna rely on the IS.  A monopod would be a great idea! I don't have one but I think I might be able to borrow one from a friend. The event is in a baseball field with benches and chairs. It's it a sort of fireworks display with these special giant handheld roman candles. Light levels will be low but I want to capture some of the sparks falling so I'll prob have to drag the shutter a bit.

The M is just a backup. I'll be shooting mainly with the FF, cropping in post if needs be. If there's time I'll make the switch to the M and get a couple of tight shots of just one person holding the firework. It will also help me decide if I should think about investing in a 300mm lens or not. (Any excuse to buy gear, eh?)

78
Lenses / Re: Rent, adapt or tele-convert?
« on: September 09, 2014, 12:59:18 PM »
Rental shop is closed on the Monday (national holiday) when I would like to return the lens so I'd have to return it Tuesday, a workday. Too much running around and hassle so I opted for plan B - adapt. That gives me 320mm with the EOS M plus I get an EF adaptor which I wanted anyway!

79
Canon General / Re: Those D'oh moments!
« on: September 09, 2014, 12:52:55 PM »
That awkward moment when someone hands you a P&S to take their pic and you instictively start to raise it towards your eye before realizing it doesn't have a ruddy viewfinder. Best you can do is pretend you're fiddling with the controls and look at the screen intently like a "pro".

I actually also did this when I first got my EOS M. Luckily it was in my house so no one saw it! A few minutes later I was frustrated when I couldn't find the playback zoom button. (EOS M owners will understand that last one).

80
Lenses / Rent, adapt or tele-convert?
« on: September 09, 2014, 01:59:59 AM »
Hey guys quick question. I'm going to an event where I'll be sitting a bit far away from the main goings on. The longest lens I have is my 70-200 f/4L IS.

Was thinking I could probably do with a bit more reach. Here's my Q -

Rent - 300mm f/4L IS (f/4 because the performers aint movin much and I wanna keep a lowish profile) ~ $50

Adapt - I'd have to buy an adaptor for the EOS M but then I could use the 70-200 on it. ~$80

Tele-convert - again I'd have to buy a tele-convertor (thinking Kenko). ~$150

Option 4 - crop. $0

I kinda wanna try out the 300 just to see what's it's like. It would also be my first time renting a lens, could be fun.

I have a T2i lying around but carrying 3 bodies plus all the crap along with them is not my idea of a fun time. I wanted to go with the 5D / tele and EOS M / 11-22 for the occasional wide shot. Light and easy.

Thoughts?

(This is totally non urgent btw and I'll prob rent but just wanted to see some of your thought processes).


81
Canon General / Re: Those D'oh moments!
« on: September 08, 2014, 10:08:43 AM »
Damn self timer gets me every time! 10 seconds of beeping and standing around like an idiot. Not cool.

82
Lenses / Re: Input on building a prime lens kit
« on: September 08, 2014, 12:38:01 AM »
For me a the main reason for buying a prime lens is that it allows you to do something that your zoom lens can't. For example - I shoot a lot at 24mm but I don't need a prime at that focal length because I have a 17-40L and 24-105L and I mainly shoot between f/5.6 - f/11. Instead I went for a 14mm f/2.8 because it has a unique perspective and it doubles up as an astro landscape lens (should I ever get into that!). There is a huge difference between 17mm f/4 and 14mm f/2.8 so the decision was an easy one!

But anyway, looking at your primes 35/50/100 isn't a bad combo at all. They all have advantages over your zooms but is there anything you would like to be able to do that you can't using those three, like tilt shift ability? If I had to go out with just three primes I'd choose 14/35/135 but that's because of the way I shoot. I find 35mm to be more useful than 50mm (my EOS M / 22 is my 35) and I find the telephoto look appealing so I'd go with the 135L (also because it's a bargain!).

How about this combo for OP - 17mm (or 24mm) TSE for landscape and interiors, keep the 35 f/2 IS for travel, low light and discreet street photography and also keep the 100mm macro for product and portraits. Either hold on to the 50 1.4 or sell it. Depends how much you use it.

83
Lenses / Re: Is there a need for a 50mm?
« on: September 07, 2014, 10:58:32 AM »
I sold my 50 1.8 II for about $60. Not for the money but just to reduce the amount of unused gear I had. There were definite situations that I could have still used it (prob shoulda kept mine tbh). I ended up replacing it recent(ish)ly with the old Sigma 1.4 which I got used. I actually quite like the Sigma, it's useable wide open and great at f/2. I found the plastic fantastic not so fantastic wide open and it really needed to be stopped down at least to f/2.2 (which makes it kinda pointless when you have an excellent f/2.8 zoom). My zooms are all f/4 which would have made more sense to keep it.

Weird. I miss that lens but I also don't ...

84
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Guessing Game- Canon or Nikon?
« on: September 02, 2014, 12:00:32 PM »
Looks Nikon to me. Based purely on whim and guesswork like most of my photography  :P

Can we have more fun threads and posts like this please?

85
EOS-M / Re: Recommendations for lens to supplement EF-M 22mm?
« on: August 31, 2014, 08:10:11 PM »
+1 for the 18-55M. It will be the most useful and it's cheap. I'd pass on the slow focusing nifty and opt for the 40mm instead.

Also look into getting an FD adaptor (like $10) and search for good manual focus FD glass that will be useful for video where you're most manual focusing anyway. Those old lenses are still quality but go for as low as $100 each for a good copy.

86
Pricewatch Deals / Re: Deal: EOS M w/22mm f/2 STM $249
« on: August 30, 2014, 03:51:30 AM »
Is it M or M2. Is it possible to use my EF-S 55-250 and Sigma 30mm and 17-50mm 2.8 bought for t3i with this.
Can it replace t3i. How does it compare to Sony A6000.
Thinking about moving to mirrorless down the line. Not sure if Sony has comparable lens to Canon EFS STM and other third party lens for reasonable price.

All you need is the right adaptor(s) and you can mount just about any lens you want.

87
Lenses / Re: New Lens Information for Photokina
« on: August 29, 2014, 12:02:38 PM »
Wow! a new 400/4 with ISII and improved optics surely.

Light in weight so tough competition for the heavier 500/4 and the possibility of a good 560/5.6 - probably much better than the 300/2.8 with 2xTc.

I doubt if it will be much better than a 300 and 2xTC, but it certainly won't be noticeably better, it at all, than the 300 and 1.4 TC (to make 420mm and f4). Now if you like the horrible bokeh the DO can create and don't want a lens as flexible or as high quality as the 300 then have at it.

I cannot see a reason for this other than Canon's refusal to give up on DO, meanwhile there is a good market out there for other premium headline catching lenses, the MkII 100-400 will be a cash cow whatever price it comes in at and a 400 f5.6 with IS would clean the wallets of those scared off by a new 100-400 price point. The 45 and 90 TS-E's are desperately overdue, the 2.8 ultrawide zoom has been a sore point in the Canon lineup since, oh, ever, but they clearly can now make good ultrawides so what's the excuse for this delay? The MkII 800 is a headlining niche lens that is sorely wanted by those that need it, to have your longest lens outperformed by your second longest and a TC is an embarrassment. The 85 f1.2 could do with a spruce up, the 50 f1.4 is crying out for the "slow it down and put IS in it" treatment, it just goes on and on........

Canon's lens strategy gives me more concern than their sensor strategy.

it takes years to design and develop a lens.  I think the last time any of the big two commented on how long was nikon - and they said it takes 7 years from start to finish.

DO is such a tactical advantage to canon - and we don't know if they correct bokeh related issues, and most that have used the later models of the 400DO have found it no wanting.

It depends on what lens, it would take a design team about three hours to design a 50mm f1.8 IS, and considering they have the glass, they have the parts, they have everything, they could probably have a working model just after lunch.

Now the DO dead end has taken 13 years to come up with an update for a lens that will still appeal to about 20 people, which do you think would make Canon more money, selling a handful of 400 f4 DO's that still perform like crap and depreciate like a Syrian bankers domestic property portfolio, or a mass appeal 50 that costs next to nothing to make and can be slotted into the $499 slot?

Canon have stuck with DO because they want to, they want to make that square peg fit in out round lenses, and they will spend countless man hours on keeping it going for no other reason than they want to and they patented the heck out of it so they can. Sure in ten years (weren't we saying that thirteen years ago when the 400 came out) when DPP can "adjust" for the aberrations in post it might work, but seriously, who cares? When DO is ready  for prime time then bring it to market, I am all for it, in the mean time keep the people who pay the bills happy (us customers) with lenses we want, we need, and we can afford.

+1 the last thing anyone wanted to hear / read on CR were the words "diffractive" and "optics" this close to frikkin photokina!

88
Lenses / Re: New Lens Information for Photokina
« on: August 29, 2014, 11:56:56 AM »
It should be a 24-135 if anything with similar but better build quality to the current 28-135. That would make it mid priced. But again, why not just ship the 7D2 with the already existing 24-105L?? Surely the price difference can't be that much? If I was in the market for a 7D2 I'd want some weather sealed lenses to go with it. Maybe it's for a 6D kit?

Ah well not like I'm gonna buy one. It's nice to hear about new lenses so I guess it's a good thing.

89
Photography Technique / Re: Is RAW worth it?
« on: August 29, 2014, 11:26:37 AM »
RAW is worth it as long as it doesn't make you lazy.

Too many people use RAW as an excuse to be sloppy with lighting and lazy with "automatic" exposure.

These folk must love spending time on a computer fixing their mistakes then. Sounds like a nightmare to me.

Less time in post means more time chilling out in front of the telly with a beer in my hand.

90
Lenses / Re: New Lens Information for Photokina
« on: August 29, 2014, 11:16:02 AM »
The 24-105 could be a cheaper FF option. Some people were banging on about that here so I guess there might be a demand but seriously? So you fork out $1600 on a FF 6D right? Assuming you went body only. And then you go an pair it with, what I assume will be, a cheap kit lens with compromised IQ? Why? Why not just stick with a rebel and a 18-55 kit lens if you're a cheapo? Having a FF camera means you give a s___ about IQ. This rumor makes no sense.

I currently use the discontinued 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 USM II for that purpose.  Surprisingly, this is one of the lenses that the 5d3 and 6d have included for Automatic Lens Optimization.  So Canon is obviously aware that there is a need.  If this new one is small, light, and affordable, it will find its way into many bags.  I'm hoping its street price comes in between the 28-135 (~$300) and the 24-70 f/4 (~$1000).  Great for outdoor, walk-around, f/8-and-be-there kind of shooting.

This already exists - it's called an EF 24-105 f/4L IS and costs around $600 if you shop around.

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 86