December 19, 2014, 03:25:54 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 - TommyLee

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 9
Lenses / Re: Is it still the time for the 16-35 ?
« on: October 27, 2013, 09:39:11 AM »
I have the 14LII,  sig 35 f1.4....  wow, yum, whoopee!
if you want aperture-speed and lowest distortion...they are wonderful

I kept the 16-35 II because it is also great
has more distortion but less chromatics  than 14L II
sigma is a class in itself...fagetaboutit Canon

the 16-35 II  really is the best, most versatile range to get that ultrawide bit included
look for a deal on a new one and add it...

if you want the next level of quality from...14-24 or what ever brings ...someday...
I believe you would do better from the two primes....
get the 16-35 II....I cant let mine go....

16-35 II and a 100 macro-L in a little side-case..
and I can tackle a whole city....crushing museums, bridges, tall buildings and people on the street...
just like Godzilla

you will likely get most of your money back because others also know this

Just my ideas


Pricewatch Deals / Re: Deal: Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II $1699 at B&H Photo
« on: October 16, 2013, 04:11:02 PM »
are you sure about this....?

see attached ....from your link

Add it to your cart then go through the checkout process, and you'll see the $1999 price.

I am assuming then that..... THE - additional (= $1699 total) - REBATE of $300 comes from a later pdf fill-in and send?   after purchase

if this is the case

NOTE: I suppose this means the I.S. version is getting ready?....


Pricewatch Deals / Re: Deal: Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II $1699 at B&H Photo
« on: October 16, 2013, 01:50:41 PM »
are you sure about this....?

see attached ....from your link....  10:51am wednesday


Lenses / Re: Sell my 85L for these two lenses?
« on: October 08, 2013, 01:20:13 PM »
As someone else has suggested, unless 2.8 isn't fast enough you may want to consider the 100L instead of an 85 - the Canon 85s, whatever other virtues they plainly have, suffer horribly from blueish fringing (different from the standard purple CA) wide open around pale objects that aren't quite in focus.  I've never seen that (or any other visible flaw for that matter) with my 100L, whose only flaw is one all macro lenses have - it doesn't focus fast if you switch suddenly from a close subject to a distant one (or vice versa).  And, thanks to its greater focal length and very short minimal focus distance, you can conjure up marvelous background blur that gives the 85L and 135L a run for their money (for all I know all this is true of the non-L 100mm macro too).  Its advantage over the the Sigma 85mm lens (which is otherwise excellent - or at least the copy I rented was) is greater mechanical consistency - i.e. you will be less likely to need to return it.  The 100L's advantage over all the 85mm and other 100mm lenses for Canon is that it has IS, which can be useful.

As for 35mm, I've not used the 35mm L.  The 35mm IS is excellent, as is the Sigma. both of which I rented when they were new.  The advantage of the former is its IS; the advantage of the latter, aside from the obvious speed factor, is its superior performance with regard to coma - which matters if you do much shooting in low light where there are small, bright points of light; this is nicely shown in the respective reviews at lenstip.  (Unable to decide which one's relative advantages mattered to me more, I procrastinated until the ridiculous short-lived Adorama price reduction on the 28mm IS occurred and bought one of those instead - it's excellent too.)

yes...I agree..............
 by the way...the non-L macro performs pretty similar to the L - I.S. version

my DO-ALL kit is a 14mm II, sigma 35 f1.4 (one of the best performing lenses I have owned) and the 100L because it does so much...
MAYBE the 135 f2 or maybe the 85L II ... but these are specialized and yes they are great..

but to go for a walk in Portland, Paris or Chicago... I want ultra wide (14),   ultra-fast normal(35 sig) and maybe a bit of telephoto from the 100L macro...  for a close up museum or flower shot
these do most of what I need....and have nearly flawless delivery

14L II has removable fringing but NO distortion, Sigma has NO ISSUES IMO, 100 macro is not as fast aperture  as ...say ....85L or 135L but stated here ...can get close and MAYBE derive more back-blur than the other two teles... 100L is plenty fast to focus... if you dont ask it to go from 8" to 100 feet in an instant..and back again

the kit is small...
if really small is wanted try 14L II, 35 I.S. and 85/100 non-L(but they have fringing wide open..)

I.S. becomes very useful on the 100mm length... with no optical issues IMO
nothing touches the 35 sigma ...that has autofocus...

I await Canon's re-attempt at a re-release ...another try...with a 35mm L   II   ....
of course the price will be 2-3 times the sigma....

Lenses / Re: Sell my 85L for these two lenses?
« on: October 07, 2013, 09:34:46 PM »
first off ...the 85L mk I is pretty good  and   compares fairly well to 85 f1.8....
of course except for the extra aperture of the 'L'

I would guess you would enjoy the quicker focus of the f1.8....

it is nice to have a little  more than f2 aperture.. but the performance wideopen should be examined carefully .... as to purple fringing....which the L has also....
check out  some review sites on this

ME...I would maybe choose the 135 f2
.... or maybe even the excellent 100 f2.8 L   macro  for some more versatility...

I cant speak to the Sigma 85mm, but hear it is quite good

on the 35mm choices.......

I STRONGLY advise the Sigma 35 f1.4 OVER the 35L.
the sigma is sharp from the start @ f1.4... and much better performance/cleaner than the 35L

one last note:
 the canon 35 f2 I.S.  is quite good also...and about the same physical size as the 85 f1.8

maybe those smaller TWO would address the issue of weight you mentioned...
a pair of f2 lenses  about the same small size/weight

I say ...get the 35 f2 I.S.  or Sigma 35 f1.4  OVER the OLD 35L

Lenses / Re: Good, relatively cheap prime that work well across formats
« on: October 05, 2013, 03:12:16 AM »
I personally love the 35/2 IS. I shoot a lot at 35 and 50 which is roughly (yes, 35mm at 1.6x not exactly 50, but 50ish) what it would give you transitioning between a crop sensor and full frame. As I've stated before in another thread, it is a great deal at $549 after the recent price drop.

It is the fastest lens with IS next to the 200/2, has modern optics, and is actually on par with the L at f2 with regard to resolution. If you are willing to spend a few hundred more, there is always the Sigma 35.

+1   a perfect choice between the two 35s

there are reviews of 35 sig and 35 f2 I.S. my opinion... the best lenses avail that work on FF(35mm) or 1.6 crop(50mm+) ... either are the top choices ...

I say the 70-300L

a good range... and seems to be a sharp lens...I dont have it
had the non-L.... it was pretty good...even at 300mm.....but the range was VERY useful..
and it matched with a second (or third) lens for travel very well..

you seem to want reach... that 70-300L likely does better than most for that

I am SURE the 70-200 II is too heavy
IMO it is almost a specialized lens because of the weight.. it is a real fine optic and a problem solver...but is truly 'baggage' sometimes
unless that is specifically what you use and want regularly(does ok with 2xTC too)

frankly the 35L and 70-300 cover a lot ...
add a less expensive 14mm (I prefer the 14L II) and these three do a ton of work on a trip
(or a fisheye)
I wouldn't enter a big city - as a tourist - without 14mm or 16mm...... gets a tall building in a single bound...and if you have the 70-300, you can reach waayy up those bldgs and grab a gargoyle...



Lenses / Re: Best 35mm wide open????
« on: September 26, 2013, 12:29:42 AM »


When it comes to bokeh, I find PZ to be pretty useless. I do not find their sharpness charts much useful either.

I own the 35L. Tell me what you want me to prove to you - that it has great bokeh, or that it has poor one. I can prove both with examples.

this is such an accurate comment...thanks for summarizing all this in such a short statement......

yes...we start with some superb equipment....but then....
I am sure a lens' owner is responsible for SOME of the blur selecting what works in the background.....  it must be a lot like getting a good sound out of a musical instrument...all these variables.... distance, repeating objects, different size objects, light angles...

that is part of the mystery...ain't it grand?


Abstract / Re: Beautiful bokeh! Let me see yours!
« on: September 23, 2013, 11:42:55 PM »
Here's one of my favorites.

in all ways

Lenses / Re: Best 35mm wide open????
« on: September 23, 2013, 11:29:03 PM »
Nice Photo!

thanks.... MonteGraham
I like these people...and this shot
my daughter, her mother replacement - NewDad - ha!..
all very nice folks....
I -old dad- had just been fed by NewDad.... a master Chef...

this 35 Sigma is PERFECT for these liv room shots... I just love it for that....

sometimes it is as good (bokeh) as the 135 / 85....

but the king is the 85 for solves all lo light problems...

I swear the 35 bokeh CAN BE very smooth....
sometimes it is awful with leaves ...repeating small stuff..etc

thre lenses ......  14L, 35 Sigma, 85L II = case closed

Lenses / Re: Best 35mm wide open????
« on: September 23, 2013, 11:45:20 AM »
Optically, the Sigma looks very good, and the bokeh is excellent.
There is a reason I warned against making generalizations from one comparison only. Here is an example of less than excellent bokeh:

You must have used a lens extensively to know its weak and strong sides. The bokeh performance can really surprise you in many situations.

the sigma 35 CAN get busy...and  not handle busy backgrounds as well ...say the 85L II,  but this shot below is ALSO how well it can do....  you have to be careful with any lens if you are shooting for bokeh..

here I see
smooth and nearly identifiable secondary figures...smooth transitions...all judgement of course

love mine

Lenses / Re: Best 35mm wide open????
« on: September 22, 2013, 08:39:17 PM »
clearly for me the 35 sig is waayy better than my 35L (was)...
I sold the 35L BEFORE the sigma...and loved that canon a lot...

then I tasted a  ...   sharp-wide-open....  lens with little fringing/CA.....the sigma...

now I am really spoiled...

used my 24mm f1.4 mk I last night and ...uh ...I forgot how weak  it can be  wideopen...
nice but ain't a sigma 35 class of lens....  I did try the 24L II and it was a bit better on a few rentals....
but not like this sigma is....

if the sigma 24 rumor is true...I will try that one too

I might add if CANON finally redesigns / releases the 35 II ...they DID NOT release (when they saw the new sigma) ...if it is better - I will get it...

I await Canon's move on this


Lenses / Re: 14mm mk2 or 16-35 mk2?
« on: September 22, 2013, 08:31:39 PM »
I had the 16-35 II for a few yrs ...and rented the 14L II twice..
finally I bought it...
I love it...

kept the 16-35...but use it less...

with the 14L II, sigma 35  and Canon 85L II ...I find that I like those primes....
even though the zoom is still nice....and usefull

14 has more CA/fringing, not as good bokeh qual (IMO)  but 14 is sharper all over ...especially edges... and very low distortion...   2mm is a LOT....

I doubt I can sell the 16-35 unless I decide to get down to 3 lenses or so...

...I keep the 24-105 for a very good general purpose walkaround....

I find I am not using my 70-200 II much... but my  activity is changed lately...good optic

so for ME the 14L  is the wide extension of a kit ...or the 135L is the long extension of a kit (leaving out the 70-200

again I love my 14L and walk around with just this ...or maybe a 35 sig or a 100macro as a second lens...


Lenses / Re: Canon 16-35 II f/2.8L AND/OR Canon 14mm II f/2.8
« on: September 20, 2013, 02:55:46 PM »
I have the 16-35 II it first... a very nice lens
the 14L II had about 1-2 yrs...
also have the 70-200 II NOT have the 24-70 ...have 24-105

MY PLAN was to have the 14L as a wide end of 24-70 II + 70 200 II
and also use 14L +35 Sigma + 85L II + 135L  as prime set

I could not bring myself to sell the 16-35 II because it was pretty useful in a two lens set...
like 16-35 + 100L macro...

now the compares
-  14L a fair bit sharper and a lot less distortion than 16-35

-  I believe the 16-35 bokeh quality is slightly better than the 14L

-  14L has more CA / fringing than 16-35

-  14L just has a better quality result (when you remove the fringing in LR / DPP)

-  14L  is small / compact....compared to 16-35  one fav feature for ME
....  the blasted 16-35 hood NEVER fits when I need it to....

-  14mm is a LOT wider /able ...  I wanted that...but as said it is more a specialty lens


for YOU
you already have zoom  in the 24-70
seems like the 14L fits underneath that lens..
you seem to be into the usefulness of a zoom ..
I see no primes ....
(me I carry the 14L, sig 35 and 100L/135L as a solid prime solution..I dont see that path in your lenses)

I never fell in love with the new 24-70 because I wanted I.S. on that range....
so I use the 14L below the 24-105 ....and a 135L above....
I use the 70-200 II less and less..and may sell it...(it is a wonderful optic though)

I am happy to carry a 14L 35 siggy and ...'something longer...maybe  a macro ...those 3 do all I NEED
..............or sometimes.... a 70-200 +TC2x... depending on needs)

so my response is the 16-35 is a fine lens .....and MAY get you to sell the 24-70 mkI  lens

I say get the 16-35 ...but make sure it performs... they vary .....


these 14L shots are a LOT wider , sharper, less distorted and sharp to edges than the 16-35...but that is what I wanted...besides the small lens size

I just threw up in my mouth

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 9