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.
So what is your problem with the 60D and 7D? The t4i is a very solid camera, but I would contend without reservation that the 60D and especially the 7D are definitely better in regards to build quality, ergonomics (arguably), and performance (though shot per second is comparable). Not to mention, the 7D has Micro Auto-focus adjustment. And if he does opt to get primes with razor thin depths of field, that could be HUGE!
I acknowledge the t4i is more recent and has a touch screen, but the year something came out won't be factor to a knowledgeable buyer who actually researches bodies.
Really my issue is only how old the cameras are. I completely understand they will still take great pictures. Got it. But in this day and age I guess I'm always thinking of resale value of any piece of technology I buy. If in a year I want to sell and upgrade my t4i I'm trying to sell a 2 year old camera. If I try to sell my 60d I will be trying to sell a 4/5+ (?) year old camera. Big difference. Maybe not to "knowledgable" buyers. But there are a lot of non-knoledgable buyers out there!
I understand people here will disagree with me, but nothing anyone could say would convince me to purchase a new camera that hasn't been updated in that long.
If you are photographing fast moving objects, then the 7D is the way to go..... It has a much superior focusing system to all the other crop sensors. For anything else I would say T4 or 5i, whichever is available at the time.
If you shoot a lot out of the auto modes, the shoulder displays and controls on the 60D and 7D make them far easier to use for action than having to look at the back of the cameras like on the rebels
I was in a similar position a little more than 2 months ago. I ended up going with the 650 (t4i) instead of waiting. I knew one thing and that there was no way, NO WAY, I was going to buy a 60d or a 7d that hadn't been updated in 3 (+?) years. So it was buy the most recent, t4i at the time, or keep waiting. I'm glad I didn't keep waiting. Nobody still knows how long it will be before the 70d or 7d will be released. If you get the t5i now, or even a t4i which might be cheaper and is really the same camera, you can have time to play with it and learn it. And take pictures! Instead of waiting.
The other factor for me is resale value. I actually had a Rebel XSi, this wasn't my first dslr, and I was able to sell it for $325. For a 5 year old camera. If/when the 70d or 7dii comes out and I decide I want to upgrade I should easily be able to get rid of my t4i without losing a ton of money. And I will have been able to use it for all those months I had it. Instead of just waiting. And not taking pictures...
Geez, does no one here rely as heavily on Canon's own MTF characteristics as I do?
Just look at the charts to find those lenses with nice horizontal squiggly lines, not the ones that slope down, the straight ones.
It's not rocket science here...set your budget/requirements/wants, order it/chect it out/keep it or send it back, and repeat process.
As someone else mentioned, don't try to get off going cheap...that doesn't work for ____!
I think what I was hoping for was that someone would tell me that there is no real world difference between the sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 APO EX DG HSM OS FLD Large Aperture and the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS mkii... Sure the canon wins at 100% and with pixel peeping, but other than that... no difference. Buy it for a grand, and then have a grand left over to buy a 135mm or whatever. But I think that is indeed wishful thinking.
The 200 f/2.8L is a really nice lens. However, it AF's way slower than the 70-200L and offers a lot less flexibility, which is why I don't think it'll help him much for sports, whereas the zoom, and yes quite expensive, will. It'll be a tough choice. Two bodies/two primes or a single body and the zoom.
The EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM prime lens AF it's plenty fast for me. Fast enough for birds in flight. Now the last time I checked humans are slower than birds. My kid is crazy fast maybe a track star one day, but I have no issues capturing him with the EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM prime lens either. It sounds like the OP enjoys prime lenses. This one is affordable and can do the job, what is not to like?
If he is stuck between these two amazing lenses then why not rent both and see which one is better for the type and style shooter he is now and wants to become?
That's great. I'm sure it does very well for BIF and kids running outside. Try it in a dark gym. Then it isn't. That's all I was trying to say. I too am not suggesting for him to buy a lens that costs +2K. I'm just objectively comparing the lenses since I've done it myself and chose the zoom, because of what I already said, AF and flexibility, not to mention IQ and IS. Expensive, yes. Maybe the 200 prime is the best for him, who knows.
Good idea to rent each.
Going to try to keep this post nice. After all it's a holiday.
I'm not sure I understand your post regarding a dark gym. Both lenses wide open are f2.8? Not to worry, this will be my last post to this discussion. Please don't hear me wrong the 70-200 is a GREAT lens. Zoom lenses can be a wonderful solution. I think sometimes it is taken too far regarding it being "the only real solution". You don't have to take anyones word for as they are sharper prime lenses than the 70-200, even Canon's own mtf charts will tell you that, but the real test is when you have the lens in your own hands and compare the result(s) for yourself. Depending on the indoor sport you maybe able to get the shots you need with 85mm f1.8, 135mmL f2.0 or even one I don't think I've seen posted yet: 200mmL f2.0 or just take the f2.8 telephoto zoom and crank up the ISO and fix in post no big deal. I've taken a portrait on a crop body using the 300mmL f2.8 (+ extension tub to reduce MFD) lens and guess what, they are pretty good. Now is that "traditional" no, but who cares? If it fits your style and purpose then no harm right? The point is that no one lens has to be everything to everybody. From the almost rude nature of a few of the post on this thread appears that this logic maybe lost on those few. Maybe sometimes the best lens is the one you already have on your camera? Maybe its not just your gear that makes a good or even a great image...
Well, I understand the OP does not wish to rent, they are also good retailers that will let you return a lens within 30 days of purchase. So perhaps try a few of them and return the ones that don't make the cut?
jdramirez: I hope the lens you do select in the end works well for you. To be honest it sounds like if you do choose from the lenses already posted that you really can't go wrong
Good Luck and Happy Shooting!
Ok that does make more sense... my apologies...Canon 100-400 - similar AF to the 70-200 + 2x. marginally better image quality.I hear such amazing things about the 70-200 f2.8l is mkii, I find it hard to believe it is as wonderful as its reputation. I do see the photos online and I wonder if that is the lens, the body, or the photographer who make it great. I've never heard the 100-400 referred to as better than the 70-200... so that detracts from the credibility of your opinion.
Might want to read a little more carefully before questioning someone's credibility.
He's saying the 100-400 has marginally better IQ than the 70-200 II with a 2x TC. The fact that a bare zoom lens delivers only marginally better IQ than the 70-200 II with a 2x is a testament to the outstanding optical quality of the 70-200 II.
