March 05, 2015, 09:33:57 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 - Cory

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 19
1
EOS-M / Re: EOS-M And EFM22mm Low Light and Portability?
« on: March 04, 2015, 11:29:11 AM »
I really like the 90EX flash carried in this attached to my Dashpoint 20 case:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/836241-REG/BlackRapid_RMJ_3BB_Joey_3_Large_Pocket.html

2
Lenses / Re: Which Lens to buy for Portraits
« on: February 20, 2015, 04:34:17 PM »
This thread really helped me to figure out which lenses to have on hand.  Even though some are calling my name I'm going to just stick with my 35 2.0 IS and 85 1.8 for portraits, etc. with the 10-18 and 200 2.8 II on opposite ends.

3
Lenses / Re: Which Lens to buy for Portraits
« on: February 20, 2015, 07:08:34 AM »
I often do individual portraits at 2.8 (with a 70D).  Are you saying that a 24-70 would be a perfect complement to my 10-18 and 85 1.8 (and I'm sticking with crop for awhile if not forever)? 

4
Lenses / Re: Which Lens to buy for Portraits
« on: February 19, 2015, 09:17:08 PM »
Do you think that 35 and 50 are too close in focal length for crop to own both and maintain a non-redundant set-up?

5
Lenses / Re: My "Minimalist" Lens Arsenal on Crop?
« on: February 17, 2015, 12:50:54 PM »
Hmm, how is that "minimalist"? :) That's pretty much a whole system, I mean normal.
70D with a Sigma 18-35/1.8Art and 85/1.8 (while waiting for Sigma 50-100/1.8Art) could be the "minimalists arsenal", but adding an UWA and tele lenses makes it "whole" again :). I would definitely skip the 35/2 IS and go for the Sigma instead.
I tried out a Sigma 18-35 at a workshop and found it to produce the best pictures ever seen by man.  But it was just a very large honker of a lens to be walking around with all the time.  I feel like I come close with the 35 2.0 IS.  The 18-35 sample that I tried did better than the Sigma 35 Art that I compared it to. 
With that, nothing compares with the 18-35, but it's just too big.  Maybe a Sigma 18-50 2.8 Art one day?

6
Lenses / Re: My "Minimalist" Lens Arsenal on Crop?
« on: February 17, 2015, 12:48:10 PM »
I see you did mention owning the Sigma 50 art. I saw the old Sigma 50mm EX for $350 last fall and impulsively bought it for a very fast (f/1.4) lens that could be used indoors as portrait lens. I found the 50mm and 85mm to be a big difference in focal length. How did you like the Sigma Art on your 70D?
The Sigma 50 1.4 Art was STUNNING.  I did my first real job with it photographing 23 portraits for a law firm.  It's really not possible to get better; as far as I could imagine.  I compared the focal length with my 35 and the pictures were very similar.  I definitely liked the 50 a bit better (a little sharper and a little more of that "professional" contrast, but not much), but the 35 is a bit more versatile so having both seemed expensive.  I did my final portrait with the 35 and the results were nearly identical.  The portraits with the 50 were just slightly more "natural" if that makes sense.
I would say that a 28mm would be a "better" general purpose focal length, but that's only 10 away from my 10-18 and 7 away from 35 and 35 is not bad for portraits as well so I figured that the 35 wins for more utility.  Also, it's a 67mm lens just like the 10-18.

How was focus speed and consistency? You hear mixed results from other forum members on getting consistent focus. The 50mm EX is not fastest focusing lens. It's fine for portraits but I wish it was faster to give the lens more versatility/utility.

Keep in mind 10mm on the wide end is a lot! Going from 18 to 28 is pushing double the focal length.
Flawless in every way.

7
Lenses / Re: My "Minimalist" Lens Arsenal on Crop?
« on: February 17, 2015, 10:42:01 AM »
I see you did mention owning the Sigma 50 art. I saw the old Sigma 50mm EX for $350 last fall and impulsively bought it for a very fast (f/1.4) lens that could be used indoors as portrait lens. I found the 50mm and 85mm to be a big difference in focal length. How did you like the Sigma Art on your 70D?
The Sigma 50 1.4 Art was STUNNING.  I did my first real job with it photographing 23 portraits for a law firm.  It's really not possible to get better; as far as I could imagine.  I compared the focal length with my 35 and the pictures were very similar.  I definitely liked the 50 a bit better (a little sharper and a little more of that "professional" contrast, but not much), but the 35 is a bit more versatile so having both seemed expensive.  I did my final portrait with the 35 and the results were nearly identical.  The portraits with the 50 were just slightly more "natural" if that makes sense.
I would say that a 28mm would be a "better" general purpose focal length, but that's only 10 away from my 10-18 and 7 away from 35 and 35 is not bad for portraits as well so I figured that the 35 wins for more utility.  Also, it's a 67mm lens just like the 10-18. 

8
Lenses / Re: My "Minimalist" Lens Arsenal on Crop?
« on: February 17, 2015, 08:03:53 AM »
For the type of photos you describe, I would not buy the 100-400mm. You would have more versatility as the 70-200mm F2.8 IS II, and could use it with teleconverter, if needed.
Good point.  There's also the thought of a 2x Extender for the 200mm prime?

9
Lenses / Re: My "Minimalist" Lens Arsenal on Crop?
« on: February 17, 2015, 07:28:29 AM »
Thanks.  I really do like the 85, but it can be tight at times.  By any chance does swapping it out for a 60mm Macro make any sense at all (portraits, etc.)?
Here's a shot from last night with my 85, though, which might indicate sticking with the 85 and then just using the 35 when not enough room.  I thought about a 24-70, but I gain practical focal length at the expense of size (vs. the 35 where zooming with my feet works more than half of the time - nothing's perfect).

10
Lenses / My "Minimalist" Lens Arsenal on Crop?
« on: February 16, 2015, 10:15:10 AM »
     In the name of trying to fight off GAS would you be so kind as to review my lens line-up?  I pretty much do it all minus sports.  My daughter's high school volleyball career is over and my son is about to kick off 4+ years in a pretty amazing high school marching/jazz band career.  Low-level soccer will likely still be in the mix, though, and I probably won't do much college volleyball.
     I also do a lot of portraits, landscape, street, travel, etc.
     My camera is a 70D and will likely stick with crop.  With that, does this make sense?:
     - Canon 10-18
     - Canon 35 2.0 IS (had a 50mm Sigma Art, but there didn't seem to be a whole lot of difference)
     - Canon 85 1.8
     - Canon 100-400 II (not yet obtained and will possibly sell my 200 2.8 since it's not used a lot and I could use the 85 when really needing the low light performance and the zoom when needing the focal length - although it might be tough at times indoors)
     Thanks for any advice to include good-to-go, almost all the time, with those 4.

11
Third Party Manufacturers / Sigma 150-600 Contemporary?
« on: February 14, 2015, 09:45:34 AM »
What do you think of the potential of the upcoming Sigma 150-600 for outdoor events, birds in flight, etc.?
Thanks.

12
Lenses / Re: Sigma 24mm f/1.4 Art announced..
« on: February 11, 2015, 02:42:33 PM »
OR ... get the 6D, they are almost giving them away these days. You already have the 35 and 85, two traditionally critical lenses.
Hmmmm.  My daughter's high school volleyball career has ended (a few favorites at www.flickr.com/photos/corysteiner/ ) so I could maybe sell my 10-18 and 70D to finance that.  Also, I can probably sell my 200 2.8 since I'm going to get a 100-400 anyway and that might work indoors with the 6D.
Might that really make sense with my entire kit being the 6D, 35, 85 and 100-400?

13
Lenses / Re: Sigma 24mm f/1.4 Art announced..
« on: February 11, 2015, 01:04:31 PM »
I have the 35mm and the 50mm Arts....should I just make this a clean Trifecta....I mean....it would further justify my Sigma Dock if I use it for 3 lenses instead of just 2, right???  :P
Now that you mention it - I have a crop sensor and a 10-18 so maybe 24 doesn't make a ton of sense.  My other standard lens is the 35 2.0 IS and then I have a 85 1.8 for outdoor portraits.  The 35 is generally what I have on the camera, but 50mm is a little "better" for indoor portraits. 
Would you think that having a 35 and a 50 makes sense?  Of course, the difference is more pronounced on my crop than on your ff so maybe "yes", but maybe not.  Maybe 28mm and 50mm to really round it out (vs. 35 and 50)?

14
Lenses / Re: Sigma 24mm f/1.4 Art announced..
« on: February 10, 2015, 11:50:48 AM »
Good point.  I've gotten ahold of myself since my original post and you've confirmed everything. 
Thanks.

15
Lenses / Re: Sigma 24mm f/1.4 Art announced..
« on: February 10, 2015, 09:38:56 AM »
Would it be wrong to have a 24, 35, 50 and 85?

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 19