Messages

16

Lenses / Re: UWA (to complement 35/100/200)?

« on: February 12, 2013, 08:28:51 AM »

Anyone with the new version of the Tokina 11-16?  I haven't given it a fair shot, but have seen more "popping" pictures from the Tokina than the Canon.  The new Sigma 8-16 gets great reviews, but I'd likely be using a polarizing filter on occasion so that might not be the best choice (with that considered).
Thanks.

PS No offense to the Canon 10-22.

17

Lenses / UWA (to complement 35/100/200)?

« on: February 11, 2013, 08:47:08 PM »

     I just paired my Canon T1i with the new Sigma 35 1.4.  I use my flawless 100 2.0 and 200 2.8 for indoor and outdoor sports with massive success.
     The 35mm Sigma has similar color and contrast of my 30 1.4, but is sharper so I think I made a good move.  So far I have some stunners and use it/plan on using it for everything other than sports - family, travel, landscape, flowers, etc.
     Especially in light of our pending big trip to Alaska would an UWA (which I have no experience with) be an important addition?  I imagine that might be nice for sweeping landscapes and buildings up close both inside and out (in some cases), but do some do well with nothing but a 35mm (50+ equivalent on a crop)?
     Thanks.

18

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sigma 17-70?

« on: February 04, 2013, 11:08:31 PM »

The 17-70 just became available so it should be here in two days.  I do like primes and use my telephoto primes wide open all the time, but I do tend to like more DOF for non-sports photography and usually use a flash when needing more light closer up so this might be "it".  The OS might be a good thing too.
The pending 30 1.4 "II", though, looks pretty tidy as well. 

 

19

Third Party Manufacturers / Sigma 17-70?

« on: January 27, 2013, 04:14:31 PM »

     Looks like the new Sigma 17-70 is nearing an intro.  I'm considering replacing my 30 1.4 with it for everything except for sports (I use my 100 2.0 and 200 2.8 for that).  Another option is to keep the 30 and add a Tokina 11-16, but I do like the one-lens-solutions and 17mm might be enough.
     My camera's a T1i and I really like that "L" quality that I get with my prime.  Might a Sigma zoom be at least a little similar in that regard to a Sigma prime?  I got a good one, too, that's sharp everywhere.

20

Lenses / Re: Your favorite lens is?

« on: January 14, 2013, 03:53:20 PM »

I've narrowed it down to:
- Sigma 30 1.4
- Canon 100 2.0
- Canon 200 2.8

21

EOS Bodies / Re: 5D3 Volleyball Weekend and General Thoughts

« on: January 13, 2013, 11:49:57 PM »

Did someone say "volleyball"?:

http://corysteiner.blogspot.com

22

Lenses / Re: Announcement on January 8, 2013? New Lenses [CR1]

« on: December 24, 2012, 06:18:37 PM »

Do you think the 12-24 might be a good bet for crop sensors?  My "normal" lens is a Sigma 30 1.4 and I'm considering the new Tokina 11-16, but would gladly wait to see what the 12-24 is all about.

 

23

Lenses / Re: Best Value "Normal" Lens for 6d?

« on: December 17, 2012, 12:53:55 AM »

I exchanged my 135 for a 100 2.0 and 200 2.8 - more useful for indoor volleyball.  The 135 2.0 was sort of an "inbetween" focal length for my needs.  I wonder if that'll change by going to FF.  If so then it'll be clear that I'm a dick.

24

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon 7D: 'I need a Must Have's List'

« on: December 15, 2012, 07:23:46 AM »

Would anyone mind a quick 10-22 vs 11-16 (the new one) comparison?

25

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sigma 30 vs 35?

« on: December 14, 2012, 03:55:48 PM »

If I'm not being overly dumb - as a "general" lens for crop:  Sigma 30 1.4, Sigma 35 1.4, Canon 24 1.4 II or wait for the Canon 35 1.4 II?  Even if I'm being overly dumb what would you say?

26

Third Party Manufacturers / Sigma 30 vs 35?

« on: December 14, 2012, 08:29:30 AM »

Any comparisons on a crop for a Sigma 30 1.4 vs. 35 1.4?  My 30 is GREAT, but I wonder if it's possible to do better and, if so, if it's worth the expense.
Thanks.

 

27

Lenses / Re: Please help me decide between the EF 300 f/4 L and the EF 70-300 f/4-5.6 L

« on: December 13, 2012, 03:46:15 PM »

I wonder between these two as well to complement my 200 2.8 (crop sensor) for field sports/events.
Leaning towards the zoom.

 

28

Lenses / Re: Best Value "Normal" Lens for 6d?

« on: December 13, 2012, 08:11:52 AM »

I got frightened and didn't get anything.  I'm gonna hold off and then maybe go with a 6D/24-70 f4 IS kit one day (and maybe a 35 or 50 prime and long zoom of some sort).  I'll likely do a 6D/7D II comparison when the time comes and see what happens.

 

29

EOS Bodies / Re: 6D or 5D3 (or wait for 7d2?)

« on: December 08, 2012, 11:33:28 AM »

Keep in mind I don't know what I'm talking about, but I have a sense that using the best lens(es) possible and constantly improving technique are more important than the body (as long as your body's at least pretty good) and that the main benefit might be high ISO performance. 

It seems to me that you know exactly what you are talking about! 
Although I love talking about gear as much as the next guy, in the end, what really matters is the talent of the photograph, and not how sophisticated is his camera. For instance, most of my favorite stills where taken before the invention of AF and DSLR, so it seems that it is always possible to take great pictures without perfect AF and high frame rates.

Also, as far as "technical quality" goes, the lens matters much more than the body; for me, you are far better with an low-end body and high-end lens than the opposite. Except for ISO performance, most of the low-end body problems can be overcome by the photograph with a bit more effort, and even for ISO, it is sometime possible to find a solution to use lower ISO and keep a good exposure. Of course, everyone has his own way of  taking picture, which is affected by what he is shooting; I personally uses manual focus 99.99% of the time and manual exposure 100% of the time, so I might be bias in my opinion. It is always more about choosing the camera that feels right for you than the one with the biggest numbers in the specs. 

Thanks for saying.  I was fishing for that.
On a side note, I'm undecided between a 70-300L or 300 4.0 IS to complement my 100 2.0 and 200 2.8.  The zoom or 300 prime would be for outdoor sports/events.  The 100 and 200 are PERFECT beyond belief for indoor sports.
Much appreciated.

30

EOS Bodies / Re: 6D or 5D3 (or wait for 7d2?)

« on: December 08, 2012, 07:22:24 AM »

I'm in the same boat with IQ my main priority, but after lots of thought I decided to not give up the reach advantage of a crop.  My current camera's a T1i.  I'd probably love a 6D, but my 100 and 200 primes are perfect for indoor volleyball. 
Comparing my shots with those in Sports Illustrated, for example, I'm doing pretty well.  I think it's a combo of GREAT lenses and learning how to use my camera.  Keep in mind I don't know what I'm talking about, but I have a sense that using the best lens(es) possible and constantly improving technique are more important than the body (as long as your body's at least pretty good) and that the main benefit might be high ISO performance.  My T1i isn't horrible, but isn't too bad at 6400 and I think the good lenses make up for much of that in the IQ that they offer.
So I've decided to wait for the 7D II.  I was going to maybe get a 6D for general photography and a 7D II for sports, but I'd rather focus on one camera and learn everything possible about it than potentially getting confused by two complicated bodies.
Again, I have no idea what I'm saying, but it seems to possibly make sense.