1
Animal Kingdom / Re: Show your Bird Portraits
« on: Today at 10:40:03 AM »
Did my first BiF last week, 5D Mark III w/ 70-200 2.8L IS II
May 25, 2013, 09:17:50 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.
2
Lenses / Re: 50mm.. Upgrade or not?
« on: May 23, 2013, 01:30:25 PM »After a few hours of internet research I have decided to get the Sigma 35 f1.4 DG HSM :O
Exactly what I did after I waited months for a new 50 1.4 from Canon. I first bought the 50 1.2L and it was a nice lens, heavy, weather sealed, just felt right, but the shots weren't satisfying below 2.0. The old 50 1.4 which I owned before won't come back into my bag cause its just such an old piece of plastic and also not the greatest performance at 1.4, at least not even close to what the new Sigma 35mm 1.4 can produce. So, I sold the 50L again and bought the Sigma 35 1.4 and if you get a decent copy with no focus problems then this is what should be the standard for 1.4! Incredibly sharp.
3
Lenses / Re: Disappointed with 50 f/1.2 sharpness @ f/1.2
« on: May 23, 2013, 01:27:04 PM »
The 50L in my opinion is way too expensive for its performance, you don't buy a 1.2 lens to not shoot at 1.2 because it's not really sharp. Don't misunderstand me, I had it for some weeks and it got me some good shots but they all were just not comparable to the sharpness of a Sigma 35mm 1.4 or a Canon 135mm 2.0.
That and the exorbitant age of the current 50 1.4 is why everyone screams for a new 50 1.4.
That and the exorbitant age of the current 50 1.4 is why everyone screams for a new 50 1.4.
4
Lenses / Re: Can the 70-200 2.8L II IS replace my 100L and 135L?
« on: May 23, 2013, 01:22:28 PM »
That head shot was also processed in DxO which alters sharpness and bokeh.
5
Lenses / Re: Can the 70-200 2.8L II IS replace my 100L and 135L?
« on: May 22, 2013, 04:39:23 PM »
It's just the usage that makes the difference. When used for portrait, the 135 just feels more "right" because its faster. 100 is more like a universal workhorse.
6
Lenses / Re: Can the 70-200 2.8L II IS replace my 100L and 135L?
« on: May 22, 2013, 03:45:00 PM »
Since I got the 135 I did not use the 100 anymore, only one time when it snowed really hard. It's just better.
7
Lenses / Re: Can the 70-200 2.8L II IS replace my 100L and 135L?
« on: May 22, 2013, 03:40:04 PM »
Out of curiosity, can you see a difference in shots from the 135L and 100L?
The 100L already is sharp, but the 135L is somehow a bit sharper. Plus it's got one additional stop and its USM is quite a chunk faster than the 100's. If to decide between 100 and 135, go with the 135 unless you need stabilization or weather sealing.
8
Lenses / Re: Disappointed with 50 f/1.2 sharpness @ f/1.2
« on: May 22, 2013, 03:35:26 PM »
The 1.2L is not the sharpest tool in the shed from 1.2 to 2.0, but that's common knowledge I'd say.
9
Lenses / Re: Can the 70-200 2.8L II IS replace my 100L and 135L?
« on: May 22, 2013, 03:30:45 PM »
Again, I already sold my 100L, kept the 135L and bought the 70-200L. Version II of course. I also bought a 500D close up lens for the little macro work I wanna do, sure I don't get 1:1 but easily the double of what the 70-200 can natively do.
Anywho, if I find myself in need of a macro anytime in the future, I can just grab another 100 non L, or a Tamron 90 VC or something like that, it's just no need for a L anymore.
Anywho, if I find myself in need of a macro anytime in the future, I can just grab another 100 non L, or a Tamron 90 VC or something like that, it's just no need for a L anymore.
10
Lenses / Re: Sigma 14mm 2.8 (Canon mount)
« on: May 18, 2013, 10:03:35 AM »
This is a VERY good price. I've only seen it once around ebay somewhere and they wanted nearly 600€.
11
Lenses / Re: Can the 70-200 2.8L II IS replace my 100L and 135L?
« on: May 18, 2013, 10:02:53 AM »
I guess the 135L isn't weather sealed. I didn't realize that.
Yup it ain't for some reason, that's also the only negative thing I can say about this lens. In every other aspect it's great.
12
Lenses / Re: Can the 70-200 2.8L II IS replace my 100L and 135L?
« on: May 17, 2013, 02:12:12 PM »
Yeah, I also loved my 100L, but only quite until I got the 135L 
it is simply another tad sharper and of course way faster. I did not pull out that 100L anymore except that one time when it snowed so hard it would've killed my 135.
it is simply another tad sharper and of course way faster. I did not pull out that 100L anymore except that one time when it snowed so hard it would've killed my 135.
13
Lenses / Re: Can the 70-200 2.8L II IS replace my 100L and 135L?
« on: May 16, 2013, 02:36:16 PM »
Cheers guys, thanks for all the replies.
I'll have you know that I decided to ditch Macro, sold the 100L, kept the 135L and bought the 70-200 2.8L IS II.
I'll have you know that I decided to ditch Macro, sold the 100L, kept the 135L and bought the 70-200 2.8L IS II.
14
Lenses / Re: Can the 70-200 2.8L II IS replace my 100L and 135L?
« on: May 11, 2013, 03:18:30 AM »Of course, if you do not use your 100L for close ups or macros, then you could have bought something less expensive to begin with.
Of course I used it for macros in the beginning, but that magic runs out sometime. I still wanted IS and weather sealing, so no alternative there.
15
Lenses / Can the 70-200 2.8L II IS replace my 100L and 135L?
« on: May 10, 2013, 09:51:16 AM »
Hello there,
having that thought in the back of my mind through the last days... That 70-200 2.8 II IS. We got Cashback from Canon at the moment (300€ for that lens, which is quite a chunk) and I've been thinking about this monster. I put very much emphasis on sharpness and I am satisfied with the performance of my Sigma 35 1.4, the 100L and the 135L. I feel there is something missing between 35 and 100, 50mm is too close to 35 and 85 too close to 100 so I would've wanted something 70-ish.
I don't shoot macros that much anymore and only use the 100L in bad weather conditions or if there is not enough space to use the 135L. The latter I only use from tripods for portrait work, because of its lack of stabilization and I quite don't like that it is not sealed.
The 70-200 2.8L II IS now could provide me with that 70 focal length I miss plus it would probably outperform the 100L, which I could get rid off then. I am not so sure about the 135L though. I really love this lens, but can't really say how big the difference between it and the 70-200 2.8L is. My pouch would probably stomach keeping both, but I find myself thinking if the 135L would become unnecessary.
Any thoughts on this?
having that thought in the back of my mind through the last days... That 70-200 2.8 II IS. We got Cashback from Canon at the moment (300€ for that lens, which is quite a chunk) and I've been thinking about this monster. I put very much emphasis on sharpness and I am satisfied with the performance of my Sigma 35 1.4, the 100L and the 135L. I feel there is something missing between 35 and 100, 50mm is too close to 35 and 85 too close to 100 so I would've wanted something 70-ish.
I don't shoot macros that much anymore and only use the 100L in bad weather conditions or if there is not enough space to use the 135L. The latter I only use from tripods for portrait work, because of its lack of stabilization and I quite don't like that it is not sealed.
The 70-200 2.8L II IS now could provide me with that 70 focal length I miss plus it would probably outperform the 100L, which I could get rid off then. I am not so sure about the 135L though. I really love this lens, but can't really say how big the difference between it and the 70-200 2.8L is. My pouch would probably stomach keeping both, but I find myself thinking if the 135L would become unnecessary.
Any thoughts on this?