December 20, 2014, 07:49:16 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 - florianbieler.de

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 13
31
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.

32
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.

33
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.

34
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.

35
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.

36
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.

37
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.

38
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.

39
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?

40
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: iPhone5 or 1Dx
« on: May 10, 2013, 01:23:56 AM »
I don't get the point of this thread.

41
Lenses / Re: Canon 40mm vs 50mm f/1.4
« on: May 07, 2013, 02:48:15 PM »
Quite a bit difficult to compare a 2.8 lens to a 1.4 lens. That's two stops. The 40 basically is a real bargain, offers great quality for its size and weight and just has style somehow. I owned it for some weeks and was quite satisfied with its performance. Of course if you own a Sigma 35 1.4 like me, you won't put on such a 40 2.8 that often, except if you want to go ultra light.

42
Reviews / Re: Review - Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM
« on: May 07, 2013, 01:02:48 AM »
First sharpness is not everything

Blasphemy!

43
Lenses / Re: Poll: Most Wanted New Lenses of 2013.
« on: May 07, 2013, 12:47:58 AM »
I'd like Sigma to add a 50 1.4 and 85 1.4 to their Art line.

44
EOS Bodies / Re: Download Firmware 1.2.1 link for 5DIII
« on: April 26, 2013, 10:07:27 AM »
Also updated, everything went fine.

45
Lighting / Re: Speedlite Remote Trigger Question
« on: April 26, 2013, 12:22:13 AM »
you'd be better using the 430 as the master...

Um, the 430 can't be used as master.

I also got the Yongnuo 622C two weeks ago, they work flawlessly.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 13