Well, I did it...

Sold my 24-70 for 1400 dlls, 200 more than the 1200 I paid 2 years ago when I bought it new...

Just shoot a Halloween party last weekend, I love the sharpness and bokeh, and shooting at iso 1600 in an almost dark house with bounce flash, I think I will love this 35L just as much my 135L

I'm tempted to add a 85 to fill the gap

Sigma's looks promising, canon one is tempting too...

I really don't like DXO. I really DO like personal reviews and their images, this tells me more about a lens. Personally I have owned the 135L and there is no flaw, F2 is dead sharp, accuracy results in never a missed shot. You can shoot at F2 and never worry. I only like it on FF personally unless its for sports. The thing is I had the 70-200 too and I was carrying all this equipment and for what? I never or at least can't recall a single shot that didnt look spectacular. The weight is so much nicer than 70-200 and the build is very solid. The glass looks just like my 85L II thick and heavy, not the lens but the glass. You kinda need to expect to be doing head shots and the like more than anything so if you don't shoot stuff like that you might not like the focal length. I recommend getting a plug in for LR4 and having it tell you what focal lengths you use most.
I use this plug in, it tells me focal lengths used. It took a while to read everything but i had it go thru all my wedding photos to determine what lenses i'd like ot limit myself to using given how i used the lenses i have owned.
http://regex.info/blog/lightroom-goodies/data-plot
He does ask for a donation and its totally worth it!

T3i, received on on 1/4/12

Sold T3i in May 2012: wanted the better battery, better AF, Kelvin Temp WB of the 60D

Bought a 60D in May 2012

Ready to upgrade to a 5D3 as soon as I have the money for the better AF, better IQ, Low light performance. I've seriously considered the 5d2, especially for the prices I've seen recently (as low as $1499 new) but the superior AF and even better low light capabilities are making me lean toward the mark 3. Honestly though, It's hard to justify unless I get a smoking deal on the mark 3. I find that I'm liking how I use off camera flash more than relying on the high ISO capabilities of a camera so a mark ii might just be enough for me.

I think upgrading bodies depends on the needs/skills of the photographer. I outgrew the t3i after a couple months of owning it and using it. Between January and May, I purchased the 50 1.4, 24-105, and 10-22. I bought the 35L with the 60D for the double rebate. Since then I purchased a, 40mm 2.8, a 70-200 2.8 IS II, 1.4x III TC, and some Kenko extension tubes.

I think I went a little crazy on the purchases but my 1st 3 lenses were bought used so It wasn't that bad. The bodies are another story. When I realize what my camera can't do, I start researching better bodies. I think i'm a pretty quick study when it comes to tech so my needs grow every time I do a shoot and realize I've got a problem that I just can't find a solution for with the gear I have.

DB said:

RLPhoto said:

My opinion on the 24-70L f/4 is that for 1500$, it's exactly how I originally imagined it. DOA.

This lens should have been a affordable FF lens for users not needing 2.8 or the extra reach of the 24-105L. It proved to be neither of those things.

Click to expand...

What do you want? Canon to sell it for $500 and make a LOSS then go BUST :

"it proved to be neither" - that's past tense! Affordability is subjective...depends on the consumer, plus this lens is not out yet

Go back 6 months on CR and read how many contributors said @ $3.5k the 5D3 was DOA vs D800 and then look at the CR commentators that said 24-70mm mk II @ $2.3k was DOA.....several months on and they're in the kit bags of many CR bloggers. LOL

Click to expand...

Well, I just picked up a new 24-105L for 750$. That alone says enough about the value for money of this lens. I could buy a 24-105L and a 100mm 2.8L macro for almost the price of the 24-70 F/4L.

Yes. Past Tense because it you cannot change it now that its been released. Its not cheap, its has a shorter reach and the 24-105L is already sharp.

The 5D3 is too expensive and many agree. I didn't pay full price for mine, I paid 3000$. The Fire sale on evil bay from adorama for 2799$ also says otherwise.

24-70 2.8L II is a work horse professional lens. We need speed and you pay premium for that but F/4? For 1500$? Bah!

I have the T4i with the 18-135 STM.

I had all "L" glass in the past, and would never use a kit lens. But the 18-135 is much improved over previous versions. I use it for both stills and video.

With the STM and auto focus on the T4i, I can also use the T4i in places where I would usually use a camcorder. At ISO 3200, the T4i is much, much better than my Canon Vixia.

I have used the T4i for 1.75 hours on 1 battery with no heat problem. The only mild irritation is the 4GB files it splits into.

The T4i is also a much improved stills camera over the T3i, with the 60D auto focus in stills mode. the 18-135 is a very good, fast focusing stills lens.

The touch screen is also very nice. The T4i is a very, very good upgrade over the T3i.

You should be able to find the kit for around $1,000 or so. The 40 mm STM is also a great lens.

Good luck!
Michael

The way I think of it is, there is meaning behind my tattoo that represents me and my personality. I dont mind if someone cannot recognize me in a self portrait. Self portraits dont have to be beneficial to others, they dont always have to recognize me. Self portraits are to reflect on who you are.

Just my thoughts behind the image.

I have done a lot of research on dslr video and yes you can create some amazing footage but is comes at a cost. Camera and lenses cost then there is the external audio recorder, then software to sync audio in post, a follow focus and the workflow when shooting takes longer when you have to manually focus each shot. Then if you shoot fast movement you have to deal with the jello effect.

After experiencing all this I decided to just buy the Canon XF100. About the same price as the 5d3 but you get 2 xlr inputs 50mps shooting to cfl cards and 4:2:2 color.

I still use my dslr as a b camera, but it literally takes half the time shooting with the XF100. This is just my 2 cents.

Mt Spokane Photography said:

Canon has a similar patent as well, a couple of years old. The issue is making one that is competitive. With all the camera manufacturers hurting for sales, it would be a big risk to come out with something completely new, because people have stopped buying luxury items.
Most of the high end sales are in europe and the USA, and the storm on the east coast will be tieing up the money of many people potentially for years. So, R&D keeps going, but production is going to be very cautious.

Click to expand...

The problem is if somebody take the risk even at a lower price point. It's happening already with Sony and Nikon. Both are so aggressive now with their pricing. I think they want to take the market little by little. Lets accept the fact that Canon is losing customers little by little due to their very conservative tech and pricing. If you analyze the lens offering of Nikon right now, I think they are continually closing the gap between Canon and Nikon lens availability. 70-200 F4? I hope Canon takes an affirmative action now and not tomorrow. It happened once when Canon put AF into their lenses. This time, it may happen again but with Nikon and Sony partnership with their state of the art sensors.

K-amps said:

pakosouthpark said:

[some people don't know how to spend their money!

Click to expand...

Apparently he does know how to spend his money.... of all the people, we as photo enthusiast can appreciate what someone will do for the love of a hobby...

But why the Leica? Was the Zeiss giving him too much CA?

Click to expand...

there are limits for it. i love photography but the money it takes for a proper lens.. and then you have people not so creative but loads of money that don't use their gadget to the maximum.. pretty sure a creative photography student that cant even afford a dSLR would do better shots than this sheik..

I needed a filter ring with no glass for a DIY project, so I bought a $3 UV filter from ebay and cracked the glass. Before doing so, just out of curiosity, I tested it against my "one dollar resolution chart".

These are the 100% crops from the Canon 500D that I had at the time:

no filter:


with $3 UV filter:


if you stack a bunch of these you'll start seeing some effect (http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2011/06/good-times-with-bad-filters), but for just one filter... you're pretty safe, even if it's a shitty $3 filter from ebay


edit: other filters will definitely have an effect on sharpness; for example, cheap resin NDs, or fader NDs: http://www.similaar.com/foto/lenstests/lenstestsn.html

HoneyBadger said:

I have had two 5dIII (returned one) both made 2 high pitch noises when turning it on and off while it said it was cleaning so I would not worry about it. I am also one of those can can tell if a crt is on anywhere in the house. And those damn apple chargers for their laptops drive me crazy with their high pitch noise!

Click to expand...

If you are hearing CRTs from NTSC Televisions, you know you can hear 15.7 KHz then :-D Computer monitors generally run well above the threshold of human hearing. For example, a CRT capable of 1024 lines at a 60 Hz refresh rate runs at about 64KHz, which means in order for these devices to be audible you would have to be hearing some subharmonic, which of course is quite possible.

laptop chargers are a different animal. Unlike the CRTs with flyback transformers, these are switching supplies running well above the audio range, However, it is still not uncomon for these to produce some subharmonic mechanical vibration or even a real resonance in the audio range as a side-effect. It wouldn't suprise me if these produce acoustic energy well below the upper threshhold of human hearing.

Took this image last night while walking around Huntsville, TX.

Oh, the problem of me being pedantic! I should have double-checked before posting!
Of course you are correct!

Rat said:

thebowtie said:

What we want is 'Hydrophilic' - water-repelling.

Click to expand...

Correct term - as used by the BBC in the above program, which I watched with interest, too - is hydrophobic ('tending to repel or fail to mix with water'). This is actually the exact opposite of 'hydrophilic' (lit. 'brother to water'). ...

Click to expand...

Following up the rest of your post:

Rat said:

The difficulty with that solution is electric currents. The smallest scratch in such a coating, e.g. on the contacts of a memory card or in a switch, which tend to be vulnerable to scratches anyway - and the conductivity of water would render your device useless. A phone without an sd-slot, without mechanical switches, with a soldered-in battery and with a properly sealed sim-card slot might be commercially waterproofed using hydrophobic coatings. For electromechanical devices such as dslr's, current solutions are regrettably as pricey and cumbersome as they are optimal, if you ask me.

Mind you, I'm talking about fully waterproofing a camera here. Obviously such a coating could go a long way in making a camera more water-repellant.

Click to expand...

Not only is there the issue of surface damage to the coating creating the risk of electrical problems - there's also the risk of any captured water retained in voids in the equipment - whilst not immediately corrosive, it can cause deposition of dissolved solids (minerals), and suspended matter (dirt) that can further harm the camera.

Keep it all out, I say!

How much sharper is the 70-300L than the 100-400?

Also, I've owned the 50/1.8 mrkI and the 50/1.4, and I can tell you that they don't come close to the 50L's image quality. Yeah, the others might be a bit sharper, but there's more to it than sharpness.

ahsanford said:

Oh, nice -- so I don't need a CF reader? I can just swap the files from CF to SD on camera?

Great. Problem solved -- I'll just use the CF card for ME shots, and keep it cleaned out.

Thanks!

Click to expand...

Use it for everything, then remove the images you do not like and transfer the keepers.

Mt Spokane Photography said:

Date codes on lenses are hit and miss. Many, if not all new models of "L" lenses introduced in the past two years do not have date codes. Most older lenses, even non "L" lenses had date codes.
Lenses that have been repaired by Canon often come back without a date code, apparently Canon commonly replaces the part with the code stamped on it.
It appears that eventually date codes will disappear on new lenses, but it might take 10 years.

Click to expand...

7-digit serial will be accompanied by a date code like UAxxxx
10-digit serials will not have an additional date code (built-in to serial)

edit: obviously until all 7-digit serial lenses are 'discontinued' then the UA (2012), UB (2013) UC (2014) et cetera date codes will remain, until eventually all Canon lenses will have 10-digit serial numbers

If anyone is still looking, Amazon has 7 of them right now...

tiger82 said:

PavelR said:

tiger82 said:

My ability to shoot sports with a 50D went up greatly when I got a 70-200 IS f/2.8. Put your saved money toward a better camera in a year or two and go for great glass. A 1D4 with your current glass will get you mediocre shots but at a great frame rate.

Click to expand...

+1
Glass, AF or good MF, the reasonable ISO + correct exposure time make the image look great, not fps...
(Or 5d3 for better low light AF. I have 1d4 and FPS do not help much in 95% of sports, you need to catch the exact moment.)

Click to expand...

Are we in agreement that better glass with a 50D will be better that a kit lens with a 1D4? Or not? My sports shots did get better when I paired my 50D with a 70-200 IS f/2.8 and improved a bit more when I went to a 7D. Saving my $ for a 1Dx. I'd like to get the shots in between the ones I get with the 7D as the frame rate goes from 8fps to 12fps.

Click to expand...

We are in an agreement.
(Better glass improve the technical quality of an image the most. I listed some characteristics that influence an IQ the most.)
(I have set 9fps on my 1D4, because AF needs more time to follow the subject than it is available in the highest FPS, but generally fps do not help me in group indoor/outdoor sports or any athletics disciplines - only one moment is the best and it is needed to press the shutter release just before the moment. I've also used spray and pray with new camera, but now one shot at the best time is better technique for me...)

amazin said:

Does AFMA can help change this?

What is Canon after-sales policy toward this random quality "issue"?

Click to expand...

No, AFMA is not a factor.
If a lens is out of Spec, Canon will fix it.
All but three of the 70 were fine. Variation is normal and to be expected. Canon is not going to guarantee that you get the best of the best. Even the lowest performing lenses were better than the best performing MK I lenses.

+ eleventy on the many replies. Moving to back-button focus did more for my photography than any other change I've done. One additional suggestion: consider the Crumpler Industry Disgrace neck strap. It is awesome.

atreides71 said:

Well last night I listed the lens on Craigslist for $300. Not 10 minutes after I listed it a guy offered my $240 so I met up with him and he brought his T4i to try it out. That lens looked huge on his little T4i but he liked what he saw and we made the deal. That was the first time I saw the T4i. Tiny in comparison to my 7D. Plus i have the battery grip. Anyways the lens creep didn't seem to bother him and he inspected it pretty good before he payed me. Aside from that the lens looked new and I had a decent UV filter on it.

Click to expand...

Now go and get a 50mm F1.4 USM or a 35mm F2. Best IQ for the buck.

I'm trying to find a website similar to canonpricewatch.com and nikonpricewatch.com, but I can't find one. Does anyone know of a website that lists the best prices for Sony cameras, and also has a feature to set-up an email price alert?

I would like to find the best deal on the Sony RX100, and set an e-mail price alert.

thanks

I'm late to the party but having owned all three lenses with the intention of 'shooting wildlife' the 500mm is the no-brainer of the three, it really comes down to weight and the fact that you said 'wildlife' not 'birds'.

First lets take the 400mm off the list immediately, it weighs as much as the 600mm (8.6lbs) and has considerably less reach just to get 1 more f-stop of brightness, this is really a sports lens where you need that f2.8 aperture, not a nature/wildlife lens.

Now its the 500mm (7lbs) vs the 600mm (8.5lbs) for 'wildlife', lets say wildlife ranges in size from birds to moose and you'll generally want to travel reasonable distances on foot, you're going to rather have a 1.5lb lighter lens that allows you to travel further than that 20% closer crop. Being able to travel that extra 1-3 miles is going to make more of a difference than that close crop.

Now, if you had said 'I want to shoot birds', it would be a different story, the 600mm lens is critical for shooting birds for two reasons: get 20% more resolution on the tiny details or allowing you to be 20% further from your subject so it doesn't up and fly away. See my related answer here for more info http://photo.stackexchange.com/a/7942/1819