|
Bubbacub posted:I don't get it. Isn't f/4 still an f/4 whatever it's projecting onto?
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 16:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 14:13 |
|
|
This seems like a really sweet deal http://www.vistek.ca/store/DigitalSLRs/276732/canon-eos-7d-mark-ii-body-w-ef-2470mm-f40l-usm-standard-zoom-lens.aspx
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 17:24
|
|
|
I'd really like to know if the 7D2 properly downsizes video, or does line-skipping. It seems like there is zero reason for it not to given the 5d3 can with less processing power, but knowing Canon... "To allow for 60 frames at 1080, this method was unfortunately not available on the 7D Mark II, although the Magic Lantern folks will figure out how to do it in 6 months."
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 20:22
|
|
|
Alpenglow posted:I'd really like to know if the 7D2 properly downsizes video, or does line-skipping. It seems like there is zero reason for it not to given the 5d3 can with less processing power, but knowing Canon... "To allow for 60 frames at 1080, this method was unfortunately not available on the 7D Mark II, although the Magic Lantern folks will figure out how to do it in 6 months." If it has the video zoom like the 70D, you can take care of that by switching it on at least (although, that also gets you a narrower FOV, and loses you AF)
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 20:34
|
|
|
So I realize I missed the rebate by about 20 days at this point, does anyone think it will come back before the end of the year?
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2014 14:28
|
|
|
I'm going on a week long trip to Iceland in October and will be looking for a good multi purpose walkaround lens for it. I've finally realised my 18-55 kit lens for my 450d just won't be up to the task, as it's a bit poo poo. I was looking at the 24-105mm 4.0 L but have read that it's not too good unless it's on a full frame body. Is there much truth to this? I really want a good, sturdy, well built lens with this kind of image quality and zoom. If the 24-105 wouldn't be great on my cropped body, does anyone have any other recommendations for a similar kind of lens?
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 11:38
|
|
|
NaDy posted:I'm going on a week long trip to Iceland in October and will be looking for a good multi purpose walkaround lens for it. I've finally realised my 18-55 kit lens for my 450d just won't be up to the task, as it's a bit poo poo. the 24-105 sounds like a good lens, it is L-glass after all, but it's just a little bit slow (though at least full-time f/4 compared to the kit lens) especially on crop. but it gets a bit of a harsh reputation from some people as the "kit L lens" because they're comparing it to the faster 24-70 2.8 L, which isn't always a fair comparison. It's solid, especially if you can find one gently used. if you are okay with the focal range of the kit lens, go try to find one of the Tamron 17-50 2.8s WITHOUT their VC. it's a much, much better lens than the kit lens while retaining a similar field of view. It's a great walk around lens for crop cameras like yours. That and the Canon 40 mm 2.8 pancake prime lens are all I use on my 60D now.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 15:20
|
|
|
Is VC Tamron's equivalent of IS? That lens does seem like it would suit me. The focal range is closer to what I'd go for, especially if the image quality is much better than the kit lens. I might hold off on the 24-105 until I eventually get a full frame. I liked the focal range but thinking about it more it won't have the wideness I'd like for an everyday lens to be honest.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 15:45
|
|
|
NaDy posted:Is VC Tamron's equivalent of IS? That lens does seem like it would suit me. The focal range is closer to what I'd go for, especially if the image quality is much better than the kit lens. Yeah, Vibration Compensation, though there are a number of Tamron VC lenses that are noticably softer than than non-VC lenses.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 15:54
|
|
|
NaDy posted:I was looking at the 24-105mm 4.0 L but have read that it's not too good unless it's on a full frame body. Is there much truth to this? I really want a good, sturdy, well built lens with this kind of image quality and zoom. If the 24-105 wouldn't be great on my cropped body, does anyone have any other recommendations for a similar kind of lens? I shot my 24-105L on a T3i before stepping up to a 6D, and while I won't say it's a night-and-day difference, having a real 24mm is nice if you're on the go and want a nice wide shot, which is a lot of what I shoot. I'd second the above opinion of getting a gently used one. That's how I got mine.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 16:47
|
|
|
NeuralSpark posted:I shot my 24-105L on a T3i before stepping up to a 6D, and while I won't say it's a night-and-day difference, having a real 24mm is nice if you're on the go and want a nice wide shot, which is a lot of what I shoot. I'd second the above opinion of getting a gently used one. That's how I got mine. Yeah I do tend towards taking wider shots, so the 24-105 may not be my best bet on a crop. Elliotw2 posted:Yeah, Vibration Compensation, though there are a number of Tamron VC lenses that are noticably softer than than non-VC lenses. That's good to know. Having a quick search I've found that my local camera shop has a used 17-50 non VC in good condition for £200. I'm probably going to get that as long as it doesn't have any major scratches on the lens or anything, then use the money that would've gone on the 24-105 on having a better time while I'm actually in Iceland!
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 16:55
|
|
|
NaDy posted:Yeah I do tend towards taking wider shots, so the 24-105 may not be my best bet on a crop. The non VC 17-50 is amazing and super sharp. You won't regret it Edit: there is one for sale in the buy camera poo poo thread actually Soulex fucked around with this message at 17:30 on Sep 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 17:26
|
|
|
24mm isn't wide at all on a crop. Sure you get more on the long end, however, I don't think the long end is as important as the wide end. With the long end you can fake it by zooming with your feet and getting closer to your subject. With wide angle, there isn't much you can do other than get a wider lens. You could move back from your subject but it's just not the same. Also, f/4 would suck on a crop for DoF. When it comes to full frame the 24-105 is excellent range. In my unscientific opinion, its image quality and performance are just as good as my 70-200 2.8 IS II.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 18:30
|
|
|
Haggins posted:24mm isn't wide at all on a crop. Sure you get more on the long end, however, I don't think the long end is as important as the wide end. With the long end you can fake it by zooming with your feet and getting closer to your subject. With wide angle, there isn't much you can do other than get a wider lens. You could move back from your subject but it's just not the same. Also, f/4 would suck on a crop for DoF. This is good general advice, but for landscapes in Iceland I found myself using much longer focal lengths than usual. "Zoom with your feet" doesn't really work if you're photographing a glacier near the horizon or a mountain peak across the valley.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 19:41
|
|
|
Well yeah there is a limit to what you can zoom with your feet. It's not the perfect solution to all focal length problems.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 20:04
|
|
|
How's the sigma 24-70 f2.8? Thinking about picking up the 7d mkii now that boxing season is starting back up and some quality glass is necessary but I can't bring my self to drop the 2100 on the f2.8L ii.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 07:38
|
|
|
I need a new macro for detail wedding shots and occasional product photography. I'm choosing between the canon 100m L (~1100bux) and the sigma 105 mm (~750 bux). dxomark says the canon has some chromatic abberation on a FF's edges, while the sigma does not. What would you choose?
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 13:57
|
|
|
Something cheaper than $750 for a macro lens you'll get to use so little. Try a used third party 90mm.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 14:07
|
|
|
The Canon 100mm non-IS macro is basically the same optics as the L lens without stabilization and like 1/3 of the price. Since you can take your time with your shots and probably use a tripod for product photography, you don't need IS.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 14:47
|
|
|
KidDynamite posted:How's the sigma 24-70 f2.8? Thinking about picking up the 7d mkii now that boxing season is starting back up and some quality glass is necessary but I can't bring my self to drop the 2100 on the f2.8L ii. I think the tamron 24-70 2.8 vc is supposed to be better. I haven't tried it but it reviews well and is the only 24-70 with image stabilization
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 16:11
|
|
|
800peepee51doodoo posted:I think the tamron 24-70 2.8 vc is supposed to be better. I haven't tried it but it reviews well and is the only 24-70 with image stabilization That is the general consensus from what I've seen. Sigma < Canon Mk1 < Tamron VC < Canon Mk2
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 16:13
|
|
|
KinkyJohn posted:I need a new macro for detail wedding shots and occasional product photography. I'm choosing between the canon 100m L (~1100bux) and the sigma 105 mm (~750 bux). dxomark says the canon has some chromatic abberation on a FF's edges, while the sigma does not. If you're good at bouncing a speedlite, and you're not relying on natural light to grab those macro detail shots at a wedding, I'd go with the non-L 100mm Canon macro. The IS on the 100L is good if you're shooting in dim locations or using it for portraiture at a distance, and the image quality is amazing, but it's a hard price to justify.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 17:13
|
|
|
They are out of stock now, but the 100L is ~$750 refurb from Canon. I agree the non-L has great IQ but if there's any chance you'd use it for something other than macro work the L has other advantages (focus limiter, better build quality) apart from the IS. e:\/\/ I totally forgot it had that. When I had the non-L I only used it for macro with MF, so I never used that switch I guess. BetterLekNextTime fucked around with this message at 18:33 on Sep 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 18:22
|
|
|
BetterLekNextTime posted:They are out of stock now, but the 100L is ~$750 refurb from Canon. I agree the non-L has great IQ but if there's any chance you'd use it for something other than macro work the L has other advantages (focus limiter, better build quality) apart from the IS. Non-L version has a focus switch for excluding the macro range and using it as a 100 mm prime.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 18:26
|
|
|
I just use extension tubes with my 40mm pancake or 85mm 1.8 
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2014 01:07
|
|
|
I use the Canon Close Up Lens on my 70-200 2.8. It's awesome and hardly takes up any extra room in my kit. I used to have the Sigma 150 2.8 macro which was a great lens. However, I haven't missed it since I got the close up lens.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2014 01:58
|
|
|
Canon refurb store is restocked on 1.4x and 2.0x extenders, they're like $40 cheaper than the going rate on eBay.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2014 17:59
|
|
|
Bubbacub posted:Canon refurb store is restocked on 1.4x and 2.0x extenders, they're like $40 cheaper than the going rate on eBay. drat that's a good deal. I've been wanting to pair a 2x with my 70-200 2.8 for a long time.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2014 18:25
|
|
|
timrenzi574 posted:That is the general consensus from what I've seen. Sigma < Canon Mk1 < Tamron VC < Canon Mk2 I like the Tamron a lot. 100% jpg no edits. My hosting 6D  http://www.jasonwrigley.com/img/s10/v102/p442549936.jpg 7D  http://www.jasonwrigley.com/img/s10/v102/p425675994.jpg
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 01:41
|
|
|
Abe's of Maine has the Canon 6D import model currently for $1299, which lacks WiFi and GPS but is otherwise the exact same camera as the US model. The import model doesn't come with the regular Canon warranty. I bought one last week, and they called me up to upsell me on the US model. I wasn't planning on doing it, but after getting the guy (Jeff) down to $1599, I decided to go ahead with the upsell. Just thought goons might want to know.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2014 17:22
|
|
|
Even if you end up with a decent deal through Abe's, I'd avoid them on principle: http://www.canonpricewatch.com/blog/2014/05/warning-avoid-abes-of-maine-and-other-bait-switch-retailers/ I haven't been following 6D prices, but it looks like you could have gotten a better deal elsewhere without having to deal with a bait-and-switch. Bubbacub fucked around with this message at 17:29 on Sep 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2014 17:25
|
|
|
Aside from my 6D coming in a "Kit" box with the kit lens removed, I didn't really have a problem with their service. But yeah, I did have to put my principles aside for the deal.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2014 17:35
|
|
|
Abes called to try and upsell me on an import lens. After a month, I called and asked what the deal was... "Yeah, it's not here yet. You should order the US model, I'll give you a deal". Price was the same as everywhere else. Avoid those dicks.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2014 03:31
|
|
|
Abe's didn't try the upsell thing with me, but the lens I ordered took something like 6 weeks to arrive. It was a good price, but drat, that's a while compared to anywhere else when it's labelled as in stock. I got my 6D for $1400 from Amazon itself in some brief Black Friday sort of deal, though I think it was in December. Maybe a similar price will happen again this year?
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2014 06:16
|
|
|
Hey guys. I'm relatively new to the whole DSLR thing (within that last year). I have a Canon 500D and have been thinking about trying to get a prime 35mm lens to roughly approximate having a prime 50 on a full frame camera. Having done some research, the official Canon lenses are (unsurprisingly) hella expensive and way out of my price range. Are there any decent 3rd party lenses I ought to be considering in this category? Should I try at 28mm instead as it's still a (slightly wider) close approximation of 50mm on a full frame and these seem to be cheaper for some reason which escapes me? The motivation here is to get a lens with a wider aperture for better close-mid range subject isolation. My one and only current lens is the Tamron 17-50mm (non-VC) 2.8. Thanks! edit: I should point out I have no issue buying second hand gear. My entire setup at the moment is second hand, all sourced from ebay.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 11:57
|
|
|
rolleyes posted:Hey guys. I'm relatively new to the whole DSLR thing (within that last year). I have a Canon 500D and have been thinking about trying to get a prime 35mm lens to roughly approximate having a prime 50 on a full frame camera. Sigma 30mm Though, you aren't going to get a lot of isolation of the subject. Try a DOF calculator to see what I mean.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 12:10
|
|
|
There's also apparently a Canon 24 f/2.8 IS pancake coming out in November, and that's supposed to be 38 mm equivalent on crop if the 40 mm pancake is too long. I haven't seen any impressions (I mean, that's hardly a surprise) but if it's a wider pancake built and as good as the 40 then I'll get Really Excited. Amazon and B&H both have it listed for about $150 for preorder too.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 12:15
|
|
|
spog posted:Sigma 30mm If I'm looking at the right one then that's f1.4? If so then I guess it's all relative and inexperienced me thinks it should be significantly better than the Tamron set to the same focal length. I'll take your advice and run the numbers, as well as trying a few more test shots with the Tamron at that length to gauge things. Thanks.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 12:22
|
|
|
If you want subject isolation, get the 50 1.8 or the 85 1.8 and stand further back. The 30mm is too wide really.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 12:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 14:13 |
|
|
rolleyes posted:If I'm looking at the right one then that's f1.4? If so then I guess it's all relative and inexperienced me thinks it should be significantly better than the Tamron set to the same focal length. Yup, that's the one. Not cheap, but an excellent performer. Works very well in the dark. Quantum of Phallus posted:If you want subject isolation, get the 50 1.8 or the 85 1.8 and stand further back. The 30mm is too wide really. Should also have posted this - when I want a little bit of subject isolation for a cheap price, the 50mm 1.8 is much better than the 30mm 1.4
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 12:37
|
|