|
A Saucy Bratwurst posted:I'll check them out. I've realised I'm going to need quite a few to get through a week out bush. A zoom lens wouldn't hurt either but that's for when I have money. You can use the OEM charger, it's fine.
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 02:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 07:55 |
|
|
Be aware that some newer Canon firmwares have been locking out third party batteries. loving assholes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 03:46
|
|
|
Seamonster posted:Be aware that some newer Canon firmwares have been locking out third party batteries. loving assholes. Wow what cunts.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 04:19
|
|
|
A Saucy Bratwurst posted:Wow what cunts. They still work, but they don't communicate with the battery meter.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 07:13
|
|
|
Anyone here have the 400mm L super-tele prime? I'm tempted, and badly need something more than 300mm for wildlife & bird shots. Do you feel like the (as far as I can tell, based on reviews) remarkable sharpness is worth the lack of IS and slower aperture? I'm trying to decide between the 400L and something in the same ballpark from Sigma or Tamron. I know I can get more reach and/or IS for around the same price, but I have this problem with pixel-peeping...
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 03:14
|
|
|
You'll want a fast shutter for birds, so the lack of IS isn't a big deal. But the Sigma 150-600 is a great value, so just pick the one that you want. Get the 400/5.6 if you want something more compact for travel or if you have scrawny arms or something.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 03:38
|
|
|
SMERSH Mouth posted:Anyone here have the 400mm L super-tele prime? I'm tempted, and badly need something more than 300mm for wildlife & bird shots. Do you feel like the (as far as I can tell, based on reviews) remarkable sharpness is worth the lack of IS and slower aperture? I'm trying to decide between the 400L and something in the same ballpark from Sigma or Tamron. I know I can get more reach and/or IS for around the same price, but I have this problem with pixel-peeping... I have the 400/5.6L, which I assume you meant. Basically, for any day time shooting I'm at 1/1000 to 1/2000 and f/8 anyhow, so I've never missed the IS, and it's sharp as hell on both FF and crop. The pictures that are blurry, I'm not sure IS would have helped with. I did test the Sigma 150-500, for what it's worth, and found it sharp around the 300-400mm range, but the sheer convenience of the 400L being 1kg lighter, and even sharper, made the choice easy for me. (At the time, the 150-600 had just come out, and they had some delivery issues, I believe, so I never got to try one out - I had pre-ordered one, but cancelled when I found a used 400L at the same price point.)
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 03:56
|
|
|
TheAngryDrunk posted:They still work, but they don't communicate with the battery meter. I suppose I can deal with that. I'm not big on video and I doubt I'll be doing much long exposure that the chance of my camera shutting down mid exposure is low. My only worry is having enough of them to last me around 10 days worth of camping really.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 05:47
|
|
|
I have the 70-300L, 400L, and Tamrom 150-600. I use the 400L the least out of those three. The 70-300 is sharp enough that I can usually crop in a bit, and a lot more flexible as a walk-around. The Tamron has been giving me pretty good results from a tripod (with a 6D, often at 800-1600 ISO, occasionally 3200ISO, at f9 or so). You can certainly hand-hold it but it's quite bulky. That said, I let my field techs use the 400L with my backup camera and they were getting killer shots. It really is a super-sharp lens.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 16:57
|
|
|
SMERSH Mouth posted:Anyone here have the 400mm L super-tele prime? I'm tempted, and badly need something more than 300mm for wildlife & bird shots. Do you feel like the (as far as I can tell, based on reviews) remarkable sharpness is worth the lack of IS and slower aperture? I'm trying to decide between the 400L and something in the same ballpark from Sigma or Tamron. I know I can get more reach and/or IS for around the same price, but I have this problem with pixel-peeping... I used the 400mm f5.6L for quite a while and its great. Its definitely very sharp. Also in the pros column is the weight - its really light for its size so hiking it around isn't as much of a chore as it would be with the bigger Sigs and Tammy's. The one big problem I had with the lens was the close focus distance which is something like 11ft iirc. It doesn't seem like that would be a problem but it is more often than you would think. I've got to say its pretty amazing that there are like 3-4 really good choices for quality telephotos (out to 600mm!) at ~$1000 these days. If you've got an extra $1200 lying around that 100-400L f4.5-5.6L II is supposed to be incredible.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 17:31
|
|
|
I've used sterlingtek batteries in canon, sony and olympus chargers without any issues.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 17:33
|
|
|
Canon NEEDS to make a 500mm 5.6L IS. The new 100-400L doesn't really count as an affordable telephoto zoom even though it can be worth the money.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 17:41
|
|
|
dorkanoid posted:I have the 400/5.6L, which I assume you meant. Basically, for any day time shooting I'm at 1/1000 to 1/2000 and f/8 anyhow, so I've never missed the IS, and it's sharp as hell on both FF and crop. What ISO do you end up shooting at? I'm lucky to get up over 1/500 without having to blow the ISO way over the top most of the time. Yes, if you're shooting at 11am in July in the wide open 1/1000 is no big deal. On the other hand, if you're trying to shoot in lower light conditions (morning, evening, overcast, wooded areas, etc) things can get pretty tough. 1/1000 of a second is great to shoot for when capturing flying birds or very active ones, but for perched birds you can get away with much lower speeds. Here's a few shots I've taken with my Sigma 150-600mm Contemporary that would have likely not been possible with a non-IS lens. edit: That said, while I love my 150-600mm it is indeed heavy. It's actually the same length as the 400mm F/5.6 when retracted though so travel isn't much easier with the 400mm. 244mm F/6.3 ISO 1600 1/160 second  Johnson Ridge Sooty Grouse Female by Josh, on Flick500mm F/7.1 ISO 3200 1/320 second  Johnson Ridge Sooty Grouse Male by Josh, on Flick600mm F/7.1 ISO 800 1/160 second  Prothonotary Warbler by Josh, on Flickr
BeastOfExmoor fucked around with this message at 18:16 on Aug 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 18:02
|
|
|
Do any of you use online resources like DXOMark and the-digital-picture.com for comparing lens quality prior to a purchase? I like the field maps that DXOMark does and it's cool to see uniformly shot sample photos the way digital picture shows them on top of each other, but how good/accurate are these online tools?
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 20:48
|
|
|
Those sites always seem to be geared towards the obsessive pixel-peeping crowd, I generally buy lenses based on word of mouth reputation and it hasn't burned me yet.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 20:52
|
|
|
Thoogsby posted:Those sites always seem to be geared towards the obsessive pixel-peeping crowd, I generally buy lenses based on word of mouth reputation and it hasn't burned me yet. Pretty much this. I've been able to borrow a friend's lens and test it out for a day or rent it for a weekend from lens rentals before dropping 1k+. I'd rather spend the ~$100 testing out a lens to make sure I like the result than blindly dropping the full amount for a lens based on some internet reviews of lines on a poster board. My prime example is the Sigma 35 f/1.4 that a lot of people were salivating over. Something was just off about the result of the photos that just bugged me so I went the 35L.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 21:27
|
|
|
While I was buying my 7D mk2 the guy at the shop gave me some sort of 150-600 since I said I was interested in something long range, but I can't remember if it was a Tamron or Sigma. What's my best choice for the two (or other) brands since those two are around the same price?
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 22:06
|
|
|
Drunk Badger posted:While I was buying my 7D mk2 the guy at the shop gave me some sort of 150-600 since I said I was interested in something long range, but I can't remember if it was a Tamron or Sigma. What's my best choice for the two (or other) brands since those two are around the same price? Brian @ TDP has a good comparison write up on the two (Sigma Contemporary vs Tamron - the Sigma Sports is 2 lbs heavier and way more expensive so I assume you're comparing the Contemporary) - It's near the bottom of his review of the Sigma C I think the ability to use the dock is a nice advantage for the Sigma - the customization options are great that they give with these lenses (for focus limiter, focus speed, IS modes, etc)
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 22:20
|
|
|
I did see the dock and thought it was interesting, I suppose if I go with the Sigma buying the dock is practically required as well?
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 22:52
|
|
|
BeastOfExmoor posted:What ISO do you end up shooting at? I'm lucky to get up over 1/500 without having to blow the ISO way over the top most of the time. Yes, if you're shooting at 11am in July in the wide open 1/1000 is no big deal. Yeah, I'm shooting with my 6D, so hitting ISO 3200 isn't much of a problem. Looking at my files, it seems I'm typically in the 1/500-1/2000 range, f/5.6-f/8, and ISO 100-1250  Willow warbler by Lars Erik Jordet, on Flickrf/5.6 ISO 1250 1/1000s zeroprime posted:Do any of you use online resources like DXOMark and the-digital-picture.com for comparing lens quality prior to a purchase? I like the field maps that DXOMark does and it's cool to see uniformly shot sample photos the way digital picture shows them on top of each other, but how good/accurate are these online tools? I'll admit I'm a bit of a pixel peeper, but with the 400L that means I can "crop some more range" out of it, even if I use my FF camera.  Grey heron by Lars Erik Jordet, on Flickrthat heron's on the log to the left of the center in this photo:  (cell phone, I guess 40mm equivalent) EDIT: Ah, that's actually one of the few I took with my 550D, but still! If the Sigma 150-600 had been out at the time, I'd seriously considered it though! dorkanoid fucked around with this message at 23:19 on Aug 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 23:01
|
|
|
Drunk Badger posted:I did see the dock and thought it was interesting, I suppose if I go with the Sigma buying the dock is practically required as well? It's not necessary, but if you want to get the most out of what they offer you, it's a great plus. (And it's only 60 bucks)
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 23:08
|
|
|
timrenzi574 posted:It's not necessary, but if you want to get the most out of what they offer you, it's a great plus. (And it's only 60 bucks) Which is nothing compared to the $1K lens I'm probably going to impulse buy tonight (I can upgrade my computer later, that's what I'll tell myself). What useful things does anyone do with their dock?
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 23:17
|
|
|
Drunk Badger posted:Which is nothing compared to the $1K lens I'm probably going to impulse buy tonight (I can upgrade my computer later, that's what I'll tell myself). What useful things does anyone do with their dock? Fine tune focus if you need to (much more flexible than the in camera which does only "wide" and "telephoto" - sigma lets you tune multiple focal lengths independently, and multiple focus distances per focal length to boot) Set the 2 custom modes (each one can have a different AF speed setting, IS setting, and focus limit) Change the IS settings (super stable VF image, standard, exposure only) And yeah, 60$ is nothing in photobux
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 00:30
|
|
|
Welp, I pulled the trigger on the 400L. Some of my favorite spots for birding are a good hike out so the light weight was a big consideration for me. Still, I hope the lack of IS isn't going to burn me too bad during golden hour. Maybe it's time to start thinking about a good ball head tripod/monopod. I can always throw it on my a6000 if I want the extra reach. Although long-term I'm considering ditching the 5D2 for a 7D2, or maybe a 6D. Does the 7D2 even come close to the 6D when it comes to high-ISO performance? Edit: another concern about the 400mm was of course the close-focus limitation. 11ft is pretty far. Canon sells a close-focus attachment for this lens... Anyone here ever used it? SMERSH Mouth fucked around with this message at 01:34 on Aug 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 01:27
|
|
|
SMERSH Mouth posted:Does the 7D2 even come close to the 6D when it comes to high-ISO performance? No. But it will absolutely blow the doors off the 6D in AF performance, burst speed and buffer. Also, autofocus to f8 so you can use a 1.4 TC on that 400L. I'd try them both out at a camera shop and see which one fits your style better. Personally, I wouldn't go for a 6D for bird photoing because of the poor AF but it might not matter if you take shots of more sedentary wildlife. SMERSH Mouth posted:Edit: another concern about the 400mm was of course the close-focus limitation. 11ft is pretty far. Canon sells a close-focus attachment for this lens... Anyone here ever used it? Is it an extension tube? Extension tubes will let you focus closer but you'll lose out on infinity focus. They're hard to use if you are just hiking around but if you're set up in one spot and expect birds to land at like a feeder or something they can be really useful for getting tighter shots on long lenses.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 01:54
|
|
|
GOD. drat. IT.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 13:58
|
|
|
That 200-500 looks pretty sweet. And nice aggressive pricing move by Nikon there. It weighs 2lbs more than the 100-400 II though which is a significant increase (but 500 f/5.6 what can you do)
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 14:04
|
|
|
What's the consensus on the Canon 100-400 4.5-5.6L? The original can be had for about $1000 used, and it has IS. Between it and the Sigma 150-500, which is the better choice?
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 14:29
|
|
|
Neither. Get the Tamron or Sigma 150-600.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 14:35
|
|
|
n0n0 posted:What's the consensus on the Canon 100-400 4.5-5.6L? The original can be had for about $1000 used, and it has IS. Between it and the Sigma 150-500, which is the better choice? If you're not going for the 2, get the Sigma or Tamron 150-600 (don't buy the 150-500) They are both much better than the mk1
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 15:00
|
|
|
800peepee51doodoo posted:Is it an extension tube? Extension tubes will let you focus closer but you'll lose out on infinity focus. They're hard to use if you are just hiking around but if you're set up in one spot and expect birds to land at like a feeder or something they can be really useful for getting tighter shots on long lenses. It looks like canon offers two different options for close focus: quote:77mm Close-Up Lens 500D quote:Extension Tube EF 12 II The extension tube is cheaper, but the close up lens attaches like a filter so it's probably more convenient. Not exactly sure what "It changes closest focusing distance from infinity to 500mm" means, though. But I think it's trying to say that you lose infinity focus, and change closest focusing distance from 3.5m to 500mm? If extension tubes don't have any glass elements, then they probably offer better image quality? (Not that I'd be buying either unless I can get a good blind set up to take photos from a stationary position)
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 15:09
|
|
|
n0n0 posted:What's the consensus on the Canon 100-400 4.5-5.6L? The original can be had for about $1000 used, and it has IS. Between it and the Sigma 150-500, which is the better choice? Do NOT buy the Sigma 150-500. 150-600mm is the one to buy. Canon 100-400 Mk I is a nice enough lens, but it is outclassed by the 150-600mm's for similar prices. It is 1.3lbs lighter and quite a bit smaller so if mobility is an issue it can be worth the tradeoff. I wish I'd sold mine before the Mk II came out. 200-500 looks nice, especially the price. Heavier and larger than the Sigma 150-600 though, albeit 1/3 of a stop faster. BeastOfExmoor fucked around with this message at 21:34 on Aug 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 21:29
|
|
|
timrenzi574 posted:That 200-500 looks pretty sweet. And nice aggressive pricing move by Nikon there. It weighs 2lbs more than the 100-400 II though which is a significant increase (but 500 f/5.6 what can you do) Pablo Bluth fucked around with this message at 21:55 on Aug 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 21:31
|
|
|
Thoogsby posted:Those sites always seem to be geared towards the obsessive pixel-peeping crowd, I generally buy lenses based on word of mouth reputation and it hasn't burned me yet. The digital picture is no pixel peeper. His in depth reviews are very useful.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 03:50
|
|
|
torgeaux posted:The digital picture is no pixel peeper. His in depth reviews are very useful.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 03:52
|
|
|
Is there any reason to not pick up the stm version of canons 55-250? Even new it seems like a good deal at $200
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2015 10:33
|
|
|
It's alright for baby's first zoom, but don't expect anything other than that. Also shop around a bit. Pretty sure I got mine new on an eBay firesale for like $100.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2015 10:53
|
|
|
A Saucy Bratwurst posted:Is there any reason to not pick up the stm version of canons 55-250? Even new it seems like a good deal at $200 Here, have a refurbished one for $117. If you don't already have a telephoto I'd say buying this for that price is a no-brainer.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2015 20:45
|
|
|
Yep that was my thinking. Glad I don't have to drop big bucks on something I'm not sure how much I'll use. I wasn't going to pay $200 cause I saw 2 for 130 a few days ago that already sold. I'll see about getting a refurb in Australia. E: might just be mobile, can't find refurbished lenses, but they want $430 for a new one, nope canon. underage at the vape shop fucked around with this message at 00:20 on Aug 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 00:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 07:55 |
|
|
gently caress that's a great price for that lens. I paid ~160 when I got mine. I'm really happy with it, the Af is fast and accurate and the pictures are really sharp.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 23:55
|
|
