|
I have a 5Div and my most commonly used lens on it is the 24-70 F/4L. It's a great lens honestly, I can't say I've ever been disappointed with the missing stop. The lens stabilisation is easily good enough for half-second handheld shooting. Just after I bought it, I went to a temple in the north to try it out. Handheld, f/22, ISO 100, 0.5s.  IMG_2487.jpg by Iain Compton, on Flickr
|
#
?
May 8, 2020 04:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 16:35 |
|
|
holy moly, used 5d2 bodies are $500? I should really pick one up... I really want to run magic lantern but I only got the OG 5D which is good but not new enough
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2020 06:06
|
|
|
Somewhat Heroic posted:Hi Canon thread - looking for a bit of lens advice. I have been watching the mirrorless stuff and I have been a bit gun-shy on making a choice so instead of waiting longer I decided to take the original suggestion offered forever ago which is buy a full frame body used for cheap. I am coming from a Rebel T5i and picked up a nice, low shutter count (~4400) 5D Mk II for $500. I have just the 50mm 1.8 that fits and I want to add a 24-70. This is purely for hobby shooting. I will mainly be doing portraits, landscape, and pictures of cars. Will f/4 disappoint? Yes and no. Both the f/4 L zooms are good, and for depth of field, basically identical to the 2.8 on the T5i. So, you won't get the improved thin focus plane for portraits, but it will be no worse than your old camera. Don't overthink too much. An excellent 4 is still better than an ok 2.8.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2020 14:24
|
|
|
Helen Highwater posted:I have a 5Div and my most commonly used lens on it is the 24-70 F/4L. It's a great lens honestly, I can't say I've ever been disappointed with the missing stop. The lens stabilisation is easily good enough for half-second handheld shooting. el dorito posted:holy moly, used 5d2 bodies are $500? I should really pick one up... I really want to run magic lantern but I only got the OG 5D which is good but not new enough torgeaux posted:Will f/4 disappoint? Yes and no. Both the f/4 L zooms are good, and for depth of field, basically identical to the 2.8 on the T5i. So, you won't get the improved thin focus plane for portraits, but it will be no worse than your old camera. Don't overthink too much. An excellent 4 is still better than an ok 2.8. Thanks for the straight talk - I need to be reminded this is just a hobby thing and I shouldn't overthink it. There is a Canon F4L 24-70 with all the original box/packaging someone has listed for $500. I am going to go grab it after work and have a bunch of fun.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2020 17:37
|
|
|
Somewhat Heroic posted:That is a weird looking place but cool photo. Thanks for the advice. I am probably overthinking it by too much. quote:Ubosot: The principal building, the ubosot is an all-white building with fragments of mirrored glass embedded in the building's exterior. The ubosot embodies design elements from classic Thai architecture such as the three-tiered roof and abundant use of Naga serpents. "Inside the temple, the decor swiftly moves from pristine white to fiery and bewildering. Murals depict swirling orange flames and demon faces, interspersed with Western idols such as Michael Jackson, Neo from The Matrix, Freddy Krueger, and a T-800 series Terminator. Images of nuclear warfare, terrorist attacks such as the World Trade Center attack, and oil pumps hammer home the destructive impact that humans have had on earth. The presence of Harry Potter, Superman, and Hello Kitty confuses the message somewhat, but the overall moral is clear: people are wicked."
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2020 10:00
|
|
|
I haven’t done photography since high school, but I picked up an old PowerShot G2, I’m having fun with it. 
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2020 15:42
|
|
|
I had the Sigma 150-600mm 5-6.3 Sports for about two years, that I bought for doing more outdoor wildlife photography, and didn't get to use it as much as I wanted, and it was stolen at the beginning of the year out of my car. Pretty much in perfect condition. Luckily I had all my other gear with me, as I was taking photos of a band that night. This week I finally got my insurance claim settled and now I can buy it again, or another lens. I am wondering if there's anything else that has come on the market in the last few years that I should be looking at? My camera is 5D MkIV and my other longest lens is my Canon 70-200 f/2.8 USM II. I was wondering if anyone here had an opinion on the Sigma 60-600mm lens. They are almost the same price. I read a couple reviews on it, but wondering what any goons think. Also versus a Tamron? I don't really care about weight. It'll be on a monopod or tripod when I use it, or on special outings perhaps handheld. 
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2020 08:44
|
|
|
Djimi posted:I had the Sigma 150-600mm 5-6.3 Sports for about two years, that I bought for doing more outdoor wildlife photography, and didn't get to use it as much as I wanted, and it was stolen at the beginning of the year out of my car. Pretty much in perfect condition. Luckily I had all my other gear with me, as I was taking photos of a band that night. The 60-600 is a little lighter and smaller than the 150-600 Sport I think it's a good choice for budget tele for wildlife.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2020 14:32
|
|
|
I just looked up a couple of reviews and the 60-600 looks surprisingly good for the range. I end up using the wide end of my 150-600 Tamron a lot and there are times I wish I had something a little wider. I like my Tamron 150-600 G2. It's a pretty good option if you want something a little cheaper, lighter, and don't mind stopping down to f/7.1 or 8. Also I don't know how the weather sealing compares to the Sigma Sports
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2020 18:38
|
|
|
Djimi posted:I had the Sigma 150-600mm 5-6.3 Sports for about two years, that I bought for doing more outdoor wildlife photography, and didn't get to use it as much as I wanted, and it was stolen at the beginning of the year out of my car. Pretty much in perfect condition. Luckily I had all my other gear with me, as I was taking photos of a band that night. Look at the sigma 120-300 f/2.8. Generation 2 is fantastic, and generation 3 is even better. This only applies if your statement about not caring about weight is true.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2020 18:53
|
|
|
jarlywarly posted:The 60-600 is a little lighter and smaller than the 150-600 Sport I think it's a good choice for budget tele for wildlife. BetterLekNextTime posted:I like my Tamron 150-600 G2. It's a pretty good option if you want something a little cheaper, lighter, and don't mind stopping down to f/7.1 or 8. Also I don't know how the weather sealing compares to the Sigma Sports torgeaux posted:Look at the sigma 120-300 f/2.8. Generation 2 is fantastic, and generation 3 is even better. This only applies if your statement about not caring about weight is true. This is pretty good review and one that I wouldn't have expected from PC Mag. Thank you for your answers everyone.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2020 02:49
|
|
|
Djimi posted:The thing I don't understand about this 60-600mm pricing, it makes me think the build quality isn't going to be as good as the Sports one I had. I suppose it's a little less crisp all around, but the reach makes it a couple hundred more $$. I had the gen2 120-300 and it was fantastic. Sharp as hell. The real benefit of gen3 was the autofocus. It was a freaking beast, though. Great portrait lens, too. I used it with my 5D3. But, still only 300 mm, and I don't think I ever tried it with a tele. edit: I used it for some birding with my canon gen 1 2x teleconverter. It was ok once stopped down, but slow on focus. I wanted to try the sigma 2x or 1.4, but never did before I left canon. torgeaux fucked around with this message at 03:52 on May 23, 2020 |
|
#
?
May 23, 2020 03:47
|
|
|
Djimi posted:The thing I don't understand about this 60-600mm pricing, it makes me think the build quality isn't going to be as good as the Sports one I had. I suppose it's a little less crisp all around, but the reach makes it a couple hundred more $$. You are right to not want 300 on FF I have 400 on crop and have reach issues. Everyone crops in on their wild bird photos btw, unless they get really lucky.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2020 10:56
|
|
|
No one suggesting the 100-400 II? Not specifically suggesting it, but all the info Ive seen says its a beast.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2020 15:23
|
|
|
ilkhan posted:No one suggesting the 100-400 II? Not specifically suggesting it, but all the info Ive seen says its a beast. I don't have this to personally recommend but I'd imagine this would be the best option if you are ok with "only" 400mm.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2020 15:58
|
|
|
Sell a kidney and get a used 500 or 600 f/4. It'll be love at first sight. Or sell the Canon gear and get the Nikon PF 500m f/5.6
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2020 16:33
|
|
|
With the quality of the offerings at 600mm from Sigma and Tamron, I'm not sure why anyone would buy the 100-400ii. I completely agree it's an exceptional lens, but when you get that long there's no such thing as enough focal distance and if you can get 600mm for a price in the same ballpark, it makes no sense not to.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2020 16:36
|
|
|
xzzy posted:With the quality of the offerings at 600mm from Sigma and Tamron, I'm not sure why anyone would buy the 100-400ii. I'd imagine it's because it's lighter, better wide open, better sealing, and the AF performance is probably better. There might be someone out there for whom the 100mm vs 150mm is critical too... Especially for travel when you don't want a separate suitcase for your 600mm it would be the way to go. If I ever get to Africa that's what I'd want to bring on safari.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2020 20:13
|
|
|
BetterLekNextTime posted:I'd imagine it's because it's lighter, better wide open, better sealing, and the AF performance is probably better. There might be someone out there for whom the 100mm vs 150mm is critical too... Especially for travel when you don't want a separate suitcase for your 600mm it would be the way to go. If I ever get to Africa that's what I'd want to bring on safari.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2020 20:43
|
|
|
Yeah, when I was using a sigma 150-600 on my 7D I was usually right at the long end.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2020 01:04
|
|
|
xzzy posted:With the quality of the offerings at 600mm from Sigma and Tamron, I'm not sure why anyone would buy the 100-400ii. I haul my 150-600mm Sigma up 3000ft+ of elevation hikes routinely and would love to trade it for the 100-400mm II. From what I've seen, the II is sharp enough that the extra cropping you need makes minimal difference in what you end up with. Also, I really miss being able to carry my gear in a carry on.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2020 02:14
|
|
|
BeastOfExmoor posted:I haul my 150-600mm Sigma up 3000ft+ of elevation hikes routinely and would love to trade it for the 100-400mm II. From what I've seen, the II is sharp enough that the extra cropping you need makes minimal difference in what you end up with. Also, I really miss being able to carry my gear in a carry on. I carry all mine in carryon but to be fair when I do there's not room for much of anything else.  I also backpack with all of it because I am extremely stupid/stubborn and have FOMO. I just KNOW that epic bighorn shot is gonna show up the one time I don't bring the big lens with me. I get the weight advantage of the smaller lens, I just value focal length wayyyy more.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2020 03:17
|
|
|
xzzy posted:With the quality of the offerings at 600mm from Sigma and Tamron, I'm not sure why anyone would buy the 100-400ii. Because it's as good as it's made out to be. It has become my goto lens for anything over 100mm - it absolutely is faster focusing and sharper than the alternatives. Plus if you are lugging around a backpack it's a good one to have as it is a versatile piece of glass. I much prefer it to even my 70-200 2.8. The extra reach is the only benefit of the alternatives. If you arent sitting at 600 all the time then I honestly wouldnt consider a Sigma or Tameron.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2020 08:03
|
|
|
CAT INTERCEPTOR posted:The extra reach is the only benefit of the alternatives. If you arent sitting at 600 all the time then I honestly wouldnt consider a Sigma or Tamron. I am just wondering if 400mm is going to be enough reach for me. That extra 200mm could be very nice in the field. Also thank you all for chiming in on the conversation, it's be quite educational for my upcoming decision. I really want to pull the trigger today, but it's a big purchase and I want to make sure I've weighed all the pros and cons. I am not going to rent one though, I live too far away from rental outlets for that ever to be a worthwhile option.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2020 20:52
|
|
|
If you get the 100-400 get the 1.4x too (or plan on it in the future). Solves the reach problem without much extra weight, and they combo together very well.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2020 21:11
|
|
|
ilkhan posted:If you get the 100-400 get the 1.4x too (or plan on it in the future). Solves the reach problem without much extra weight, and they combo together very well.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2020 21:23
|
|
|
Djimi posted:Is it the same converter that goes with the 70-200mm L USM II? I have that already, but I never use it.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2020 03:13
|
|
|
ilkhan posted:Yeah, the 1.4x TC would be the same one. More reach, one stop slower.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2020 07:12
|
|
|
Yeah not thinking super hard about it and not deep diving reviews of the Sigma and Tamron, 600mm zooms, I thought they were the better option than the 100-400 for a long time but with a 1.4x converter you’re getting almost the same reach, and it’s not like you’re going to want to use the 3rd-parties wide open; f/8 is where you’ll be in any case, so the aperture hit from the TC is not too significant, and you get a hell of a lens to use without the TC for less distant subjects, and closer focus. Of course now I’m on the verge of selling all my remaining canon gear since I fell into a great deal on a D600, and Nikon has the 200-500, which is cheaper than the 100-400L and gets *the reach I crave* with supposedly better performance and sharpness at the long end than the Sigma or Tamron.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2020 08:41
|
|
|
SMERSH Mouth posted:Yeah not thinking super hard about it and not deep diving reviews of the Sigma and Tamron, 600mm zooms, I thought they were the better option than the 100-400 for a long time but with a 1.4x converter you’re getting almost the same reach, and it’s not like you’re going to want to use the 3rd-parties wide open; f/8 is where you’ll be in any case, so the aperture hit from the TC is not too significant, and you get a hell of a lens to use without the TC for less distant subjects, and closer focus.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2020 08:48
|
|
|
Djimi posted:I don't know if you shoot FF or not - do you? I think anything Canon is usually the best option (and w/ extra $$). I only have two non Canon lenses (well actually just one right now until I buy possibly a replacement Sigma. I got a bunch of cameras so I go APS-C, APS-H or FF. Given you are FF I can see why would be more interested in reach - If I need more I just switch to a 7D II or more recently a M6 II.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2020 02:13
|
|
|
jarlywarly posted:I have the 100-400 II L and the 1.4 III you get limited to f/8 and slower AF performance.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2020 02:52
|
|
|
I went for the Sigma 60-600mm just now. It won't be shipping for awhile it appears. Time to start doing curls.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2020 00:18
|
|
|
Djimi posted:I went for the Sigma 60-600mm just now. It won't be shipping for awhile it appears. Time to start doing curls. Don't neglect planks, gotta get that core in top form.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2020 00:50
|
|
|
Gonna feel guilty for a few weeks for hurting my bank account Also amazon says the t8i/850D releases tomorrow
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2020 18:23
|
|
|
brand engager posted:Gonna feel guilty for a few weeks for hurting my bank account Nice what you gonna photo?
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2020 18:35
|
|
|
Probably just the cats
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2020 18:37
|
|
|
Goddamn, f8 @ 700mm?? https://www.digitalcameraworld.com/news/canons-mirrorless-megazooms-including-canon-rf-120-700mm It's just a patent filing but I would be dumping my wallet out for one of those, even with the aperture limitations.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 16:55
|
|
|
Self-owned by taking the focus screen out of my t2i to try reseating it, the focus points have never lined up right where the red light is supposed to shine on them. Put it back in the first time and there was some hair and dust on it, and even after cleaning it with waterµfiber cloth it still had some tiny dust specks. Those things are just impossible to clean.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2020 00:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 16:35 |
|
|
Unless the EOS R5 is VERY competitively priced, I think I am going to pick up an EOS R and the RF 24-105/f4 as my first big boy camera upgrade from the 80D. If I am satisfied with f2.8 lenses on an APS-C body, f4 on a full frame should be drat near identical, right (plus better dynamic range and low light performance compared to the 80D sensor)? Or should I just get a Tamron EF 24-70/f2.8 in addition to my 70-200/f2.8? Sorta wanted a 'one lens solution' for outdoorsy stuff (not wildlife) so I don't have to lug a ton of glass around but I dunno.
charliebravo77 fucked around with this message at 04:30 on Jun 16, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2020 04:25
|
|
