|
I went Canon because the D40 sucked and the Rebel XT didn't, comparatively.
|
#
¿
May 24, 2013 22:25
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 30, 2024 18:32 |
|
|
Quantum of Phallus posted:While we're on the subject, would a 5D classic have better high ISO performance than a 600D? I was considering buying one as a full-frame stills camera, I don't really care that much for video. Yes. The 5D is a lot better in low light than the 600D.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2013 01:49
|
|
|
If I ever need to remind myself that I need a hood to protect my lenses from bumps, I just need to look at how hosed up my hoods are.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2013 19:20
|
|
|
Ya'll also need to remember that 1.8 is a full stop + a third vs 2.8. So, double your shutter speed and then add another click.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2013 15:36
|
|
|
The 85 1.8 is one hell of a value. Holt crap this lens owns.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2013 18:48
|
|
|
For indoor or night sports, the f/4 will really drive you insane. You'd need the 2.8. Outdoor day sports though, it'll be fine.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2013 21:13
|
|
|
Bob Mundon posted:Would the 5.6 on a variable aperture run into trouble outdoors too, or is it generally within acceptable range? Keeping in mind I really don't want to run my camera over 800 ISO. Be nice to have a fixed f/4, but then again, having good IS for half the price on a Tamron 70-300 is pretty appealing if there's not a huge difference in between the two shooting outside. I looked back at my Lightroom catalog's aperture, ISO, and shutter speed statistics from a summer of little league baseball shooting -- about 20,000 photos all said and done. In sunlight you'll probably be fine with 5.6, but if it's overcast, you'll most likely be at or above ISO800 to freeze sports action.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2013 23:24
|
|
|
well poo poo guys maybe I need a 35 now
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2013 12:47
|
|
|
notwithoutmyanus posted:I heard mentioned by a coworker today that folks who do wedding photography and whatnot tend to kill their shutters within a year or two? Is this something we'll experience with a newer camera as well, or only if we were actual professionals? Most modern camera shutters are rated for at least 100k actuations. I guess if you're shooting a 2500-photo wedding every single weekend of the year, you'd get up around 150,000 after a little over a year. A lot of cameras, though, go well above what they're rated for. In addition, a shutter repair is like $250. Not too bad if you're doing it on a $3,000 camera body like a 5D3.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2013 23:06
|
|
|
Shellman posted:Awesome, good to hear! My roommate who got me into photography looks down on non-canon stuff, though from what I've read lurking here it seems like a lot of goons swear by it. I suspected he might be a little stubborn when I came home with one of these and he told me he bought a Canon so he could use Canon lenses, not Sigmas. Three years ago I might've agreed with him with maybe one or two caveats. Now, there are a whole lot more caveats. In some situations (especially the telephoto and supertelephoto arenas) Canon's going to rule the roost, but the lines are blurring substantially in other lengths.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 30, 2013 22:25
|
|
|
torgeaux posted:Actually, Sigma's 120-300 f 2.8 kicks Canon's rear end. In what way? The IQ and focus speed of the 70-200 2.8 IS II and 300 2.8 IS (I and II) are untouched as far as I know. Sure, they're expensive, but for the people using them professionally there really isn't any competition. The 400 2.8, 500 f/4, and 600 f/4 pretty much stand alone as well. Don't get me wrong: the 120-300 2.8's an astoundingly good lens, especially considering the price point, but it really doesn't measure up for professional photographers.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2013 20:19
|
|
|
According to that review (and also their test chart photos), the 70-200 2.8 II and the 300 2.8 I and II all beat the 120-300 in IQ. The reviewer also calls it simply "capable" and adds that its (lack of) speed "keep this lens out of the best-available category".
|
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2013 21:24
|
|
|
torgeaux posted:So, you take one quote, "keep this lens out of the best-available category," leave out this, "With well over 1,000 shots of galloping horses evaluated, I would not hesitate to use this lens for professional needs. Focus accuracy is very good." Mr. Despair posted:Oh no the sigma zoom isn't quite as sharp as the prime lens that costs literally twice as much. Why would anyone buy it over the quality Canon provides. It's not about snobbery. For a professional sports photographer or photojournalist, that extra few grand will be a worthwhile investment to give yourself the absolute best chance of getting every shot you need. Missing a shot can mean losing out on a lot of money in licensing. Why give yourself anything other than the fastest and most reliable autofocus and best image quality? Couple that with the perks from CPS -- if your lens goes down, is Sigma going to overnight you a loaner while yours gets an expedited repair? I'm not saying everyone should always pick the Canon. My current wide angle is a Tamron because the price to quality point was a lot better. Sure, the 16-35 2.8 II focuses faster, has less distortion, and better IQ, but my 17-35 2.8-4 was about $250 and is a phenomenal lens for the price. The CA is correctable and the focus is fine for my needs. If I was a professional photojournalist who was churning out images under deadline and couldn't afford missing any shots due to focusing, I'd buy the 16-35 for sure. Probably for most people, the Sigma is going to be a much better choice. A 300 2.8 alone at that price point and IQ/focus speed is amazing. Add in the flexibility of the zoom and you've got an absolutely killer lens. But for the top few percent of the most demanding users, it's not the best choice.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 1, 2013 15:19
|
|
|
Seamonster posted:Also a 1.8....with OS please be full frame please be full frame
|
|
#
¿
Sep 10, 2013 20:26
|
|
|
Is anyone able to nail down a reason to buy the Canon 35 1.4 over the Sigma 35 1.4? Seems like AF is the same, and the Sigma eeks out over the Canon in IQ and CA while being substantially cheaper.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2013 19:40
|
|
|
geeves posted:Aside from price, I think it's a personal preference on how you you like the aesthetic of your photos. Yes, the Sigma is sharper, but for me I like the look of the photos of Canon's 35. I rented and used both and decided on Canon. What's the difference?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2013 23:14
|
|
|
fknlo posted:Is the 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L any good or are you better off getting a fixed length lens? I kayak fish and can get pretty close to a lot of birds/animals and it seems like having a range of zooms to chose from would be kind of nice. From a pure "whats the biggest telephoto I can get for not a stupid amount of money" standpoint, the 400 5.6 is cheaper and performs a bit better, but you lose that versatility of zoom range. Other than that, the 100-400 is well regarded and popular. Some don't care for the push/pull mechanism, and it's also a bit dated, but the IQ and AF are solid enough.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2013 22:15
|
|
|
800peepee51doodoo posted:The Sig 24-105 isn't that awesome of a deal for Canonhavers for all the reasons you listed. It is pretty awesome if you are Nikon or Sony user, though. In other Sigma news, it looks like they might be releasing a 135 f/2 Art sometime next year and announcing a line of fast, long Sport telephotos - 300 & 400 f/2.8 and 500 & 600 f/4 are expected. Should be very exciting! I'm overjoyed with my 35 1.4 Art. It's stupidly sharp wide open, focuses really well, and looks awesome on full frame. Plus it was like $500 less than the Canon 35 1.4.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2013 02:59
|
|
|
Back-button focus is the only way to go. I even had it set on my Rebel. -Provides a built-in AF lock. -Lets you stop the AF if you've got obstructions in your field of view while keeping on the shutter button -Lets you manually prioritize AF or shutter release during bursts -It's much easier to smash down to be sure you're autofocusing than a finely-controlled half-press of a shutter -Lets you focus and recompose quickly
|
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2014 18:40
|
|
|
See if you can track down a Tamron 17-35 2.8-4. Decent aperture, works on full frame, should be under $300 used if you can find one.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 23, 2014 17:57
|
|
|
theloafingone posted:I use a UV filter on half my lenses. One on my 24-105L for weather sealing and one on my Sig50A because I would really, really hate it for something to happen to it even with the lens hood. Short of stabbing your lens with a screwdriver, nothing is going to hurt it without a UV filter. Dust, smears, spray, mud, snow, etc -- it all is easily cleaned off and the glass is pristine. I sometimes have caps on, sometimes don't. I always have hoods on, though, and that does more good than anything else. And the things that would hurt it are just going to go through your UV filter anyway.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2014 00:04
|
|
|
alkanphel posted:For me the one thing I like about Canon is their TS-E 24 II lens. There aren't many TS lenses on the market and Canon's lens is one of the best. Not to mention you can adapt it onto other mirrorless systems. Canon's lens selection in general is its strongest argument.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2014 04:02
|
|
|
Tricerapowerbottom posted:I have the opportunity to buy a very lightly used 1Ds mark II from a friend for $450, and can return it if I have any problems with it. I should probably just do this, and not concern myself with "Oh but a 5DIII would be better, blah" sort of sentiment, right? It would be a hell of an upgrade from my T2i. uhhh yeah dude. That's an insanely good price.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2014 20:31
|
|
|
With the caveat that I've never actually used one, honestly the 100-400 has really never appealed to me, and it's entirely because of the aperture. I realize you really can't make a faster zoom in that range without the price being just stupid, but the thought of starting at 4.5 and just getting worse always turned me off of that lens.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2014 23:50
|
|
|
triplexpac posted:If I mainly just shoot portraits (studio and outdoor), how much of an improvement would a 6D be over a 5D classic? Or would I be better off thinking about a used 5D mkII? Probably more of an improvement in the outdoor category, since sometimes in outdoor portraits you're not sitting at ISO 100. Umm, really unless you're running into problems with size or you need to crop more, or if you'd like to expand into things involving action or low light I can't think of a whole lot the 6D or 5D2 would do that the 5D doesn't in the context of portraits. The 6D and the 5DII to a slightly less degree have better dynamic range and color depth and all that great stuff (see here for number stuff) but honestly unless you feel held back by the 5D, buy lights and lenses and pay makeup artists and stuff before upgrading the body.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2015 18:05
|
|
|
I am trying to find a reason for anyone to ever use crop mode on a Canon camera and the only thing I came up with is like high volume shoots like races or something where you sell or distribute the photos afterward, need the reach, and need a lower file size. Like, when I shoot for Spartan Race they want the file size under a certain amount so I shoot small step compression jpg on my 5d3. I could feasibly imagine shooting something like that and using some sort of crop mode for extra reach when there is no time to crop, file size is a concern, and the files are delivered pretty much as-is to the end user. Other than that it is The Dumbest Thing.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2015 04:31
|
|
|
Tamron made a 17-35 2.8-4 as well that I use a lot. It has bee-powered autofocus, but is a decent lens and is rather inexpensive. I got mine for like $230 used.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2015 00:30
|
|
|
Haggins posted:My vote is for the 70-200 2.8 IS II with the Canon 2x III extender. Best of both worlds. This is what I would do as well.The 70-200 2.8 IS II takes the 2x III extender so well -- you end up with both a 70-200 2.8 and a 140-400 5.6. I'm not sure, but I imagine AF speed might be a bit slower with the extender on. Still, having a 70-200 2.8 when you want it is pretty awesome. You'll never have that in a 100-400 that starts at f/4.5.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2015 18:41
|
|
|
KinkyJohn posted:I rarely shoot wider than 35mm, but I'm thinking it would be nice to have for landscapes on an upcoming trip. I have a Tamron 17-35 2.8-4 that works pretty well. I think I paid around $250 for it, used. Lightroom's profile correction for it really cleans up the distortion. I like it a lot.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2015 22:50
|
|
|
Right. The 17-35 2.8-4 is a full-frame lens.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2015 00:17
|
|
|
Bubbacub posted:This is pretty cool. If you bolt a bunch of telephoto lenses together, you can do some serious astronomy: That is incredible. It's also $84,000 in just lenses.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2015 00:35
|
|
|
The 85 1.8 is an incredible value. Only thing to look out for is the CA if you shoot wide open and back-lit. I find it's very correctable in post, but you can avoid it altogether by stopping down a bit. I love the isolation it affords me.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2015 03:38
|
|
|
iSheep posted:or its making GBS threads itself due to not really being built for the task. Doubting that. Probably just trying to continue focusing up until the shutter release. There are options for prioritizing focus lock vs shutter release when shooting in servo.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2015 22:54
|
|
|
Man, all I ever see on my Craigslist are people selling 4+ year old entry-level bodies at 4+ year old retail prices.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2015 17:39
|
|
|
The rubber on my 5D3 is starting to peel around the top and bottom of the grip. Can anyone comment on how Canon Professional Services has been at fixing this? I'd feel stupid paying them to put glue there, but if they'll fix it for free during a clean & check or something like that I'll find a time to send it in so it doesn't get worse.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2015 15:41
|
|
|
After using my 70-200 f/4L for about 7 years, I can tell you that while the value was great, being stuck at f/4 *blows*.
|
|
#
¿
May 4, 2015 19:55
|
|
|
I left my 5d3 out overnight unprotected shooting a meteor shower time-lapse and it poured down rain for hours. It acted veeeery weirdly when I brought it in, similar issues to yours with some buttons not working, some buttons doing actions of other buttons, but I put it in the oven at 120 degrees, then did the rice thing - submerged it in a big mixing bowl full for 2 days. It ended up working fine and hasn't had any problems since, thank satan. Dodged a very expensive bullet there.
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2015 16:25
|
|
|
One of the big advantages of the 17-40, and a good chunk of its increased cost, is the fact that it's a full-frame lens. Also, I'd add to Pablo Bluth's benefits of the 7D is that there aren't just more autofocus modes; it's a faster, more intelligent, and better in low light system in general.
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2015 19:17
|
|
|
rolleyes posted:I'm guessing the reason I didn't get a response to this is because there isn't anything really, but just double checking before I start agonising over what lens I might like! What kind of stuff do you like to shoot, and what do you wish you could do that you can't right now?
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2015 23:57
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 30, 2024 18:32 |
|
|
geeves posted:So true! do you not have cats or
|
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2015 16:20
|
|