esfishdoc

May 16, 2016

You will likely be disappointed in what is offered by anyone who will be reselling it. Your best bet will be to sell it yourself

to a private buyer.

April 10, 2016

If you have 4 shoots and someone is paying, you need a camera. I would be renting or borrowing asap if you can't buy

one outright. Not sure where you are but in the USA Lensrental.com would be my go to place.

For you current camera what can you do? Change cards. Turn off... back on. Try a different battery. Even if it starts

working properly can you depend on it? Your main camera is gone and your backup is malfunctioning.

The help you need is renting or borrowing a camera.

Richard

February 22, 2016

I'll share my opinion and make some generalizatios. A focal length of 400mm is where I'd start out as a minimum. I actually own 3: 100-

400L (old push pull focus), 400 5.6L and the new 100-400L II. The new 100-400L makes the other two obsolete for me and I'll sell them

when I get around to it.

The image does not begin to degrade in quality as the focal length goes up. Many a day I wish I had a 600 or even 800mm. Now.. if you

start adding converters there will be image degradation but the only thing that degrades when going to a 600L is your financial situation.

It always comes down to budget. How much can you spend?

Here is an image of taken with the 100-400L II.

I'm not sure what you mean by preferring a lens with manual focus. I've never seen push pull focus but the old 100-400 has push pull

zoom. Manual focus is always present. So is AF.

Regards,

Richard M. Hatch

esfishdoc.smugmug.com

February 15, 2016

My 24-70 is my most used lens by far. My 16-35 is my least used lens. Only you can decide by using them. You can't think your way

through to the correct answer for you.

June 9, 2015

Greetings,

I've been quite silent lately on forums and on all things gear related, but this question caught my attention.

Here are my thoughts. First off, I don't have that lens but I have the 24-70L and it is my main lens for about 7 years now. For me I don't feel I need IS in that range. If I can't hand hold a shot I use a tripod or flash. With my Canon 5D III I feel comfortable shooting at an ISO of 1600 2.8 at 1/40th handheld.

The 24-70L II is probably the sharpest zoom ever in that focal length. In a good, better, best rating it is the "best". It is priced at best also. (I want one but I don't need one so it hasn't reached my impulse buy button yet).

Let's say a new 24-70 2.8L II costs 1799 after rebate (B and H) and a used one will sell at the high end for 1225 (lensrentals). Will you get better pictures compared to a used 24-70 2.8L version I (lets say 800 dollars)? My answer: Most definitely probably not... why? Hand held in low light at 2.8 with marginal shutter speeds is not going to look any better at the end of the day. The lens has potential to be better but you have to use it in a way to achieve that potential. Will it be better with flash and strobes and on a tripod or at higher shutter speeds hand held.. yes it will. But do you need it and will you appreciate it and is it worth paying extra for?

Here is a "snapshot" in low light with my 24-70L .. 52mm 1/25 hand held..

Why would I buy the version II? 1. If I really felt I needed something a bit sharper than what I get from my version I. For now.. I have too many other things I want. 2. If my current lens breaks or gets seriously injured. 3. Once I have about 3 other lenses that I want.

Using a lens at 2.8 has an advantage over an f4 when it comes to a narrower depth of field. I really like that about my lens. When I've needed a bleeding edge low light lens I've rented a Canon 85 1.2L but I've never felt a need to own one.

I highly suggest reading this:

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/01/canon-24-70-f4-is-resolution-tests

Questions?

Regards

Richard

February 25, 2015

Hmmm... I would say the answer is never. Now if there is a problem then I would ask about that. With DSLR's I subscribe to the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" method.

Richard

February 22, 2015

Greetings,

First off... I've never been to Africa to shoot wildlife... but I've considered it and done some reading.

I've used and own some of the lenses you ask about. I currently own a 100-400L and a 400 5.6L and I've owned a 300 2.8 and a 300 f4. Of those lenses the 100-400 would be my first choice for the task. Does it produce the sharpest images of the bunch? No.. but very close. Does it do things the other lenses can not? Yes it does! Would I rather have the version II of the 100-400L? Yes... If I were going to buy one new I'd spend the extra money of on the newer version. Do I think I'd be able to see the difference in my final product? Probably not in the majority of them but since I mostly shoot hand held I think I'd increase my keepers at the fringes of light as it has better IS.

The fixed focal length at 300 and 400 are great when subjects cooperate but from what I've read about game parks in Africa a zoom is much preferred. I really miss IS on the 400 5.6. It takes getting used to the image shaking around.

I've read good things about the Tamron 150-600.

Here is something just out on the new 100-400L worth reading.

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2015/02/canon-100-400-is-l-mk-ii-teardown-best-built-lens-ever

I tend to be rough on gear. I push weather conditions a bit far. I bump into things. I'm embarrassed to say I've had cameras and lenses roll out of the truck when a back door is opened (I can think of 3 times.. I get in a hurry sometimes). I'm constantly around salt water. I like things that are stout and sturdy and the new 100-400 is looking like it might be just that.

Of the Canon lenses the used 100-400L is likely the best value. If I had to choose between that and the Tamron 150-600 I'd spend 100 dollars and rent it for a handful of days to see how it is.

It sounds like you have plenty of time. Get a lens now! Find out now if you love it or hate it. Buy used... sell it if it isn't for you.. move on. Spend a lot of time with your gear before the trip so you are at ease with the equipment.

Regards,

Richard

March 15, 2014

Good Morning,

All of the previous posts are correct.

I'll add my take.

Do you need to upgrade? The answer may be yes. Early on when I started I took pictures of birds and I could tell after about 3 hours of using a 55-250 that I was not going to get what I wanted. I wanted more than the lens could deliver and I knew it. I shot macro with extension tubes... and it was good. I knew I could not get what I was seeing as my goal. I needed a very good dedicated macro lens. The list goes on.

My most recent upgrade was to film. I wanted something I could not get with digital (well... I could fake it.. but I wanted film and to work with film and a true film look). A particular project called for film and a medium format square format.... and after about 5 rolls of film I knew I needed a camera with a better lens... hence another upgrade. (Yashica 124 MAT - Rolleiflex 3.5f F-Type 4 Zeiss Planar)

A teacher/mentor who can work some one on one time with you could be a huge factor in the process.

Sometimes quality tools will stimulate emotions and guide efforts. A beautiful Zeiss lens with color and contrast well beyond a kit lens ability may change your direction and enthusiasm.

Regardless, if you have the means and you are going to stick with photography you will eventually "upgrade". When and what are the only questions that will remain.

Richard

March 12, 2014

You can buy a used 85 1.2 right now from KEH for 1369 that is rated EX (might be a version I) and there is one at Lens Rentals (Lens Authority is their used outlet) for 1625 (version II). It would be easy to return to either of these places and they have limited warranties.

I'm thinking.. what happened to get that chip and what else might be a bit off? I would have little confidence in the lens and even if there wasn't noticeable image changes I'm sure I'd spend too much time looking for them.

I've purchased cameras and lenses used and I want them near perfect.

Me.. I wouldn't give 500 dollars for that lens beause 1. I would have no confidence in other aspects of the lens, i.e. focus, shaprness, centering etc. 2. I wouldn't use it as is 3. I wouldn't want the hassle of having it repaired even if the original cost + repairs was much lower than a near perfect lens.

The seller is way off on his price which is another red flag to me.

Thumbs Down!

Richard

March 2, 2014

I've bought new and used lenses and I've owned a total of about 10 and rented others. I must say I've never had a lens that would even qualify as "worst". Even the lens I'd rank at the low end of all others is still a good lens and a good value. (although it never gets used... waiting to give it away to a new photographer in need of a 50 1.8)

I would think that to name a lens "worst" it would have to be a lemon or a total failure of design and material for the intended use. I'm fortunate I've not encountered that.

The best lens is the one I'm using for the task at hand.

Richard

February 13, 2014

I have tried taking portraits indoor with my macro and the light still does not seem to be enough. Hence the 85mm choice.

</blockquote>

The 100L macro is an excellent portrait lens and it has IS. The 85mm 1.8 is a very good portrait lens and does not have IS. If you are having problems with low light with the 100L I would predict you are going to have problems with the 85 1.8. I just don't see where gaining a bit over one stop with a wider aperture and loosing 1-2 stops (depends on who you ask) in IS gets you anywhere but a narrower depth of field which could be a challenge to a lot of shooters. Sounds to me you need more light, i.e. flash or strobe.

As for portraits with macro, I feel that it tends to amplify the facial hairs and scars.

</blockquote>

It isn't the "macro" that is "amplifying" the detail. It is the fact it is a very good lens. This should not be a bad thing. Any very good to excellent lens is going to do this. I'd rather have all the detail I can get and soften it up in post than take a soft picture and want more.

Will 50mm be a better choice?

</blockquote>

You are going to have to do some work on your own here to figure that out. No one can tell you answers that fit your needs (or your house)

Reading between the lines and sensing your inexperience with these things I'd suggest borrowing or renting some lenses to see if they are what you need and/or want.

The 70-200 2.8 IS II is one of the best lenses out there and I've been in situations outside where I've used it at it's limits and was gratefull I had f2.8 and IS and not a 4 (with or without IS.) In my use there is no reason to worry about weight.

There are so many opinions and so many ways to get things done.... My best opinion is: Rent before you buy and buy used.

Have fun.

Richard

February 5, 2014

In the for what it's worth dept: I purchased one from B and H about a month ago that works fine. The cap is very tight and requires effort to get on but I think it would stay on even if dropped on a hard floor. Maybe the tight tolerances led to a batch of caps that don't play well with others.

Just a thought... warm up a cap in 100 degree water and see if it goes on.

Richard

February 4, 2014

Greatings...

The 600mm is a wonderful lens for BIF. Are you hand holding? If so, a tripod with a Wimberly head is the solution. If it is just too heavy to get back and forth to prime areas then downsizing to a 400 5.6 might be a solution. I would suggest renting a 400 5.6 to see if you are happy with the images compared to the 600. ( I don't think I would be as I'd much rather shoot the 600.. I own a 400 5.6) Why the 1DX?

Richard

January 29, 2014

I'm now developing my own film... but.. I've used The Darkroom with success. They have lots of options and of course you get your negatives.

http://thedarkroom.com/

A reliable source tells me they get great results from Citizens...

http://www.citizensphoto.com/

Richard

January 16, 2014

I currently have #3 35mm film cameras that mostily sit. They are a Minolta XE-1, Nikon F and a Rollei 35. The Rollie 35 gets the most use. I have a Leica lens and if I ever get a body for it it would see some use.

For 5 years or so I've been 99.8% digital... until the last couple of months when I was stimulated to buy a medium format TLR. I've had a love affair with my Yashica 124 MAT. This is likely to come to an end when my recently purchased Rolleiflex gets delivered.

I'm not giving up digital (Canon FF) but I'd give up the 35mm film (but I won't).

I shoot a roll or two at a time and develop myself. The negatives get scanned on an Epson V700 which does a very good job. I have no tolerance for a partially exposed roll to sit in the camera and will shoot something to finish off a roll.

Richard

January 8, 2014

I feel like making one comment...

I would not buy a 50 1.8... again. I bought one early on because of advise like... everybody has one.. you have to have one... or such... I have one... rarely used it.. it sits.

Now.. if you find yourself wanting to use a 50mm lens with a 1.8 aperture and average optics and a cheap plastic feel to it and don't want to spend more than 100 or so dollars... this is your lens. Just because something is a good value does not mean you want it or need it.

Just my opinion.

Richard

January 7, 2014

OBTW... all are available right now used... you could have all three of my picks for about 4K used. I''ve bought about 4 used lenses from LensRentals and have no regrets.. a bit higher priced than e bay and craigs list but I have confidence I'll get a lens as described from a company backing up what they sell...

http://www.lensauthority.com/brands/Canon.html

Richard

January 7, 2014

"What 3 lenses would be best for a FF camera?"

Wow... wide open.. but here is my opinion.

16-35 2.8 L (I own one)

24-70 2.8 L (I own version I... want version II.. consider Tamronn with IS)

70-200 2.8 L IS Version II (I've used it for various occasions... rented)

Those are the lenses I would go out and get today if I had no lenses for my FF Canon for the type of shooting I do. They are all excellent and not likely to be improved upon for years to come.

Richard

January 4, 2014

I'd say everyone is right so far. I'll just add a different view to consider.

First off.. I'm qualified to comment because I 1.have a lot of stuff 2. spend a lot of time with my stuff 3. tried a lot of stuff

Which brings up a point. How do you know what we are qualified to comment on as well as how do we know what you do and what you might need. The old saying.."this thread needs pictures" comes to mind.

That said, every piece of new equipment I've ever purchased has stimulated a bit of creativity and/or opened up a new path for me. A good macro lens takes you down a macro path not available to a lot of non-macro lenses. An excellent tele opens doors lesser lenses can't negotiate... and so on...

I've made the following suggestion before to a similar type thread. Find someone who is making the pictures you would want to make. Find someone who has a level of maturity and can shoot a wide variety of subjects and is willing to critique your work and make honest and useful suggestions. Work with this person or persons.

Another suggestion. Check out Kelby Training. Spend 25 dollars or so for a month and watch some videos. You might be very pleased with the results and it might help a lot.

Another suggestion on gear: buy used from reputable places like Lens Rentals, B and H and KEH and save some money. (you could save even more from e bay and craigs list and such but I don't like the risk)

Back in December of 2008 I boought a 450D with a kit lens and a 50 1.8 and a 55-250. I shot a couple of days with the 55-250 and decided I needed longer sharper better for the pictures I wanted and immediately bought a 100-400L.. no regrets. I've shot less than 100 frames with the 50 1.8.. didn't like the focal length or the build and feel of the lens. I found my way to full frame and a handfull of L lenses and such and then added smaller cameras like the Fuji XE-1. Now I'm finding myself going all in on medium format film and developing black and white at home and scanning the negatives.

I'm guessing most hobbiests really don't have a goal when it comes to photography. That's fine as along as it is fun and the family is taken care of. If you shoot a lot with your equipment and have done so a for couple of years you will see noticeable differences with the newer equipment you have mentioned. As stated however, it might not make your output any better.

In conclusion... find a mentor.

Richard

October 26, 2013

My opinion:

First off..David and Keith both have excellent pictures and have valid points. All I'm adding is my opinion of the information I've read and experienced and how it all works for me.

What do I have and/or owned and use/used: 7D, 5DMkIII, 100-400L, 300 2.8L, 400 5.6L, 1.4TC and 2X TC (both canon).

Now.. call me a heritic: Concerning the dogma of an APS-C sensor having "more reach", other than the theory behind it, I've never been a believer. I'd much rather shoot the same lens (without converter) on a 5DMkIII than a 7D. I like the output of a FF even when it is cropped to the max. (I see the difference more in prints than I do on the monitor.. and I print my own work on an Epson 4900) Keep in mind I'm not saying my images are better than Keith's... obviously they are not.. he know's what he is doing and knows how to use his equimpment and... a "huge" and... he knows how to post process his files.

The 5DMKIII and 7D have so many differences that it is hard to compare just the senosr size and the theory of "reach" is just theory in my book. I find myself frequently in low light situations and the 5DMKIII is much better. Silent shooting is huge for me. The 7D's AF is very good but the 5DMKIII is much better. (but... in inexperienced hands it could take a couple of years to really understand and know how to maximize the use of these sofisticated AF systems and apply them to your needs).

Here is an image shot from my canoe a week or so ago...Shooting the 400 5.6 which has no IS I like to keep the shutter speed up and considering this was hand held and the canoe was moving I was lucky I got it halfway sharp at 1/500. I set my iso to 1250 prior to going around some marsh grass and exposing myself to the heron. I got a couple of shots right before it took off.

To answer your question: The better choice in my book is the 400 5.6 and 5DMKIII over the same lens and a 7D.

Again.. just my thoughts. YMMV.

Richard

September 5, 2013

Greetings,

It will be 5 years ago this coming Dec. when I was in your shoes mulling over my 1st DSLR. I recall the feeling of angst at spending 500 dollars on a camera.

Little did I know just how much time and money I would spend on this "hobby".

The chances are good you just don't know where this will take you. That coupled with so much great equipment at your fingertips makes a starting point difficult. Muddy the water now with internet forums providing tens of thousands of conflicting opinions and reports on performance and you have a tough choice.

So what to do? Here goes... (as I drink more coffee to get the day started)

Think outside the box. Start it now... don't get bogged down in the tech/gearhead way of looking at this... unless that is what it is all about to you.

The camera is a tool to use to "make" a picture. (I know nothing nor do I care about video) You make a picture in camera. Then you do something to the film or file to make it into something else for display. (i.e., internet, book, magazine, print, projected on the side of a building..)

An experienced photographer (one who understands and knows how to compose and use light and get the right exposure) can take just about any film camera (made in the last 100 years) or digital camera made in the last 5 to 7 years and make great pictures.

Beginning Middle and End

Capture Processing and Presentation

The camera/lens in my opinion is the least important link to great images yet it gets all the attention. What do I mean by that?

Digital images need to be processed in some way. It takes a computer and a calibrated screen of sufficient quality coupled with software capable of applying your vision to your file. It can (will) take years to master this middle step. Good news you can start in a day.

I post most of my casual pictures on Flickr so I can share them. (I don't post many here on P.net as I'm not thrilled with the way they look here) I've seen some of my images on friends computers with uncalibrated awful screens and I'm horrified. Nothing is better than a print in my opinion and I've resorted to printing my own. I was not happy with having prints made by commercial outfits.

So you want a DSLR. My bias is Canon but I'm not codependent. Pick one... just do it. From a system standpoint if you want a DSLR system capable of taking you anywhere you want to go, choose Nikon or Canon and go with it. Don't worry when the other company seems a step ahead with a new body or this or that lens...

Do you need a DSLR? Many don't.. they just think that is the best. They think a DSLR will take those great pictures they saw at a show. Some get a DSLR and make horrendous HDR's (I've done it) and are happier than a pig in poop. Some want the best autofocus available so they can take 10,000 pictures of their children kicking a soccer ball in bad light and poorly composed. I'll say it right here... most people buying a DSLR don't know what they want or need.

So what to do? A couple of ideas.

Buy used cameras and lenses from reputable sources. Save some money buying used and refurbished with the idea you might not want what you start off with. Don't get stuck paying top dollar for the newest only to find out it wasn't what you thought you wanted. Borrow a friends DSLR if you can and shoot for a week or two. Find a mentor.. a real live person nearby who can help guide you.

Be realistic: I've seen, "I want to be a pro but I've only got 800 dollars to spend" "I've just purchased a Canon 6D.. what settings do I need for weddings" "I've got a new baby (and the rent is overdue and the car is broke) so what DSLR do I need to take baby pictures".... OK.. so maybe they are exaggerated a bit.

Well.. there are my ramblings... time to get going.

Have fun.

Richard

August 1, 2013

As a viewer of images I frequently am not concerned of who made them or why or even when. There are times however when I may want to view images made by a particular photographer and then it would be interesting to know if it was an "orginal" or post-anything.

I'm getting ready to delve into a box of slides I shot in 1975. I'll look at them.. scan.. shoot over to photoshop and/or Lightroom and put them on the net and/or print.

I'm now 55 and not the 18 year old I was then. The cells in my brain have all been recycled and my world views, my desires, ambitions, religion/spirituality are different. While the name on the copyright may be the same... who made the image?

Richard

August 1, 2013

I think I know the answer to your questions.

First off.. here is how I have my 5DMk3 set up. Back button focus to the AF-On button. This starts metering as well as focus. Half press on the shutter button starts metering only. Exposure lock set to the * button.

Your questions: (For My Settup)

1. Once metering has started the AF button or the shutter button has no effect on the metering. Press and release either one and all it will do restart it if it has timed out.

2. If the metering has started and I have locked it with the * button (just one bump... no need to hold it) the shutter and/or AF button does not change it.

3. Selected focus point does not change the meter reading. Even if you are using spot metering that spot is in the middle and does not change.

I set my camera up the way you describe and here is what I think...

1. the AF button does not change metering. If you lock with the shutter and are holding it the AF button will not change that either.

2. you can hold down the AF button and the metering remains the same...the metering is "always running" and if the scene changes, i.e. a black car enters a brightly lt frame, the metering changes... until you lock the exposure.. and during that time.. say holding down the shutter button and the AF button... focus continuously adjusts while the expoosure stays locked.

3. Selected focus point sill does not change metering.

Hope that helps.

Richard

May 16, 2013

I see no mystery. I see an engineering marvel. I see a lens that has to cover so many focal lengths and cover it well.... better than anything else on the market in a zoom lens and better than some primes out there. While Shun has his opinions comparing it to the Nikon 200-400, there are many reports out there that it is significantly better. Time will tell when it gets tested thoroughly. There is no argument that it is on the steep part of the curve of diminishing returns. As consumers here on Photo.net we probably all own cameras and other items that are only a little bit better than goods at half the price.... we are the wealthy in the world. I don't see a need for Canon to explain anything... you buy it.... or you don't... (I just thought of the Seinfeld bit with the Soup Nazi...)

May 14, 2013

A rental price in the US is going to be about 360 to 400 dollars for 4 days give or take a few 20's. (based on guestimating prices on other lenses close in price at Lensrental.com)

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

Downloads

Gallery

Store

Posts posted by esfishdoc