robert_turner5

<p>I have a 24-70 f2.8/II, funded by selling my 35/1.4L and the 24/1.4L II. For my needs the 24-70 is the smart choice, but both of those primes (as you know) have a special IQ that is sort of like your first sweetheart. You are happy with the current situation, but you fondly remember something that was really cool. I'd keep one of those if I were you. Sort of a compromise? <br>

Incidentally, is the Sigma ART up to Canon L par in your book? I know it's reputation is very good, just wonder what you think. </p>

<p>Isn't the obvious answer "both"? ;-)</p>

<p> </p>

<p>you would be doing your friend a GREAT favor by not advocating either lens. There are far superior inexpensive options out there.</p>

<p>I'd recommend renting a EF 17-40 f4.0L. For the money it is a very pleasing performer, absolutely reliable. I've never missed larger apertures, and I sold a 16-35 f2.8/L II prior to trying this lens.</p>

<p>as silly as this may sound, I think one of the best advantages to the II is the MUCH improved hood!</p>

 

<p>Doesn't this (from J.W.'s link) answer the WiFi question?<br>

"A USB 3.0 terminal is available for expedited transfer speeds between the camera and a computer or the optional WFT-E7 (Version 2) for Wi-Fi connectivity."</p>

<p>EOS 1s are relatively small, fast focussing, and nearly indestructible cameras with great viewfinders. They come cheap these days. I've got one in great working order I'd part with for a song if you are interested.</p>

<p>Not the best rig for birds in flight... ;-)</p>

<p>Wow. The X100s arrived today. Thank goodness Lensrentals was kind enough to include the manual. This is NOT an intuitive camera, nor a particularly simple menu structure/interface. It took me 20 minutes to figure out how to do split view manual focusing correctly. There is a LOT to this little camera! Best AWB I've ever used, and there is a lot to like here. Glad I'm going to have a couple days of practice before I head out. I'm going to need it. Thanks for the info!</p>

<p>That is a crazy high noon shot, Keith. I'd not really considered the flexibility presented with the high sync capability you mention. I presume the quasi-rangefinder leaf shutter is the key?<br /> I'm off on a hiking trip in the North Cascades next week, and Lensrentals has sent me a 100 to check out (yeah, I'm bringing my 5d/3 as well). Thanks for the impetus. That camera so reminds me of my Olympus RC35 I had back in the 1970's (actually, I still have it) I KNOW it is all about the photographer, not the gear, but inspiration comes from many sources!</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Keith, please consider me an enemy for life... I had no idea what a "X100s" was, googled same after reading this post, and am now, once again, mired in <em>gear lust</em>. Come to think of it, add my wife to your enemy list as well, please.</p>

<p>Henry, I am not an antitrust attorney, but I think your understanding is correct.<br>

Here is a good summary of "state of the law" as it is now, starting with the SCOTUS "Leegin" case.<br>

http://www.americanbar.org/publications/franchise_lawyer/2013/fall_2013/roadmap_to_minimum_advertise_price_policies.html<br>

Jeff is correct in that some states have different interpretations, or that MAPs may be illegal under state, not federal antitrust, statute. Congress hints about tackling this issue, but given our Congress, I figure they're happier voting to repeal Obamacare for the 52nd time...<br>

Common sense suggests this should be addressed. When I see the exact same advertised price at B&H, KEH, Beach, etc., it "seems" like price-fixing, even though in reality it isn't the retailer to blame....</p>

 

<p>I also heard the battery life of the SL1 isn't so good.<br>

Nonetheless, I did not take my SL1's charger with me on a recent trip to FL and the Keys. Brought the Canon battery and two aftermarkets, shot over 600 shots and several videos and never even needed the third battery. Seems more than reasonable to me. My only gripe- like some car's gas gauges the levels do not go down in linear fashion it seems. Full to empty is fast, although it is 300+ shots at least.<br>

I love the SL1, matched it with a 20mm Voigtlander MF lens and have a tidy little package that can fit in a coat pocket. The 18-200 Canon lens is a great "one lens" travel setup as well.</p>

<p>Hi David- Not to hijack the thread, but is there a way to integrate the DLO process for someone who uses Aperture for workflow/file management/PP? Would I have to import tif or jpg files?</p>

<p>$1,500 is<strong> absurd</strong> considering that damage, no offense. Run away. Sheldon's commentary is spot on, though he is more charitable than I. $900 sounds about right. Especially considering $1,650 buys that lens mint from multiple CL sellers.<br>

The chip is most likely due to the protrusion of the rear element in that specific lens that makes it a bit more tricky to mount- if one isn't careful there can be impact on the mirror. So, while that lens may not be mishandled too badly, $1,500 is a ridiculous price for a lens you would have extreme difficulty reselling if you didn't like it. And for whatever it is worth, the 85 1.2L is a special, but very particular lens. Many buy it and aren't inclined to deal with the mass and slow focus to get the magical end result. Good luck in any case.</p>

<p>$1,500 is absurd considering that damage, no offense. Run away. Sheldon's commentary is spot on, though he is more charitable than I. $900 sounds about right. <br>

The chip is most likely due to the protrusion of the rear element in that specific lens that makes it a bit more tricky to mount- if one isn't careful there can be impact on the mirror. So, while that lens may not be mishandled too badly, $1,500 is a ridiculous price for a lens you would have extreme difficulty reselling if you didn't like it. And for whatever it is worth, the 85 1.2L is a special, but very particular lens. Many buy it and aren't inclined to deal with the mass and slow focus to get the magical end result. Good luck in any case.</p>

<p><strong>Only</strong> if either the price is<strong> truly reflective</strong> of the lack of marketability attributable to the damage (you will have to discount that 85L heavily if/when you sell it) AND the seller gives you trial period to evaluate/return same if it disappoints. If you have the option to try and test, I'd suggest finding tricky lighting situations (shooting into bright lights at center and peripheral of image) at small apertures to flesh out potential anomalies.<br /> Generally, buying damaged gear is a false economy, but you may be able to manage this if you are careful and a tough negotiator.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Oops, update! Just checked Sigma website. I had failed to read their entire email of 01/08/14. Significant egg on my face! 50/1.4 has been entirely reformulated, seemingly along retrofocus principles but somewhat different from the Zeiss. No price or availability info yet, but I sure want one!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not to hijack the thread, but that is interesting.. Any predictions as to street pricing, or hands on "previews", perhaps?</p>

<p>Canon 35 f1.4L's I have used have been completely reliable, with terrific focus and wonderful color/contrast/bokeh. I'd suggest renting one, you may be surprised how satisfying that lens is.<br>

It sounds like your Sigma experience is a lot like mine with the 50 f1.4. The Sigma's IQ is really, really nice, but it doesn't handle anywhere near as smoothly as Canon's 50mm f1.2L. Focus is way more jumpy and less reliable in low light. The Canon I used never disappointed. But with that said, I didn't have the economic resources to justify the Canon at a $1,000 premium over the Sigma so that was my call. </p>

 

<p><sigh>... I guess you're probably on the right track. I will confess your wishlist makes me feel like a backward luddite. When did this stuff get so outrageously complicated? Aren't most of us just taking photos?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>May I be so bold as to inquire as to what capabilities you would like the 7dII to include which aren't incorporated in the 7d?</p>

<blockquote>

<p> The Apple OS seems like Reverse Polish Notation to me, if you're old enough to remember that.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>All the more reason to go Mac, Dave C.! And RPN ain't dead, as my handful of HPs demonstrate!</p>

<p>"all we are is dust in the lens... Oooooohh ohhh oh"<br>

I agree, worry not about the specks. Should you see Jimmy Hoffa between elements, then it's time to investigate...</p>

 

<p>If it were me, before I'd muck around with a perfectly functional 5d3, I'd seek out a used 5d or Mk2 and put whatever screen suited my fancy. Sorry for this not being exactly on point, but just wondering if maybe you should step back a sec before altering a $3,000 body outside of spec.<br>

Best of luck in any case!</p>

<p>IQ of my 400 f/5.6L was stellar. When using a mono or tripod.<br>

For the life of me I could not get suitable results handheld. ABSOLUTELY a technique issue, but an issue nonetheless, and this with a FF body.<br>

Swapped for a older 100-400 and I am delighted. If IQ isn't as good, I sure can't see it, and the IS is irreplaceable for me. The 100-400 is superb even with a 1.4II extender.<br>

Handheld 400 f/5.6? Maybe for a mime or a palace guard, but not for a mere mortal like me... </p>

<p> </p>