• There has been a recent cluster of spammers accessing BARFer accounts and posting spam. To safeguard your account, please consider changing your password. It would be even better to take the additional step of enabling 2 Factor Authentication (2FA) on your BARF account. Read more here.

Digital SLR / DSLR Camera Question / DSLR Thread 2

veefereefer said:
I'm still using my old 5D classic but was never been impressed with the 24-105that I borroweded and used for a week.

Get the body only. Your 17-40L is a great lens and will come alive like it never did on your crop body.
Click to expand...

Glad to see someone else agrees with me. Never that impressed with the 24-105 - I seriously think the $200 cheapie 28-105 I bought years ago had less barrel distortion. Really don't think the 24-105 is worthy of the 'L' series tag.

Save your money, get the 24-70.

Or if you have to have a portrait lens right now, the nifty fifty, or the 85mm F1.8 is a gorgeous lens and reasonably affordable (~$450 last time I looked).

And yes, the 17-40 will be shockingly nice on the FF body - I have the 5D MkII and that lens is just wonderful with that body.
 
highonF4i said:
Do you have any trouble with image sharpness when hand holding the non-IS version?
Click to expand...

No :) High ISO baby!

My dream list for zoom lenses, is the 17-40 (or 16-35 if I were richer), the 24-70, and the 70-300.

I have the ends, don't have the middle, but I've borrowed the 24-70. It's a *really* nice lens, and do-able for an everyday lens - it's wide enough on a FF body for landscapes, long enough and bright enough for portraits. And you can always crop-to-zoom with the silly number of pixels you have available. Not ideal, but... workable in good light.
 
well, I just pulled the trigger on the Canon 6d and a 70-200mm 2.8 (non IS). As a result of this purchase, I'll likely be turning tricks at the corner of Jones and O'Farrell and sleeping in a nearby alley. I also have a wedding ring I will probably be trying to sell...

This leaves me with
17-40mm f4
50mm 1.4
70-200mm 2.8 non IS

I think that should be okay, though I do feel a lack of a solid "walk around" like the 24-70. I think I'll probably leave the 50 on a lot if I'm only bringing one lens.
 
Just for a sample:

1) First 2 were shot with T3i w/ 24-105. My opinion is that the 24-105 can hold its own very well.

2) The last two were shot with a Canon 1D II N w/ a 24-70 MK II @ dusk. I am quite sure the IQ would be much better with a bit more light.

So I would not discount the 24-105 as a good walk around lens. Remember it is an L lens for all its worth. Also these photos were not PP.
 

Attachments

  • disney.jpg
    disney.jpg
    161.8 KB · Views: 97
  • disney2.jpg
    disney2.jpg
    86 KB · Views: 106
  • T1.jpg
    T1.jpg
    147.6 KB · Views: 93
  • T2.jpg
    T2.jpg
    128.3 KB · Views: 93
Last edited:
Here are some low light test with my new EOS 6D.

ISO 800 f1.8

ISO 10000 f5.6

ISO 8000 f5.6
 
highonF4i said:
well, I just pulled the trigger on the Canon 6d and a 70-200mm 2.8 (non IS). As a result of this purchase, I'll likely be turning tricks at the corner of Jones and O'Farrell and sleeping in a nearby alley. I also have a wedding ring I will probably be trying to sell...

This leaves me with
17-40mm f4
50mm 1.4
70-200mm 2.8 non IS

I think that should be okay, though I do feel a lack of a solid "walk around" like the 24-70. I think I'll probably leave the 50 on a lot if I'm only bringing one lens.
Click to expand...

I say that your 17-40 would be a great walk around lens with the 6D. Granted it is not as sharp as the 24-70 II but the 6D's FF ability should complement it well. So far I have not attached the 24-70 II yet but I think both will be a great combo.

BTW I tried out the WiFi on the 6D and it is pretty cool but kinda weird to get use to.
 
I LOVE my new camera!!!!

That is all...

Normally, I'm the first one to say, "It's not the arrow. It's the Indian." But, holy shit! It's like night and day between my old and new cameras. This thing is just meant for taking pictures of things that are moving!

1465292_10151808266467483_1313707693_n.jpg
 
Last edited:
wannabe said:
I LOVE my new camera!!!!

That is all...

Normally, I'm the first one to say, "It's not the arrow. It's the Indian." But, holy shit! It's like night and day between my old and new cameras. This thing is just meant for taking pictures of things that are moving!
Click to expand...

Would you even bother what new camera you got?
 
Outta Control said:
what lens did you shoot with the hockey.
Click to expand...


70-200 2.8L IS II with a 2X III converter. So, I was stuck shooting at f5,6 and 3200 ISO to get the 1/1000 exposure that you need to stop the action. That's when I was shooting from the TV camera box. When I shot down at the glass, I just took off the 2X converter.

The 12 frames per second was the main reason I bought this camera. I shot two games with my 5D II at 4 frames per second. There were so many times where I got the shots just before and just after the perfect time. With the faster frame rate, I was able to get Luongo picking up one of the 22 saves that he picked up that night.

attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    68.6 KB · Views: 197
Last edited:
Nice I was also looking into the 2X III besides the 100-400 L. What are your thoughts.
 
Outta Control said:
Nice I was also looking into the 2X III besides the 100-400 L. What are your thoughts.
Click to expand...



Are you asking whether or not it's a good idea to use the 2X III with the 100-400L? The 2X III converter kills a good two stops of light. So, you're gonna be stuck shooting at f11 wide open. So, unless whatever body you're using has obscene amounts of high ISO capability or you're planning on shooting in bright daylight exclusively, I would strongly recommend against doing so. It's only gonna piss you off.
 
Recently dumped off my 40d to upgrade to a 60d so I could add video capabilities to the home shop. Anyone else done much serious video with their SLRs?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top