John Bennett
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Aaron.
Anytime someone mentions switching systems the hairs on the back of my neck stand out. The first thing anyone who has switched from one to the other will tell you is that they took a financial bath doing so.Are there differences?
Yes I beleive so.In lenses not so much, except for maybe in the long lens arena.
I know a guy who shoots with with both the 1DsMKIII and the Nikon. D3. I dont think he really has a preference but I will say he uses Nikon for weddings, Canon for wildlife/action. My guess is he uses the D3 for weddings/studio primarily because Nikon has a better flash system. Canon for its speed, ISO performance. Even rob Galbraith who has been hounding Canon over the MKIII still choose it over the D3 for his sports shooting. But again, I tihnk its such a small thing as to not matter for most of the world.
If your thinking about a full frame down the road the D700 is sweeeeet. I’m blown away by the images Im seeing coming from it.
If somone offered me a 1DMKIIn or MKIIII with a 5D (new model due this fall) or a D3, and a D700 free Id close my eyes and choose.
Those are the cream of the crop from each maker though. It wasnt until now that Nikon addressed some things that (imo) gave Canon a decided edge. Canon will be coming out with their new bodies this year.
tit for tat..We the consumers win.
*****************************Dont be surprised now that Nikon has addressed some things in their flagship/premier lines to see some of that trickle down to their prosumer and consumer line ups in their next salvos.
Sweet no brush fires from Germany to put out. Gotta love getting to work and having an empty inbox 🙂
24-70 f2.8 vs 24-105 f4 IS.This might turn out long. As its “related” to the above I’m going to include a brief preamble. Originally my plan was to use the “kit” lens as long as it took for me to fiill out my focal range coverage and get a specialty lens or two. WA stuff just wasnt that high on my priority list.
Mostly family shots, personal keepsakes etc.That changed when things changed for me last X-Mas with regards to contributing to magazines. Worded another way my “priorities” changed.
Short listed all 3.
17-40 L, 24-70 f2.8 and 24-105 f4 IS.at 40mm the 17-40 was too short for *me*. I needed a lens to serve as an all purpose “walkaround” and would be my main mount when fishing /hunting etc.
It took about 4 months of over analysing. In truth Id probably be happy with either. In the end it came down to
F2.8 vs IS.
I wouldn’t mind the extra 30mm when on streams. In the field I can zoom with my feet..Sometimes in water thats not possible.
I wanted IS. I’m already carrying a burden, especially when fly fishing.
We all know how taxing our boots, waders,vest, water bottles can be. My pack can weight from 12pds to 45pds on top of that. Do I really want to lug a tripod?????The 24-70 because its f2.8 is a brick that aint helping.
In the end though f2.8 won out. Theres nothing I can do to replicate fast glass. You either have it or you dont and for my kind of prefered shooting (action) I need to able to freeze motion when desired.
Heresay.
Some if you read enough forums will argue that the 24-70 is a bit sharper than the 24-105. Maybe it is, at the least its not as complex a lens (less zoom range, no IS ) but from what Ive seen differences are minute….pixel peeping.Most forums, “experts” will tell you that the litmus test for any lens is wide open and viewed at 100%.
F2.8
100% crop
This shot viewed at 100% I can cearly and easily discern the wee mesh on the back of his vest
F2.8
this shot (again no 100% crop available) when viewed at 100% I can clearly read the words “Z Axis” like I was reading a book on my friends rod.
F2.8
Al I would say you could buy either lens with confidence. Ive never heard an owner of either lens (and I know quite a few) who have found their copy not to meet their expectations with regards to sharpness. There may be a tiny wee edge to the 24-70 f2.8 but unless your shooting for Movie posters and billboards I really dont think it matters much. Its splitting hairs or pixel peeping
What you should focus on is
having the faster glass or IS (imo) and should you favor the faster glass is the extra weight going to impact the decision. Make no mistake the 24-70 f2.8 is tungsten brick.There are very good, solid arguements for both.
Have fun deciding, I know I agonised for about 4 months 🙂Also, due to the money envolved its well worth a couple visits to your retailer and test them. Mount them on your body, feel the weight, take a bunch of instore shots for comparison purposes. Go home view them at 50% and 100%..relax, let your thought percolate, go back if need be and retest…then decide.
If we lived close Id let you borrow mine for some pratical in field hand on (maybe rent one for a weekend???)
But in the end I think both will make you happy, its just down to the little things.
Absolutely agree 100% David.
I do like IS, had it in the 100-400 L. There are times when I miss it. sometimes bumping ISO just isnt doable. As you know I do a TON of lowlight shooting. So Im not implying its a waste…Its just expensive insurance that can be dealt with othrwise (pods/beanbags/etc). …and I guess the key point is that when theres sooo much to buy…from lenses…to extra batteries…to cable relases and cards.
Its a question of priority. Not suggesting ones more important than the other, but the 700.00 saved by buying the 70-200 F4 would pay for the 17-40 or the 100 f2.8…Its that kind of dilema that we all have probably gone through. You end up ith 2 L lenses instead of 1 for the same money.
On the WA end, I just want to be clear so Im not misunderstood. Id certainly replace the kit…its just a question of when or “priority.
I usually suggest to people buying their body to set an initial budget and 2 year budget/plan.So I guess the buyer would need to answer..Whats more important to me.
Focal range coverage first and then replace the kit
or
Getting a better WA first and then filling in.At the end of 1 year or 2 years you end up with the same lens lineup 17-40L the 70-200 F4L and macro…its just which to get and when
Theres no right or wrong. I can only answer what was right for me.
Al have to run for my bloody 5:45 train. Will prvide some feeleings both pre and post purchace on the two 24-XXs later today with an example or two.
J
Some possibly, some probably not.
Plus alot would depend on how its used. A full spread then yes differences might be more discernable than smaller prints.IS:
It depends on the lens but the 4 70-200s that Canon offeres are a great barometer for the IS premium.Prices are retail, off the top of my head, apprx and in Cdn
70-200 F4 L $700.00
70-200 F4 L IS $1,40070-200 f2.8 L $1,300 or 1,400
70-200 f2.8 L IS $2,200Theres no right or wrong with what you prioritise. If WA stuff is important to *you* then it might make more sense to replace the “free” 18-55 sooner than completeing a nice focal range +macro.
Maybe I phrased it wrong. Asume you bought any one of those lenses tonight. Make it the 17-40 L
You’d have your body and the 17-40 L and need to save for the macro or 70-200
Conversely if you bought the 70-200 F4 L
youd have your body, and focal range coverage starting at 18mm and ending at 200mm and only the macro yet to pick up. To “expand” your capabilties.You have a *serviceable* WA now, unless theres a compelling reason to replace it with so much yet to buy……..
Thats all.
No matter what lens you get they are good/great.For me I had a hard time deciding between the 17-40 L, the 24-105 IS and the 24-70 f2.8. All great lenses, all filled out my focal range needs.
Dusty, just wanted to add another thought/spin on it for you. Its a route you could opt for, but not should.
My personal take is spend where you have to and save where you can. When your starting out, theres a ton of stuff you’ll either want or need. “Need” largely being defined by each individuals priorities.
Do you “need” IS?
IS is a nice feature, but it’s certainly not neccessary and it comes at a hefty premium for what it does. And at the end of the day, theres nothing IS does that can’t be dealt with with a tripod/monopod/fense post/car roof/ben bag and a host of other things. Nor does it do anything when your subjects moving. Worded another way. If the lights dim enough that you can’t avoid shake at 70mm (1/70th to 1/200th) it’s unlikely you’ll avoid motion blur. Meaning 1/50th + IS may eliminate ‘shake’, it’s unlikely to “freeze” any motion though.
The 70-200 F4 L, is about half the price of the 70-200 F4 L IS.
That $700.00 buys you either the 100mm f2.8 macro or the 17-40 L. If you use the same money you can likely get both and qualify for a double rebate of $100 or so.
Consider these “kits”
Body
18-55mm
70-200 F4 L (non IS )
100mm f2.8 macrovs
Body
17-40 L
100mm f2.8 macroFor pretty much the same expense.
The 17-40 L is a great lens, especially when you factor in its price.
However, the kit lens is no slouch. Certainly not as good as the 17-40 L (not implying it is) …But you have it now with alot still to acquire.Have a look at this gallery. Don’t check the EXIF.
roughly half was shot with the standard kit lens
roughly half was shot with the 17-40 LCan you tell which lens shot which pictures?
http://jben.zenfolio.com/p63439086Woulda, coulda, shoulda.
The friend I normally fish brought his newly finished Granger Boo to christen the last time we went a out few weeks agot. The mid section at a ferrule, snapped on a fish. I had a couple images of him fighting the brown broken rod and all :). Prety sure Ive purged the trash bin since.Spose I could contact and do a mock. He hasnt received the replacement blank yet .
Ah, well. Things we learn.
🙂ICE numbers are solid. Each of our 4 cells have the same 6
ICE 1 Home
ICE 2 and 3: mine and my wife cell #s
ICE 3 and 4: our work numbersl
ICE 5 and 6: Our closest relativesSimiliar can be determined by checking any cells call records in the event somethng happens, but by labelling them as ICE it takes the searching, guess work, call in the dark out of the equation.
It’s a tough one.
I guess when faced with this, the question we did (and still do to a degree) is ask ourselves in what situation might it come into play and how much good might it do?? The wrist band sounds like a very good compromise.
Both our girls had our numbers/address memorised at a very early age. Both at some point got “lost” in Malls. The 1 wandered away from my wifes side and hid in some clothing hanging from racks. She thought it was a game. The other wandered away as my wife was looking at something. It litterally only takes a couple seconds with young kids in crowded places. That ended up with Mall security getting envloved, manned exits and 20 minutes of panicked searching. A good friend of ours had her toddler led away, thankfully “he” was caught at the Mall exit by security.
Both now have their own cell phones with “ICE” numbers stored in their “address book”. ICE being In Case of Emergency. Up here anyways, emergency personel look for those. The older is on our plan, the younger with a pay as you go.
Much as I don’t like them they are a good “insurance” and my oldest has already needed hers, when her friend shattered his ankle while they were out and about.
Perhaps 1 pay as you go, or even when out as a family surendering yours or your wifes to one of the kids. Prior to succumbing and getting out kids their own thats what we did.
You have to accept some noise Dusty.
Some bodies control it better than others. The simplest factor is the size of the sensor. The larger the sensor, the larger the photosites,Roger I may be able help some with Wing/Upland/Waterfowl and hunting images over the next couple months. Will depend on how much success I have hooking up with hunters and what if any are sellable.
keep an eye on my site or stuff I post here and let me know if any are of interest. If they’re unspoken for I’d be more than glad to help out.
J
Not so much tutorial based but a great instructional (and inspirational) website all the same.
http://www.cambridgeincolour.comDavid A, I’ll take your definition of winter any day.
Im in the 60+ hr work week club. Out the door every day at 5:30am and home at 6pm. Whoever coinded the phrase “Bankers Hours” should be sho. Two kids, housework and a dog, luckily I have a understanding wife and a stream behind my house. Despite that travel is almost a no go for me. If its not close to home chances are I’m not seeing it. It’s starting to wear on me, given I’d kill for a few days with good photography/fishing opportunity. The same old same old gets wearisome.
But it could be worse.
I could get transferred to Johannesburg 😉My work monitor isn’t calibrated or very good, images tend to be dark, so take this with a grain of salt.
I cant see any hot pixels 🙂 and only a couple spots that look like they might be dust or streaks.
A red pixel can mean a couple things.
1) A dead pixel
2) Dont know why but they sometimes show up. In my case usually in long exposures (bulb). Not soething I worry aboutGreat trip report Mike. I really do live vicariously through your reports. The scenery is breathtaking.
No kidding.
Michael, in one of the river scenes unless my eyes are getting worse than I suspect am I really seeing 8 guys??? Unless part of a groupthat really surprises me, it’s not something Id have expected to see on a remote get away.
J
Thanks David.
Still unsure about how much real use it would be “in the field” so to speak. Thats a product of the amount of style/type of photography I do the most, where the subject matter is often fluid and the lighting can change dramatically and fast. To me it would seem to be a case of consistant lighting vs inconsistant.
However, a tool is a tool and the more we’re familiar with and comfortable using, knowing when and how to use them only leads to better results. If nothing else,as you said it becomes a training aid to recognise different qualities of light.
Next up for another day/thread incident meters 🙂
