Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Forums  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear
Guest
Forums  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon Lenses 
Thread started 01 Nov 2011 (Tuesday) 05:34
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links (only for non-logged)

Image stabilized for Full Frame

 
Moppie
THREAD ­ STARTER
Moderator
Avatar
15,102 posts
Gallery: 24 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 451
Joined Sep 2004
Location: Akarana, Aotearoa. (Kiwiland)
     
Nov 02, 2011 03:51 |  #16

macroimage wrote in post #13341039 (external link)
The Tamron gets you to 1:3 magnification which is quite impressive. The front element doesn't rotate and the filter size is only 67mm so polarizers and grad filters will be cheaper than with the Canon lens. It is $595 at B&H and they have used ones from $450. The EF 24-105mm is $1091 so almost double.

I could use it to replace my Sigma 70-300, which to be honest has seen such little use I think it's gone moldy.

Mark Vuleta wrote in post #13341059 (external link)
If you want to try one, I got one a couple of months ago, great walk around on full-frame! You know where it is!


Cheers, I've used Tony's and it's a nice lens.
I might have to take you up on a loan for a day or so.


flickr (external link)

Have you Calibrated your Monkey lately?

Now more than ever we need to be a community, working together and for each other, as photographers, as lovers of photography and as members of POTN.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
RobDickinson
Goldmember
4,003 posts
Gallery: 14 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 1053
Joined Apr 2010
Location: New Zealand
     
Nov 02, 2011 04:03 |  #17

Still not sure why the 24-105 doesnt get more love.

Crop vs FF it has more range than my 17-55 , shallower dof, sharper, sealed, better build , no zoom creep etc. OK its not f2.8 but its also not the weight of a brick...


www.HeroWorkshops.com (external link) - www.rjd.co.nz (external link) - www.zarphag.com (external link)
Gear: A7r, 6D, Irix 15mmf2.4 , canon 16-35f4L, Canon 24mm TS-E f3.5 mk2, Sigma 50mm art, 70-200f2.8L, 400L. Lee filters, iOptron IPano, Emotimo TB3, Markins, Feisol, Novoflex, Sirui. etc.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Bananapie
Senior Member
Avatar
522 posts
Joined Jun 2011
Location: Seattle, Biloxi, Waco
     
Nov 02, 2011 04:16 |  #18

Those mini's are SICK.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Moppie
THREAD ­ STARTER
Moderator
Avatar
15,102 posts
Gallery: 24 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 451
Joined Sep 2004
Location: Akarana, Aotearoa. (Kiwiland)
     
Nov 02, 2011 04:20 |  #19

RobDickinson wrote in post #13341169 (external link)
Still not sure why the 24-105 doesnt get more love.

Crop vs FF it has more range than my 17-55 , shallower dof, sharper, sealed, better build , no zoom creep etc. OK its not f2.8 but its also not the weight of a brick...


I think it's seen as the poor cousin to the older 24-70.

I can't justify another L just for limited video work (not yet), and I prefer the 24-70 over the 24-105 just because of the way I work.
If I could live with F4 for my photo work, then it would be easy, sell the 24-70 and get a 24-105 :)


flickr (external link)

Have you Calibrated your Monkey lately?

Now more than ever we need to be a community, working together and for each other, as photographers, as lovers of photography and as members of POTN.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TweakMDS
Goldmember
Avatar
2,242 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Nov 2008
Location: Netherlands
     
Nov 02, 2011 12:27 |  #20

I love my 24-105 and in many ways it's superior to the 24-70. For me, it works especially well if I also have a 50mm or 85mm 1.8 or so in my bag, so I can go for the very shallow DoF.

The tamron superzoom seems interesting. Maybe I can find a used one here and test it out some time.


Some of my lenses focus beyond infinity...!
~Michael
Gear | Flickr (external link)
"My featured shots" (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Delija
Goldmember
Avatar
1,095 posts
Joined Jan 2009
     
Nov 02, 2011 15:22 |  #21

Moppie wrote in post #13336431 (external link)
Yeah some of those old lenses are cool, but I'm just shooting run and gun stuff with a very limited budget and an even more limited skill set :lol:

For $400 or so you can get a decent camcorder with a 40x (or so) zoom. Why struggle with an SLR with a form-factor that is anything but ideal for video?

Also you say you don't usually carry a tripod - why not? "Run and gun" isn't how movies (or videos) are done.

It's common for a photographer to take a still camera and walk the streets of a city or travel in the wild and just take pictures of what looks appealing.

Making films (or videos) is completely about planning and editing. As far as image quality, HD is HD - 1080p doesn't require a large sensor or a lot of megapixels (I think that 1080p needs just over 1MP).

Why buy an expensive lens when you say you have a limited skill set? Why not go cheap (camcorder) and see what's really involved in holding people's interest? (I could not watch the video you posted for more than a minute or two - not even when I skipped ahead thinking it might get better). You may realize what is involved and go on from there, get better video equipment and sell the camcorder (and probably your dSLR and it's lenses if you are really serious), or you may just give up on making videos since it's an effort that takes a lot of collaboration and a lot of work to do properly - unless you already have a crew that is willing to work together and work for long hours and no money.

This is VERY different than still photography that can be accomplished by one person with a camera. Motion pictures take a crew - and again, a ton of planning.

A bit of camera shake is the last thing you need to worry about if you are trying to develop a "skill set" - So is attempting to use a heavy camera and lens without a proper viewfinder (let along a tripod). Image stabilized lenses will not make a noticeable difference - arm fatigue will set in very quickly even if you are a body builder.

When you see "hand held" shots in movies or even from the sidelines of an NFL game, the cameras are all shoulder mounted - with "steady cam" (Steadicam) mounts...NO ONE holds weight out in front of them. Yeah, there are truly hand-held shots that are exceptions but for an effect (like "cinema vérité " that lasts seconds - any more and most of an audience would experience vertigo (symptoms similar to sea-sickness).

Video is great for taking 30 second clips of a baby's first steps and a toddler blowing out birthday candles. Making "movies" is something entirely different. I have 4 cameras that can take video (and have had countless cell phones) and haven't ever used the feature - that's with 40 years of experience in he motion picture business and a degree in film making. There's nothing I can do by myself that would not be a bore to anyone without a personal interest in what I could capture -


Wow, what a nice picture! You must have a really great camera!

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
amfoto1
Cream of the Crop
10,331 posts
Likes: 146
Joined Aug 2007
Location: San Jose, California
     
Nov 02, 2011 15:28 |  #22

I bought my DSLRs to shoot stills, not video... So I don't know, but gotta ask...

Don't most people turn off IS when shooting video due to the noise and the movement of the image when IS is working?


Alan Myers (external link) "Walk softly and carry a big lens."
5DII, 7DII, 7D, M5 & others. 10-22mm, Meike 12/2.8,Tokina 12-24/4, 20/2.8, EF-M 22/2, TS 24/3.5L, 24-70/2.8L, 28/1.8, 28-135 IS (x2), TS 45/2.8, 50/1.4, Sigma 56/1.4, Tamron 60/2.0, 70-200/4L IS, 70-200/2.8 IS, 85/1.8, Tamron 90/2.5, 100/2.8 USM, 100-400L II, 135/2L, 180/3.5L, 300/4L IS, 300/2.8L IS, 500/4L IS, EF 1.4X II, EF 2X II. Flashes, strobes & various access. - FLICKR (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links (only for non-logged)

3,580 views & 0 likes for this thread, 15 members have posted to it and it is followed by 2 members.
Image stabilized for Full Frame
FORUMS Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Forums   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset   •  Home

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.58forum software
version 2.58 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is semonsters
1043 guests, 106 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15,144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.