If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
I'VE DONE SOMETHING TERRIBLE !
Chloe writes:
On 9/03/2012 3:36 AM, Annika1980 wrote: On Mar 6, 4:00 pm, wrote: On 5/03/2012 2:34 AM, Annika1980 wrote: On Mar 1, 12:11 am, tony wrote: You've formed a Tennessee Ashton Kutcher fan club. Shame! It's worse than that. I put a Nikon 14-24 f/2.8G lens on my FAB 5D2. I feel so dirty! Here are a few pics I've taken with that combo in the past 3 days. http://bretdouglas.smugmug.com/Photo...1767869_vdPZhq It was said in Popular Photography when Canon first introduced streamline 35mm bodies way back when A1's ruled that if you could use Nikon glass on a Canon body, you'd have the perfect camera. Chloe That may have been true back in the day, but not now. The Nikon 14-24 is the only lens that bests anything that Canon offers. My advice is to rent this lens for a few days and watch your photography improve immediately. Then cry your eyes out as you drive to the UPS store to send it back. Here's the news flash mate... I've owned one since 2009. Any Nikon shooter working full frame needs one of these for real estate or inside event shots. The only way to stand in a corner and get the whole room in without it looking like you're in a fish bowl. Wrong. I was shooting my kitchen (which is unfortunately small) last night with my Sigma 12-24mm full-frame on my D700. Now, first, I *do* get just a little barrel distortion at 12mm that's visible when I carefully set up square to a wall and there are reference lines all through the picture. But this is easily corrected in Photoshop. (The Nikon lens is clearly much better, but at that price it had darned well better be. The Sigma is what I could afford, and for about $800 when I bought it I'm very pleased.) Serious Annika. No working professional (well not unless you call wedding photographers professionals) can do without one. Ditto that for a 24-70 f2.8 and 70 -200 f2.8. There's a few fixed length lenses I've got for preference with head shots but these are the essential glass I never leave home without and Canon have no answer for. Not a working professional, so I can't claim to be a counter-example. But Oleg Volk doesn't have anything similar to the 14-24 (he's shooting Canon), and Kyle Cassidy doesn't, and they both ARE working professionals. (I've got the 24-70 and the 70-200/2.8 from Nikon, and they're really really nice, certainly. Both were upgrades to Tokina lenses I was pretty happy with on film, back when.) -- David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/ Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/ Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/ Dragaera: http://dragaera.info |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
I'VE DONE SOMETHING TERRIBLE !
On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 12:53:56 +0000, Bruce wrote:
: Robert Coe wrote: : : On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 10:39:07 +0000, Bruce wrote: : : Annika1980 wrote: : : : : On Mar 9, 1:24*pm, Bruce wrote: : : Version II is optically as good as the Canon but : : the Nikon's VR performs better than the Canon's IS, typically : : offering a stop more in terms of stabilisation. : : : : Horse ****. : : : : If you can't accept the facts, say "Horse ****". : : Actually, Bret should have said "Bull ****". "Horse ****" has more to : do with presentation than with substance. As in, "For five days or so, : Canon's horse**** Web site has produced a 404 error when one tries to : download their latest software updates." : : : Have you tried other Canon sites or just the US site? : : Also try he : http://software.canon-europe.com/ I had thought about trying a non-US site, but as of today Canon has taken those links down. The updates weren't ready for prime time, I guess. Bob |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
I'VE DONE SOMETHING TERRIBLE !
On 10/03/2012 4:57 AM, Bruce wrote:
Pete wrote: As in "The canons of fair play" or "Cannon fodder"? Or something closely approximating to "a loose Canon". ;-) Is that anything like the loose stuff floating around in those 24 -70 F2.8 Canon lenses? I always wondered why Father would say things like "Pass me the loose canon sweetie" when referring to any of his Canon zoom lenses. As I recall the "Environmental sealing" in his 70-200 f2.8 wasn't all that resistant to sucking in fuel gunk at drag race meets either. I guess you get that from zoom lenses that claim much and deliver little. Maybe its only Olympus stuff you can run under the tap? Hey Annika... Has the mirror fallen out of your 5D yet? LOL. I was almost beyond bladder control with laughter when this fellow calling himself a wedding photographer and charging $5000 for the day (which he refunded $4000 of after his 'Professional' 5D ruined the day. Well, I really got amused when he took the lens off to see what was wrong and the mirror fell out! Absolutely hilarious. I still have trouble controlling my laughter just thinking about the look on his face. Fancy someone claiming "I couldn't afford two cameras at the prices I charge". Maybe giving most of it back when his lone camera dies is the real reason. LOL from that one. And you recommend them do you? Chloe |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
I'VE DONE SOMETHING TERRIBLE !
On 13/03/2012 4:50 AM, Bruce wrote:
Pete wrote: A mediocre lens in the hands of a good photographer will always trounce a superb lens in the hands of an average photographer. I would much rather Bret concentrate on selling his excellent photography than make comments about "lens trouncing", despite the endless amusement provided by the latter. Agree 100%. Bret's work is more than good enough to publish. We have already seen enough high quality material from him for several books, he just needs the encouragement to do it. I think it takes more than "good photography" to successfully publish a book of photographs. I have some vague recollections of a certain European fellow who spent large sums of money going on a Polar expedition. Trying to sell his photo books for some astronomical price without much success. A German pair I came across in an Australian movie studio zoo photographing tame kangaroos with what looked like $30,000 worth of band new Canon gear didn't do to well either. The production problem is in the quality. All but the very best (and expensive to make) Photo books made from photographs fall apart quite easily. The cheaper ones made on laser printers don't last too long either as the pages swell and distort with the changing seasons. Rodents get a taste for the Chinese "bonded leather" too I believe. The other problem is getting off your backside and finding worthwhile subject matter. That's the real killer. I think that backpack full of iced donuts and big macs Annika needs to carry everywhere wouldn't leave enough room for any cameras, much less lenses, somehow. Chloe |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
I'VE DONE SOMETHING TERRIBLE !
On 19/03/2012 4:09 AM, Annika1980 wrote:
On Mar 15, 10:48 am, wrote: The other problem is getting off your backside and finding worthwhile subject matter. That's the real killer. I think that backpack full of iced donuts and big macs Annika needs to carry everywhere wouldn't leave enough room for any cameras, much less lenses, somehow. I probably take more pics in a month than you do in a year. The trunk of my car is my camera bag. As for lenses, I'm down to a few. Mostly, I'll shoot with either the Forgotten 400mm f/5.6L or the 100mm f/2.8L Macro. I also have an 85mm f/1.8 that I rarely use as well as the 65mm MP-E Macro and the old standby, my 28-135 IS, which pales in IQ compared to any of my other lenses. I had to give up my 70-200 f/2.8L and I miss it dearly. Also, my 17-40 f/4 was stolen so I really don't have any good wide angle options. Boasting and self indulgence is something I see a lot of in your postings. There's a serious difference between shooting more pics in a month than I do in a year when all but a scarce few of the pics I shoot in a year earn me a living. Your boasting reminds me of a filly advertising her wedding photography qualities in my area. Wedding Photographers are like weeds here... Get rid of one up and two more pop up! "I'll give you 4 hours of photography and 500 images on disc for $750". She's got the same issue as your boasting luv. It's not how slow you are at taking your finger off the stutter button that matters but how many of the shots you're lucky enough to get that are worth keeping. That's what really matters! So is trunk/gadget bag the one in the little Nissan or the one in the Toyota Land Cruiser? If its the cruiser, I'll take my hat off to you, pins and all! Chloe |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
I'VE DONE SOMETHING TERRIBLE ! | Alan Browne | 35mm Photo Equipment | 1 | March 6th 12 06:40 PM |
I'VE DONE SOMETHING TERRIBLE ! | William Hamblen | 35mm Photo Equipment | 1 | March 4th 12 07:50 PM |