MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Starting over  (Read 17056 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: March 03, 2009, 19:55 »
0
It's my fault sorry. I thought you meant the mythical Nikon D400. I'm a Canon illiterate ;-)

You Nikoners, humpf! Living in your own small world!

Regards,
Adelaide


« Reply #26 on: March 04, 2009, 08:37 »
0
If you are open to getting a non-Canon, check out the new Tamron 18-250 Di-II f/3.5-6.5 IF Macro. I got it a few months back and like it (most as an all around lens) The reviews have been quite good even by pros. Nearly all my landscapes are taken with this lens (I don't use the macro function as I have the 100mm f/2.8 macro). I actually got a re-furbished version from an Amazon partner and it came with a one year manufacturer's warrantly still for only $339 with free 2 day UPS shipping when a new one costs $479 or more. I called the company to find out what conditions, and why re-furbished before I placed the order. Turned out it was a lens they had rented out for a job but upon its return they serviced and put it back in the box. It was as new.

On a normal day plenty of light, the lens is very fast, otherwise, I shoot on tripod most of the time even outdoor, I find it balances my Canon 10D rather well.

On my blog the landscapes were all taken with this lens.

sorry to hear about your mishap. This depressing economy is certainly leaving its mark in every corner. Thanks for sharing your insurance claims experience, now we know.

jc

« Reply #27 on: March 04, 2009, 14:56 »
0
Not that I believe things just because "Yuri" said it, but on his website, he says the 24-105 isn't very sharp.  http://www.arcurs.com/gear-i-regret-buying-and-things-i-really-love (#8)  Do you find that to be true in your experience with the lens?

No. Here's the truth: Yuri is an absolute perfectionist. If you're like that you probably shouldn't own a zoom lens because prime lenses will almost always be sharper. That's said I own it and I love the 28-105L. It's a great all around lens that produces professional results as you would expect from an 'L' lens. If you're anal about absolute perfection then maybe the 28-70 f/2.8L and 70-200 f/2.8L combo would be better. I have owned all three, and though the 28-70 is somewhat sharper than the 28-105 wide open, it's not noticeable enough for me to care and the extra zoom on the 28-105 makes it my general use lens. I suppose if I was photographing a landscape shot of lions running across the plains in the early morning I'd want the extra f-stops, but I haven't encountered a situation where I regret switching to the 28-105. The only times I've needed/used a lens at f/2.8 has been with big glass photographing animals at dawn and dust.

I don't own the 100-400 L, but if I was buying new gear I'd probably go with the 28-105L and the 100-400L. It's a rare situation where I wish I had a lower f-stop, but for me it's relatively common to wish I had brought a lens with more reach (but big glass is so fing heavy to hike with).

Actually, Yuri says not to buy the 50mm either, and it's a prime  ;)  I didn't have the L glass version, but I had the f/1.4 and although it was a great lens and I'd buy it again, it was still a bit soft on my 400D.
I'm not a total perfectionist because I can't afford to be, but I would like to buy the better lenses since I plan on doing this for a very long time. 
I do photograph a lot of nature/landscape/animals, but I don't necessarily need the extra f-stops because I'm usually using a tripod.  And for stock purposes, I almost always get rejected if I use too shallow of a DOF.
I'm still considering all of my options, but perhaps the 17-40, 28-70, and the 70-200 would be a good combo.  I won't be able to get all of them right away, but I don't like buying things to just get by until I can get the real thing because it's money down the drain.
I'll have to keep researching until I bleed out my eyes before I make any purchases...  ::)

« Reply #28 on: March 04, 2009, 15:01 »
0
If you are open to getting a non-Canon, check out the new Tamron 18-250 Di-II f/3.5-6.5 IF Macro. I got it a few months back and like it (most as an all around lens) The reviews have been quite good even by pros. Nearly all my landscapes are taken with this lens (I don't use the macro function as I have the 100mm f/2.8 macro). I actually got a re-furbished version from an Amazon partner and it came with a one year manufacturer's warrantly still for only $339 with free 2 day UPS shipping when a new one costs $479 or more. I called the company to find out what conditions, and why re-furbished before I placed the order. Turned out it was a lens they had rented out for a job but upon its return they serviced and put it back in the box. It was as new.

On a normal day plenty of light, the lens is very fast, otherwise, I shoot on tripod most of the time even outdoor, I find it balances my Canon 10D rather well.

On my blog the landscapes were all taken with this lens.

sorry to hear about your mishap. This depressing economy is certainly leaving its mark in every corner. Thanks for sharing your insurance claims experience, now we know.

jc

I've already researched the Tamron lens and I read about complaints of lens creep.  But more importantly, it's not high quality glass.
I'm hoping by sharing my experience, more people will be aware of what they need to do if it ever happens to them.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
16 Replies
7793 Views
Last post November 07, 2010, 22:53
by klsbear
21 Replies
5322 Views
Last post May 19, 2014, 18:46
by PixelBytes
4 Replies
4093 Views
Last post February 13, 2015, 02:29
by Niakris
8 Replies
3166 Views
Last post September 09, 2016, 23:26
by SpaceStockFootage
4 Replies
4744 Views
Last post March 06, 2019, 09:20
by ludesal

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors