[NEFARIOUS]

Originally Posted by dcstep

Pics please. Tell us about the hand-on 70D/T6s differences.

I just got it yesterday and put it to work right away, and I can't say firsthand how it is compared to 70D, but one of my church mates said it's not too far off from his; I just read reviews where the advantages are DIGIC 6 vs 5+, HDR movie, wider ISO, more color range, NFC pairing... Most of the features I wanted are prioritized for videos.

Update... This thing is attracting all sorts of business! Had a church event / birthday for my pastor's girlfriend, took new photos for a massage parlor, and while doing post production for that photoshoot on the spot, someone is offering to pay me for taking a picture of a yacht AND a car he's selling tomorrow!

[happos2]

Thanks all! Appreciate the recommendations. Will have to look into the digitial lens correction as mentioned. Don't think I have used this an do have LR (I found someplace where you can pick what lens you used so that might be the area in the software I need).

Once I get some good ones, I will definitely share. I will be going to Alaska in a few weeks so I hope to get some nice eagles, bears, whales, etc...

[dcstep]

Originally Posted by happos2

Thanks all! Appreciate the recommendations. Will have to look into the digitial lens correction as mentioned. Don't think I have used this an do have LR (I found someplace where you can pick what lens you used so that might be the area in the software I need).

Once I get some good ones, I will definitely share. I will be going to Alaska in a few weeks so I hope to get some nice eagles, bears, whales, etc...

The better your lenses, the less you'll need it, but I've found that all zooms benefit from DLO. I'm not sure what LR calls theirs, but the have it.

Dave

[Weebl]

http://www.xrite.com/online-color-test-challenge

It helps to know if it is you or your monitor which can't do colors correctly.

[BrokenVert]

Renting gear for next week when I work the 6 hr at Watkins Glen. Trying to decide on a new telephoto and figure that this will be a good time to try it out.

300 f/4 IS or 400 5.6?

[M_Six]

Originally Posted by BrokenVert

Renting gear for next week when I work the 6 hr at Watkins Glen. Trying to decide on a new telephoto and figure that this will be a good time to try it out.

300 f/4 IS or 400 5.6?

If you want blurred wheels, you might be better off with the 300 because of the IS. With the 400, you'll need a shutter speed of 1/500s, which may make it tough to get wheel blur. I've never shot autosport, but with airshows, prop blur starts around 1/125s, so IS is essential.

[BrokenVert]

Originally Posted by M_Six

If you want blurred wheels, you might be better off with the 300 because of the IS. With the 400, you'll need a shutter speed of 1/500s, which may make it tough to get wheel blur. I've never shot autosport, but with airshows, prop blur starts around 1/125s, so IS is essential.

I tend to shoot my car at a 250 or 320. But youre right, being able to go slower is always a good plan.

300 is generally where ive been leaning. I was just wondering if it would be a big enough step up (lengthwise) from my 70-200.

[Weebl]

It all depends upon your distance.
If you have the MkII then I would just get a 1.4xIII.

At 100 yds+ trying to get wheel blur and a sharp car is a tough one to do unless you have it on a tripod and let the car run through the frame. Personally, I'd go for the shutter speed at 1/1000th +/- and get the sharp image. I've had too many hand holding with a ss of <1/320th that look crappy on the screen.
I use my 300 a lot and typically at 100' -1/2 mile. Even on a tripod, people walking by on the floor/mirror slap gives me shaky images at 100 feet.

Also, the IS on the 300 is so so.

[Itsed65]

FWIW, I've replaced both those mentioned lenses with the new 100-400. The image quality and IS, along with the versatility made it an easy choice. It also takes a 1.4 quite well if you have f8 autofocus.

[dcstep]

Originally Posted by Itsed65

FWIW, I've replaced both those mentioned lenses with the new 100-400. The image quality and IS, along with the versatility made it an easy choice. It also takes a 1.4 quite well if you have f8 autofocus.

I've seen nothing but praise of this lens. That may be a 2016 purchase for me, but the versatility on a second body would be hard to beat. Less versatile, but said to have stunning IQ is the new 400/f4 DO. It might be the ultimate BIF lens. We'll see...

[BrokenVert]

Originally Posted by Itsed65

FWIW, I've replaced both those mentioned lenses with the new 100-400. The image quality and IS, along with the versatility made it an easy choice. It also takes a 1.4 quite well if you have f8 autofocus.

Is the Series II that good? That's something interesting that I hadn't thought about.

[dcstep]

Originally Posted by BrokenVert

Renting gear for next week when I work the 6 hr at Watkins Glen. Trying to decide on a new telephoto and figure that this will be a good time to try it out.

300 f/4 IS or 400 5.6?

I think I'd go with the S-II 100-400mm.

[Itsed65]

Just a sample from my 100-400II @400mm and f6.3.

Coming Home by lennycarl08, on Flickr

[Weebl]

I love those little brown boxes from B&H.
Canon 16-35 F4 after years (7) of using a 18-55 and 28-135 for my wide angle shots. I don't use WA very much so it didn't bother me too much but it is getting to the point where my freebie work needs it more.

[M_Six]

Love this lens. Supremely sharp. My Tokina 16-28 needs to find a new home. It can't hold a match to the 16-35 f4.

[Weebl]

I was thinking this or the Sigma Arts. Would have loved the 24-70 2.8 but wouldn't have used it enough to justify it. I can justify a 70-200 II though.

[BrokenVert]

I bought a 70-200 2.8 IS to replace my suddenly broken f4. Holy hell this thing is sharp! IS is also really fun to use, 1/60s pans are actually possible now. I bought it and immediately went on a work road trip, so I'll share some images later tonight when I get home.

But man, I love top teir glass

[Weebl]

The mk ii version? Supposedly the 70-200 IS F4 was supposed to be very sharp also, I wonder when they will issue the F4 mkii and how that will compare. I need the f2.8 aperture though. Looking forward to some pics.

[BrokenVert]

Originally Posted by Weebl

The mk ii version? Supposedly the 70-200 IS F4 was supposed to be very sharp also, I wonder when they will issue the F4 mkii and how that will compare. I need the f2.8 aperture though. Looking forward to some pics.

I loved the F4. That lens was also sharp, but I shoot blurs most of the time. A pan blur is much easier with the IS. That being said the F4 was small, robust, and light. The new lens is much heavier! Wish I could've kept the old lens, but it drowned

And yeah the new lens is an IS II. I've needed 2.8 for a while now too, shooting night racing has been a pain for a while.

[Weebl]

I shoot school concerts and I know how you feel about f4 and that is off a tripod too. The IS on the mkii is supposed to be excellent also.

Just kind of heavy.

[dcstep]

With the great high-ISO performance of the latest generation or two of bodies, I think that f/4 IS is the way to go with a 70-200mm. Mine's super sharp.

This is with the 1.4x TC-III and 25mm ET:

Honey Bee On Lavender by David Stephens, on Flickr

[Weebl]

That does not work in all cases, until I get a 5d/ds the 7d does not do well with high iso and a 5d variant won't happen for me for a long time. So I'll just go for fast lenses with the ones focal lengths I use the most. The mk ii has the f4is beat vs the mki in which the f4is beat it.