[NetfreakBombay]

I think this applies to bunch of us

http://www.fakingnews.firstpost.com/...ustry-shocked/

[JLS]

Originally Posted by govigov

Hello JLS, thank you for your reply. Yes nifty fifty is very good, I already have a very good copy. There is also a 24-105 L in my kit. So, do you think it is a waste of money to get 85 f1.8? Considering that I already have this focal length covered? I just think that 85 has better bokeh than 24-105.

If you already have 24-105, I seriously believe 85 1.8 is a waste of money. Unless you are a purist and want a specialized light weight lens for taking portrait, 85 1.8 does not make sense.

On the other hand, can you share your experience of 24-105.
I am tempted since long with those 45K offers for 24-105 (kit lens with 5d being sold seperately) and am looking a good excuse to shell out 45K

Thanks
JLS

[Aroy]

I would never advise any one to get an inexpensive tripod. It is just a waste of money. Get a sturdy tripod preferably Manfroto or equivalent quality. Remember to get one which will bear the full load
. Ball head - 300g
. DSLR about 1kg
. Long lens 1-3kg
So min load is 2kg and max is 4.3kg. Add a factor of safety and you should get a tripod which rated for at least 4kg.

Light tripods vibrate which will negate the idea of using tripod. Then it may also topple in moderate wind. In my experience people start off with buying a relatively cheap and flimsy tripod and then realise the mistake. All the monet spend is for nothing.

[BoneCollector]

Is it safe regarding warranty and other issues for DSLRs bought from online retailers like Flipkart/ ebay/ Amazon etc?
Read somewhere that Flipkart has no contract with Canon/ Nikon for sales. Is it true?

[saikatmandal04]

Originally Posted by BoneCollector

Is it safe regarding warranty and other issues for DSLRs bought from online retailers like Flipkart/ ebay/ Amazon etc?
Read somewhere that Flipkart has no contract with Canon/ Nikon for sales. Is it true?

Nikon India has put the following disclaimer in their website (http://www.nikon.co.in/en_IN/about/product_news.page?)

"...16-06-2014
PLEASE NOTE THAT E-COMMERCE WEBSITES LIKE FLIPKART, SNAPDEAL ARE NOT OUR AUTHORIZED PARTNER/DEALER, WE ADVISE YOU TO CHECK THE WARRANTY ENTITLEMENTS WHILE BUYING FROM ONLINE PORTALS."

Having read that, I still went ahead and purchased a lens from Snapdeal which claimed it had a 2 year manufacturer warranty. When it got delivered I was able to register the product with Nikon India for the 2 year warranty successfully without any issue. So in my opinion, since Flipkart and Snapdeal are both marketplaces wherein different sellers are offering the same product caution should be maintained to check and see which seller is offering the product with the manufacturer warranty and then proceed with your purchase.

[NetfreakBombay]

Originally Posted by BoneCollector

Is it safe regarding warranty and other issues for DSLRs bought from online retailers like Flipkart/ ebay/ Amazon etc?

If you buy directly from Flipkart (WS Retail), no issues with warranty (confirmed by Nikon).

Other sellers, might sell you gray market items that are not covered under warranty. You need take a judgement call.

I usually ignore this aspect for cheap accessories like hoods / remotes, but would not buy buy a lens / camera from a seller other than Flipkart itself.

[vasudeva]

Originally Posted by JLS

If you already have 24-105, I seriously believe 85 1.8 is a waste of money. Unless you are a purist and want a specialized light weight lens for taking portrait, 85 1.8 does not make sense.

On the other hand, can you share your experience of 24-105.
I am tempted since long with those 45K offers for 24-105 (kit lens with 5d being sold seperately) and am looking a good excuse to shell out 45K

Thanks
JLS

I do have both Canon EF 24-105 and EF 85 1.8. I find FF 85 1.8 to be excellent at taking portraits, and getting the blur effect. I do consider my money well spent. Of course, I could have done without the 85 mm, but I had some money then and so for me, the 85 1.8 mm FF was an impulse purchase. It does have very good reviews almost everywhere and I found it to be better for my requirement than a 50 mm FF.

[NetfreakBombay]

Originally Posted by vasudeva

85 1.8 mm FF was an impulse purchase. It does have very good reviews almost everywhere and I found it to be better for my requirement than a 50 mm FF.

Which camera do you have, Full Frame or Crop sensor?

[vasudeva]

Originally Posted by NetfreakBombay

Which camera do you have, Full Frame or Crop sensor?

5D Mark III purchased in early 2013.

[ampere]

Originally Posted by vasudeva

I do have both Canon EF 24-105 and EF 85 1.8. I find FF 85 1.8 to be excellent at taking portraits, and getting the blur effect. I do consider my money well spent. Of course, I could have done without the 85 mm, but I had some money then and so for me, the 85 1.8 mm FF was an impulse purchase. It does have very good reviews almost everywhere and I found it to be better for my requirement than a 50 mm FF.

Though I have a cropped sensor, I was looking a similar optimisation for lens purchase, from a usage point of view. And as a result I ended up buying 100mm 2.8 IS L macro. For outdoor portraits I find it very good. (Agreed that the working is 160mm), but it kind of provides me with best usage. In fact many a times I find myself using the 100mm much more than even the 70-200 F4 IS, which was my walk around lens till now. I am able to get some very good landscapes, portraits and macros, without changing the lens.

[vasudeva]

Originally Posted by ampere

Though I have a cropped sensor, I was looking a similar optimisation for lens purchase, from a usage point of view. And as a result I ended up buying 100mm 2.8 IS L macro. For outdoor portraits I find it very good. (Agreed that the working is 160mm), but it kind of provides me with best usage. In fact many a times I find myself using the 100mm much more than even the 70-200 F4 IS, which was my walk around lens till now. I am able to get some very good landscapes, portraits and macros, without changing the lens.

If one goes back on this thread to 2013 (first half), I remember discussing all this with you, R2D2, and many others. I had a mind then of a 70-200 mm f/4 (the cheaper one) purchase too but it is too expensive and not really useful to me as a hobbyist.

Regards
Vineet

[ampere]

Originally Posted by vasudeva

If one goes back on this thread to 2013 (first half), I remember discussing all this with you, R2D2, and many others. I had a mind then of a 70-200 mm f/4 (the cheaper one) purchase too but it is too expensive and not really useful to me as a hobbyist.

I very well re-collect that discussion. By then I had the 70-200 F4 IS for over 2 years and was absolutely delighted with that lens. Late last year, I thought of working on Macros. And thats when I was looking at macro lens and saw that the there is an IS version of the 100mm. I was thinking why IS for a macro lens. And then I realised I can use it as a regular lens on the field too! Thats how I went with it. I currently have the 550D. 5D-III is way to expensive for me. And I am not very convinced on paying a lakh and above for 6D. 70D again does not give any improvements over 550D. Canon has not done a major over haul of the mid range APSC product line. I am waiting for the 7D-II to see how good it is. Rumour has it that it would come with the 1D-X focus system. It might be worth a wait.

[govigov]

Originally Posted by vasudeva

I do have both Canon EF 24-105 and EF 85 1.8. I find FF 85 1.8 to be excellent at taking portraits, and getting the blur effect. I do consider my money well spent. Of course, I could have done without the 85 mm, but I had some money then and so for me, the 85 1.8 mm FF was an impulse purchase. It does have very good reviews almost everywhere and I found it to be better for my requirement than a 50 mm FF.

Thank you, that helps. Apart from the 85 1.8, the other lenses that can give QUANTITY of boken from my research is the 135 F2 or the 200 F2.8. The 100mm with a slower F2.8 (when compared to F1.8) may have lesser amount of bokeh.

I would like you to ask about low light performance of the 85 F1.8, does it hunt. I certainly don't think so, considering you have the 5DIII.

Originally Posted by ampere

Though I have a cropped sensor, I was looking a similar optimisation for lens purchase, from a usage point of view. And as a result I ended up buying 100mm 2.8 IS L macro. For outdoor portraits I find it very good. (Agreed that the working is 160mm), but it kind of provides me with best usage. In fact many a times I find myself using the 100mm much more than even the 70-200 F4 IS, which was my walk around lens till now. I am able to get some very good landscapes, portraits and macros, without changing the lens.

Isn't the 100mm to restrictive for landscapes? But i get your point. Additionally 100mm L does not have the purple fringing that the 85 1.8 has, but the L glass carries an affordability tag. If I can afford an L prime, then i might think about 135 F2.

The 70-200 F4 IS is definitely in the radar for 2015.

[condor]

@Ampere, in cases like yours, where you have a fixed aperture 70-200, the 100mm is a duplication to a fair extent. Only advantage would be the macro. Getting the 100mm would be mainly for macro's, and good if one does a lot of macro's.

[ampere]

Originally Posted by govigov

Isn't the 100mm to restrictive for landscapes? But i get your point. Additionally 100mm L does not have the purple fringing that the 85 1.8 has, but the L glass carries an affordability tag. If I can afford an L prime, then i might think about 135 F2.

Agreed. When ever I used to travel earlier, I used to carry 10-22 and 70-200 F4 IS. Those two were the regulars. Later the need for 100mm was fuelled more by the macro "bug". When I see it from a macro point of view, my requirements seem perfect. The 70-200 gets me some amazing landscape shots at 70mm; 100mm is restrictive to that extent. But the value addition it adds to arsenal is way too high for me. And off late I have been bitten by the macro bug. So I am enjoying this lens even more. And off course more than the focal length part, the L series gives me some amazing colours.

On restriction part for landscapes; the restriction comes more not because I dont have a lens, but because, I dont want to change at that instant of time.

So my usual practice is profile the scene, and then see if I can get a good wide angle. Once done with the wide angle, then shift to either 70-200 or the macro. On that second step, I find myself using the macro more often these days.

On the price front, when I got these lenses, I paid about 1200$ for the 70-200 when the dollar was about 50. Today I see these prices around 85-90K !

Originally Posted by condor

@Ampere, in cases like yours, where you have a fixed aperture 70-200, the 100mm is a duplication to a fair extent. Only advantage would be the macro. Getting the 100mm would be mainly for macro's, and good if one does a lot of macro's.

Agreed to a large extent. As I explained earlier, where it really helps me is when outdoors, given the two, I now tend to chose the macro more often than the 70-200.