Your current GAS list?

Scott Merryfield

Film Editor
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 16, 1998
Messages
15,916
Location
Michigan
So with the 1.4 TC, that makes it around 450mm on a crop-body? Am I doing the math right?
It would be 448mm, to be exact (so yes, 450mm is darn close ;)).

Since you do not currently have the lens, the m2 version is definitely the way to go. The original is a darn fine lens, though, and I felt no desire to spend the money to upgrade when the new version came out -- unlike with the 100-400L, where I did upgrade.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cameron Yee

Scott Merryfield

Film Editor
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 16, 1998
Messages
15,916
Location
Michigan
After watching this preview, I'm kind of tempted by the M6 as a travel camera.

I have the M50, and love it for those times where I want to travel light -- or to take a 2nd body to avoid lens changes but don't want to carry two full sized DSLRs. I would suggest getting native EF-M lenses instead of using the adapter and your EF lenses, though. If you want to travel light, buying a small body and then attaching big lenses really defeats the purpose. I do own the adapter, but rarely use it.

My entire M50 kit fits in a pretty small shoulder bag. It includes the body, 22mm f/2, 11-22mm, 15-45mm and 55-200mm EF-M lenses, along with a 270EX external flash, Spyder Black Widow holster, charger, spare batteries and SD cards. I preferred the slightly larger M50 over the original M6 because the M50 has a built-in viewfinder -- the M6's are slightly smaller, but the viewfinder is an extra that attaches to the hot shoe. I also own the original EOS M, which I bought on closeout, and one of the things that I disliked was no viewfinder when shooting outdoors.

Here's a shot I took recently in Iceland with the M50 and EF-M 15-45mm lens:

 

Cameron Yee

Executive Producer
Reviewer
Joined
May 9, 2002
Messages
12,212
Location
Since 2006
Real Name
Cameron Yee
Well, I've put on hold the idea of a new camera body. I was briefly tempted to get a used Canon 5D IV, but cooler heads prevailed and I'll just continue to see what 2020 brings in terms of an EOS Rx or 5D V. I'm pretty sure both of those cameras would be out of my price range, but that should inevitably drive the price of the 5D IV down even further than what I would have paid today.

Instead, I took advantage of KEH's 10% off coupon and got the 70-200 f/4 IS II that I'd been planning on for the last several months.

I also wanted to address the grip issue of the Sony a7iii, so sprung for an L-bracket by SmallRig, that basically extends the grip profile while also providing the Arca Swiss connections.
 
Last edited:

Scott Merryfield

Film Editor
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 16, 1998
Messages
15,916
Location
Michigan
Well, I've put on hold the idea of a new camera body. I was briefly tempted to get a used Canon 5D IV, but cooler heads prevailed and I'll just continue to see what 2020 brings in terms of an EOS Rx or 5D V. I'm pretty sure both of those cameras would be out of my price range, but that should inevitably drive the price of the 5D IV down even further than what I would have paid today.

Instead, I took advantage of KEH's 10% off coupon and got the 70-200 f/4 IS II that I'd been planning on for the last several months.

I also wanted to address the grip issue of the Sony a7iii, so sprung for an L-bracket by SmallRig, that basically extends the grip profile while also providing the Arca Swiss connections.
Please post your impressions on the 70-200 f/4 IS II once you have a chance to run the lens through it's paces. I have the first version of that lens, and really like it as a lighter weight telephoto. It takes a 1.4x TC very well, too. That was my weapon of choice for wildlife shooting on our trip to Iceland this past summer, as I didn't want to lug my heavier 100-400L II around on that long trip.

As for passing on a new body, the 5D IV was at a very attractive price over the holiday, so it may be awhile before you have another opportunity on that one. I wasn't planning on upgrading my 5D III now, but the prices were too good for me to pass up. I went with the Canon EOS R full frame mirrorless instead of the 5D IV, though, along with the RF 24-105L f/4 IS to replace my EF version of that lens, which suffers from a wonky image stabilization system that hasn't been worth sending in for repair.

I also just ordered a RF 35mm f/1.8 IS lens for the EOS R, taking advantage of the holiday sales. That lens is supposed to arrive today, so I will be able to play with it during a couple of holiday get togethers we are hosting on New Year's Eve and the upcoming weekend.

So far, I really like the EOS R. Since it arrived about a week ago, I have been using it mostly with my EF 50mm L f/1.2 via the EF to RF adapter. The body has given new life to that lens. The eye auto focus system works really well, and the sensor (similar to the one in the 5D IV) is a noticeable improvement over my 5D III. I am still playing with the customization options to get it configured to my tastes, as the ergonomics are much different than my 7D II and 5D III. The new Fv mode is also an interesting addition that I need to play with more -- I usually shoot in the Av (i.e. aperture priority) mode with my other bodies, although I sometimes use the Tv (shutter speed priority) and manual modes, depending on what I am shooting.

I will be selling the 5D III once I get around to taking some pictures of the camera and EF 24-105L to post.
 
Last edited:

Cameron Yee

Executive Producer
Reviewer
Joined
May 9, 2002
Messages
12,212
Location
Since 2006
Real Name
Cameron Yee
I've had a rental of the 70-200 for the last week or so and tried it with the Sony a7 and getting shots of my kids. It was very fast to focus and I liked the weight (almost half of an f/2.8!).

The 5D IV was a used model on KEH, so I expect the used prices to be about the same if not lower. I did see the price on a 5D IV dropped to $2000 on Amazon for about a week before Christmas, which is amazing. But honestly, I've been shooting with the Sony a7 more these days, so justifying a new (or even lightly used) full frame DSLR at this point is difficult to do since it would be for telephoto lens use more than anything.
 

Scott Merryfield

Film Editor
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 16, 1998
Messages
15,916
Location
Michigan

Mike Frezon

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Oct 9, 2001
Messages
53,692
Location
Rensselaer, NY
I'll be curious to hear, too!

I've seen ads for it on my Words with Friends app. I am surprised to learn its a tripod head, because I never remember them showing that detail in the ad. It always seemed that they were showing it on a countertop or something of the sort.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sam Posten

ManW_TheUncool

Lead Actor
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2001
Messages
6,705
Location
The BK
Real Name
ManW
@Sam Posten, don't suppose you've received that Z-Flex head yet... what w/ all the delays in shipments?

I unexpectedly took the plunge on a daily B&H deal around same time for the "new", highly touted (and 4lb hefty), Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 Sports lens (w/ dock included) for just under $1K.

Still haven't opened it to try out yet and kinda debating whether to keep it... though it'll be a bit more pain to return under the circumstance...

Not sure how I feel about going w/ a bulkier/heftier 70-200, instead of smaller/lighter, especially since I'm shooting mainly w/ the Z6 now -- well, not really shooting much of anything (at least w/ a tele zoom anyway) during the pandemic... and probably won't be able to test it much before the free return period ends -- but there seemed nothing smaller/lighter on the horizon while the anticipated 70-200 f/2.8 Z/S lens is no smaller/lighter than most and will still be a whole lot more expensive than what I'm paying for this Sigma...

Assuming I keep it, I'll probably either sell my old, cosmetically beaten up, non-IS/OS Sigma or maybe just give it away...

I just wonder though how much I'll really lug and use such a lens even if it's just the old 3lb instead of 4. I used to lug and use my old Sigma 2.8 all the time before acquiring a Nikon 70-300VR. Now, I rarely ever lug and use it anymore, except for shooting the kids' recital/concert videos, in part because it lacked IS/OS and I also eventually acquired the Sigma 105 macro (and just zoomed w/ my feet) -- my Nikon 70-300VR has not been good for reasonably steady videos due to rather tight/sticky zoom and focus rings and lack of dedicated tripod mount despite having VR.

Well, at least the new Sigma won't break the bank at $1K (including the dock)... and I can probably just sell it if I find I don't use it enough (or whenever Nikon releases a reasonably affordable 70-200/300 f/4 Z/S)...

Hmmm... wonder if I shoulda given the current Nikon 70-200 f/4 VR a try before committing to this Sigma 2.8... It weighs less than 1/2 as much... :P

Maybe I shoulda just "traded" both my 70-300VR and old Sigma 2.8 (plus some $$$) for that 70-200 f/4 VR instead... I rarely shoot beyond 200mm on the 70-300VR anyway. Hmmm...

_Man_
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sam Posten

Scott Merryfield

Film Editor
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 16, 1998
Messages
15,916
Location
Michigan
I unexpectedly took the plunge on a daily B&H deal around same time for the "new", highly touted (and 4lb hefty), Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 Sports lens (w/ dock included) for just under $1K.

Still haven't opened it to try out yet and kinda debating whether to keep it... though it'll be a bit more pain to return under the circumstance...

Not sure how I feel about going w/ a bulkier/heftier 70-200, instead of smaller/lighter, especially since I'm shooting mainly w/ the Z6 now -- well, not really shooting much of anything (at least w/ a tele zoom anyway) during the pandemic... and probably won't be able to test it much before the free return period ends -- but there seemed nothing smaller/lighter on the horizon while the anticipated 70-200 f/2.8 Z/S lens is no smaller/lighter than most and will still be a whole lot more expensive than what I'm paying for this Sigma...

Assuming I keep it, I'll probably either sell my old, cosmetically beaten up, non-IS/OS Sigma or maybe just give it away...

I just wonder though how much I'll really lug and use such a lens even if it's just the old 3lb instead of 4. I used to lug and use my old Sigma 2.8 all the time before acquiring a Nikon 70-300VR. Now, I rarely ever lug and use it anymore, except for shooting the kids' recital/concert videos, in part because it lacked IS/OS and I also eventually acquired the Sigma 105 macro (and just zoomed w/ my feet) -- my Nikon 70-300VR has not been good for reasonably steady videos due to rather tight/sticky zoom and focus rings and lack of dedicated tripod mount despite having VR.

Well, at least the new Sigma won't break the bank at $1K (including the dock)... and I can probably just sell it if I find I don't use it enough (or whenever Nikon releases a reasonably affordable 70-200/300 f/4 Z/S)...

Hmmm... wonder if I shoulda given the current Nikon 70-200 f/4 VR a try before committing to this Sigma 2.8... It weighs less than 1/2 as much... :P

Maybe I shoulda just "traded" both my 70-300VR and old Sigma 2.8 (plus some $$$) for that 70-200 f/4 VR instead... I rarely shoot beyond 200mm on the 70-300VR anyway. Hmmm...

_Man_
That's a pretty good price for a 70-200 f/2.8 zoom. I am with you on the weight, though. I have never owned this type of lens for that reason -- instead I've owned Canon's f/4 IS version for probably 8-9 years. Canon does have a new 70-200 f/2.8 IS L in the RF mount that looks like it may solve the size / weight issue -- the lens extends while zooming, instead of being the traditional internal zoom design of all previous Canon 70-200's (both f/2.8 and f/4), which makes it small when storing in a bag. And it's only a little over 9 ounces heavier than my EF f/4 version.

The only problem is the price -- currently $2,700! That's too rich for me.
 

ManW_TheUncool

Lead Actor
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2001
Messages
6,705
Location
The BK
Real Name
ManW
The significantly lower weight of that new Canon RF 70-200 f/2.8L IS makes one drool, haha... but not too crazy about retracting designs though, especially on such an expensive lens.

I accept the retracting design on my Nikon 70-300VR (paid ~$400?) and also my big Tamron 150-600 VC G2 (paid ~$1.1K w/ the dock, 64GB SanDisk Extreme SD, a decent backpack), but those are all nowhere near the expense... and that design's probably unavoidable for them... Same for some of the cheaper widezooms I've owned...

I'd much rather keep the typical fixed length of most 70-200 f/2.8 even if the weight savings is slightly reduced, especially if it costs anywhere near $2K.

_Man_
 
Last edited:

Scott Merryfield

Film Editor
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 16, 1998
Messages
15,916
Location
Michigan
I like the idea of the retracing design. It gives me more options for placing the lens in a bag, and takes up less space. I could store it vertically in a messenger shoulder bag - - same as my 24-105 f/4 and 16-35 f/4. Also, my 100-400 II retracts, and it cost over $2, 000. It's a terrific lens. Unfortunately, even retracted the 100-400L II is pretty big and heavy.
 

ManW_TheUncool

Lead Actor
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2001
Messages
6,705
Location
The BK
Real Name
ManW
@Sam Posten, any updates on that Z-Flex head thingy? Curious while still isolating here despite all the nice weather these days... :cool:

I haven't had any opp to use my new, hefty-ish Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 OS Sport so far and ended up just keeping it at least for now.

Meanwhile, I just unexpectedly caved yesterday on a used Nikon 70-200 f/4 VR off eBay... tempted/inspired by a 10%-off ($50 max) coupon :lol: (that was only enough to cover sales tax... :rolleyes: missing the good old days, especially for buying used stuff off online)... Barely won the auction w/ the usual final seconds bid w/ final shipped cost coming to ~$600, so still very appealing... if the lens meets expectations... :D :cool:

Given the low-ish cost, I could probably consider keeping both the new, ~4lb Sigma 2.8 and this used Nikon f/4 that's slightly less than 1/2 the weight (and much more easily stores in my existing carry-everywhere sling bag), if I find enough use for both... although there's certainly fair likelihood I'll end up not keeping the new Sigma 2.8 if the Nikon f/4 proves capable enough -- I'd probably often lug my Sigma 105 f/2.8 Macro to go w/ the Nikon f/4, which I probably wouldn't do w/ the hefty-ish Sigma 2.8 telezoom. I also still have my old, 3lb, non-IS Sigma 2.8 telezoom that isn't as good... and my old Nikon 70-300VR... so at least 2 in this mix will be gone when the dust settles...

_Man_
 

Scott Merryfield

Film Editor
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 16, 1998
Messages
15,916
Location
Michigan
OK, who's going to get the Canon R5 or R6?
The R5 looks very interesting, but it's priced a lot higher than I would spend on a new body. The R6 is only 20mp, but otherwise looks like a solid offering -- and it's more in my price range. After seeing the detail I'm getting with the 30+mp EOS R, though, I am not sure I would want to go back to a 20mp sensor.

Right now I am happy with my combination of bodies -- the EOS R mirrorless full frame, EOS M50 mirrorless APS-C, and 7D2 dSLR. I still have to sell my 5D3 dSLR, as it has been unused since I got the EOS R.

I was hoping that Canon would have announced an RF mount equivalent to my EF 16-35mm f/4 L IS lens, as the EF version is a little large and cumbersome on the EOS R and I only use that lens on a full frame body. The new RF lenses they announced do not interest me that much -- the two super telephotos have their apertures fixed at f/11, and I do not use my current Sigma 105mm macro lens enough to spend money on the RF 85mm f/2 macro as an upgrade -- the Sigma with the EF to RF adapter is fine for the little I use that lens. The RF 100-500mm is f/7.1 at the long end and costs $2,700. I can just use my EF 100-400mm II with a 1.4x convertor and get something similar without spending any money.
 
Last edited:

Forum Sponsors

Forum statistics

Threads
344,419
Messages
4,709,756
Members
141,266
Latest member
mkoenig4