Channel update July 2019

Web: www.anigota.hr/
Support my channel over Patreon, PayPal or Amazon affiliate links:
Patreon: / camerahoarders
Paypal donations: www.paypal.me/camerahoarders

[@franciscusrico6112]

I love the DPReview reference there :) your gear reviews are a breath of fresh air amongst the plethora of tech-y spec-y stuff I mainly find on the internet. Congratulations and keep it up!

[@polyviossimopoulos2436]

Congratulations! Be what you are and you’ll never be out of luck! I have that feeling, that soon you will be promoted!

[@CleanJohnny]

Congrats, friend and good luck! CJ

[@buildingsheriff]

Good luck, Ivan!

[@godofhope]

Did you find Jordan at last? ^^ Nice one :)

[@videojeroki]

Great news ! I would love to see printer reviews, it is very difficult to find.

[@ivucica]

2017? :) Also congrats, hope that all's gonna be great for you!

[@ordinosaurs]

I blame the side effects of baby-induced sleep deprivation.

[@Camerahoarders]

Oh my, yeah... baby was waking us up for the past few days. :)) Fixed it back to 2019 :)

[@ordinosaurs]

@@Camerahoarders : been there done that :-D

[@AliasMrHackenbacker]

You'll be like a child in a candy store! Keep the reviews coming as I really value your opinions.

[@timelord2222]

Hi Ivan! Sorry for jumping in here with an off-topic question, but I have three buying options for the nearly same amount of money: 1) Sigma 18-35 1.8 Art 2) Canon 10-18 STM + 55-250 STM + 50 1.8 STM 3) Canon 18-135 USM + 50 1.8 STM The first option would give me a nice boost in sharpness and a constant aperture (with the lack of image stabilization), and a feel of future-proofing. The second option would harmoniously blend with my 18-55 kit lens, with three stabilized (but slower) zooms and a "fifty" for an occasional portrait. The third option would lose the ultra-wide lens but make for a compact, all-around kit. What to choose? I only shoot stills, and lean towards nature and landscape.

[@Camerahoarders]

18-35 1.8 is great but big, heavy and you don't actually need f/1.8 for landscape. For landscapes I would choose 10-18 + 18--55 + 55-250. All stabilized, lightweight and still quite solid quality. Actually, both 10-18 and 55-250 are more than solid, they are rather impressive having in mind how cheap and light they are. If you have seen my reviews of these lenses than you know I reccommend them as affordable Canon trio: kzbin.info/www/bejne/m6Ose6esbcmqkJo

[@timelord2222]

After thorough calculations I have to agree - I will go with the 10-18, 55-250 and the nifty fifty. And it still leaves me enough money for filters and a better tripod.

[@johnherzel718]

@@timelord2222 2 other lenses that are inexpensive and give great results are the 24mm pancake lens and the efs 35mm macro. Both are f2.8, and either one will replace the 18-55 kit lens. The macro lens is really nice to have, I found it used for $150. It looks funny but it is so nice to use🙂

[@dzsemx]

Any Jordan around here for Ivan? 😂

[@skakdosmer]

Yes, you should absolutely grow a beard! No, you should not get a video-guy named Jordan. Instead get a video-guy named after some other river. Like Rupert. And maybe you could compare a few of the newest macro lenses for Canon: First of all the Venus Laowa 100mm f/2.8 2x ultra macro apo and the Canon 100mm L. And maybe tell us why the Sigma 105 and 150mm macro lenses have gone out of production with nothing to replace them, at least for now.

[@BCGARAGE853]

First comment!

[@kalisti2323]

XD