December 20, 2014, 09:57:06 PM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - YuengLinger

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 19
1
Lenses / Re: Review: Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II
« on: Today at 05:58:36 PM »
Anyone that sticks this lens on a 7D2 will like it, a lot.   This is 7D2 and 100-400 V.2 at 100% crop -- OOC jpeg.

Some serious onions in that bokeh.

Thank you for this quick sample!

2
The BIG concern for me is if they fix it so it actually works again, how long before it fails again? I'm SO hoping for Canon to make the same exact lens but with the newest USM motor and algorithm's. I will take the 35 L II as an option  ::)

+1

3
Infrared: I fully understand how to calibrate. I have had FOUR art lenses and they all have the same issue, my second 50 art has been fantastic since April or May when I bought it. It was easy to calibrate and I just yesterday went through some picture from this summer when it was bolted to my camera and it is epic sharp and worked perfect.

It has now started with the same issue as the others. Dial in whatever afma values you want it doesn't matter. So it is something wrong with it.


Well after the dance I had to dance just to get two functioning lenses I can say that I don't feel completely trusting of them. I am going to carefully check my focus points in LR each time that I use them, just to see if they "wander". Thanks for the warning.

It's just a little frustrating when somebody who does receive a good copy of a lens (or some other gear) starts accusing people who have genuine hardware/firmware problems of being "measurebators" or of not knowing "operator error" when it occurs.

I was lucky out of the box with my 35 Art, and I say to myself, "Thank goodness."  I don't say all the other photographers complaining about it are just not quite as good as they should be.

Yes, we need to be honest with ourselves and others when evaluating gear and troubleshooting.  We need to be logical.  And I've been where you've been, infared, not understanding just how experienced and careful many of the contributors to this and other forums are. 

It is some aspect of human nature that corporations and politicians love to take advantage of, a brand loyalty reflex of some sort, or a tendency to see ourselves as more discerning.  So we defend a product or a politician no matter what evidence is offered by others.

Note, I'm NOT trying to bring politics into this, I'm just using something outside the realm of gear to make my point that all of us can get defensive when we should be logical.

Rant over!   :P

4
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Have you repaired your 50 Art?
« on: December 19, 2014, 08:30:54 PM »
Hi ....(this will be little lengthy)...I have posted here before regarding the Sigma 50mm and the 35mm Art Lenses.
I own both and with some hesitation and quite a bit of attention to getting the lenses to perform consistently well.
I bought the 35mm Art first and I did not really test it at first...I was amazed by the sharpness. I am more an artistic photographer than I am a measurebator. ... I also bought the 50mm Art (when I could finally get my hands on one), and I was well aware of the focusing issues when I purchased that lens.  I also bought a the Sigma Lens Dock when I bought the 50mm.
Here is how I test...I shoot specific images just for the testing and I will shoot a specific spot close and a specific spot much farther away.  I repeat this a few times and look at my results. I use center focus points and edge points.  I use a "Show Focus Points" Plug-in in LR so that I know exactly where I focused. (I will mention that both my "Show Focus Points" Plug-in and Canon's DPP show the focus point location on my computer screen slightly to the right of where I actually focused using the camera (5DIII). This is consist with every shot.    There is a half to about 3/4 of a focus point shift from my camera to the two softwares I use on the computer???? (Does anyone else experience this?)
Anyway...My 1st 50mm Art was all over the place and I could not get it to focus consistently.  After wasting hours of my life ...I returned the lens to B&H, explained the situation (which they were well aware of) and they gladly sent me another lens.  The 2nd lens was MUCH more consistent....and needed just a slight bit of tweaking on the Sigma Lens Dock (I did not touch the focus adjustment in the camera).   I have used the lens quite a bit and it is consistently accurate wide open...Any issues I have are to do with operator error...I think that this lens is just fantastic.  (but I worry about it shifting because of all I have read.)
OK...the 35mm ...Needed a LOT of adjustment on the Dock +13 in all 4 zones.  At least it was consistently of and I could have used the AFMA in the camera to straighten this out as well.  I must say I am a little disturbed and how big this adjustment is.  It leaves me uneasy.  ...but the lens seems to perform consistently well now that I have taken the time to adjust it.
Now ...I do not sit around with charts and..blah..blah blah... I use the lenses to go out and shoot images. ...and when I am shooting wide open I check my focus point occassionally and the lenses seem very accurate....and i just love the IQ...Especially for what I paid. 
Its a drag to have to do all of this work...but in my case I feel that it was worth it.  Both these lenses are capable of creating really great and unique images!!!

So...those of us who have trouble with inconsistent AF and lousy AF off the center point just need to do more voodoo, be less demanding, and more understanding?

I'm not sure you've carefully read many of the posts.

I'm happy you were satisfied with your second copy of the 50. 

I'm hoping to hear great reports if Sigma fixes erratic AF with a firmware update.


5
Lenses / Re: Quick Comparison: Canon's new 400mm Options
« on: December 19, 2014, 08:13:52 PM »
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=18496.45

Google brought me back around to the CR forum where some of you guys were comparing various 400mm Canon lenses around this time last year - interesting stuff! I'm not really sure how to compare these figures with this thread's figures though - but as was always the case, the prime wasn't looking too bad at all in December 2013... :)

Photozone seems much more enthusiastic.

6
Technical Support / Re: What photo printer do you use?
« on: December 19, 2014, 08:06:50 AM »
Don't put it on a table. Somewhere on the lower floors of a solid rack gives the printer less leverage to slowly work the furniture apart - and you retain some more office space as a side benefit.

Problem is, it sits in the middle of the room on the floor.  The shelves and cabinets don't have a space big enough.  I put it on a table in the only spot I can find. 

Maybe I'll need to build an addition, or, since it is now working on WiFi, just keep it on the stove top in the kitchen.

All in all, a good problem to have.


Ha, ha, ha!!!  Just last week the wooden desk with the 3880 was rocking side to side.  After reading these comments, I checked the wing-nuts underneath, and sure enough, they are coming loose!  Ran and grabbed pliers right away to tighten them.  I have prints to make later today.

Thank you all for mentioning this!!!  CR is the greatest.   ;D

7
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Have you repaired your 50 Art?
« on: December 19, 2014, 07:52:35 AM »
NancyP, glad you are adept at MF!  May you be so for decades to come.

Viggo, my lens-rental friend won't have the ef 50mm 1.2 L available until next week, but I'm telling him that I won't bother renting it.  I spent hours looking at higher-rez samples on flicker, and I reread many, many reviews.  I KNOW that it will be frustratingly soft for me even without a focus-shift issue considered.

I want to magically believe that the right photographer can make consistent magic with the 50L, but starting out with a soft center and VERY soft outer-area, even at 2.0, will not work for me.

The only Canon lens that has seriously disappointed me is the 35L, which I've already said I replaced with the Sigma 35 Art, a very reliable performer for me with AF and IQ.  One other lens that I slowly came to see was not great was the original 16-35 2.8, but I've kept it for occasional indoor and other medium low-light shots, as it works very well still for faces centered in the frame.

I just see too much visual evidence that the 50L isn't for me.  So now I am back to waiting, either for Sigma to make AF work on the Canon mount, or for Canon to put out the 50L II.

Hope your repair makes it perfect.  Maybe Sigma are close to a widely released fix.    :D

8
Lenses / Re: Buying a EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM
« on: December 18, 2014, 07:03:37 PM »
Soft towards the edges brand new, good but not great AF.  Who knows whether the AF of a used, possibly very old lens will work more than a few weeks after you buy it.

I had one, used it for several years in Asia, then a few more in America.  It was good for its time back in the early to mid-2000's, but now, I think you could do better spending a little more and getting a 24-105mm new, if your budget keeps you in the $1k or slightly under range.

Or, save up, get a new version of the 24-70mm 2.8 (II)!  Stunningly better than the old one. 

9
Have you tried any of the older AF speed demons, such as the 85 f/1.8, or the 135 f/2?  Newer lenses such as the 24-70mm f/2.8 II?

Slower AF, such as the 85 f/1.2?

The newest, the 100-400mm 4.5-5.6 II?

Standbys such as the 24-105 f/4?

Details, please.

Thanks!

10
Lenses / Re: buying advice: canon 85mm f1.2 II or f1.8?
« on: December 18, 2014, 05:18:20 AM »
The focus by wire makes it an oddball, for sure.  Remembering to put it into manual, retract the barrel, turn off the camera, then flick back the AF switch to on before putting the lens away took a while to become automatic!

11
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Have you repaired your 50 Art?
« on: December 17, 2014, 06:30:26 AM »
Nice timing for this thread!

Viggo, sorry to hear you are going through the aggravation, as you were enjoying the lens and had high hopes for it.

I just this morning reached out to a local lens renter to ask about his copy of the ef 50mm 1.2, as I'm seeing the value of in-focus dreamy over OOF sharp.  I'll rent first and see if I can handle the focus shift for closer subjects, which is a big part of my style.

I have sharp and fast:  Sigma 35mm Art, fantastic.  Canon 85mm 1.2, ultimate.  (Note that I actually sold an ef 35mm 1.4 after owning it for four months because it was not sharp and had the worst CA I've seen since my old Sureshot A-80.  'Course having come from Amazon, it might have gotten banged around, repacked, etc.)

As y'all might remember, I was another who got a 50mm Art with dodgy AF and sent it back thinking by now we'd have a firmware update or SOME response from Sigma other than, "Well, it is a particularly complex lens, and you really should buy the dock."  (That from their tech support.)

So, worn down from waiting for Canon or Sigma to put out something perfect...

12
Lenses / Re: buying advice: canon 85mm f1.2 II or f1.8?
« on: December 16, 2014, 04:21:51 PM »
Very hard to add to the excellent, thorough advice here, but I can share my experience.

First, the CA on the 1.2 has never reared its head in any significant way even when I'm shooting wide open, but it is clearly there on the 1.8 in many situations.  Easily correctable with LR5.

Second, I still own both lenses, 1.2 and 1.8.  My 1.2 is clearly superior in sharpness, creaminess, color, and contrast all the way to 2.8, at which point even pixel peeping, they are equal in sharpness.  I still see a better "glowy" or luminous feel to images shot with the 1.2 in window light or outdoors with reflectors all the way to f/5.6.

Third, my AF, though slow, is amazingly accurate on the 1.2, even at MFD.

I use mine only for portraits.  But I've assisted an excellent wedding/portrait/commercial photographer who brings it on all her shoots and uses it for spontaneous, quickly posed portraits and for detail shots.  I don't believe she uses it during any kind of action because her go to lenses for that are the 24-70 2.8 II and the 70-200 2.8 II.

My 1.8 I gathering dust, though if I ever get back to some street photography, I'll put it on my 60D.  It is lightning fast, reliable, and very light.

If money is no object and you can get the wisely recommended 70-200, you'd be leaving too much good IQ and creative possibilities on the table by going with the 1.8.

13
Post Processing / Re: Other postprocessing forums, anyone?
« on: December 10, 2014, 08:29:11 AM »
Marsu, I suggest good books and video workshop sites such as Lynda.com or Kelbyone.com. Then, of course, apply, apply, apply.  While forums can be a good place to have questions answered, watch out, ahem, for endless debate about things that don't matter and will keep you away from post processing.

Have you explored 1x.com for inspiration, critiques, and discussion?

Also, the Out of the Box forum on birdphotographers.net is NOT even mostly about birds, but about more artistic, edgy processing.  http://www.birdphotographers.net/forums/forumdisplay.php/51-Out-Of-The-Box-In-Camera-and-Post-Processing-Techniques


14
Technical Support / Re: What kind of photo printer do you use?
« on: December 10, 2014, 07:23:10 AM »
My only experience with Canon printers is with the 9000MkII.  I still cannot believe how fast it sucks ink.  Apparently it does a lot of ink purging every time it starts up, and it seems to do more so if the printer has not been turned on for several weeks.

Of course this might be part of why it has a reputation for not clogging much.  I've had mine for three years now, going months without prints, and never had a clog.

But every freakin' time I do go to print, another cartridge is indicating low or out.

Another problem with mine is difficulty of matching what I see on the screen to what prints.  Always prints to light, so I have to guesstimate how much to lower Exposure in Lightroom to get the print correct--even with all the ICC profiles, settings correct.

With the Epson, especially using Epson, Moab, or Canson papers, getting to WYSIWYG is relatively painless, meaning I'm wasting less ink and paper.  Note that it is critical to use softproofing in Lightroom for such results.

From local friends who have Epsons with the same ink, there seems to be zero clogging if they print at least one photo a month.

Note that I got the 9000MkII for free with rebates when I bought a 60D.  Over three years I did not print more than several dozen photos, mostly 4x6, just a couple 8x10, but I probably spent about $300 in ink!  Like I said, every time it starts, you can hear inky things happening.   :P

That's just my experience, but I heard similar frustrations from those friends who now have Epson.

Ok, one friend does have a clogging issue with her r3000:  The matte-black ink will not flow at all, but she admits that she did not use that cartridge for nearly two years.  She says she doesn't print matte, so she won't even invest in a new matte-black cartridge to see if that fixes the issue.  She prints on and on with her photo-black and all the other cartridges.  (On the 3xxxx series, you choose either matte-black or photo-black, depending on the paper.)

15
Technical Support / Re: What kind of photo printer do you use?
« on: December 09, 2014, 06:41:22 PM »
Printing is as essential to photography as capture and processing.  My composition is better for printing, as is my awareness of lighting.  During post, I now see distractions that I often miss when processing for screen only.

The print is the final product of the images we create.

I would never consider printing a book with my Epson 3880, for the many good reasons mentioned in this thread, but I do plan to start laying out books next year.  I'm still looking into software. At that time I'll try various print services.

Some advantages of the 3880 are the lower price of ink compared to most other printers, the option to go up to 17x22, and the ease of nailing colors as shown in the soft-proofs of Lightroom 5.  Yes, the 3880 costs more up front than the r3000, but the price of ink quickly makes up for the difference.  To replenish $400 worth of ink for the 3880 costs about $750 for the same amount in the r3000.

That said, the r3000 produces exquisite results and does have a wireless connection.

I use an Ethernet connection to my router with the 3880.

Get one!  Try different papers, print different sizes, triptychs, arrays, collages, whatever.  Give them to friends and famly.  Put them up around your home.  Give them to business associates, church members, people you might photograph casually and surprise.  Recipients love prints.

I've seen much of what you've posted Dylan; your work is wonderful and you use fine equipment.  Your images deserve to be liberated from digital stasis into the physical world more often, and you should have total control of that final step.

Jeff Schewe's THE DIGITAL PRINT helped me sort a lot of things out before I pulled he trigger, and then make better prints once I had the 3880.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 19