August 01, 2014, 12:21:41 AM

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 - tcmatthews

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 8
EOS-M / Re: FD lenses
« on: February 08, 2014, 10:05:55 AM »
135mm 2.5 on Nex 6 Example photo That includes purple fringe spectral highlights. 

EOS-M / Re: FD lenses
« on: February 08, 2014, 09:56:01 AM »
I have the following that I use fairly reguarly on my Nex6
  • Canon FD 24mm f2.8 S.S.C.
  • Vivitar C/FD 28 f2.5
  • Canon FD 35mm f2 S.S.C.
  • M42 Pancolar 50mm f1.8 Carl Zeiss Jena DDR
  • M42 Super-Takumar 50 f 1.4
  • Canon FD 135mm f2.5 S.C.

The 135mm f2.5 is good but shows purple fringe in spectral highlights such as water drops.

I also own  a Canon FD 50mm F1.8 S.C., Canon FDn 50 3.5, Macro and a M42 77M-4.  The Canon FD 50mm f1.8 is the last 50mm lens that I would choose to use.  It is not that it is a bad lens.  It is just so boring.  I kinda have the same problem with the EF 50mm 1.8.  The act about the same.  They both suck wide open (compared to some of my other options) have excellent sharpness stopped down especially in the center. 

But so do all the other 50mm lens I own.  It has a terrible minimum focus distance compared to the Zeiss.  The Zeiss and the M77-4 have swirl bokeh wide open and tons of character.  It cannot go as wide as the  Super-Takumar.  If on the EOS M the EF 50 1.8 I own has auto focus.  On the Sony my the Sony E50 1.8 can be used wide open and has Sony IS. 

The truth is the  Canon FD and EF 50mm f1.8 lens are my last chose for 50mm lens period. 

Personally I prefer using the Sony Nex to the EOS M for all old lens.  The Sony focus peeking works better then ML focus peeking.  I have noticed that all of the converted lens are a little week at infinity focus. 

Lenses / Re: Is There a Definitive "Best" Landscape Lens for Crop?
« on: February 01, 2014, 11:15:58 AM »
There is no such thing as the ultimate landscape lens. 

I have never really liked the distortion on the Ef-s 15-85 mm from 15-20mm.  And generally changed to my Sigma 10-20mm f4-5.6 when going that wide.  That said I prefer 15-55 for pure landscape.  Unless there is something in the foreground to act as the subject of the seen I  rarely go wider.    I have used a 70-200mm for landscape when there was something at a distance that was interesting.  For the most point I consider landscapes with an ultra wide and no subject "Ultra-wide abuse".  In general the landscape is so small that the hole thing becomes boring. Especially with a large empty foreground.   

That said some of my favorite landscape pictures have been taken with an Ultra-wide with a subject in the foreground.  Such as a tree growing on the side of the Grand Canon, wave crashing into a huge rock with the sun setting in the background.  I think that the best Ultra-wide IQ wise on a crop is the Tokina 11-16 f2.8.  The canon 11-22 is more versatile and holds its value better.  The Tokina is really a specialty lens with a limited focus range.

I bought the Sigma 10-20mm f4-5.6 after extensive review on a site that compared the canon, Tamron, and both sigma 10-20mm's.   The site had full  size images at a variety of focal lenght and through the entire f stop range of the lens.  To me visual the canon was a little better IQ that the Sigma f4-5.6.  The Sigma f4-5.6 was better stopped down than the Sigma f3.5.  All of them were better than the Tamron. They were all extremely close.  So it is hard to go wrong with any of them.  The Tokina however stands out for the f2.8 but was not in the review.  I could not justify the priced difference between the Canon and the Sigma to buy the Canon.  Also 10mm vs 11mm is a big difference.  I was vary happy with the sigma until it went for a swim with my old 60D. 

The biggest  thing with the Sigma is that it focus different than all of my other lens.  It works best if you turn on all focus points.  If you use the center focus or an outside edge focus point then it will stop trying to focus the second it a achieves lock on the center point.  The dept of field is such that it may be at the edge of the dept of field.  This means that using center only could lead to soft out of focus corners.  Using a edge focus point could lead to a soft out of focus center.  I do not think Af micro adjustments could fix something like this.  It is more of a function of the focal range/dept of field and sight lens distortion.  But once you figure this out it can easily be accounted for.

But if I had not gone full frame and had not bought the Nex6 and a 10-18 F4 I would be buying a Tokina to replace my Sigma that is beyond reasonable repair.

Buy the camera that suits your need best. 

Personalty I would go for the 70D or a Sony A7r.  While I would love to buy the Canon 5d III I could not afford the lens I would want to go with it for wildlife.  The new Tamron 150-600 may change that.  The 70D would fill a immediately need for a fast focusing crop for wildlife.  I also wished that the 6D had a tilting screen it is the only thing I miss from my 60D. 

For some people who shoot weddings and events it is better to have two identical cameras.  I do not have this need so I buy cameras to shoot different types of photography. 

I bought the 6D for a general purpose/Low light, ambient lighting camera. I do not need a second camera for this.  A canon 5d III would effectively replace it.  I still use my Nex6 a great deal. A Sony A7r would be a replacement for the Nex6  using vintage lens and a backup landscape camera for the 6D.  I only use my 60D when seriously range limited or to use Magic lantern.  I have not installed ML on my 6D yet.  I plan on buying the new Tamron 150-600mm after the initial demand tapers off a little. 

I do have a want for a fast focusing crop camera with a 1/8000 second shutter.  I am still waiting to see what is a replacement for 7D. 

Some time latter in the year I plan on replacing my Nex 6 with a Sony a7R.  Having used the Nex 6 for over a year now I can say that Sony Emount system is a good complement for Canon users.  Canon lens are a little cumbersome when it comes to auto focus on a Sony.  But the focus peeking for manual focus lens is fantastic.  My Nex 6 is the easiest camera to manual focus I have ever used. 

It will only be good for standard landscape to around 135mm anything longer the logistics will get brutal.  But still better than a normal Canon M.  The battery grip helps ergo. 

I plan on using it for landscape and standard photography mostly with vintage lens.  But I am keeping my Canons for moving subjects.

Lenses / Re: zooms vs primes for landscape
« on: January 26, 2014, 07:20:56 PM »
I wish canon makes a decent 20mm lens (Zeiss cost too much money). 

I agree it is a shame the 20mm Canon is so bad.  I am tempted to try out the Voigtländer Color Skopar 20mm f/3.5.  Sounds like an interesting lens.    But to be honest I think I will wait until after I buy a Sony A7 and get one of there Leica M mount lenses.

Lenses / Re: zooms vs primes for landscape
« on: January 26, 2014, 06:57:21 PM »
I don't know how I missed this response.  Neuro explains perfectly the practical things and why you need Tilt-shift for landscape.  Although I would add that the f1.4 would be beneficial for landscapes with Milky Way in the absence of star-tracking tripod mount.

The problem is that for most the 24L II has unacceptable Comma wide open.  Everything I have read suggests the Samyang 24mm 1.4 would be better for that.  That is the primary reason I suggested against the 24L the one case where 1.4 would be a benefit is its largest weakness. 

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Best Nikon DF Review! By Fstoppers.
« on: January 26, 2014, 06:47:13 PM »
There is clearly a demand a retro designed camera.  Some people like there photography gear to look like stylish old school cameras.  But they want many of the modern conveniences of a modern camera.  I admittedly am one of them.   I enjoy the act of taking photos.  The feel of the camera as I manual focus and compose the image.  As I see it the modern Canon cameras feel and look like soulless tools.  They work with clinical precision.  To me modern cameras like the D600 have all the ergonomics of a brick rapped in tin foil.  And a button layout of a schizophrenic. 

I like buttons, nobs, control dials and levers.  I freakin hate touch screens on my camera.  I am all for manual control.  It sounds like I am in the DF target audience.

The problem with the DF is not one of concept.  It is definitely one of execution.  For the DF Nikon did not have constraint in mind.  It is in you face with the rotary dials.  Over the top with price.  It also looks like you would spend more times playing with the dial then taking pictures.  It looks like a complete mix of all the worst parts of digital and manual cameras combined. 

In the most part what would work best is a new digital take on a  classic design.  Not a old school take on modern camera.  By replace every modern feature with a manual control dial they created a fashion accessory instead of a camera.  There is something to be said for ease of use and access to controls.  But this thing like all of the newer Nikon's I have looked at is a fidgety camera.  I am one to spend too much time fidgeting so I try to stay away form fidgety cameras.

I find more appeal in the OMD,Sony A7 Fuji cameras.  I think Sony A7 would look sweet if they made a silver and black version. 

I would likely buy a modern version of the Canon AE1 style camera.  (It would need to have a updated shutter)  But if Canon made a camera in this segment I wish they would make the effort to keep some of their modern elements and integrate them into a classic design. 

But I think what I really do not like about the DF is that:
  • It is a Nikon
  • It has insane nob layout
  • It lacks clean sensible layout of manual controls
  • It has a insane price
  • it is a Nikon I am allergic to Nikon

Canon General / Re: Review: Canon EOS 17-40 f/4L by DxO Mark
« on: January 26, 2014, 03:39:02 PM »
I have in general been avoiding all DxO Mark threads.  I find the lens reviews at best a comedy of errors at worst egregious miss characterizations.  They sometimes bash lens for flaws of the cameras they are testing it on.  All in in all it is just better to ignore them. 

The only camera they have tested the Sony E10-18f4 on is the Nex7.  Spent a huge amount of time complaining of soft corners and color fringing.  The Nex7 has a well documented problem with wide angle lens because of a micro-lens design flaw and the never once mention that.  They have also never bothered to test it on any other Sony Nex cameras.

The Sigma DN 19 and DN 30 have only been reviewed on the absolute worst m43 camera.  They have terrible scores but are fantastic lens for the price. 

Last time I checked the Tamron 28-75 had higher marks in Both the Sony and Nikon mount. 

Canon General / Re: Review: Canon EOS 17-40 f/4L by DxO Mark
« on: January 26, 2014, 02:15:18 PM »
If you buy a 17-40L as a standard zoom for a crop camera now that plenty of EF-s and other crop options are available, well, you're doing it wrong.  It's an ultrawide zoom for full-frame.

+1 - and that's the point of comparing it to the 18-55/3.5-5.6 IS kit lens or even the 17-55/2.8 IS.  Compared to the 17-40L on APS-C, the former delivers not-too-different IQ and the latter delivering better IQ (and an extra stop of light, a broader range, and IS).  Yet, many people recommend getting the 17-40L 'in case you go FF maybe someday,' which I think is pretty foolish unless 'someday' is next month.

Ah yes those people who have a cheap entry level Rebel camera with a 17-40L stuck on the end! Yup I agree, unless your "other cameras a FF" and currently out of action you have no excuse! Too cheap to buy a FF camera but has enough to show off with an L lens! (A cheap one at that!) you're foolin no one son!

I've read that it is better to get good glass on a cheaper camera than the cheap glass on an expensive camera.  So now the person who takes that advice is being made fun of?

I am a proponent of using good glass on a cheep camera but it has to make sense.  The 17-40L on a rebel is a waist.  The camera can take much better pictures with a good EF-s lens.  The 17-40L lacks IS it is relatively slow for crop.  If you are going to get a full frame L lens for a crop camera get one of the 24-x lenses, and then buy a Ef-s Ultra wide.   24-x is fine for an outdoor zoom in wide open places.  Save buying the ultra-wide full frame lens for when you buy a full frame camera.

All of the telephoto lens make sense.  So a 70-200L or 70-300L should be on all Rebel users list if they plan on moving to full frame.

But that is just my opinion. 

Canon General / Re: Review: Canon EOS 17-40 f/4L by DxO Mark
« on: January 26, 2014, 01:55:08 PM »

I get your jokes... and they are funny... but sometimes taking the "wrong" lens with you can help you to produce some really unique images.

Tell me if you take the "wrong" lens and produce "unique images" is it really the "wrong" lens?

EOS Bodies / Re: Patents: Canon 85mm f/1.8 IS, 100mm f/2 IS, 135 f/2 IS
« on: January 26, 2014, 01:25:06 PM »
I expect a L refresh sometime later.  I just cannot see a 135mm f2.8 L IS being a big seller unless it was a macro. Most looking at the 135L are in it the the bokeh.

The current 100/2.8L IS Macro has amazingly good bokeh.  I'm guessing that a 135/2.8 IS (L or non-L) would be just as good, if not better.

The 100L IS has good bokeh.  But I would not say it is even in the same league as the current 135L.  If they made a 135/2.8 IS it would likely have as good or better bokeh than the 100L.  But it will not be in the same league as the 135L.

Lenses / Re: zooms vs primes for landscape
« on: January 26, 2014, 01:04:27 PM »
The 24 f1.4 is an appalling choice for a 24 mm dedicated landscape lens. The TS-E24 MkII is probably the best current 24mm 135 format lens available, and it is uniquely orientated towards landscape work. How many landscapes are you going to shoot between f1.4 and f3.5?

An appalling choice?
Maybe we should all switch to Nikons high MP camera, then things like vignetting and distortion wouldn't even exist.

Anybody that sees another 135 format as a "better" choice is so divorced from my understanding I am glad Neuro has taken this one. By your logic we should all be shooting 8"X10" and drum scanning.

Your troll's job is done. You can go away now and Neuro can take this one.
He can debate how appalling the 24mm f/1.4 II is for you.

The 24 f1.4 MkII is a superb lens, but it has zero functional advantage over the 24-70 f2,8 IS as a landscape shooting lens, zero, none, nada. For somebody wanting a dedicated 24mm LANDSCAPE lens suggesting the f1.4 is pretty terrible advice, even worse considering Canon actually make probably the best 24 mm LANDSCAPE orientated lens in the world, the 24 TS-E MkII.

P.S. I am no troll, and I don't suffer fools or their "advice" easily.

I agree the 24 f1.4 MkII is a fantastic lens but I would not get it for landscape.  The only time that 1.4 could be useful is for astro-landscape but it has been reported to have coma so it is not good for that.  It is a rather large lens if the goal is "24mm and to stay light" get the 24mm 2.8 IS.  If not get the 24-70 f2,8, TS-E 24mm L or Zeiss 21mm. 

I would chose plan 2.  I wish I had bought the Canon 70-200f4 IS instead of the non IS.   I chose to supplement my 70-200f4 with a Tamaron 70-300 f4-f5.4 VC when IS is needed.

EOS Bodies / Re: Patents: Canon 85mm f/1.8 IS, 100mm f/2 IS, 135 f/2 IS
« on: January 26, 2014, 11:07:35 AM »
I'm taking all of this in with a skeptical eye.  Consider:

  • Bundling the 135 in with the 85 and 100 makes little sense.  The 85 F/1.8 and 100 F/2 are 'paired' lenses and the 135 (disregarding the soft-focus version) is an L lens paired with the lesser discussed 200 F/2.8L. I say 'paired' in that they seem to share some aspects of the housing and general design, and they were released on or about the same time (the first pair was '91/'92 and the second pair both came out in '96).  I would hazard a guess that Canon would design these lenses simultaneously to maximize subcomponent efficiencies, limit subcomponent inventory, all that.  They still seem to be doing that with recent non-L IS refreshes:  the 24 and 28 are highly similar in size/shape and I would guess the much-discussed 50 F/(unknown) non-L IS they are working on will have some size/footprint similarities as the 35 F/2 non-L IS.

  • Only one prime L lens under 200mm has IS, and that's the 100L macro.  Surely if an L lens 'IS refresh' program was to get underway, despite IS' greater value at longer FL, the money would be in the high-seller FL, which are the 24, 35, 50, etc. -- just like with the non-L IS refresh campaign has done.

  • It seems curious that the (admittedly ancient) non-L primes have been getting the big upgrades (those new lenses are a lot more than just IS upgrades) treatment and the L lenses have not.  The last time an L prime in a common focal length was updated was some six years ago.  One might wonder if they have the upgrades planned, but will only release them after they ensure they are good enough to work on the high-MP full-frame rigs that we all expect are coming.

Personally, I see the 135mm length as a separate animal from the 85 and 100, and being such a sacred cow to so many users, Canon will probably take quite some time to offer a replacement for the 135L.

- A
I do not think that it is a L lens refresh.  I think that it is a mid range refresh.  Canons mid range lens were dinosaurs before the IS refreshes started.  Back in the old FD days there was three 135mm lens it is very likely that they are dropping the soft focus and replacing it with a normal 135mm.  The certain versions of the FD 85mm, 100mm, 135mm shared much of the same design.  They were a lens family.  It is likely they are just returning to that. 

I expect a L refresh sometime later.  I just cannot see a 135mm f2.8 L IS being a big seller unless it was a macro. Most looking at the 135L are in it the the bokeh.

I expect the L refresh when it happens to be exactly like you said 85,100 as a family and 135,200 as a family.

Business of Photography/Videography / Re: Freelance gear suggestions?
« on: January 25, 2014, 06:49:57 PM »
All really good things to think about. Lots to consider and just want to be strategic in what is purchased next.

I had considered the 17-40 f/4 but was unsure if it would be smarter to have the tiny extra reach and extra stop of the 16-35L (have been lusting after the 5D kit with the 17-40 but hard to justify with the recent 70D purchase).  I think for me the big thing is spending the money where I get the most value and the least possibility for gear devaluing/not recouping loss if I grow beyond it. Just wanting to future proof as much as possible, especially at this stage on a more narrow budget. Don't want to put a lot into cropped frame lenses and then not be able to have them transition to a FF should I upgrade sooner than 2 years.

It does sound like renting is a smart move and I'll be contacting one the local shops here to try a few things before I jump in head first.

Anyone else see anything that I'm missing? Given the majority of paid work I'm getting does require a UWA lens it sounds like that might be the smartest option to pick first...

I think getting the Canon EF-s 10-22 or Tokina 11-16 would be a wise purchase.  I would save the full frame UWA for when you buy a full frame camera.  On a side note you can use the Tokina on full frame at 16mm.  The Sigma 10-20 variations are Ok but have almost no resale value.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 8