April 25, 2014, 02:05:02 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 - CarlTN

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 146
I bought the Benro, like it a lot.  Used it with a 500 f/4 series 1, and a 200 f/2.  No problems, owned it 3 years now.

Lenses / Re: Canon IS Primes for landscapes?
« on: Today at 12:47:28 AM »
Apparently the 24mm has no coma wide open which is ideal for astrophotography.

First I've seen of that.  I thought some of the tests I saw, showed significant coma wide open. 

There are folks out there who "highly recommend" the lens for that purpose.  eg: http://www.lonelyspeck.com/lenses-for-milky-way-photography/

The design includes two aspheric elements which could reduce coma in a decent lens design--but I have no direct experience with the lens or any other Samyang products.  I don't own one, and probably wouldn't buy one for myself since other known issues would eliminate it from consideration relative to what I like to do.

Fair point.  I've only owned one Rokinon lens so far, the 85mm f/1.4.  It held its value very well on the used market, and I lost very little when I sold it.  But it definitely did not have good contrast.  The resolution was ok, and the CA was not too bad.  Certainly not a bad value for money (because it was so inexpensive).  But it was a manual focus / aperture, so it was cumbersome to use...especially since I was only using the standard focusing screen, and this focal length is especially demanding of good manual focus technique, if the lens is manual.  I'm still considering trying the 14mm f/2.8, though.  From what I have seen, it might have the best overall image quality of all the Rokinon focal lengths.  Both the 14mm and the 85mm, cost around half what their 24mm f/1.4 sells for, though, so to me it seems like a poor value...especially given photozone's review.  Not saying people can't take good images with it, though.

Lenses / Re: Canon IS Primes for landscapes?
« on: April 24, 2014, 08:04:57 PM »
My 2 cents worth....
As others have mentioned, from a landscape perspective, considering IS or AF isn't really the main issue, the Canon 24mm TS would be an excellent choice, with its great sharpness and ability to T/S. Closely followed by the Zeiss 21mm. I've rented the Zeiss 21mm before I bought the Zeiss 15mm and the 21mm had slightly better sharpness and contrast than the 15mm (I bought the 15mm mainly for astro/full sky shots). Plus, the Zeiss lenses have a hard infinity stop, which makes night shots really easy :)

As a "pan and stitch" lens, the 40mm pancake is superb when stopped to f4-5.6. A really under rated lens IMHO.

At the moment, my current "go to" lenses in my kit for landscape are the 40mm pancake (and stitch) or the Canon 24mm f1.4 II, which isn't the sharpest lens (wide open), but, stopped down, it does have a beaut contrast/colour about it.

I agree, although the Zeiss 21mm is really still the best overall lens for day or night wide angle shots (at least of nature).  I would not rank the T/S 24mm higher than it, at least from what I have read, and given its slower aperture.  However, if you ever do any sort of architectural wide angle, then it makes more sense to rank the T/S above the Zeiss.  Also, your experience confirms what I've seen online as well...that the Zeiss 15mm is noticeably softer than the Zeiss 21mm.  The 15mm actually also appears softer than the cheap 14mm Rokinon (at wide aperture).  It just also has better color and contrast than the Rokinon.  As Zeiss lenses go, the 15mm appears to be a poorer value than other Zeiss offerings, since it is not the sharpest EF-mount lens in the world at or around that focal length, yet still costs around $3000.  At least with the new Otus 55mm, it still clearly is the sharpest of all lenses around its focal length, so the price is more justified, in my opinion.

Landscape / Re: Please share your snow/ Ice Photos with us in CR.
« on: April 24, 2014, 07:42:24 PM »
it WAS a great day...  >:(
I assume that since you posted the picture that you are OK..... Hope you get the sled out.....
Yeah, thanks.  I was off the machine taking photos when my friend put it through. Bad communication on my part- I knew there was a dock under the snow and assumed that he did, too. (The ice in the vicinity of any wooden structure is never good.) He didn't.

The only reason it didn't go completely through and tumble down an underwater slope into a fifty-foot gully was that the handlebars caught on the edge of the dock while the right ski held on good ice. It took 6 of us and a lot of gear to get it out the next day. The track was frozen solid but luckily the engine did not ingest any water. The second part of the adventure was towing a frozen-up machine 7KM across the ice and up a hill back to a truck and trailer.

Nice to see you posting again, Canuck!

Sports / Re: F1 Photography Advice
« on: April 24, 2014, 07:28:51 PM »
some F1 pics, posted in the panning thread but thought i'd pop them in here too

I agree, these are mind-blowingly good!!  Bravo and here here !!  Job well done sir, keep it up!

Animal Kingdom / Re: BIRD IN FLIGHT ONLY -- share your BIF photos here
« on: April 24, 2014, 07:26:17 PM »
Thank you Click.

Alan, it was the only one that the focus was solid out of about 50.  Some would be fine at a larger size but could not be cropped to this size.  Thank you Alan.
1 out of 50 sounds good to me - I had 3 out of 600 that were acceptable. Not as good as yours

Is this an autofocus problem?  If so, what body?  I definitely don't want to buy it...

Landscape / Re: Stars above.
« on: April 24, 2014, 07:11:51 PM »
6D on a 2000mm f/10 telescope with 2xTC.   Seas of Tranquility and Serenity, crater Plato and the nearby Alpine Valley, craters Archimedes and Eratosthenes, crater Copernicus at sunrise.  ISO320, 1/25. 

Larger view - macro extenders (total 65mm) added between 2xTC and camera body to increase the effective focal length.  ISO640, 1/80.

Taken evening of 8 February, first decent night in two weeks.

Great job!

Landscape / Re: Stars above.
« on: April 24, 2014, 07:11:21 PM »
To all,

Here's my first and second attempt at star trails.  In my first attempt, I made the mistake of too short of an exposure.  It would generally be somewhat light polluted near Battle Mountain, but fog and low cloud had enveloped the lower terrain blocking out all the light pollution coming from the Columbia Basin.  My exposures should have been two minutes, but they were only 20 seconds.  :(  On my second attempt, I raised my exposure to one minute since it was the longest I could go without blowing out the illuminated fog below over Pendleton, Oregon.  I believe it's a better attempt than the first, but still room for improvement.  A couple of vehicles went by and down Emigrant Hill during a couple of the exposures.  I'm not quite sure if the illuminated foreground hurts or helps the image.  What are your thoughts?

Thanks for looking,


These are very nice, especially the one with the cars.  Which lens?

Landscape / Re: Post Your Best Landscapes
« on: April 24, 2014, 07:06:44 PM »
Mountain and lake in Alberta

For someone living in a flat country, this is absolutely stunning to look at. I am impressed by such a landscape.

Thanks! Yes, the mountains are nothing if not scenic. I, too, live in a very flat place but am only a six hour drive from the mountains so I go there often.

Yes, quite nice images, especially the Alberta lake.  If that is a 6 hour drive each way, I admire your free time and ability to go there often.  I hope to get up there at some point.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Zeiss Otus Initial Impressions
« on: April 24, 2014, 06:32:35 PM »
Thanks Jrista, I need some support.

I have just returned from a heated debate with my boss (or wife if you like). She was not overly enthusiastic when I said I would change all light sources in the house to either candles, halogen point source or gas light bulbs, to avoid onion ring bokeh in my out of focus light source images ...  ::) What happened to sickness & health, support and encouragement and all that ...  :-\

Eldar, have you tried the same test using a different lens?  The TDP review linked below shows how different bokeh is affected by the different lens designs.  If you use a light source that produced the known effect with the Otus and then tried your S35, then you can compare the results with each other and to TDP to see whether or not it is a lens design/manufacturing issue.  The S35 isn't as clean as the new 35 f/2 IS, but the pattern should be different if the effect is dominated by the lens manufacturing technology and not by wavefront interference that jrista mentioned.


FWIW, just going by memory, I don't remember having the onion ring effect with the 85L II or the 135L, but I do remember running into it using the 24-70L II and the 28 f/2.8 IS with Christmas tree lights.

I posted an example with the Sigma 35A (see page 13 of this thread). Very clear onion rings. I also tried the 85/1.2L II at f1.2 (don´t believe I posted that). It does not show so clear rings, but they are definitely visible. Sharper lens, sharper rings, it seems.

The onion ring effect is visible in your images on page 13, but it's not anything I would consider harsh or very pronounced.  The main problem a lens can have with "bokeh highlights" (in my opinion), has to do with whether there is one severe bright ring around the outside of the highlight...not a bunch of very faint "onion ring" transitions inside it.  If these onion rings were a lot harsher, like a bullseye or something, that would be different.  If the ones in that image you posted, bother you that much...then it would take literally less than one second to blur them with the adjustment brush.  I just don't see that as a problem for the 35A, at least based on the image you posted.  What I'm more curious about, is the "transition zone" smoothness, and whether the harsh single "ring" around the outside, ever makes an appearance, or worse, looks pronounced...with the 35A.

There sure are a lot of people on here who dislike the Sigma brand.  There are a few who like it.  Being a third party, it should be obvious that issues such as autofocus consistency, can only be so...consistent.  Regarding the 50mm Art, I agree with others in this thread who want to see a larger test sample size, before conclusions can be drawn.  I already know what the conclusion will be, though.  The only conclusion that matters..."it's not a Canon." 

I have a feeling when the 24mm Art comes out, there will be a few who will despise it, no matter how good it is.  For no other reason than it's a third party lens.  Is that objective?  I say, to each their own.  Some use third party lenses, some don't.  If you can make a third party lens work for you, so be it.  If you can't, or don't wish to try, fine.  Wide angle fast primes have more of a niche use than 50 and 85mm fast primes.  I doubt it would be a big seller relative to the longer focal length fast primes. 

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Zeiss Otus Initial Impressions
« on: April 20, 2014, 03:46:01 AM »
Mackguyver seems quite the level headed guy, I doubt the rudeness bothered him in the least.  Not sure why it bothered you so much.  Also I assume I am on your ignore list...lol...didn't realize that.
Carl, I´m sure Macguyver is perfectly fine. He has posted lots of good posts and should be treated accordingly. It is the volume of rubbish posts from Dilbert that filled my cup.
I will not participate in a thread extender, so I will end my comments here.

For the record, you are not on my ignore list ;)

Very glad to hear that, and once again, I very much like your image of the tree sunset above with the mighty Otus !!!  Happy Easter to you sir!   :)


Here's some shots of rare Swedish Red Ear'd Biggies Piggies taken with the centre point of a 6D with a 50mm f1.4 @1.4. Nails the focus plane near as damn it 8 times out of ten. Cropped and recomposed, so not 'focus and recompose'.

Biggies Piggies just won't keep still for a moment !

We have an almost 2-year-old toddler who can move about as quickly and randomly as these piggies, and the AF with my 6D and 50 f/1.4 and 85 1.8 does just fine under f/2.0 using the center point.  Overall, my hit rate for moving kid shots is in the 75-80% range, and I'm happy with that.  I know a 5D3 or 1Dx would do much better, but for my overall use (kids/landscapes/portraits/macro and a little high school golf and cross country) the 6D is a great camera.

Exactly.  Four years, many people (myself included) were clamoring for a camera that unified the image quality of the 5DII with the autofocus of the 7D.  Canon delivered, even better than expected, with the 5DIII – and charged a premium for it.  But they also delivered the 6D, basically a very modest update to the 5DII (already an excellent camera, AF notwithstanding) with a functionally equivalent AF system, but at a lower price.  That's a win-win.

Well summarized, I agree.  If you want a camera with superior AF, buy a 1Dx or 5D3.  The 6D has IQ in the same ballpark as the higher end cameras, but a limited AF system.  That's why its $1K+ cheaper than the 5D3.  Personally, I'm glad Canon gives us price and capability options.

Agree on all points, never said otherwise.  Yet just because I dare to say the 6D autofocuses "decently", and because I attempted and ACHIEVED focus recompose at a distance of 4 INCHES IN THE DARK...the manchildren are throwing a tantrum again.   

Happy Easter to you all, even to those who spew name calling, hatred and personal attacks.  To the moderators, Happy Easter to you as well.  If you don't celebrate it, I'm not too surprised... ;D

Additionally, he adds in that the 1Dx and 5D3 would have never AF'd in a particular situation that the 6D did.  He also makes the accusation that we've never shot with the 6D so how can we comment?

1.  The 1Dx and 5D3 would have easily AF'd in that case, so that point right there is simply objectively WRONG.
2.  He hasn't shot with the 1Dx or 5D3, yet makes the above comment.  Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. 

Is he for real?  There's NO WAY any sane person could both make the arguments he's making and simultaneously believe in those arguments.

The AF system of the 1Dx is best = $6799
The AF system of the 5D3 is second best = $3399
The AF system of the 6D is the "least good" out of all 3 = $2000 ish

Hmm, surprising!

It's just silliness. The 6D is a nice, affordable 135 format DSLR. It has some nice features, but AF is hardly its selling point. -3LV autofocus, as has been pointed out, has some significant practicality issues.

Who the hell ever said the 6D's autofocus was a "selling point"?  Not me.  I'm calling b/s though, and that's now your color.

Additionally, he adds in that the 1Dx and 5D3 would have never AF'd in a particular situation that the 6D did.  He also makes the accusation that we've never shot with the 6D so how can we comment?

1.  The 1Dx and 5D3 would have easily AF'd in that case, so that point right there is simply objectively WRONG.
2.  He hasn't shot with the 1Dx or 5D3, yet makes the above comment.  Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. 

Is he for real?  There's NO WAY any sane person could both make the arguments he's making and simultaneously believe in those arguments.

The AF system of the 1Dx is best = $6799
The AF system of the 5D3 is second best = $3399
The AF system of the 6D is the "least good" out of all 3 = $2000 ish

Hmm, surprising!

Actually that's a lie, I have shot with both the 5D3 and 1DX.  Not with this particular lens though.  I'm not calling anybody black, but you're starting to look like you're just puking to me, so that's now your color.

Why the childish name calling, and the just plain making shi+ up as you go along?  How old are you again?

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 146