March 03, 2015, 09:56:07 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 - Alexiumz

Pages: [1]
Landscape / Re: Stars above.
« on: February 19, 2014, 12:32:57 PM »
Oh, I love the last posts, guys.  Any advice you're willing to give to someone who's yet to do anything like this.  I'll be out any day now but just in my yard where it's not particularly scenic, but it's not city.  What lenses and times, exposure etc., is always helpful.

I presume the Sky Tracker is not at all useful in doing the shots with landscape due to motion blur?


My go-to exposure for dark skies is f/2.8, 30" and 1600 ISO. Start with that and see how it looks; you may need to lower the ISO with the given light pollution or lower the shutter speed if you start to see stars trailing (if that's not the intended effect!)

You won't need/can't really use a sky tracker when shooting a landscape (it's more for deep space photography) unless you superimpose the foreground/landscape from a separate exposure.

Lenses / Re: Hard choice the 50 1.4 or 85 1.8
« on: February 19, 2014, 12:29:07 PM »
Absolutely agree with the others who say 85 will feel more natural given you're used to 50 on crop.

I'd say it beats the 50 1.4 in most, if not all areas. I wouldn't go so far to say it's the sharpest lens they make, but it's certainly amongst their top... perhaps sharpest non-L lens. Definitely their best value for money lens (image quality to cost ratio).

The only thing to watch out for is moderate CAs wide and near wide open. Other than that you won't be disappointed.

Landscape / Re: Stars above.
« on: February 16, 2014, 06:35:30 AM »
An eight hour exposure at Ingleborough, Yorkshire, UK.

Lenses / Re: Which one should I get?!
« on: January 05, 2014, 07:20:41 PM »
Does anyone have any experience  with the canon 24mm? I really like a fast lens and don't mind that it's fixed focal length. When shooting stars pretty much anything at night more light is always a plus.

It's a stellar lens, no question… except in one area - coma. It's a very poor performer and if shooting wide open, is unsuitable for astrophotography. You'd need to stop down to 2.8 or more to negate or reduce it enough to get usable images with it. And at those apertures you have a wider market of lenses to choose from.

I have a 16-35 2.8L II and love it.
You love it but the OP mentioned astrophotography! Do you use it for astrophotography and you like the edges?
I use it for astrophotography and yes, it leaves a lot to be desired in the corners, both in terms of sharpness and coma. Such a useful lens otherwise though! I need to get a Samyang 14mm as an alternative lens to shoot stars with.

Canon General / Re: From InterBEE: Interview With the Head of Cinema EOS
« on: November 20, 2013, 10:50:36 AM »
Surely the reason the AF wasn't working on the STM lenses was because the AF was locked - something they demonstrated only minutes ago with the 50L! Very briefly he unlocked it - and it started working - and then promptly locked it again, preventing any continuous AF...

Lenses / Re: 85mm
« on: November 14, 2013, 02:45:53 PM »
Thanks - can you (or anyone) tell me how the 85/1.8 bokeh compares to the 100L?

I have both; whilst (as everyone seems to agree in this thread) that the 85 1.8 does have CA issues, the quality of the blur is superior to the 100L wide open - mostly due to the wider aperture. The 85 has lovely bokeh. That said, the 100 does too, and can still very competently be used for portraits, however has better uses in other areas (ie macro!). The real winner is the 135, beats the 85 and the 100.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Japan Teases a White Kiss
« on: November 11, 2013, 11:43:01 AM »
I already have a white 60D...

Jealous! I wish my 60D had the Shelby stripes on it too!  Do they make it go faster?   ;)

More megapixels, faster burst rate, higher ISO performance!

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Japan Teases a White Kiss
« on: November 11, 2013, 10:56:28 AM »
I already have a white 60D...

A quick test for those who're seeking comparisons. First is Standard (default settings), second is Video X (0 sharpness, -4 contrast, -2 saturation), third is Cinestyle (same settings as Video X). All shot at the same exposure.

Pricewatch Deals / Re: Deals: Lenses at
« on: March 31, 2013, 05:30:54 AM »
I don't know about the states, but the rebate in the UK runs until May 31st.

Source: I have the press pack.

Lenses / Re: 35L or 50L?
« on: March 19, 2013, 05:53:49 PM »
Thanks for all your inputs, it's all exactly the sort of thing I wanted.

Couple of points raised in some of your comments; I'm aware that the 16-35 @35mm pales in comparison to a dedicated 35 prime. I'm also aware that the 50L is only superior to it's smaller siblings between 1.2 and about 2.8, beyond that, the other two are arguably better.

It appears that the general consensus seems to be not to get the 35L; my options seem to boil down to get either the 50L or the Sigma 35 and the 50 1.4...

Again thank you all for your feedback, it's really great. Keep posting and I'll keep reading, though we shall just have to wait and see what I end up deciding to get. Who knows? Not me! Not yet.

Lenses / 35L or 50L?
« on: March 18, 2013, 04:12:43 PM »
In the very near future I may be buying a number of things, namely a 5Dmk3, 16-35L, 100L and 135L, along with a few other accessories. I already own a 60D, 17-85 and 85 1.8.

I'm also considering whether to get a wide/normal prime with all that, namely the 35L or the 50L, though this is where I can't make up my mind. I'd like your input and opinions and experiences on said lenses and which you think I should get! I'm set on the other lenses, so I'm not needing any advice on those - they're just for reference so you know what else it'll be amongst.

Below are my thoughts, both pros and cons on each lens, along with a few other points of consideration.

  • I prefer a mid-wide walkabout lens to 50mm
  • Slightly cheaper than the 50
  • Led to believe it has slightly better IQ than the 50?
  • Great build quality, metally and solid.
  • Not weather sealed
  • Already have the 35 length with the 16-35

  • A third of a stop faster
  • Weather sealed
  • Doubles as a good portrait length on my second (crop) body
  • Fills a gap in the focal range not yet covered
  • Infamous focus niggles
  • Could just get the 50 1.4?

I have both at work and have tried them both out a fair bit and like them both very much, however I'm still torn between the two. For some reason I feel slightly drawn to the 35 over the 50, but only by a hairs width. If the 35 had weather sealing, I'd probably go with it, as I always seem to find myself in the rain and I'd like to know that I don't need to worry.

Other things to consider are I'd really like to do some astrophotography with one of them - one of the reasons I'm not going with the 24 1.4 as it has bad coma wide open - how do these lenses perform for star shooting? Coma? Overall sharpness? Does the extra third-stop of light make much difference? Would the wider FOV be more appropriate?

I'd really only be able to afford one of them, however I may be able to stretch to get the 35 and the 50 1.4 instead? I know it's a great lens though the main drawback for me over the 1.2 is the weather sealing - more important than a wider aperture. Also should I think about the Sigma 35 1.4 perhaps?

Please leave your thoughts and opinions - 35L, 50L or alternatives?

Pricewatch Deals / Re: Canon UK Cashbacks Coming?
« on: March 07, 2013, 08:08:19 AM »
It runs until May 31st, not March 31st as the post lists. Source: HUK (linked in article) and I have the press pack (see image below)

Pages: [1]