April 20, 2014, 02:45:24 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 - e-d0uble

Pages: [1] 2 3
Dock was purchased via Amazon, so there's no taking it anywhere.  Perhaps I'll have my friend bring his 35A over or wait and see if the same behavior occurs with the 50A.

I updated my USB dock firmware to "1.2.0" and still find it to be useless a product.  Each time I connect my 35A to it, I'm told there is a firmware update for the lens (1.02 I believe) so, I update the firmware and disconnect the lens.  If I reconnect the lens I'm told again about the same update.  If I don't disconnect the lens I'm able to adjust the focus settings, but as soon as I disconnect the lens and reconnect I'm again told about the same firmware update.  If, while the lens is still connected I hit "later" to the firmware update the "customize" button is greyed out and I can't make changes.  I thought at first the issue lay with my laptop, so I used a different computer - same problem.  Perhaps the issue is with the lens BUT - months ago, and after several cycles of this nonsense, I was actually able to set the focus adjustments and use the lens.  If I reconnected it to the dock, I wasn't prompted to update the firmware and the focus settings I changed stayed.  I figured I was out of the water.  I was wrong.  After a few weeks, I reconnected the lens and was again prompted to update the firmware.  Rinse and repeat.  I've had to write down the settings I made so I don't have to attain them every time this problem occurs.

Updating the dock firmware and connecting the lens just now, I'm once again prompted to upgrade its firmware.  Perhaps the lens "forgets" its firmware after a few hours.  Who knows.  While I am looking forward to the 50A and I do love my 35A I'm very disappointed with this dock product, it's a stinker.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art Gets Reviewed
« on: April 14, 2014, 10:45:36 AM »
It was painful to do, but I sold my 50 f/1.2L two months ago in lieu of this lens.  I'll miss its stubby little body and the fine shots it often produced.  I will miss f/1.2  as well, but I can live with f/1.4.

Sigma's 35mm 1.4A is absolutely fabulous, but in practice it's a bit too wide for what I want from an f/1.4 lens.  I may sell it as well.  I pre-ordered Sigma's new 50 after reading the reviews that have just surfaced.  I'm sure there will be howling about nervous bokeh and lateral CA from some, and in some cases it'll be warranted.  Either way, I'm still going to give this lens a chance, as there's absolutely no way I'd give Zeiss 4k or buy the 50L the third time around.  If this guy turns out to be a dud in any way I'll bury my head in the sand and wait for a possible new fast 50mm offering from Canon.  If that ends up being the case, something tells me I may be waiting quite some time.

Portrait / Re: We, The Photographers......Self Portaits..a Who's Who on CR
« on: February 05, 2014, 06:39:34 PM »
That's me and my wife: tough guys.

Lenses / Re: A Big Lens Announcement in September? [CR1]
« on: August 29, 2013, 01:55:58 AM »
50mm f/.95!

Software & Accessories / Re: Mac Pro Humor
« on: June 13, 2013, 04:02:08 AM »
It looks like a shiny black automotive oil filter.

Lenses / Re: What else can I do with my Canon 100mm Macro IS lens?
« on: June 04, 2013, 02:59:12 PM »
This lens is fantastic for portraits, inside or out.  Here's a recent one shot with it:


Canon EF Prime Lenses / Re: Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM
« on: May 29, 2013, 01:56:58 AM »
This lens is FAR too much fun.  Slow focus?  Who cares, the image quality is unbeatable.  I use it in the studio and for low-light portraits all the time.

Lenses / Re: Disappointed with 50 f/1.2 sharpness @ f/1.2
« on: May 23, 2013, 07:14:48 PM »
Actually, that shot couldn't have been done with the 50mm f/1.4, because it was taken at f/1.2.  :)

Yes, you could. Assuming the man is exaclty 3 meters away, just go 25 cm closer to him and crop the picture to
the same frame.  Voila, you got the same depth of field (0.25m). At the same time you could adjust the ISO to 1/3
of a stop brighter if you like the speed of shutter.

Sorry to disappoint you. Physic beats money ;) And the colors are not that well choicen...

These forums rarely disappoint me, and Mr. Spock wouldn't dig that fallacious argument, but I'll stop there.

Lenses / Re: Disappointed with 50 f/1.2 sharpness @ f/1.2
« on: May 23, 2013, 06:46:00 PM »
This picture could've been done with the 50mm f1.4 aswell. But I drift your catch. Don't know why to spend a
grand more as told before, but well, a f1.2 pic ;)

Actually, that shot couldn't have been done with the 50mm f/1.4, because it was taken at f/1.2.  :)

I had the 50mm f/1.4 once long ago and it's a decent lens, but only decent.  The differences between the two (and other 50mm lenses) have been covered here and elsewhere 1000 times so I won't go any further.  I'll only say this:  A friend of mine once dropped his 50mm f/1.4 to the kitchen floor and it absolutely fell to pieces.  I've (embarrassingly enough) dropped my 50mm f/1.2 several times and it's still in one piece.

Lenses / Re: Disappointed with 50 f/1.2 sharpness @ f/1.2
« on: May 23, 2013, 06:09:14 PM »
The 50L can be fairly sharp at f/1.2, just not as sharp as perhaps the 85L II.  Sharpness isn't everything, and this lens has fantastic color and contrast reproduction as well as great bokeh (which is why I shoot it wide open).  Here's an example of it wide open:


Lots of CA, and certainly not sharp like the 135L but I don't mind  :)

EOS Bodies / Re: Download Firmware 1.2.1 link for 5DIII
« on: April 26, 2013, 01:46:51 PM »
Looks like the file's been removed from dropbox.  Perhaps some kind soul who already grabbed the file could repost it somewhere so I can brick my camera?    :)

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II
« on: April 16, 2013, 10:58:12 PM »
Perhaps I just had unrealistic expectations regarding this lens (who could blame me, considering the love festival on the internet regarding it), but after another day of shooting with it, I'm not convinced of its quality.  Even after running it through "FoCal" it's producing sub-par results compared to nearly all of my other lenses.  Perhaps I do indeed have a "bad copy", but I tend to find that saying that is often an excuse for naivety or poor photographic skills.
I neglected to mention before that I rented this lens for a week last month, but only had time to use it at an occasion where I shot all night using a flash @f/4-f/8... hardly a good test.  The images that that "copy" produced were very good.. but again.. this is an f/2.8 lens; stopping it down with a flash @1/200th is hardly proving anything.  I have 20 or so more days to return it, so I'll take it out a few more times before I dump or exchange it for another.   >:(

I'd try another copy, when Lensrentals did the tests there was quite a bit of variance, but even the worst Mark II was better than the best Mark 1.

I did try another copy.  See above post including shot of nice looking female.   ;D

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II
« on: April 14, 2013, 05:19:32 AM »
I felt that I should post somewhat of a follow-up to what I wrote regarding this lens sometime ago.  I returned the "copy" I had written about, and finally got around to shooting a bunch with its replacement this weekend (after I adjusted it slightly with reikan focal).  In short, the lens is quite good throughout the focal range wide open; and at f/4 through f/8 or so it's excellent.  The bad news is despite what many see "on paper" this lens really isn't that much better (at f/4 and beyond, obviously) than the 24-105, except in the corners where it trounces it.  That being said, the TS-E 24mm f/3.5L II is what I'd grab if I absolutely needed perfection at 24mm.   But I digress.  The 24-70 II definably also handles chromatic aberrations better than almost anything else I've ever used, and it focuses very very quickly.  Problem is, I feel this lens is still way overpriced (yeah, I too paid for it).. 

So, where I'm at.. I'm a sucker for both fast glass and for image stabilization, so I'm still torn as to which to lose.  Chances are I'll sell the 24-105, but I'll be pissed that I shelled out so much for the new guy.  Meanwhile, here's a snap from today... very good for wide open and brightly back-lit.. (50mm, 1/100th, ISO200).  Cheers.

Lenses / Re: Which Lens ... 24-70 II or primes?
« on: April 11, 2013, 01:23:49 AM »
I have the 24-105 f/4, 24-70 f/2.8II, and the Sigma 35f/1.4.  I've not ever tried the 24 f/1.4.

The Sigma 35 f/1.4 is a stellar performer, I'm absolutely thrilled with it since day one, and it was worth every cent.  35mm isn't exactly my favorite length either.  The 24-70 f/2.8 II I now have (first one I bought was wonky) is very good, but I'm still not convinced it's worth what Canon is asking for it.  I've still not had enough time with it to determine whether or not it's worth it for me to sell the 24-105 and keep it.

Pages: [1] 2 3