July 31, 2014, 03:57:10 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 - Ruined

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 36
1
Lenses / Re: canon 16-35 2.8 II vs. WHAT?
« on: July 30, 2014, 09:45:36 AM »
Good day,

I wish I had some ultrawide angle lens, say 16-35, but I don't have enough money because I recently bought 35mm 1.4L which makes me incredibly happy.

So the question is whether there is something really close to 16-35L. Don't say 17-40, this lens sucks because of its apperture, I need something faster, wider, lighter and sharper.

Some sigma, tokina?


Dave Dugdale did a q quick A/B of the Tokina 16-28mm f/2.8 to the new Canon 16-35 f/4L IS, and found they were similar in quality - except the tokina can do f/2.8 but does not accept filters due to bulbous front element:
Canon 16-35mm f4 vs Tokina 16-28mm f2.8 Quick Comparison Small | Large


In fact, his conclusion was that he was keeping the Tokina.  So, I would say this is a worthy option to consider.

2
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Review: Zeiss 135mm f/2 APO Sonnar T*
« on: July 29, 2014, 12:57:31 PM »
Would like to see an updated Canon 135 f/2.

3
Lenses / Re: Question for Canon 50mm 1.2 lens Owners
« on: July 28, 2014, 06:50:41 PM »
I just purchased this Canon 50mm 1.2 lens and just one little thing I'm not too sure on. The lens hood has just a little play in it after i've locked it on the lens. My other Canon lenses lock in with no play whatsoever. Is this normal for this lens hood to have play?  If so, I wonder why.  :-\

Mine has no play.

4
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sigma 50 1.4 Art NOT bokehlicious?
« on: July 27, 2014, 01:15:40 PM »
Technically it makes sense for it not to have the best bokeh.  Generally in order to have great bokeh, classic lens design indicates you need to leave some spherical aberration uncorrected - but this is contrary to the design focus of this lens which piles up the elements in attempt to remove all aberrations and get the maximum sharpness.

As everything works with lenses, no lens cannot be strong somewhere without being weak somewhere else.

Also, recall that Kai's definition of Bokehlicious is a lot different than the average person's.  From what I can see in his videos, two 50mm bokehlicious lens he approves of appear to be the Leica Noctilux 50mm f/0.95, with the Canon 50mm f/1.2L being another (though not as good as the Noctilux):
Canon 50mm f/1.2 L vs Leica Noctilux f/0.95 (Battle of Bokeh) Small | Large


Also, yes his videos are primarily entertainment.

5
EOS Bodies / Re: 7D now marked as DISCONTINUED at Amazon
« on: July 27, 2014, 09:40:09 AM »
I heard Canon is going to one-up the mirror less crowd by delivering the 7D2 as the first mirrorless *and* sensorless camera.

Bingo.  Nikon has made spotting scopes for years, and Canon will use the 7DII as an entrée into the spotting scope market.

The key difference is, Canon's offering will use revolutionary technology to allow you to save the pictures through MemoryVision.  Each 7D2mv camera comes with a sketch pad, professional colored pencil set, and a lifetime subscription to a collaborative interactive training website developed in tandem by Luminosity.com and Canon... because the human brain has INFINITE MEGAPIXELS!

6
EOS Bodies / Re: 7D now marked as DISCONTINUED at Amazon
« on: July 27, 2014, 09:32:22 AM »
I heard Canon is going to one-up the mirrorless crowd by delivering the 7D2mv as the first mirrorless *and* sensorless camera.  By eliminating the sensor they were able to make the most compact camera of all time that can still mount EF lenses.  The new technology is called MemoryVision.

7
Lenses / Re: How many years before we see a 50L II
« on: July 26, 2014, 05:41:48 AM »
It's a tough world out there for lovers of the 50mm focal length. There is a new Sigma 50 Art, but it has outer-edge focus problems, is somehow too contrasty for some, and for videographers, there are focus breathing issues. On top of that, it's supposedly a bit heavy for a prime.

On the other hand, the well known Canon 50L isn't as sharp as some would hope wide open and also has focus breathing problems. On top if that, it's slow to focus, despite having USM.

So the question is... When will Canon respond to the Sigma 50 Art with an update to the 50L?

I would be thrilled if the updated lens was quick to focus, tack sharp wide open, and rendered colors the same way it does on the current 50L.

Of course it's all speculation at this point, but it doesn't hurt to pose the question.

Thoughts?

The Canon is also f/1.2 allowing 50% more light and greater DOF isolation than the sigma.  The sharpness difference is neglible in practice and the Canon has more realistic colors.

So to answer your question probably not for a long, long time: most pros who use the 50L (not just blog jockeys) adore it.  Next 50mm will be the 50mm f/1.8 IS.

8
realtape: I would stop smearing the eBay seller, as your case has a ton of holes in it with a total lack of proof on your part.  There are several areas in the chain after your friend received the package the contents may have been stolen that are not the eBay seller's responsibility.

1) The eBay seller was *not* responsible for anything that happened after your friend receives the original package; if he does not claim anything is wrong with the shipment, then the eBay seller is completely out of the picture.  At the point your friend received the eBay package, your friend became the new owner of the camera and anything that happened after that is in no way the eBay's seller's responsibility.  Therefore this is the first reason your complaint both in this forum and to PayPal is invalid.

2) Since your friend was the recipient and became the owner of the package, he had the opportunity to open the package to inspect the contents.  This was not done per your report.  Therefore, once again this is your fault for not instructing your friend to inspect the goods, not the eBay seller's.  This is the second reason your complaint is invalid.

Given #1 and #2:

A) There is the possibility that in transit from the eBay seller to your friend a shipping employee stole the contents of the package, or that you were shipped the wrong goods by the eBay seller.  If your friend had inspected the package upon receipt, an insurance/PayPal filing at this point would have been valid.  The inspection was not done.  This was your opportunity to ensure you got what you paid for, and you elected not to do it.

B) There is the possibility that your friend stole the merchandise.  Perhaps unlikely, but once he received the item he became the owner of it, not you or the eBay seller.  If your friend said he got the camera, then replaces it with a box of junk and ships it to you, this is not the responsibility of the eBay seller. There would be no recourse for you if this happened other than filing a police report that would go nowhere as you have no proof.

C) There is the possibility that in transit from your friend to you a shipping employee stole the contents of the package.  This, too, would not be the responsibility of the eBay seller.  To avoid this, your friend would have to purchase insurance and signature confirmation on the package, then you could open it upon receiving it. If not as expected, you file an insurance claim with the shipping company.  But, since you never inspected the package in the first part of the shipping chain, this insurance claim in your particular situation would go nowhere.


IN SUMMARY
Despite your not wanting to believe it, this situation is 100% your fault, not the eBay seller's.  You put yourself in a situation which allowed for options B) or C) occurring with no way to prove that situation A) truly happened.  Bottom line, you are out of luck+a lot of money and next time do not put yourself in such a precarious and naïve situation.

What you should have done:
1. Buy the item yourself from an authorized Canon dealer, have it shipped to you, and inspect the package immediately.  This is the best option by far.
2. If you 100% trust your friend, next time have him inspect the package immediately and following this if all is there, he would need to set up an insured delivery to you with signature confirmation; in this case, try to use a private carrier as in my extensive experience USPS shipments are much more susceptible to theft/loss than private carriers.  Once you receive the package, inspect it immediately.  Remember though, after your friend receives and inspects the package, the eBay seller in this option is totally out of the picture.

9
Lenses / Re: Which Bokeh Monster?
« on: July 24, 2014, 05:09:26 PM »
I did not see OP had a crop body.

In this case, I would recommend 50 f/1.2L definitely over 85 f/1.2L.

50L would give ~80mm FOV on crop
85L would give ~136mm FOV on crop

The 50L would be leagues more versatile for portraits.  Also, compared to the Sigma ART 50 f/1.4, the Canon 50 f/1.2L lets in 50% more light which is extremely important for crop to keep the noise down.

10
Lenses / Re: Which Bokeh Monster?
« on: July 23, 2014, 07:26:15 PM »
So Bokeh Monster is a term I use for those primes that weigh in with apertures larger than 2.8.

Now with photography being very expensive here in South Africa, I've only got space (and money) for one Bokeh Monster in my kit.

Which would you recommend?

I'm aware that the number of aperture blades plays a big part in creating bokeh but I'm also looking for decent AF performance and sharpness. I'm less worried about those abherrations (fringing/vignetting) that can be 'ticked' away in post.

I'd also like an opinion as to whether IS benefits the photographer when working at these extreme apertures.

Looking forward to hearing some opinions, especially those with working experience of these primes.

Thanks in advance guys :)

If you primarily do head&shoulders indoors and/or have a large working distance (outdoors) and want the best quality even if it requires extra care/work then I would recommend the Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II   

If you need a lens that is able to be more flexible, such as faster focusing or using it indoors in tighter spaces, outdoor groups or with less working distance then I would recommend the Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L

The 50 and 85 offer very similar "bokeh monster" "looks" but the 85 is sharper w/ better bokeh - though also larger, not weather sealed, focus by wire, heavier, slower focusing, requires more working distance, and much greater care in mounting on camera compared to the 50L.  The 200L f/2L IS is excellent too, but very expensive and a headshot or outdoors only lens. If I were able to finance it, I'd own all three! :)  135L is a good value but I do not like it due to the angular bokeh ball highlights when stopped down.

Generally distortion is not an issue at 50mm+ unless you are using the whole frame for a headshot, in which case 135mm+ is optimal. 85mm won't be as bad for headshots as 50mm, but its not ideal either.  85 works great for shoulders up shots.

Image Stabilization I find is most useful at 100mm+, as I generally keep the camera at no less than shutter speed 1/125 to avoid motion blur.

So, in summary, if you have good control over the situation, good working distance, can take the time to do very careful lens swaps, and don't need fast focus then the 85L II will deliver the best portraits.  If you need something that is a bit more flexible both in focal length/speed and does not require as much TLC, the 50L looks great too but not quite as good as the 85L II.

11
Lenses / Re: Something with 50mm L lens that make it different
« on: July 20, 2014, 03:45:14 PM »
No one took the challenge because it is meaningless. It is like trying to compare two sets of speakers using entirely different songs.  You could mix in the Otus, Noctilux, and nifty fifty and get great pictures all around as like I said earlier diminishing returns are there.  Without the same scene and lighting comparing lenses is pointless as you don't know how much more appealing it could have looked.

side by side the differences are there as outlined above; whether you appreciate them or not is a different story.

That is misdirection of the worst sort. There are so many claims the lens has a "unique", "special", "distinct" look that those distinctions should be readily apparent in images, but clearly they are not. We don't shoot images with two same focal length lenses then ask the client which they prefer, we shoot what are hopefully compelling images with the lenses we have. That a particular image might have had fractionally different oof blur, less dof etc if it were shot with another lens is moot if you can't tell which was used anyway. Compelling images with minimal dof and very smooth oof blur can be shot with three of the Canon 50's and the Sigma's. Digital post processing clouds old film lens characteristics like contrast and colour such that they are irrelevant too, add in this weeks favourite post process and the differences become undetectable even by "experts".

As I have consistently said, there are good reasons for choosing one lens over another, even the 1.2L, but lets stop the bull about unique look when nobody can actually back it up.

For the Nth time, I agree more expensive gear has diminishing returns - but posting random images taken with each lens without the same scene/lighting on other lenses really does mean nothing.  For instance, you can shoot a $350 Canon 50mm f/1.4 wide open and have some spectacular images... But would they have looked *more* unique/better/etc on the Canon 1.2 at f/1.2 or f/1.4?  Without the comparative image, you have no reference point and thus it means nothing other than cheap lenses can take good photos (which is a known fact).

I also think things like a "unique look" are not magic, but a blend of lens qualities that result in a pleasing image.  While I did not engineer the 50L, if I had to guess the qualities that cause this it would be:
1) Slim DOF possible with f/1.2
2) Enough spherical aberration to soften the image a bit and make it look more "dreamy," but not too much as to make it blurry.
3) Realistic color and contrast

I would argue that the basic tenets used when making the Sigma (f/1.4 + correct as much aberration as possible through retrofocal design) would reduce the ability to get "that look" that the 50L/85L have as consistently.  Not to say you can't make unique images with the Sigma as the f/1.4 does allow for some similar type shots, but if you compare to a 50L shot with the same lighting/same scene at f/1.2 there will be some differences - impossible for there not to be.  Will you care about or notice the differences? That depends on each person who looks at it.

Additionally, the 50% extra light f/1.2 offers over f/1.4 is most definitely useful and shouldn't be ignored. I had a 50L at a reception last night and it was pegged at 1.2 most of the time because I was able to keep the ISOs down quite low - only time I narrowed the aperture was when I was close up and needed more DOF.

12
Lenses / Re: Something with 50mm L lens that make it different
« on: July 20, 2014, 11:32:21 AM »
No one took the challenge because it is meaningless. It is like trying to compare two sets of speakers using entirely different songs.  You could mix in the Otus, Noctilux, and nifty fifty and get great pictures all around as like I said earlier diminishing returns are there.  Without the same scene and lighting comparing lenses is pointless as you don't know how much more appealing it could have looked.

side by side the differences are there as outlined in my previous post; whether you appreciate them or not is a different story.

13
Lenses / Re: Something with 50mm L lens that make it different
« on: July 20, 2014, 09:40:06 AM »
Sorry, it is reserved for f/1.2 and faster lenses only ;)

Sorry, mythbuster alert.

Since when was the Sigma 50 being incapable of f/1.2 a myth?

He was making the point (successfully, I might add) that most can't tell the difference between the Canon 1.2 and most other 50mm lenses in just about all real-world and practical situations. All that "wow it's just so different" bla bla is usually post-hoc judgement once a person knows what lens created the image.

Then, those "most" aren't looking very closely.

If you are trying to argue there are diminishing returns the more expensive the glass gets, then yes, this is true.  Even the $99 50mm f/1.8 can put out some fantastic images.

But, the statement that the Sigma 50 1.4 / Canon 50L look the same is blatantly false.  When put side-by-side, there are several areas that are immediately noticeable.  First, the obvious, the Sigma has less depth of field control as f/1.4 can't render DOF as thin as f/1.2; this is very basic physics that no amount of downplaying can counter.  Second, the Sigma has a strong red push; some may like this, personally I think they make the pictures look less realistic and oversaturated.  Third, the Canon 50 intentionally has more uncorrected spherical aberration, as lens designers have found this leads to more pleasing bokeh; the Sigma 50 instead corrects these aberrations as this looks better on a test chart. Fourth, the Canon 50 can allow in 50% more light for better ISO performance in low light than the Sigma 50 (again physics). Then there are of course intangibles, but there is no point in going there in terms of this debate.

If you want the best bang per buck, the Canon lenses under $400 are hard to beat.  But, some think it is worth it for the rendition the more expensive L lenses offer.  What stop you get off on the "good enough" train is purely a personal or professional choice.

14
Lenses / Re: Something with 50mm L lens that make it different
« on: July 18, 2014, 02:26:09 PM »
Sorry, it is reserved for f/1.2 and faster lenses only ;)

Sorry, mythbuster alert.

Since when was the Sigma 50 being incapable of f/1.2 a myth?

15
Lenses / Re: Something with 50mm L lens that make it different
« on: July 18, 2014, 02:12:04 PM »
It has a timeless rendition to it that you cannot explain with an MTF chart or sharpness test.


I love that phrase!  Mind if I use it in the Sigma 50 classic cult?

Join the cult here:  http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=21328.0


Sorry, it is reserved for f/1.2 and faster lenses only ;)

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 36