July 25, 2014, 05:19:03 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 - Ruined

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 36
1
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 na├»ve 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.

2
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.

3
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.

4
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.

5
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.

6
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.

7
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?

8
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 ;)

9
Lenses / Re: Something with 50mm L lens that make it different
« on: July 18, 2014, 01:16:25 PM »
Yes, the 50L is my favorite lens. It has a timeless rendition to it that you cannot explain with an MTF chart or sharpness test.

10
Lenses / Re: Year of the lens....a joke....?
« on: July 16, 2014, 06:43:44 AM »
I could see realistically:

100-400L IS II + 7d2 before photokina,

then announced at photokina:
35mm f/1.4L II
50mm f/1.8 IS
85mm f/1.8 IS
135mm f/2L II
New FF body, maybe

Count me in for 35mm f1.4 II. You forgot IS on 135mm ;)

it is possible, though Canon hasn't published patents for a 135mm with IS faster than f/2.8 .

11
Lenses / Re: Year of the lens....a joke....?
« on: July 16, 2014, 06:42:13 AM »
I could see realistically:

100-400L IS II + 7d2 before photokina,

then announced at photokina:
35mm f/1.4L II
50mm f/1.8 IS
85mm f/1.8 IS
135mm f/2L II
New FF body, maybe

I remember asking you before:
What would you expect of a 35/1.4 II and a 135/2 II?
Do you think Canon will produce a v2 just to include weather sealing and curved aperture blades? I doubt it.
I can't imagine what else could be improved significantly.
I hope Canon decides to go for a 85/1.4 instead of a 85/1.8 IS. I want it so much...

Canon has plenty of lenses they have released a version 2 of that had IQ upgrades without deviating from the basic focal length/speed of the original.  I think the most recent prime was the 24mm f/1.4L II.

So yes, curved aperture blades, weather sealing, new coatings, and any other new optical formulas they were able to come up with. Also, more radically it is possible they could release a 135/1.8 or 135/2 IS.

The 85mm f/1.2L II is universally acclaimed, but I could see a 85 1.4 - just not anytime remotely soon.  Recall that the 50mm f/1.0L had a similar design to the 85mm f/1.2l II, and it was replaced by the 1.2 that eliminated focus by wire, less fragile rear element, sharper, smaller, lighter, less flare and faster focusing.   But, for now I think the 85mm 1.8 IS is more realistic to replace the 85 1.8.

12
Lenses / Re: Year of the lens....a joke....?
« on: July 15, 2014, 07:51:23 PM »
I could see realistically:

100-400L IS II + 7d2 before photokina,

then announced at photokina:
35mm f/1.4L II
50mm f/1.8 IS
85mm f/1.8 IS
135mm f/2L II
New FF body, maybe

13
Lenses / Re: Year of the lens....a joke....?
« on: July 15, 2014, 07:23:58 PM »
Photokina is where the big announcements will happen, that is how it usually goes at least.

14
Software & Accessories / Re: To filter or not to filter
« on: July 14, 2014, 04:19:37 PM »
Generally a filter at all times except when shooting the moon, try to put only one filter on at a time if possible.

15
Thanks for all of your replies.

I do plan on going full frame in the future (within two years), so that makes the choice of lenses more complicated.

I do like how Ew mentioned that the environment I shoot in should be considered. That never crossed my mind.  I live near Atlanta, so that's where I do most of my street. I think I'll rent both and see which one I like most.

Another thing to note with these lenses; due to their small size, both will make lighter aps-c cameras tip and sit unnaturally on the edge of the lens.  But, with the hood attached this problem goes away entirely; so it is definitely worth buying the hood for these.

If you are renting primarily to test focal length, you might want to save yourself a few bucks and force yourself to shoot at 24mm and 28mm for a day each on your 17-40 to get an idea what focal length works best for you.

Also, FYI, in the focal length you are looking at (24-28mm) I have owned the following, the ones in bold/italics are the ones I still own currently:
EF 24mm f/1.4L II USM
EF 24mm f/2.8 IS USM
EF 28mm f/2.8 IS USM
EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM
EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM
EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM
EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM


Ironically, I no longer own either of the ones you are looking at, but that is mainly due to selling my crop camera and acquiring the 24L, but I did put in time with each of them in FF & APS-C.  Of all of these I've owned, the most underwhelming were the two EF-S lenses.  The 17-55 was fast but the color/contrast seemed poor to me; the 18-135 was a nice focal range but just too slow. 

I actually miss the feel and focal length of the 28mm f/2.8 IS on APS-C; it is such a nice fit for a small camera for street photography; some of my best shots on APS-C were with the 28 f/2.8 IS.  But, it is hard to justify owning on FF when a 24+35 offers much more optical variety than a 28 alone - and I can't really think of a situation on FF where you'd want to take a 28 prime over a 24 or 35; on FF, most of my street photog is with the 35mm f/2 IS or 50L.  Also, while the 24mm f/2.8 IS is one of the best landscape primes Canon makes (IMO better than the 24L), I mainly do events and portraiture where the higher speed of the 24L is frequently needed.  But, the 28mm IS is a nice little lens that approaches the size of the 40mm pancake, while the 24mm IS is just a bit too long to be considered truly compact.

Another option - if you don't do much landscape - is to simply buy the 28mm f/2.8 IS for your crop, then sell it and keep the 17-40 for landscape when you go full frame (or upgrade the 17-40L to the new 16-35 f/4L IS).  If you are into street photography, neither the 24/28 will be best for that on FF - probably better off with a 35mm f/2 IS USM at the very widest (which will give similar FOV to 24mm on crop). One of the best pictures street photog pictures I've ever taken was on the 35mm f/2 IS USM on a 6D - and that lens is very optically similar to the 24/28, just a stop faster.

Also as someone else noted, using the lens at 1/100-1/125 minimum shutter speed is crucial to prevent motion blur if you are taking pictures of people, at which point IS will become less needed due to the fast shutter on a shorter focal length.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 36