September 02, 2014, 03:24:58 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 - JohnDizzo15

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 26
Lenses / Re: Sigma 35 Art vs EF 35 IS in real life
« on: September 01, 2014, 06:10:12 PM »

Thanks John - this is a great answer to my question even before I finished typing!

No prob. Glad I could help.

Lenses / Re: Sigma 35 Art vs EF 35 IS in real life
« on: September 01, 2014, 04:28:28 PM »
I currently own both and continue to use them respectively for varying purposes.

IMHO, it really is dependent upon how you shoot and the look you are going for most of the time. I know a lot of guys that love being able to shoot at wide open and super fast all the time. If you happen to be one of those guys, the 35/2 IS is not going to give that to you. That being said, f2 is plenty fast for most applications and the IS allows you to shoot at super slow shutter speeds handheld which is always awesome.

Being able to shoot at 1.4 and remain sharp is really about the absolute only reason you would want the sigma over the canon (albeit a major reason for many including myself).

Otherwise, during regular usage, the canon is definitely easier to use and yields a much higher percentage of keepers than the sigma (in my experience).

The canon has proven to be much more consistent in all conditions with regard to AF and keeper rate. The IS has allowed me to shoot as slow as 1/10th. Optics are updated and very good. Plenty sharp at f2. Super light and compact. Cheaper. 

But I remind you, f2 is not 1.4 (obviously). So if you liked shooting at 1.4 for a significant portion of your images, know that f2 in most of those same shooting instances will not be shallow looking enough for you. Otherwise, I think you are making the right decision in the swap.

Lenses / Re: 100mm 2.8 vs 85mm 1.8
« on: August 08, 2014, 06:27:53 PM »
i'm not... i'm just giving my thought process and seeing what options are... he didn't recommend the 1.8 but said it would be better to save up for the 1.2...  i was just justifying why i didn't think the 1.2 would be a good choice as far as value and quality... thats all.  From what i've seen the 1.2, when it does get a great in focus shot, it is really hard to beat... but getting to that shot, for a working photographer on a budget, just doesn't seem worth it, dontcha think?

Not sure what keeper rates most people are getting. But I generally had a pretty high keeper rate with the 85II on my 5D3 either wide open for very close to it. When properly calibrated, there is no reason why the keeper rate should be so low that it would be an issue for a paid photographer.

I have owned the 85/1.8 as well as the 85II and 100L currently. There are obviously many variants with regard to shooting types and scenarios. For me, I would have chosen the 100L over the 85/1.8 any day of the week if we are talking relatively static subject portraits. The aberrations present in the 85/1.8 were plenty and not always that easy to get rid of in post when shooting wide open. Yes, it was decently sharp, but IQ in general was worse than the 100L which btw has IS that more than compensates for the real advantage of the 85/1.8.

If you want what looks vastly different, the 85II or possibly the Sigma 85/1.4 are it. What isn't anything to write home about when it comes to portraiture is the 85/1.8. Is it good enough? For most people, probably. Is it what you want? I have an odd feeling you are definitely trying to convince yourself that the 85II isn't worth it while knowing inside that it is what you ultimately want.

Trust me, 85II on a 5D3 works just fine with regard to AF for portraiture. Don't let that be a reason you choose to go with the 1.8. If the cost is too prohibitive, then fine. But don't try to convince yourself that the 85II isn't worth the money for most of the people that own it because of what "some" people have mumbled on the interwebs.

EOS Bodies / Re: 5Diii vs Sony A7s vs GH4
« on: August 08, 2014, 03:27:18 PM »
@sdsr - only manual focus for anything I've adapted so far. Only tried the AF for curiosity's sake.

Regarding the vibration, I don't know that it is necessarily just the shutter or if it is merely one part of the cause. I just know I'm having issues with what appears to be slight motion blur even when my shutter speed is super fast on static subjects.

EOS Bodies / Re: 5Diii vs Sony A7s vs GH4
« on: August 07, 2014, 05:00:15 PM »
@ Dylan - Agreed, something wide would have definitely been nice to have at the outset.

@ sdsr - Glad you have gotten good results out of the combo. I agree with you that when you are able to get a usable shot with an adapted EF lens, the extra resolution and DR are nice to have. However, the process and frequency I have experienced with regard to getting keepers has been rough. The bumps in those two departments are insignificant when the shots riddled with blur from shake.

For instance, I took about 150 shots with the 85II mounted yesterday. My hope was to be able to get good results at wide open or close to. However, this was not the case. I've had a lot of problems not getting camera shake/blur even at faster shutter speeds than I would normally use. The other problem is with when I would frame the subject away from the center. It was impossible to get anything sharp between (what the camera showed) f1.3-1.7. In the center, it was okay and good enough at times. But for the most part, I was underwhelmed and thoroughly disappointed with anything out of the dead center of the frame. Things started to get acceptable around 2.8 which is definitely not where I wanted to shoot with the 85.

Regarding shutter speed, I was shooting in the backyard at no less than 1/400 and still got plenty of shake/motion blur on a relatively static subject. Not exactly sure what is causing it. But I do have my suspicions about the adapter, weight of the body, and shutter mechanism.

EOS Bodies / Re: 5Diii vs Sony A7s vs GH4
« on: August 07, 2014, 04:12:14 PM »
Adapting third party lenses sounds great in theory. But in all reality, it pretty much sucks compared to having native glass. I bought the A7r knowing that there would be some losses with the gains.

After having attempted to use basically every piece of Canon glass I own on the Sony, I have found that the IQ is just not where I imagined it would be. However, when I mount the native 55mm, IQ is pretty darn good and I don't believe the lack of performance is any fault of the Canon glass.

My belief is that the issues are caused by having to add a piece of hardware (adapter) in between the body and the lens which leaves a lot of room for variance and play. The other issue is the way the sensor is set up in the A7r body. The EF lenses were simply not designed to work optimally in this scenario (distances, tolerances, etc). Whereas when I mount the Zeiss 55, I know that it was designed specifically for the FE mount bodies and microlenses which translates into much better IQ.

Prior to the A7r, I had already experienced issues with lens adaptation as I have used many M42 screw mount lenses on my Canon bodies. Many of those same issues have manifested themselves with the A7r + EF lens combos.

There may be a small segment of users out there that have gotten the perfectly crafted adapter that causes only minimal degradation, but my belief is that that segment is truly minority.

Furthermore, simply enabling AF and saying you've accomplished the ability to retain most features is not the same as actually making the lenses anywhere near as usable as in their native mounts. Don't be fooled for one second that you will be able to AF EF lenses on any of the Sony bodies in any real world situation where your subject is not lifeless.

IMO, the AF retention feature is a mere gimmick to get our attention and I'm certain less than a ball hair of a fraction of the people adapting EF lenses are bothering with it vs just manually focusing.

I suppose my point is that while it is great that Sony is encouraging the use of adapted glass, the actual reality of the experience is trash (on the average) which means they still need to start producing some of their own quality lenses in FE mount.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: A7r Arrived - Meeting New Buddies
« on: August 05, 2014, 03:26:16 PM »
On another note, has anyone else noticed that the colors straight out of camera are not all that great (especially when moving up the ISO ladder)?

I am also finding that the color on a fair number of the files I get to be a little more difficult to manipulate to a point I am content with. Color in general, I have found is not the best with the Sony.

To make matters worse, the auto white balance is by far the weakest I have experienced with any camera I have owned or currently own. This only makes matters worse when trying to work with the color in the files afterward.

Was also thinking that this may be a symptom of me already being used to Canon and Fuji files in post. But something about these Sony files still makes me feel as though there is more labor in post to get them to look the way I want.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: A7r Arrived - Meeting New Buddies
« on: August 05, 2014, 03:18:47 PM »
It is in fact very rough around the edges. But for the time being, I feel that I have gotten a good grasp on what it's limitations are and where the strengths lie. Because of this, I have decided to keep it in the kit as the last piece to round out my needs.

With a native lens (55mm FE for me), I have been able to get very good results. It gets way clunkier when I adapt my EF glass. However, the IQ is great when shooting at lower ISOs and the manual focus aids are great which have made all my TSE shooting much more fun. On those few factors alone, it is a valuable piece of kit to me.

EOS Bodies / Re: here we come, 6d AF problems
« on: August 05, 2014, 03:13:45 PM »
AFMA. Do it now.  :)

I've owned both. IQ is not better in the 5D3 assuming you are able to get the shot as you intended. Assuming that calibration has been done, exposure is good, no motion blur and the focus hit, I actually prefer the files out of the 6D. The only reason I would go back to a 5D3 would be if the 6D AF was not good enough for me to get the shots I wanted. But if we are talking sheer IQ, I prefer the 6D by a smidge.

Lenses / Re: Help deciding on a macro lens
« on: August 05, 2014, 01:27:31 PM »
90mm TS-E is a great lens in its own right, and one that I would like to own one day, but the .29 magnification makes it much less compelling as a macro lens.

An EF 25 extension tube takes you to 0.6x mag, higher than the Zeiss macro you're considering.  Look back up at the numbers I provided above for DoF.  Depending on the subject, tilt can give you very deep DoF without resorting to apertures where diffraction robs you of sharpness.

Look at some tests (like TDP's ISO 12233 crops) for the Zeiss lens stopped way down to see the effects of diffraction.  The TS-E 90mm with the 25mm tube and 2x TC will deliver 1.2x magnification and on FF at f/8 will be sharper and have better contrast than the Zeiss 100mm macro stopped down to f/16.

I wouldn't discount the TS-E 90mm as a macro lens...there are very good reasons it's the lens of choice for product photography.

On the money as usual, Neuro.

Not sure what look you are wanting to accomplish with regard to macro. But as far as light gathering capability + the ability to achieve the DOF that you want, you can't beat the 90mm TSE. You will be able to shoot at 2.8 and still get most entire subjects in focus at maximum magnification which is impossible with any of the other lenses you are considering.

Generally speaking in my personal uses, I am shooting macro subjects at a downward angle. Depending on the size and positioning of the subject, F8 is still not enough a lot of the time. In those same scenarios, the 90mm TSE at 2.8 gets the job done.

Also, if you are looking for something that is versatile, the TSE is great as I have not only used it for macro, but portraiture and landscape as well.

Lenses / Re: Help deciding on a macro lens
« on: August 04, 2014, 03:50:49 PM »
Missed the whole food shooting follow-up. If that is the case, like sdsr said, you aren't really looking for a very large magnification macro.

I would definitely try renting the 90mm TSE. Lots more flexibility in focusing and opens up a lot of creative options especially if shooting food and portraits.

Lenses / Re: Help deciding on a macro lens
« on: August 04, 2014, 01:45:53 PM »
Hi everyone,

I'm a long time reader, first time poster and I'd really appreciate your help. I want to get into macro photography and I'm considering buying Carl Zeiss Makro-Planar T* 100/2 ZE. It seems to be optically superior to the Canon alternative and it also gives me one stop of light more than the Canon. I lack a dedicated portraiture lens above 50mm as well and the Zeiss seems to be a decent portrait lens (I own a Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS II L and I'm not certain whether Canon 100m 2.8 L would be any better than the zoom for portraits).

There are two obvious drawbacks, lack of AF and 0.5x magnification. I don't think the magnification will be a problem for me, but I'm not certain how important AF is in a macro lens. I'd be grateful for any advice and your experiences with different macro lenses.


If you plan on dual purposing the lens for portraiture, I would say nay on the Zeiss Makro unless you are insanely good at manual focusing. I had the same thought prior to picking up the 50mm Makro. While I have had success with it for portraiture, there are plenty of other options that make for a much easier time producing (other than macro) images.

Also, you may not mind the thought of not having at least a 1:2 magnification. But if you are going to be doing a decent amount of macro, I'm almost certain you'll end up realizing you want to get in closer in many instances.

I currently have the Zeiss 50/2 and 100L and find that they both serve their respective purposes. I think you'll find the 100L is much better for dual purposing.

+1 with re to what Neuro said about having the F2. When doing macro, it's very difficult to get a lot of things completely in focus since the DOF is so thin. I took a shot of a .223 round last night with the Zeiss 50/2 at F/8 at MFD and still had part of the bullet not completely in focus. I suppose though if you wanted to dual purpose the lens for portraiture, the F2 would be nice. But again, how good are your MF abilities?

IMO, if you really don't mind not having a true macro magnification, plan on using it for other purposes than macro, and are okay with manual focusing, take a look at the 90mm TSE. I often times use this for getting close-up macro type shots as it enables you to much more easily get a subject completely in focus. It only gives you a .29 mag. With an extension tube, it takes you to .43 which is just about on par with the Zeiss. If I had to pick one out of the three lenses I just named to keep, it would be the 90 TSE as there are plenty of other things you could do with it creatively as well (based on the parameters you have provided that is).

CamRanger. Problem solved and then some. Just have to pay.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: A7r Arrived - Meeting New Buddies
« on: July 28, 2014, 06:55:37 PM »
Surprisingly enough, it hasn't been as unbearable as I previously anticipated. I thought the files would be much larger.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: A7r Arrived - Meeting New Buddies
« on: July 28, 2014, 04:51:41 PM »
Cropped shot of SD.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 26