January 31, 2015, 08:44:23 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 - e17paul

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 17
1
I bought my 6D almost 2 years ago and would not change it for anything. However, I did rebuy the lens I got at the time, soon replacing the 50/18 with the 50/2.5 macro. I'm now tempted to rebuy again having tried a 50/1.4 and discovered that it focuses closer than a Canon claims.

I would replace the 24 IS with a different lens if rebuying. The 16-35/4 IS was not available then. I would also be tempted to replace the 70-300L with the 100-400L II if rebuying now. Again, it wasn't an option at the time. I chose the better IS in exchange for loss of reach compared to the original 100-400L.

There is always something better around the corner, even when you think not.

Am I safe to next add the 35/2 IS and 100L?

2
Lenses / Re: Upgrading lenses for college student
« on: January 25, 2015, 03:20:40 AM »
Thank you everyone for your comments and suggestions! I was able to read through all of them and have a lot to process on what I should do. Right now I am all of the place and am now considering a used 17-40 F/4 L or a used 24-105 F/4 L IS. I think the 17-40 would be better for me right now because I enjoy landscapes, however being at only F/4 scares me and think the IS would be a nice feature. After much research my end goal is the new 16-35 F/4 L IS, what a nice lens for a landscape photographer! However I can purchase the 17-40 for almost have the price used. Does anyone have any experience with any of these lenses? I like the prime ideas, however I fill it it a bit limited for and I may just keep it at the 50mm 1.8 for the time being. Again, thank you for your responses to my thread!

I have owned the 50/1.8, and replaced it with the 50/2.5 macro. This week I tried a 50/1.4 belonging to a colleague and was impressed. It also seems to focus significantly closer than the claimed 45cm.

If the 16-35/4L is your long term wish, then Mt Spokane's suggestion of the 18-55 STM might be the way to go now, releasing some budget for a better 50 (faster, better AF) that remains with you for the long term.

Alternatively to a 50, the newer 40 STM reviews well, as does the 24 STM. However, neither will give the degree of subject isolation that can be had from the 50 1.8 or 1.4

I appreciate the budget juggling dilemma. It never goes away, the numbers just get bigger when you go from a student budget to a wage earner's budget.

3
Lenses / Re: Prime vs zoom for landscape?
« on: January 25, 2015, 02:10:54 AM »
What do you guys prefer? The IQ of a prime is hard to beat, but the flexibility of a zoom seems more practical, especially since it's harder to zoom in and out w/ just your feet in the wilderness. Is the IQ of a wideangle prime worth it vs the flexibility of a wideangle zoom?

I have the 24/2.8 IS, which I'm happy with. It has great colour, great IQ generally and distortion is reasonable. The price is good too, it probably only lacks the weather sealing and greater selective focus offered by the 24/1.4L at twice the price. I quickly ruled out the 17-40/4L and 16-35/2.8L zooms based upon reviews.

But now there is the 16-35/4L. It gives me buyers remorse. It's reviews compare it's IQ to a prime, and it's sweet spot for distortion is at 24mm. That's probably what I would buy now. Weather sealing is included for a price slightly below the 24L prime, and it comes with the flexibility. Has anyone used both, to give more insight?

4
EOS Bodies / Re: 50mp Cameras Coming in March [CR1]
« on: January 24, 2015, 09:57:03 PM »
The real competitor for this camera will not be other full frame cameras, but the Pentax 645Z

5
Reviews / Re: Review of the Zeiss Makro-Planar T* 2/50 ZE
« on: January 19, 2015, 05:11:48 PM »
That's an excellent real world review. It doesn't help my wish list vs. budget situation. I use manual focus frequently and I think I could live without AF for the other times.

Now, if I buy one, Canon will launch a FF 50 or 60 with AF, IS and all the colour/sharpness qualities of their recent primes the following month. Maybe I'll go for the 35 IS first

6
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 400mm f/4 DO IS II USM Lens Review
« on: January 18, 2015, 03:33:09 AM »
Wow, the 400 f/2.8 seems to sell for a LOT less in Great Britain. The review's author states that the 400 f/2.8 is "slightly more expensive" than the 400 DO II, or $1164 US dollars more. But here in the US, the 400 f/2.8 is $3600 more than the 400 DO II, $10,499 vs $6899.

Photozone is based in Australia so far as I know, despite the German web domain.

7
I have owned the 50/1.8 II, it has great optics for the price, but so does the 40/2.8 STM according to reviews.

With a 6D, you will very rarely need the extra stop of light. I use f/2.8 and 1/30 at ISO 6400 for shooting in a nightclub once a month. Only if you are concerned about poster size printing of photos taken in darkness should you consider limiting yourself to a lower ISO, I'm happy with ISO 6400 for publishing on the web.

The only advantage I can see of the nifty fifty is the greater ability to isolate subjects by shallow focus. Otherwise, both have no focus scale, and I don't consider the wobbly focus ring of the 50 to be an advantage. Neither has super fast super silent USM, the 50 has a noisy AFD motor used by EF lenses since 1987, the 40 has a modern low cost quieter focus motor.

I bought a 50/1.8 with my first DSLR (my first SLR was back in 1988), and soon found the speed was not required. I sold it in favour of the slower 50/2.5 macro, which is my default street lens. When I need something wider I switch to the 24. I suspect that the colour rendition of the 40 will be better than older designs of Canon glass.

8
Canon General / Re: Canon Date codes gone? Why?
« on: January 13, 2015, 08:29:55 AM »
Once upon a time, in the days of paper records, a date code was the only easy way for Canon or a service centre to establish the date of production of a lens. Nowadays, with easy access to computer databases, any lens can be dated from its serial number. That could be why codes are no longer necessary for Canon.

However, it doesnt help us to know.

9
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Wait for 5D4 or go for 5D3/6D right now ?
« on: January 11, 2015, 10:52:14 AM »
You will not get a bad buy if you buy now. As and when new models arrive, they will be back up to launch price, far higher than the street price now. When I bought my 6D, I could have had a 5D2 discounted to the same price.

If you do wait, you may we'll find that the 6D2 is priced level with the 5D3 for similar spec, and the 5D4 is yet another step up the ladder. Buy now and enjoy!

10
EOS Bodies / Re: 2015 wishlist
« on: January 10, 2015, 03:38:30 AM »
A decent affordable ultra wide prime, wider than the 24 USM IS, better than the 20 USM, and cheaper than the 14L/17L. The Zeiss 18/3.5 proves it is possible.

11
Canon General / Re: New Gear Resolutions for 2015
« on: January 10, 2015, 02:55:14 AM »
I am fully spent out.

In 2013 I started with a 6D and 50/1.8, soon added two cheap zooms and a 15/2.8 fisheye. In 2014 I spent out on a month long trip to Oz, a 24 IS to partly replace the wide zoom, and a 70-300L to replace the telephoto zoom, and a new Mac for all the photos.

Edit: 15/2.8 macro corrected to fisheye. My mind had raced....

I can't help having regrets, even though both 2014 lense purchases are wonderful. I bought the 24 in preference to the zooms available at the time, then the 16-35/4 came along. I bought the 70-300L in preference to the original 100-400L, and now I keep gazing at the 100-400L II.

In 2015 I must stop having buyers remorse, go and take more photos, and spend more time with them on the Mac. So no new gear in 2015.

Maybe in 2016, when I have done that, I can fill in the lens gaps with a 35 IS, 100L, something wider than 24, and a Speedlite of some kind. I would also be tempted by an upgrade to the 50 macro.

12
Lenses / Re: 24mm - Digital Photography's magical focal length?
« on: January 05, 2015, 08:16:23 AM »

But I have a confession to make, I can't 'see' photography in 24mm and I think I'm losing out on what may be the most versatile focal length in digital photography. In fact, I would ask, is 24mm to digital photography what 35mm was to film?

24mm on a crop sensor is the approximate equivalent of 35mm on film or full frame. Most digital photography is crop (though that is not reflected on this forum), where 24mm gives a 38mm equivalent at 1.6x crop, and 36mm on 1.5x crop.

35mm not much wider than the believed human field of vision, and what I became used to with a compact 35mm camera as a teenager in the 1980s. Modern fixed focal length cameras tend to use a 35mm equivalent lens (eg. 23mm x 1.5 on the Fuji XT100), and the field of view that most of the 'non photographer' masses are used to on their phones is similar.

My 24mm and 50mm lenses always travel with my 6D, but sometimes I wonder if I should just have a 35mm lens. The fisheye and telephoto zoom only travel when I can foresee a need for them, or I am carrying full kit.

13
Photography Technique / Re: Your favorite f-number for landscape shots?
« on: December 28, 2014, 02:23:07 PM »
If lighting permits, I prefer aperture between F5.6 and F11 in most landscapes. Sometimes I wish my camera had also ISO 50, 25, 12 ...

I have some rolls of that in my fridge. Unfortunately the 25 and 12 is restricted to black and white. The colour ISO 50 is a new product (Cinestill 50) which I have yet to try out. Now all I need is a decent slide scanner, that should probably be a priority over lenses and lighting in my wish list.

14
Photography Technique / Re: Your favorite f-number for landscape shots?
« on: December 28, 2014, 02:15:06 PM »
- which focal length is used?
- APS or FF?
- is everything in the scene of equal importance or do some subjects stand out?

By tradition, I just use f8 and am done with it. That's because in the good ol' times, my lenses' best setting was f8, and I'm still fine with this very basic approach.

For most situations, f8 leaves some blur in the foreground, and also on the horizon if I'm focusing a bit nearer - to me, this looks more "natural" than infinity focus, after all the human eye has to focus somewhere, too. This excludes situations when I have to stop down to get two points to be in focus, or effect shots with focus stacking for a dof from from 1cm to the horizon.

Those are wise words. Only in our minds eye do we (given time to stand still) compose an 'everything in focus' image. At any given moment our own human lenses are only focussed at one distance.

15
I was at Disney yesterday and always notice the cameras being used. I was staggered at the number of people with big iPhone 6's and Samsung Galaxy's, and the images, and video, they were getting were great, in my party one person had an iPhone 6Plus.

I saw more Canon DSLR's than Nikon, though Disney use Nikon, and I saw a lot of interchangable lens mirrorless, but the phones vastly outnumbered all other cameras put together, and don't forget, for many people that was a once on a lifetime trip and they were very happy with their phones.

In 2011 old iPhone 4S effectively replaced my 2004 digital compact when I realised the phone was as good under most curcumstances. The only things it lacked were optical zoom and optical viewfinder. I felt the need for something better and more flexible, so bought a 6D and lenses for weekend shooting, and days when I plan to take photos. For event photos at a monthly meet I am involved in, nothing but the 6D and fast primes will do. The 6D supplements the OM-10 I bought second hand in 1988.

In 2014 I bought an iPhone 6, not for its camera, but it takes excellent photos if light is reasonable and zoom is not required. It is excellent within its limitations. I attach a test shot taken the day after purchase, especially taken with challenging contrast.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 17