July 30, 2014, 08:36:58 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 - RLPhoto

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 220
1
Canon General / Re: What do you Cheap Out On?
« on: July 29, 2014, 12:04:52 AM »
1. TriggerTrap App + Dongle
2. Flash bracket
3. I own a D30.  :P

2
Lenses / Re: Canon 24-70 f/4L IS disappointing?
« on: July 29, 2014, 12:01:44 AM »
It shouldn't be that unsharp buts it's no surprise you find the lens disappointing. For the same price, you can get the better sigma 24-105 or a Tamron 24-70 VC. I can see the f4L version being a value until it's sub-800$.

The better sigma 24-105????????

The sigma is larger and heaver than the 24-70 II! And, other than right at f/4, it's performance isn't that far off the 24-105L!
Right because at 5.6-f/8 all lenses look sharp. So being able to shoot wide open sharp photos matters more with a slower lens like 24-105's because you'll be there more often.

It still makes the 24-70 F/4L look like an overpriced toyota at it's current price.

No, all lenses do not look sharp at f/5.6-f/8. Compare a 75-300 IS to a 70-300L at even f/8. Compare a 24-105 at 24mm f/8 to 24 1.4 II or 24-70 II or 24-70 f/4 IS. And contrast and longitudinal CA and distortion and such can vary too even stopped down.

The Sigma barely costs more than reasonable street price of the 24-70 f/4 IS (I see it on sale for $999 all the time and a couple times for $950).
Doesn't change a single thing I mentioned in my comment because the sigma is still the better lens for cheaper and the 24-105L is cheaper lens for about the same IQ. I found my Tamron 24-70 VC for 800$! Does that mean anything? No but that not as important as I can find 24-105L's for 500$ too.

I didn't mean to offend but the 24-70 F/4L is overpriced.

3
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Fun Arias rant on APS-C vs. FF
« on: July 28, 2014, 09:50:04 PM »
I moved to 645 MF digital.  :P

4
1. The Moon.
2. The Alps.
3. Bill Murray's House.

5
Lenses / Re: Canon 24-70 f/4L IS disappointing?
« on: July 28, 2014, 08:58:51 PM »
It shouldn't be that unsharp buts it's no surprise you find the lens disappointing. For the same price, you can get the better sigma 24-105 or a Tamron 24-70 VC. I can see the f4L version being a value until it's sub-800$.

The better sigma 24-105????????

The sigma is larger and heaver than the 24-70 II! And, other than right at f/4, it's performance isn't that far off the 24-105L!
Right because at 5.6-f/8 all lenses look sharp. So being able to shoot wide open sharp photos matters more with a slower lens like 24-105's because you'll be there more often.

It still makes the 24-70 F/4L look like an overpriced toyota at it's current price.

I have to say I ruled out the Sigma 24-105 largely on grounds of size and weight.  If I'm going to carry something like that, I'd be saving for the 24-70 2.8L II.  For my purposes the aim of using an f/4 zoom is to trade aperture for size/weight savings, so if the extra focal length was really important to me I'd still be looking at the Canon 24-105 4L over the Sigma even if the Sigma is (may be?) a little sharper.

As for the Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC, I did consider it.  For some reason I couldn't get excited enough about it to want to carry the extra size/weight anyway.   I'm not trying to be critical of it - my only real "complaint" about its IQ is the onion ring bokeh (I reckon my old Sigma 24-70 2.8 HSM was a step up for bokeh, if not sharpness), but query if that would make any difference to me in real life (as against when pixel-peeping at 1:1).  Anyway, I just didn't get excited about it so I didn't go down that path.

I admit I haven't looked really closely at the Sigma 24-105 (as I say, the size/weight issue was enough to put me off it - for my uses) but I wonder if you're being a little harsh on the 24-70 4L IS.  It seems like a good copy is pretty darn good - but the issue is getting a good copy.

I was simply stating that any of those lenses would be a wiser choice unless you absolutely needed whatever little benefit the 24-70 F/4L has. 24-105L, Sigma 24-105L, or Tamron 24-70 VC. Doesn't matter but until canon wakes up and lowers the price on it, You won't see the 24-70 F/4L thread get very much bigger.

It's only gripe is the price, but otherwise a decent replacement for the 24-105L. I'd be all over that 24-70 F/4L @ 799 like peanut butter to a jelly sandwich.

6
Lenses / Re: New Canon L Primes, but Not Until 2015 [CR2)
« on: July 28, 2014, 08:52:52 PM »
I know what prime I want.  ::)

7
Lenses / Re: Canon 24-70 f/4L IS disappointing?
« on: July 27, 2014, 10:03:28 PM »
It shouldn't be that unsharp buts it's no surprise you find the lens disappointing. For the same price, you can get the better sigma 24-105 or a Tamron 24-70 VC. I can see the f4L version being a value until it's sub-800$.

The better sigma 24-105????????

The sigma is larger and heaver than the 24-70 II! And, other than right at f/4, it's performance isn't that far off the 24-105L!
Right because at 5.6-f/8 all lenses look sharp. So being able to shoot wide open sharp photos matters more with a slower lens like 24-105's because you'll be there more often.

It still makes the 24-70 F/4L look like an overpriced toyota at it's current price.

8
Lenses / Re: Canon 24-70 f/4L IS disappointing?
« on: July 27, 2014, 08:28:36 AM »
It shouldn't be that unsharp buts it's no surprise you find the lens disappointing. For the same price, you can get the better sigma 24-105 or a Tamron 24-70 VC. I can see the f4L version being a value until it's sub-800$.

9
Lenses / Re: Help me to decide: 35 vs 50mm
« on: July 27, 2014, 12:07:44 AM »
35mm is more useful for general purpose shooting but at the expense of portraits. The 50mm is a flip side of that.

10
Lenses / Re: Question for Canon 50mm 1.2 lens Owners
« on: July 26, 2014, 08:54:38 PM »
I have no such issue and I use the 50L alot. It might be a mashed/broken locking tab.

11
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Review: Zeiss 135mm f/2 APO Sonnar T*
« on: July 26, 2014, 07:17:25 PM »
If only Zeiss made AF Canon lenses.  :P


I think I can safely say that all of us agree with you on that point.  This lens with AF and IS would be worth $3000+.  It is crazy good optically.


You could just buy an a99, or A7R and E4 adapter paired with the Sony 135 sonnar f.18 and have AF

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/463924-REG/Sony_SAL135F18Z_SAL_135F18Z_135mm_f_1_8_Carl.html

$1700


That 135mm F/1.8 w/ In-body IS makes me jealous everytime I see one. I wish canon would update the 135L to that lens so I can finally put to rest my desire/Un-desire to own a 70-200II.


I've read the 135mm f/1.8 isn't as good optically as the Sonnar.  I've not used the lens, though, so I don't know that firsthand.

The Sony isn't as good as the zeiss but it sure makes the 135L look dated. F/1.8 and IS makes the 70-200s completely irrelevant for me and I'd never have to own one. The 135L needs an update alongside the 100-400L. Then I can finally have my Uber prime I've been staring at on the sony.

12
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Review: Zeiss 135mm f/2 APO Sonnar T*
« on: July 26, 2014, 01:22:29 PM »
If only Zeiss made AF Canon lenses.  :P


I think I can safely say that all of us agree with you on that point.  This lens with AF and IS would be worth $3000+.  It is crazy good optically.


You could just buy an a99, or A7R and E4 adapter paired with the Sony 135 sonnar f.18 and have AF

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/463924-REG/Sony_SAL135F18Z_SAL_135F18Z_135mm_f_1_8_Carl.html

$1700


That 135mm F/1.8 w/ In-body IS makes me jealous everytime I see one. I wish canon would update the 135L to that lens so I can finally put to rest my desire/Un-desire to own a 70-200II.

13
Lenses / Re: How many years before we see a 50L II
« on: July 26, 2014, 01:01:16 PM »
The part about loving it because good focus is rare and hard to achieve is a masterpiece in spin doctoring. :)

Beautifully put.

But this is why the 50L is such a divisive lens; some people by nature have an optimistic outlook and concentrate on the times that the AF hits, others dwell on the failures. Glass half full / half empty.

Next 50mm will be the 50mm f/1.8 IS.

I agree, I think that will be the next 50mm we see from Canon.

I dearly hope the First Sub-F/2 IS lens is not a 50mm. More specifically a Longer short tele in mind...

14
I discovered something really cool today. I was shooting some Fracking platforms and noticed how bad the heat shimmer is here during the summer. Unfortunately, a Daytime shot was required and the simmer was making it difficult to use longer lenses to flatten the subject against the sky.

[...]

Thanks for sharing your observations!

Years ago I observed that 1/400 second gave me much more detail than 1/30 second exp time - o.k., I had some shimmer showing regions of much detail, some regions blurred but the impression was as sharper image overall. 1/30 second integrated sharp and blurred regions into a mushy overall experience. But I have NOT tried to exaggerate exp time beyond a second.
Focal length was 640mm equiv. - I set my 40D to ISO 1600 to reduce exp time despite ISO 1600 for a 40D is its outer limit quality wise.

Your example shows - IMO - the same detail in both shots but the 30 second shot is undistorted which makes it more attractive. One remark: The left shot seems to be in full sunlight, the right shot doesn't show the bright contrasty light - was that caused by the 30 second exposure or did you have changing light?

Thanks again - Michael

The light did shift during the Long exposure and the crops I posted were Unedited. Here was after few edits in and you can see the Long exposure has less contrast from the shifting sky. I did use a polarizer on both shots.

15
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Review: Zeiss 135mm f/2 APO Sonnar T*
« on: July 26, 2014, 10:32:34 AM »
If only Zeiss made AF Canon lenses.  :P

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 220