July 31, 2014, 09:08:40 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 - Phenix205

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 8
1
Canon General / Re: What is your Least Used Piece of Gear?
« on: Today at 01:48:01 PM »
100 2.8L Macro and EOS-M (and associated lenses and accessories)

I only use the 100 for macro although I bought it for portrait. It is just not as good as the 70-200 II for portrait.

I never liked the M. The combination of M and 100 for macro is pretty good. I just used it yesterday to shoot a footage when a beekeeper came over to remove a huge honeybee hive.

2
Lenses / Canon Wide-Angle Zoom Comparison by Roger Cicala
« on: July 30, 2014, 12:56:38 PM »
I've been waiting for Roger's testing for a few weeks. It's finally here.

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2014/07/canon-wide-angle-zoom-comparison

Quote: "I set a high bar for new Canon lenses. I expect them to be excellent and generally their recent releases have been. Since this was a wide-angle zoom, though, my expectations were lowered a bit. Canon has always struggled with wide-angle zooms. The 17-40 is a good, not great lens. The 16-35 f/2.8 II is better than the Mk I replaced, but I’d consider it, at best, adequate considering its price.

The 16-35 f/4 IS changes that. It’s a superb optic — as good as anything else available. Of course, a lot of people want an f/2.8 zoom. But for many, like me, f/4 with IS is just fine for wide-angle shooting."

3
Lenses / Re: Selling my two Zeiss lenses. Your advice?
« on: July 27, 2014, 09:59:20 AM »
I'd sell the 35 and 135 and keep the 15. For wide angle landscape, I don't see the need of AF. Plus it is wider than the 16-35 IS.

I don't see much use of 35 1.4 under manual focus mode unless you are using it for astrophotography. If you use 135 mostly for tripod portraits, AF may not matter but I don't see how practical it is while hand holding shooting people who may move (such as kids).

Video is totally different story. I'd keep them all for video.

4
Third Party Manufacturers / Sigma 50 1.4 Art NOT bokehlicious?
« on: July 26, 2014, 08:16:57 AM »
Kai at digitalrev published his hands-on review video. Lack of beautiful bokeh at 1.4 seems to be a weak point of this lens, based on Kai. I was wondering what other users think of it.
http://www.digitalrev.com/article/sigma-50mm-f-1-4/MjQ3MTQwNjA2

5
I have been having good experience selling on CL. As long as your asking price is reasonable (I typically ask for 85%-90% of the new item price depending on how long I have had the item for), it is usually sold within a week to fellow enthusiasts or professional photographers. I also often lower the price by another 10-20 bucks when the buyer is serious. To me, selling it quickly and starting enjoying the new lens is more fun than posting the item around. Good luck.

6
Lenses / Re: Flex Lens Shade
« on: July 15, 2014, 09:19:06 PM »
Looks flimsy to me.  I have some rogue flash benders for my flashes (similar idea) and they are a pain to use. Why you would want this functionality in a hood is beyond me

It does look flimsy. Never meant to be a protective tool of course. I do see the value of cutting off the flare.

7
Lenses / Flex Lens Shade
« on: July 15, 2014, 06:16:38 PM »
I upgraded my polarizer and ND filters to 82mm when I purchased the 24-70 II two years ago, expecting to use them on a 24 TS-E or Zeiss 21. Now that I have the fantastic 16-35 4L IS for landscape, I'm not sure if I will ever buy either of the two lenses. 82mm filters on the 16-35 IS are great because I can stack them without having any vignetting issue even at 16mm, but I can't use the lens hood any more.

I searched on line and found this: http://www.flexlensshade.com/. I was wondering if any one has used this and what your experience is. Any other suggestions are very welcome too.

8
Software & Accessories / Re: Rain protection for 5D3 and lens
« on: July 14, 2014, 09:24:13 PM »
I bought this rubber mask for some degree of protection but mainly  to avoid scratching. It seals some of the buttons so I assume that it will help to keep some moisture/water out.
Looks nice. I guess one just needs to make sure to drain the water in case it gets in. Trapped water may do more damage.

9
Lenses / Re: UV filter on the new 16-35 f/4?
« on: July 13, 2014, 11:11:25 AM »
This is entertaining. It all started with a student who genuinely was seeking advice. Then there were clowns, professors, associate professors, fake professors, kids who hate professors. We all know in the end the true knowledge prevails.

10
Software & Accessories / Re: Sub $1000 27" monitor for photo editing
« on: July 13, 2014, 08:58:19 AM »
Thank you all. It appears that NEC, Eizo, and Dell are the top brands for this price range. The pricing for Eizo CX271 is not yet available. Will wait a little and see.

11
Lenses / Re: UV filter on the new 16-35 f/4?
« on: July 12, 2014, 07:54:23 AM »
I found that I've had a polarizer on this lens 90% of the time for landscaping since I got it three weeks ago. So I essentially am using the polarizer as the protective filter and only use a UV filter during low light shooting.

12
Software & Accessories / Sub $1000 27" monitor for photo editing
« on: July 11, 2014, 09:24:13 PM »
Any recommendations? I just bought a Spyder4Pro calibration kit. I used to use a Sony XBR6 52" TV for some casual shot editing, but wanted to do more serious editing for landscape. Thanks!

13
Photography Technique / Re: 85 vs 135 for portraits
« on: July 09, 2014, 06:26:29 AM »
I checked the focal lengths I shot at the most using 70-200 and found that I had either shot near the long end or below 90 and that 's when I decided to get an 85. I like to be closer to my Subject.

14
Photography Technique / Re: 85 vs 135 for portraits
« on: July 09, 2014, 12:33:00 AM »
The upcoming Sigma 85 1.4 A could become a serious contender to Canon's king of portrait.

15
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 16-35 F/4L IS -- Reviews are trickling in...
« on: July 06, 2014, 10:06:38 PM »
Can we just call it a really good lens? Good enough to take amazing photos. And you can get bad shots too if you take a bad photo.
I have compared it to my 24-70 II, 24L, TS-E 17, and TS-E 24 II and it's every bit as sharp as those lenses, with the exception of the TS-E 24 and the 24-70II @ 35mm.  At f/11 they are all pretty close, though I'd give the 16-35 f/4 IS & 24-70II the edge in color and contrast.  Really.  The corners are MUCH sharper than the 16-35 f/2.8 II that I sold in part because CA is almost non-existent.  Distortion isn't great at 16mm, but I'm sure DxO & Adobe will take care of that soon.  The IS is very odd because you can't see the effect like you do with an unwieldy telephoto, but I think it will be a great travel/walkaround lens.

I'll put together the photos in the coming days (both brick wall & real-world shots) for everyone to take a look at.

Really looking forward to your photos. I'm particularly interested in your comparison between the 16-35 4L and the 24 TS-E as I was seriously considering the latter before the former was announced. Thanks.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 8