March 03, 2015, 04:16:22 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 - ecka

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 50
1
Photography Technique / Re: POLL: Do you wide-screen frame/crop?
« on: February 22, 2015, 11:15:01 PM »
I stitch 16:10 (mostly for screen) or 2:1 or whatever works best, possibly 5:2 (like 10K+ by 4K+ in resolution).

2
Lenses / Re: Which Lens to buy for Portraits
« on: February 21, 2015, 03:18:27 PM »
The 85 1.8 seems like a good choice.

I had that lens and it was excellent. And if you're shooting primarily about f5.6 there's no need to even think about the pricey 1.2 version. At f5.6 one probably won't be able to tell much difference. The 100 f2 is great as well, but think you will find it a tad long on crop.

Frankly, same with the 70-200 series, if that interests you - the f4 version is significantly lighter, cheaper and for all intents and purposes, JUST AS SHARP as the 2.8 II version. I know; I have both. At f4 the 2.8 will have brighter corners on FF but at 5.6, little to no difference.

All true, 70-200/4L IS and a FF makes a lot more sense.

3
EOS Bodies / Re: Skipping the 5D-s. What do you want in 5D4?
« on: February 19, 2015, 11:22:44 PM »
5D4? - Sure!

100 megapixels - or more, if they'll behave reasonably well (no need to output all 100mp, just use pixel binning to provide 25mp option)
5fps - I mean I could live with 5  ::)
Dual CF, WiFi, Battery grip with SSD slot (or two)
4K - or ..., no, wait, by the time they release a 5D4, there will be 8K in every smartphone already :D, so let's make it 8K
Touchscreen! Zebra! Peaking! Jeez!
All the best AF systems (tripple-cross, quad-pixel-hybrid, whatever works best).

4
Lenses / Re: Which Lens to buy for Portraits
« on: February 19, 2015, 10:55:43 PM »
Do you think that 35 and 50 are too close in focal length for crop to own both and maintain a non-redundant set-up?

Nope!  ;)

-Tabor

I have both. I use the 50 ART more than the 35 ART but only because I since bought the 16-35 f4 L.  The 50mm you can use for portrait work. The 35 you really cant.  You have to get so close to get a frame filling headahot that you will distort normal features. Stick with longer focal lengths for portrait work unless you're doing something wide

Any lens can be used for portraits, even fish-eye (maybe except MP-E 65/2.8 ;) ). The question is - which focal length you prefer(?). By choosing the FL you are choosing the perspective and distortion, like you can make legs look longer by using 24L :).

5
EOS-M / Re: 11-22EF-M or 10-18EF-S on a EOS-M
« on: February 19, 2015, 04:55:11 PM »
The M lens is smaller and sharper. I would get it.

+1

6
EOS-M / Re: Hands-on with the Canon EOS M3
« on: February 19, 2015, 04:27:52 PM »
Glad to have these insights.  Still on the fence between adopting the M3 or abandoning the M system to get a xxxD second body.  If Canon would release a down-scaled 17-55mm f/2.8 for M, or a couple more small, fast primes, that might make the biggest difference.  Or a compact macro.  Much as I like the 22mm, the 18-55 is just too slow; the 11-22 is too pricey; and the 55-200 is physically too long and way too slow (and just about useless unless AF really is worlds faster on M3).

With a tiny body that lacks a truly substantial grip, the handling of any zoom lens (other than maybe a theoretical power zoom) is going to be dicey because the torque applied to the zoom ring can be enough to destabilize your grip on the camera body--particularly when holding the camera out from your body to compose on an LCD.  A stiff ring like on the Tamron 24-70mm VC makes it useless in combination with the M.  Primes just handle better.

I think I may be convincing myself to bag it and just go with a Rebel T6s (760D).

Well, it's not like Canon is "trolling" us by not making a small F2.8 zoom. I'm pretty sure it's not possible to make such a lens :) (not yet). Same for the "small and fast 55-200".
Some say that even Sigma 18-35/1.8Art works beautifully on EOS M with a proper grip mounted on it.

7
Lenses / Re: Which Lens to buy for Portraits
« on: February 19, 2015, 01:29:59 PM »
From the options you listed, there is very little doubt that the 70-200 f/2.8L ii is the best option. That being said, the 85L is (in my opinion) Canon's best portrait lens and wow is it good. The 70-200 f/2.8L ii, is a very close second.

Yes, but not for 650D.

8
Lenses / Re: Which Lens to buy for Portraits
« on: February 18, 2015, 09:58:34 PM »
For 650D portraits there is only one lens in your list I could pick. It is 85/1.8USM and if (for whatever reason) you want something even longer, you better get 135L. I'm not sure why you are considering the huge and expensive 70-200/2.8L'II IS (compared to the rest of the list). I would get a FF camera instead, like 6D, which would suggest more and much better portrait lens choices (even 200L :) ).

9
Lenses / Re: My "Minimalist" Lens Arsenal on Crop?
« on: February 18, 2015, 02:03:56 PM »
     In the name of trying to fight off GAS would you be so kind as to review my lens line-up?  I pretty much do it all minus sports.  My daughter's high school volleyball career is over and my son is about to kick off 4+ years in a pretty amazing high school marching/jazz band career.  Low-level soccer will likely still be in the mix, though, and I probably won't do much college volleyball.
     I also do a lot of portraits, landscape, street, travel, etc.
     My camera is a 70D and will likely stick with crop.  With that, does this make sense?:
     - Canon 10-18
     - Canon 35 2.0 IS (had a 50mm Sigma Art, but there didn't seem to be a whole lot of difference)
     - Canon 85 1.8
     - Canon 100-400 II (not yet obtained and will possibly sell my 200 2.8 since it's not used a lot and I could use the 85 when really needing the low light performance and the zoom when needing the focal length - although it might be tough at times indoors)
     Thanks for any advice to include good-to-go, almost all the time, with those 4.
Your approach seems to me to make a lot of sence. The only objection for me in crop sensors it that 85mm is way too long for many aplications. 50mm FL is rather more usable.

Just like 50mm is way too short and/or too long for many applications. There is no perfect focal length for everything. 85mm on crop is just as usable as 135mm on FF (portraits, street, even sports). The point is too pick what works best. 14/22/35/55/85/135...

10
Lenses / Re: My "Minimalist" Lens Arsenal on Crop?
« on: February 17, 2015, 09:25:57 PM »
 
       My camera is a 70D and will likely stick with crop.  With that, does this make sense?:
     - Canon 10-18
     - Canon 35 2.0 IS (had a 50mm Sigma Art, but there didn't seem to be a whole lot of difference)
     - Canon 85 1.8
     - Canon 100-400 II (not yet obtained and will possibly sell my 200 2.8 since it's not used a lot and I could use the 85 when really needing the low light performance and the zoom when needing the focal length - although it might be tough at times indoors)
 

The 10-18 is very good (though it's a shame the even better Rokinon 12mm f2 doesn't seem to be available in EF mount), as are the two primes you mention.  The Sigma 35mm Art has better coma control and can provide shallower focus than the 35mm IS, but I'm not sure it has any other advantages and the former may not matter on APS-C anyway.  The 100L suggestion made by others is a marvelous lens too, but if you're trying to be minimalist you may not want the 85 1.8 as well - there's not much difference in focal length between those two.  And since lens size seems to matter to you, are you sure you want the 100-400 rather than, say, the lighter and smaller 70-300L?

Rokinon 12/2 is for mirrorless, but isn't there a Rokinon (aka Samyang) 10mm f/2.8 for DSLR? Could be just as good :).
Not sure if the 70-300L is that much better (on crop) than the small and cheap 55-250 IS STM, seriously.

11
Lenses / Re: My "Minimalist" Lens Arsenal on Crop?
« on: February 17, 2015, 01:39:07 PM »
Hmm, how is that "minimalist"? :) That's pretty much a whole system, I mean normal.
70D with a Sigma 18-35/1.8Art and 85/1.8 (while waiting for Sigma 50-100/1.8Art) could be the "minimalists arsenal", but adding an UWA and tele lenses makes it "whole" again :). I would definitely skip the 35/2 IS and go for the Sigma instead.
I tried out a Sigma 18-35 at a workshop and found it to produce the best pictures ever seen by man.  But it was just a very large honker of a lens to be walking around with all the time.  I feel like I come close with the 35 2.0 IS.  The 18-35 sample that I tried did better than the Sigma 35 Art that I compared it to. 
With that, nothing compares with the 18-35, but it's just too big.  Maybe a Sigma 18-50 2.8 Art one day?

You can always use your M + 22/2 for walking. 18-35/1.8Art is like THE lens to get at the moment, while making all the primes in it's range look silly on crop :). Talking about the M, I've heard that EF-M 11-22 IS STM has amazing optics, like 16-35L'IS-kind of amazing :). If I had an M, I would consider that one instead of 10-18.
Sometimes I'm walking with Sigma 150/2.8 Macro, which is a big lens (even bigger than 18-35/1.8Art) and it's not so bad with the right bag (I use Lowepro Zoom Toploader). I had Sigma 17-50/2.8 OS HSM on my 7D and it was really nice, for the price, but I didn't like the focusing ring, too short turn and no FTM. Since then I've gone full frame and full prime, so now, hearing "2.8 crop zoom" makes me smile  ::). I mean, if you can accept that much bulk and weight, then you are better off with FF and F4 (no comparison).

12
Lenses / Re: My "Minimalist" Lens Arsenal on Crop?
« on: February 17, 2015, 12:37:57 PM »
Hmm, how is that "minimalist"? :) That's pretty much a whole system, I mean normal.
70D with a Sigma 18-35/1.8Art and 85/1.8 (while waiting for Sigma 50-100/1.8Art) could be the "minimalists arsenal", but adding an UWA and tele lenses makes it "whole" again :). I would definitely skip the 35/2 IS and go for the Sigma instead.

13
Landscape / Re: Within Forests
« on: February 14, 2015, 01:14:18 PM »

IMG_1303 by ecka84, on Flickr


IMG_1308 by ecka84, on Flickr


Really nice photos! I see you used the 40mm pancake. I should use mine more.

Thank you. This little lens is really amazing.

14
Landscape / Re: Within Forests
« on: February 14, 2015, 12:49:03 PM »

IMG_1303 by ecka84, on Flickr


IMG_1308 by ecka84, on Flickr

15
Lenses / Re: Sigma 24mm f/1.4 Art announced..
« on: February 10, 2015, 12:34:28 PM »
OMG 24/1.4 Art!
Great news.
Me happy  ::)


Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 50