March 03, 2015, 10:03:23 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 - TheAshleyJones

Pages: [1] 2
EOS Bodies - For Stills / 5D2/5D3/6D Comparison Video
« on: January 18, 2015, 06:13:04 PM »
I know there have been a lot of comparison videos comparing the Canon FF offerings.

But I like to think we have brought something fresh to the discussion.  Enjoy.

Ash x

Lenses / Re: Sigma 14-24mm OS lens at Photokina?
« on: December 29, 2014, 02:00:52 PM »
It's a long overdue reply, but the Mark II Sigma is really optically very similar to the MkI.  I prefer the look and feel of the Mk II, but so what?

One of my 600EX-RTs fell on the floor a few weeks ago and the red cover popped off.  It snapped right back on with no ill effects. 

So I reckon it will come off without tools.

Lenses / Re: Sigma 14-24mm OS lens at Photokina?
« on: August 15, 2014, 08:03:46 AM »
Literally ordered a 12-24 MkII to update my MkI five minutes before I saw this.  Not terribly bothered because 14 isn't 12.  I will be very interested to see this one.

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 11-24 f/2.8L Coming [CR1]
« on: August 07, 2014, 04:40:59 PM »
This would be my dream lens.  I was saying earlier in the week how much I would love a 12mm F/2.8 but 11!?!

I do a lot of barmy artsy stuff at 12 - the 14 F/2.8L II just doesn't cut it - and I would love that extra mm.

And I actually would pay the (no-doubt) ¬£2,800 that it will cost.  It's a lot of cash but ELEVEN?!?

Lenses / Re: Review: Sigma 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 DG II HSM
« on: July 23, 2014, 10:12:24 AM »
I bloody love my 12-24 Mark I and this review has made me think that I should buy the Mark II.  I'm very keen on the idea of improved sharpness and less bothered about increased distortion.   I remember seeing a review on Fred Miranda that said this was a really fun lens, and that's what triggered me buying it.  It is hard to master, only appropriate under certain circumstances but gives astonishing results when you get it right.

I have the 16-35 II - and I use that a lot - and the 14 II and they don't rock my world like this crazy lens.


The 6D is certainly very nice, my only disappointment is the ugly moir√© in video.    I also haven't noticed the supposedly improved -3eV focusing compared to the 5D3's -2eV - it seems to handle almost identically in very low light.

I would question using a 64G card for stills.  That's a LOT of eggs in one basket.   

Lenses / Re: Canon's f/1.2's: What is really going on?
« on: April 29, 2014, 07:38:28 AM »
I have both.  Utterly love the 85, but the 50 goes almost unused.  I am going to look at the new Sigma when it's available.

I had and loved the Canon 50 F/1.4 and had great hopes for the F/1.2 but it is so much less everything than the 85.

We might get stuff later than everywhere else.
We might pay more for our stuff than everywhere else (except Scandinavia, but they're all minted)
But finally - FINALLY - we can hold our heads up high and say LOOK!  BEHOLD!  A UK EXCLUSIVE!

Excuse me while I stand up for the national anthem and consider the wonder that isf the White 100D.

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 15mm f2.8 or Sigma DG 15mm f2.8
« on: March 31, 2014, 09:06:09 AM »
I was really excited when the 8-15 F4L was announced, but when I tried it I was underwhelmed.

I don't like and would never use circular fish-eye so the 8mm end was of no interest (I also shoot with a 5D3).  And F/4 seemed unambitious.  Your mileage may vary.

I kept my eyes open and bought a second hand Canon EF 15mm F/2.8 the first time I saw one at a sensible price.  I had read good things about the Sigma, but always prefer to go Canon if I can.

I have to say it performs very well - great sharpness and colour at F/2.8  on my copy.  The AF is, however, NOISY - disconcertingly so.   I do love it for the right applications.  (For me that's generally art rock band portraits and stage shots).  It's psychedelic, Daddio.

Lenses / Re: 85L or 135L?
« on: July 17, 2013, 11:23:10 AM »
>> I shoot portraits and weddings and here are my current lenses which I use on my 5DM3

Another vote for the 85 especially in this context.   My 135L gets very little use as the 70-200 II is so good around that F/L.

I love the 85 and if I had to only have one lens it would definitely be the one.   Slow to focus, long MFD but everything else is awesome.  A bit bland on a crop camera, but FANTASTIC on the 5DIII.

(I also love my Sigma 12-24 so there are good ones out there!)


EOS-M / Re: EF-M 11-22 / 4-5.6 IS STM - officially announced
« on: July 05, 2013, 08:08:52 AM »
I use a GoPro Hero 3 Black Edition as a fourth camera for video shoots.

You can shoot at 60fps at 1080 and it amazes me how much footage you will get on a Class 10 (has to be C10 if using ProTune) 32G Micro SD card.  I use SanDisk Mobile Ultra UHS-I Micro SD SDHC 32GB which are insanely cheap.

In this, the drummer is being shot with the GoPro (1080P @ 25FPS).   Admittedly I have done a lot of noise reduction in post, but this was a stupidly dark gig.

Slowmo at 720p @ 120FPS is excellent but WVGA @240FPS is only worthwhile with great light and the right source material.   

Bloody great fun either way.

Lenses / Re: If you could only have three lenses...
« on: June 03, 2013, 10:44:19 AM »
It's a bit brutal having to choose three lenses that cover video and photography.  I think, for example, that the 24-105 is a great lens for video but pretty horrible for stills.   My main lens for stills is the 85 F/1.2 II but it's really not much use to me for video.  I really like having IS for video.

Video me would go for:
16-35 F/2.8L II
24-105 F/4L IS
70-200 F/2.8L IS II

Stills me would go for
35 F/1.4L
85 F/1.2L II
200 F/2.0L IS  (I haven't got this one but still have two near-mint kidneys if anyone is up for a swap)

Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 85 f/1.2L II
« on: March 05, 2013, 11:45:01 AM »
I keep the 85 on my 5DIII almost all the time.   I love it for so many reasons and often use it wide open (probably more often than I should).   I don't take pictures of fast moving things so the slow focusing speed is not an issue.  I do wish it could focus a bit closer than the 95cm MFD so would add this to the cons.

I just love the bokeh and the centre sharpness at F/1.2.   Colour and contrast are beautiful.   I have all the usual suspects and need a good reason to move to the 50 F/1.2L or the 135 F/2L. 

I have tried the 85 on an ASP-C camera a few times and have found it profoundly "meh" compared to the beautiful performance on full-frame.  I quite like the vignetting, but as the review says, this is easy to fix in post.

Of all my lenses this is the one I would replace in a heartbeat if it was lost.

EOS Bodies / Re: 6D or 5D Mk II
« on: September 17, 2012, 05:32:03 AM »
Depends.  For me I think the 6D could be a good upgrade form the 5D2.

I only care about the low light handling and image quality.  I have a 5D2 and a 5D3 and in the low light situations I shoot, I have really started to see the difference between both the image quality and - very significantly -  low light focussing abilities.

I couldn't really care less about anything else.  I only ever use the centre focussing point.  But if the low light handling is as good as the 5D3 I think it will make an excellent second body and I guess I will ditch the 5D2.

The thing I would miss on the 5D3 would be the quiet shooting mode.  For quiet gigs, I just love this feature.

Pages: [1] 2