March 03, 2015, 01:54:00 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.

Topics - Act444

Pages: [1]
Lenses / 40mm 2.8 backfocus on 60D?
« on: October 23, 2012, 08:08:04 PM »
Just want to see if this was/is an issue with anyone using this lens on a 60D...

I sent the first 40 back because of EXTREME backfocus. The next one I got seemed to be ok at first (at the time I got it), but now I notice it backfocusing again. It seems to be more or less fine near MFD, but as I get farther away from the subject, the further off the focus is. It's not as bad as the first one but it's still enough to get OOF shots at 2.8. Even at 5.6 it is noticeable because the sharpest point of the picture is still behind the selected focus point, giving the picture a softer look...

A bit the 60D does not have an AFMA/autofocus correction function, I've had to figure out other ways to compensate for this unfortunate phenomenon. I've had on/off success with turning the lens focus ring clockwise a bit after focus, before taking the shot...but it is really tough to manual focus with the 60D especially from a distance. The other option is to use Live view mode for critical shots...but it can be slooooow (if not nonfunctional) in low light.

I've also got a 5D but this lens is really for the 60D as a travel combo. thoughts?

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Options for 60D upgrade/replacement?
« on: September 25, 2012, 10:23:53 PM »
So, here I am with a 60D (great camera), and several lenses I've invested in over the period I've gotten into photography. While I've gotten great shots and achieved results with what I currently have, I do have some money saved up and I'm currently evaluating options, including perhaps stepping up to a better body. Ever since I've started, the ratio of money I've spent on bodies (T2i -> 60D) vs. lenses (24-105, 17-50 Tamron -> 17-55 2.8, 35 1.4, 70-200 f4 -> 70-200 2.8 II, 70-300 L, 85 1.8, 100 L Macro, 40 2.8 ) is obviously heavily biased in favor of the glass. (Also have a 580ex II flash unit)  I've been starting to think about perhaps paying more attention to the other end to get the best IQ that I can.

Couple of notes:

1) Hobbyist (not a pro, don't make $$ off this stuff so don't need top-performing equipment, nor do I have that kind of money to spend)
2) General photographer here (i.e. don't specialize in anything particular, although I'll tell you what I do NOT do: studio work/portraits, weddings, tripod work. Have done parties though, probably the closest thing to a wedding-type setting)

I've been debating whether to step up to FF - I have to say I've really become accustomed to and utilized the reach of APS-C on the 60D (and the T2i before it) with lenses like the 70-300L and I love how far back I can stand at events and still get nice close-up shots. I've shot some ice-skating performances - reach has come in handy there as well. On the flip side, when shooting an event (book) signing with the 60D and 70-200 2.8 I often find 70mm to be too long when I have an opportunity to get to the table, and I have to back up. However, the 200mm end is nice during the actual reading when I can be in the back of the room and still get closeups. And, at events where I have the 70-300 people on occasion will ask for group shots and 70 is too long on the 1.6x camera. There are times where I've been wanting more in terms of IQ, especially indoors where I dislike using flash and have to crank up ISO. Also, outdoor landscape shots (even with a quality lens like the 24-105), while not bad, don't seem as sharp as they could be. I looked at some sample landscape shots from a 5D in a review the other day and was blown away at how much more detail was in the images.

I've heard about this new 6D, and it got me thinking whether it is worth it. In many ways, though, it's not a TRUE upgrade to a 60D because it does step back in a few respects and step forward in others. The 5D3, OTOH, is a definite upgrade but after handling one yesterday at the store, although I was amazed and couldn't put the thing down, I'm wondering whether it is really a tad too much camera for what I do (coming from the 60D, it seems so complicated!). But, I feel like the 6D is the opposite- might leave me wanting just that little bit more, although I'm tempted to wait for a review first. As an aside, I've also been eyeing the new EOS M as an eventual replacement for my SD950IS P&S...want a capable compact camera to complement the DSLR and be able to get good shots in venues, etc.

So- what to do? This is something I might do over the next few weeks or months. There's this 6D...the prospect of a possible 7D Mark II next year, the 5D3 now (although a bit cost prohibitive, I CAN squeeze it out if I can get a good deal for under $3K). Only issue would be the 17-55 (only EF-S lens I have) which I'd have to give up for a 24-70 that is 2x the price...and no IS...although I would like to keep the 60D if I can as a 2nd body.

You guys have helped me out before...I'd appreciate any thoughts, etc.

Lenses / 28-300 L lens- thoughts?
« on: May 30, 2012, 09:52:23 PM »
Hey all,

Just wanted to ask what people's thoughts on this lens were. They don't have this lens at my local camera store (I think when I asked them why, they said something along the lines of "we don't like it" or "it doesn't sell"), and internet reviews seem to be rather sparse. I really want to try out this lens for size but can't really seem to do so.

I've heard mixed thoughts about the image quality- some say it can hold its own with the more specialized lenses, others complain about softness at various focal lengths, so I just wanted to see if there are any owners (or former owners) here and see what they think.

Lenses / Seeking lens in the 85-100mm range
« on: April 30, 2012, 07:27:21 PM »
Hi all,

Currently considering a prime/fixed focal length lens in the 85-100mm range and would appreciate thoughts, impressions, recommendations.

Amateur shooter here (not pro). I have a 60D- I mostly use zoom lenses, the only fixed-FL lens I have is the 35 1.4, which is great (starting to use it a bit more after ignoring it for a while). I used to have the 85 1.8 but traded it in towards a 70-200 2.8 (totally the right decision, love that lens), but now I'm starting to look for a possible alternative when I don't necessarily want to carry around the extra weight and/or gather attention.

Mainly this lens I might use for occasional sporting events (when 70-200 isn't practical due to weight, etc.), taking shots of flowers/foliage, and for shots when I want the background as blurred as possible. I'm not much of a portrait photographer- there are times where I've been asked to take someone's picture, but that is not really what I do (or have experience with).

Lenses I've been looking at:

I was considering buying the 85 1.8 again. Great lens, but from my usage the 70-200 2.8 is just as sharp at 85mm/2.8, and has better focus too. Too much purple fringing at 1.8 in my opinion.

85 1.2- tried it in store today. Amazed at the quality but was taken aback by how slow the focusing is. It's pretty bulky too. But I was wowed at the test photos I took with it- especially the test portrait shot which looked professional with almost no effort on my concern here would be for the times I substitute the 70-200. I feel this lens would struggle to keep up with even moderately-paced action. I did run a quick test (took a burst of shots of someone walking away from camera), seemed ok but hard to tell. Expensive, too, but not completely out of range (better be a solid reason to drop 2K on a specialty lens!)

100 2 - also played around with this in store. Fast focusing, which is great...light weight, which is both good and bad (good being easier on the neck, bad being harder to steady since there is no IS). However, I found myself somewhat displeased with the purple fringing at f2 and the image quality (seemed a bit soft). Still, it is being considered mainly because of its inconspicuousness.

135 2 - tried this out as well. Excellent quality and light weight (same points as above). Quick focusing. However, I feel that because of its longer focal length, its usefulness is somewhat reduced. I can see this being a great substitute for the 70-200 though as far as sports go (mainly shooting in dimmer indoor environments).

Any others? I'd like to stick with Canon lenses if possible (I had a Tamron 17-50- it served my needs for about a year, then I traded it in for the 17-55 2.8 and afterwards, wondered what took me so long to do it). What are your recommendations, experiences, etc.? Any help would be appreciated

Lenses / Better lens for use in reception/dark room situation
« on: May 04, 2011, 03:45:08 PM »
Hey all,

I just had a quick question. I've used a T2i along with the Tamron 17-50 2.8 VC lens and a 580ex II flash with decent results at parties/receptions (I've since sold the T2i and got a 60D). Only issue is, there are times where I find that 50mm isn't always enough reach, particularly for getting close-ups, etc. On the other hand, I love the 17mm end because I can get whole groups in the frame easily.

Now, I also have the Canon 24-105 f4 lens which I use as a general walkaround lens. I was thinking whether this would work in taking flash photos in near dark situations but I've heard that slower lenses aren't quite as accurate at focusing in low light situations? Anyone tried using the 24-105 in a reception situation with the 60D/Rebel cameras and got good results, no issues with focus, etc.? I'd love to have the extra reach of 105mm if possible. In this case, the 1-stop difference between the 2 lenses isn't really an issue because I'll be shooting at f5.6 with flash anyway.

Not a pro or anything- simply a hobbyist, I'd like to know what you all think. I'd figure if the f4 lenses aren't as reliable in low-light that I might be better off with the 17-50 anyway.

Pages: [1]