Messages

1

Software & Accessories / Re: What are the Hardware Specs for the machine you run Photoshop on?

« on: June 12, 2013, 05:26:21 AM »

dell xps 8100
intel core i5-750 (4 x 2,66 GHz)
8 GB RAM
Win 7-64 Bit

works pretty fine
(batch conversion of RAW files)

2

Lenses / Re: If you could only have three lenses...

« on: June 03, 2013, 10:47:12 AM »

24-70 f/2.8L II
70-200 f/4L IS
300 f/4L IS

3

Lenses / Re: I have a weight limit....what would you bring?

« on: May 17, 2013, 08:49:40 AM »

Right now, I am planning to bring my 70-200 f/4 IS, my 24-104, and my 17-40.

Do you really need to fill that 40-70mm gap? 17-40L + 70-200/4L IS could be enough.

+1

4

Lenses / Re: What exactly is a 100% crop?

« on: April 28, 2013, 04:39:18 AM »

100% crop means, that one pixel of the image is displayed by one pixel of your screen. That means no resizing of an kind. If your LCD has a resolution of 1920 by 1200 pixels, a 100% crop means you cut out a rectangular area of 1920 by 1200 pixels from your original image with any editing software.

5

Abstract / Re: Beautiful bokeh! Let me see yours!

« on: April 28, 2013, 04:30:39 AM »

24-70 II @ f2.8

6

Lenses / Re: canon 5d mk3 what lens ?

« on: April 22, 2013, 01:11:20 AM »

get the 24-70 II to start with. You will use it 80% of the time. The 70-200 II will follow later. The 17-40 is great for landscape, if you need that some day.

7

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Please share your camera settings

« on: April 13, 2013, 12:05:29 PM »

I use high res RAW only. No NR. No DNG. Just CR2 files. Processed with Adobe Camera Raw. Actually no Photoshop modifications after all, except content aware fill if needed (but very scarcely).

8

Lenses / Re: IS mandatory? 70-200 f/4 IS vs. f/2.8 Non-IS

« on: April 12, 2013, 11:27:24 AM »

Definitely the f/4 with IS. Since this is a tele lens, you really need it. I once switched off the IS of my 300 f/4 and wondered why the landscape was shaking so badly. The longer the reach the more IS you need. Or a tripod.
The 70-200 f/4 IS is a great lens. It costs half of the 2.8 and has half of the weight. Which is important if you hike.
Image quality, sharpness and contrast is great. I can really recommend that one.

9

Lenses / Re: Question regarding ultrawide lenses on crop and full frame cameras

« on: April 09, 2013, 11:42:13 AM »

Hi,

I tested the 10-22 on my 50D. The result was poor compared to my 17-40. I sold it after 2 weeks. Later I moved to FF with the 5D mark II and sold the 50D. My 17-40 was better on the 5D mark II than on the 50D. The size of the sensor is the clue. You get much more detail in 100% magnification. All lenses are performing better than on the 50D.

10

Lenses / Re: Teleconverter

« on: March 27, 2013, 03:30:37 AM »

I used the Canon 1.4 II and the Kenko DGX MC4 1.4x with my 300 4L IS and my 70-200 4L IS.
The result is pretty much the same. Contrast ist missing. Images get hazy.
I also tried a KENKO MC7 DGX 2.0x once, but this was not acceptable.
Finally 1.4x does not give enough magnification and 2.0x creates unacceptable results.
So I stopped using TCs and started using crops from the original images.

11

Lenses / Re: Do you use lens correction profiles when processing raw files or not with LR4

« on: March 16, 2013, 03:54:51 AM »

I started to use the correction profiles for the first time with my 24-70 II in Adobe Camera Raw. Since vignetting is very strong here. I now use both distortion and vignetting correction at 100%. The result is ok.

12

Lenses / Re: New wide angle lens for FF

« on: March 14, 2013, 06:17:21 AM »

I can recommend the 17-40. Stopped down to f8 it's sharp enough for landscapes and wide enough of course.
It's light and nice to use.

13

Software & Accessories / Re: Help needed lightroom and photoshop machine for editing 5d mkiii raw

« on: March 12, 2013, 06:44:49 AM »

I use a DELL xps desktop pc with a i5-750 cpu. 4 cores. Win7 64Bit. Photoshop CS6 64 Bit. 8GB Memory.
That works great with my 5D mark II RAW files. Parallel processing is the key.

14

Lenses / Re: 16-35 maybe 17-40

« on: March 09, 2013, 04:10:23 PM »

I have the 17-40 and absolutely love it. It's supposedly better optically than the 16-35. In any case, it's less expensive, lighter and more compact and for landscape you'll stop down plenty anyway.

Vignetting can be (automatically) corrected and I find it to be a non-issue with the 17-40.

+1

good lens for landscape! No need for f2.8.

15

Lenses / Re: opinions about my future set?

« on: March 09, 2013, 01:55:23 AM »

I found that 14mm is too wide on FF. Sell the 14mm and get a 17-40 4L and a 70-200 4L IS. This combo is very versatile for landscape and travel and not too heavy to carry. I used that combo a lot. It's great!