December 17, 2014, 04:51:50 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 - YuengLinger

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 18
Nice timing for this thread!

Viggo, sorry to hear you are going through the aggravation, as you were enjoying the lens and had high hopes for it.

I just this morning reached out to a local lens renter to ask about his copy of the ef 50mm 1.2, as I'm seeing the value of in-focus dreamy over OOF sharp.  I'll rent first and see if I can handle the focus shift for closer subjects, which is a big part of my style.

I have sharp and fast:  Sigma 35mm Art, fantastic.  Canon 85mm 1.2, ultimate.  (Note that I actually sold an ef 35mm 1.4 after owning it for four months because it was not sharp and had the worst CA I've seen since my old Sureshot A-80.  'Course having come from Amazon, it might have gotten banged around, repacked, etc.)

As y'all might remember, I was another who got a 50mm Art with dodgy AF and sent it back thinking by now we'd have a firmware update or SOME response from Sigma other than, "Well, it is a particularly complex lens, and you really should buy the dock."  (That from their tech support.)

So, worn down from waiting for Canon or Sigma to put out something perfect...

Lenses / Re: buying advice: canon 85mm f1.2 II or f1.8?
« on: December 16, 2014, 04:21:51 PM »
Very hard to add to the excellent, thorough advice here, but I can share my experience.

First, the CA on the 1.2 has never reared its head in any significant way even when I'm shooting wide open, but it is clearly there on the 1.8 in many situations.  Easily correctable with LR5.

Second, I still own both lenses, 1.2 and 1.8.  My 1.2 is clearly superior in sharpness, creaminess, color, and contrast all the way to 2.8, at which point even pixel peeping, they are equal in sharpness.  I still see a better "glowy" or luminous feel to images shot with the 1.2 in window light or outdoors with reflectors all the way to f/5.6.

Third, my AF, though slow, is amazingly accurate on the 1.2, even at MFD.

I use mine only for portraits.  But I've assisted an excellent wedding/portrait/commercial photographer who brings it on all her shoots and uses it for spontaneous, quickly posed portraits and for detail shots.  I don't believe she uses it during any kind of action because her go to lenses for that are the 24-70 2.8 II and the 70-200 2.8 II.

My 1.8 I gathering dust, though if I ever get back to some street photography, I'll put it on my 60D.  It is lightning fast, reliable, and very light.

If money is no object and you can get the wisely recommended 70-200, you'd be leaving too much good IQ and creative possibilities on the table by going with the 1.8.

Post Processing / Re: Other postprocessing forums, anyone?
« on: December 10, 2014, 08:29:11 AM »
Marsu, I suggest good books and video workshop sites such as or Then, of course, apply, apply, apply.  While forums can be a good place to have questions answered, watch out, ahem, for endless debate about things that don't matter and will keep you away from post processing.

Have you explored for inspiration, critiques, and discussion?

Also, the Out of the Box forum on is NOT even mostly about birds, but about more artistic, edgy processing.

Technical Support / Re: What kind of photo printer do you use?
« on: December 10, 2014, 07:23:10 AM »
My only experience with Canon printers is with the 9000MkII.  I still cannot believe how fast it sucks ink.  Apparently it does a lot of ink purging every time it starts up, and it seems to do more so if the printer has not been turned on for several weeks.

Of course this might be part of why it has a reputation for not clogging much.  I've had mine for three years now, going months without prints, and never had a clog.

But every freakin' time I do go to print, another cartridge is indicating low or out.

Another problem with mine is difficulty of matching what I see on the screen to what prints.  Always prints to light, so I have to guesstimate how much to lower Exposure in Lightroom to get the print correct--even with all the ICC profiles, settings correct.

With the Epson, especially using Epson, Moab, or Canson papers, getting to WYSIWYG is relatively painless, meaning I'm wasting less ink and paper.  Note that it is critical to use softproofing in Lightroom for such results.

From local friends who have Epsons with the same ink, there seems to be zero clogging if they print at least one photo a month.

Note that I got the 9000MkII for free with rebates when I bought a 60D.  Over three years I did not print more than several dozen photos, mostly 4x6, just a couple 8x10, but I probably spent about $300 in ink!  Like I said, every time it starts, you can hear inky things happening.   :P

That's just my experience, but I heard similar frustrations from those friends who now have Epson.

Ok, one friend does have a clogging issue with her r3000:  The matte-black ink will not flow at all, but she admits that she did not use that cartridge for nearly two years.  She says she doesn't print matte, so she won't even invest in a new matte-black cartridge to see if that fixes the issue.  She prints on and on with her photo-black and all the other cartridges.  (On the 3xxxx series, you choose either matte-black or photo-black, depending on the paper.)

Technical Support / Re: What kind of photo printer do you use?
« on: December 09, 2014, 06:41:22 PM »
Printing is as essential to photography as capture and processing.  My composition is better for printing, as is my awareness of lighting.  During post, I now see distractions that I often miss when processing for screen only.

The print is the final product of the images we create.

I would never consider printing a book with my Epson 3880, for the many good reasons mentioned in this thread, but I do plan to start laying out books next year.  I'm still looking into software. At that time I'll try various print services.

Some advantages of the 3880 are the lower price of ink compared to most other printers, the option to go up to 17x22, and the ease of nailing colors as shown in the soft-proofs of Lightroom 5.  Yes, the 3880 costs more up front than the r3000, but the price of ink quickly makes up for the difference.  To replenish $400 worth of ink for the 3880 costs about $750 for the same amount in the r3000.

That said, the r3000 produces exquisite results and does have a wireless connection.

I use an Ethernet connection to my router with the 3880.

Get one!  Try different papers, print different sizes, triptychs, arrays, collages, whatever.  Give them to friends and famly.  Put them up around your home.  Give them to business associates, church members, people you might photograph casually and surprise.  Recipients love prints.

I've seen much of what you've posted Dylan; your work is wonderful and you use fine equipment.  Your images deserve to be liberated from digital stasis into the physical world more often, and you should have total control of that final step.

Jeff Schewe's THE DIGITAL PRINT helped me sort a lot of things out before I pulled he trigger, and then make better prints once I had the 3880.

Lenses / Re: Talk about your ef 300mm f/2.8
« on: December 08, 2014, 01:21:24 PM »
I'd really like to read your thoughts about the ef 300mm 2.8 lenses--and see some samples.  Thanks!

I hope you've taken a look at the Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II USM samples thread which shows that the 300mm can be quite versatile.
Of course, there is an element of "if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail" with those kinds of threads ;D

I went for the 300mm because I found that the 70-200mm was a wee bit short from time to time, and the 400mm f/2.8L was just ... too big and heavy, and too long for me on a crop camera (I since moved to FF). Full disclosure: I did have the 400mm f/2.8L MkI :)

I think the biggest lure is the sheer versatility of the 300mm: stunning bokeh, not too long, and if it's a bit too short, just slab on a MkII/III extender. And you can handhold this thing.
So while it is a "sports and fashion shows" lens, it can also be used on large and not too skittich wildlife.

For portraits, the 200mm f/2L is likely to be more useful, but for me, gaining a single stop is not worth it.

Thank you, kaihp, even after several searches I overlooked this best of the threads.

mackguyver, dancook, I think, is showing us splendidly what his 200mm f/2 can do.  I'm familiar with 200mm, which I did say in my OP.  I'm VERY happy with the 70-200mm at f.2.8 for various portraits, so I have no desire (when does NEED factor in?) for that legendary prime at this time.  The 300mm in a larger, no-flash church or other such setting is something intriguing, as it could add a little justification to my purchase.  (My wife, btw, has given the green light to the 300mm or the 400mm, but I'm hesitant to spend and carry that next level up.)

Renting is the next rational step!

I do see in the thread of 300mm samples that runway model shots are great, and that makes sense--now that I've seen them.  Airshows and birding are just not on my radar, so to speak.

What I do see from scouring the web for people shots taken with the 300mm is that full body portraits do work well, while upper body and head shots get too compressed, as discussed by Justin.

Any indoor event/wedding shots out there???

dancook, you did use that 200mm f/2 beautifully!

Lenses / Talk about your ef 300mm f/2.8
« on: December 07, 2014, 07:09:11 PM »
I'd love to hear user's/owner's thoughts about their 300mm f/2.8 prime lenses, version I or II.  I would be buying version II, but I'm most interested in learning more about this particular FL.  Note I currently shoot with a 5DIII, and my go-to portrait lens is the ef 70-200mm /f2.8 IS II.

I'm a sucker for fast primes, but I'm mainly a portrait photographer who occasionally shoots weddings.  For passionate fun, I do as much landscape as I can find time for. 

I know only what I've read on the web and heard in Arthur Morris workshops about the 300mm's.

To me, the focal length seems too short for nature and most sports, while being too long for portraits.  I could see it useful at weddings where natural light is all that is allowed, but don't see any examples of such use...

I've read Justin's very helpful review, and I see his examples of portraits as reasons to be wary.  Note that I'm not intending to get into bird photography, but would be doing some "citizen journalism" from time to time.

Also, I've read a couple of good threads here about using TC's and the options of going longer, so please don't talk much about those tangent topics.

I'd really like to read your thoughts about the ef 300mm 2.8 lenses--and see some samples.  Thanks!

Canon General / Re: Canon U.S.A. Prices going down?
« on: November 26, 2014, 10:23:37 AM »
Hmmm, planning gear purchases based on ForEx cycles...Is there an app for that?   ::)

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Is there any reason to shoot sRGB????
« on: November 25, 2014, 05:57:58 PM »
The histogram on my 5DIII works great for using studio lights in even very tricky lighting situations--and I use a flash meter.  Get the lights set up for "proper exposure," make some adjustments for ambient light, backgrounds, etc., check the histogram on the camera during a few establishing shots, then blast away until something changes.

And when using speedlites, I don't use a flash meter, so the histogram is pretty much essential.  Too many times I've been fooled by the display image, but never the histogram.

Same goes for shooting with available light only.  I don't want to be toting around a light meter everywhere, especially out for landscape photography.

The histogram on my trusty old 60D seems just as accurate.

As or shooting Adobe RGB, that is a great question.  Lightroom uses Adobe RGB for most display purposes, but jumps to ProPhoto RGB for the develop module.  I softproof in LR5 and print from it, with amazingly accurate results on an Epson 3880.

I convert to sRGB for displaying stuff on the web and sharing by email. 

From searching the web and CR's older threads on this subject, it seems that choosing sRGB or Adobe RGB in camera has no effect on the RAW file, only the embedded .jpg...Is that right???

Lenses / Re: Review: Sigma 50mm f/1.4 ART for Canon
« on: November 25, 2014, 05:45:32 PM »
Dustin, thank you for taking the time to do such a thorough, thoughtful review.  At first I thought it was going to be a praise-fest, but you went right at the one unsettling issue with this lens, occasionally aggravating AF flakiness.  The many sample shots are also much appreciated.

Only one comment in your review seemed a bit off key, the notion that customers don't embrace the dock because it is technologically "overwhelming."  While this is true in some cases, I'd guess many customers have no problems using much more complicated gear and systems, such as multiple brands of lights and remote triggers during tethered shoots.  AFMA in camera is a great advance for those of us who value sharpness and often shoot at wide apertures, and we pay plenty for bodies and lenses that can work properly together without adding another gadget and more time-consuming adjustments.

On the other hand, for owners of bodies without AFMA, the dock is also a great advance.

From my experience with the 50mm Art, which I returned to the seller and will buy again only after a firmware update, your lengthy discussion of its AF issues is accurate and refreshing.  (And I am a completely satisfied owner of the 35mm Art.)

Again, Dustin, thank you!

I don't see the $100 off, but thanks for showing a good source for preorder with free shipping.

Pricewatch Deals / Re: Deal: Exclusive Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art Lens Savings
« on: November 21, 2014, 07:08:09 PM »
Anybody happen to know if they've issued a firmware update since the lens was first released?


Third Party Manufacturers / Re: New Sigma Lenses Coming Q1 of 2015 [CR1]
« on: November 18, 2014, 07:34:45 AM »
New lenses are always cool, but...


EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Is the 7D MK II Really Selling Well?
« on: November 04, 2014, 03:45:57 PM »
Is the kit lens a mismatch?

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon to Continue Using Canon Sensors in DSLRs
« on: November 04, 2014, 01:06:07 PM »


Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 18