August 21, 2014, 12:40:02 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 - Random Orbits

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 87
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Dustin Abbott Reviews Tamron 28-300 FF
« on: August 14, 2014, 12:16:27 PM »
I'm not crazy about f/6.3, either, but it is also 1/3rd of a stop of light.  It is rare that the 1/3rd stop makes much of a difference, and the high ISO performance of the 6D that I use it with means that I can get away with cranking ISO and still get very nice images.

I suspect that the 28-300L probably has higher resolution than this lens...but I doubt the difference is significant.  This lens is surprisingly competent (I wasn't nearly as impressed with the new 16-300 VC for crop).

Does f/6.3 affect AF performance when using off-center AF points?

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 11-24 f/2.8L Coming [CR1]
« on: August 07, 2014, 05:15:28 PM »
This is where I don't get why Canon would make this lens f/2.8 leading to a huge size & cost.  Action shooters are much more likely to use a fisheye instead of an 11mm lens, and I'm not seeing much bokeh this wide.  Also, with today's high ISO bodies, and lenses this wide, who can't handhold at 1/10-1/30s?  I thought that the f/4 aperture was the smartest decision Canon made with the 16-35 f/4 IS.  I love fast lenses and would kill for this proposed lens, but I just don't see the need for f/2.8 on this lens.

Then again, it's CR1, so we're probably just making fools of ourselves by discussing this ridiculous rumor.

Perhaps it was easier to get around Nikon's patents by going to 11 rather than 12 or 14 at the wide end...

EOS Bodies / Re: 6D+7Dii Vs 5D mkiii
« on: August 07, 2014, 01:44:01 PM »
There have been several threads in the forum showing that the difference in IQ between a reach limited 5DIII is not that different from the 7D.  At the lowest ISOs, the 7D has the advantage, and the 5DIII has the advantage at high ISOs.  The wildcard is that we don't know how much better IQ will be in the 7DII.

Perhaps a different but just as important question, is how much total reach do you want/need?  400mm?  600mm?  The TDP comparison below shows that the Tamron on a FF at 500mm will beat a 100-400 on a crop at 400mm.  At 600mm, the 100-400 on a crop will pull ahead.

How often will you use 600mm and crop at that focal length?  If it's a lot, then it might be worth getting the 6D/7DII combo.  But if not, then the 5DIII should be just fine.  There is some value in having a single set of gear rather than having to swap lenses/bodies.

Lenses / Re: Lens setup for wedding photography
« on: August 07, 2014, 01:03:19 PM »
Not the official photographer?
Then just the 50, be everywhere while staying out of the way.

+1...let's the pro does his/her best.

Although I would love to have a capable "photographer" at every table/group if possible.  There are many moments that are missed because there is only so much one or two pros can cover.

I remember placing those disposable 35mm film cameras at each table when my wife and I got married.  I was expecting a lot of shots to be bad, but I wasn't expecting THAT many shots to be bad.  I'm pretty sure it was not worth the cost of those disposable cameras and the cost of processing the film for what we got out of it.  Cell phone cameras are a lot better than those crappy disposable cameras, but a lot of those shots are still no better (as observed  from all the FB links from a recent wedding we attended).

Canon General / Re: Which Lens to Take
« on: August 07, 2014, 07:55:17 AM »
I'd suggest sticking with the 24-105 if you only plan on bringing 1 lens.  I find that 70mm is just a bit too short on the long end.

+1 for the RRS PG-02 system if you plan on doing any panos in the future.

Lenses / Re: Lens setup for wedding photography
« on: August 05, 2014, 08:28:58 AM »
If the wedding is in the evening and the reception at night, then a flash will be necessary.  Using gels is also preferable.

As an unofficial photographer, you won't get a prime shooting spot or have lights set up for you like the official photographer, so why bother trying to get similar shots when you're already at such a disadvantage.  Try to think of shots you'd like from a different vantage point and choose your lenses accordingly.  Or, if you know a lot of people attending the wedding, focus on those people instead.  The official photographers will usually only take 1-2 shots of everyone from each table, so use the additional time you have to your advantage.  When the bride and groom visit the table, use the opportunity to get candids of hugs and laughter and a few posed shots.

I attended a wedding last weekend, and found it hard to take pics of traditional moments (i.e. cake cutting) because the pros (1 main, 1 assistant and 1 videographer) crowd out a lot of space with those with cell phones stuck in between.  I ended up using two lenses:  24-70 and a 8-15 fisheye.  I had wanted to use the fisheye for the bride/groom walking down the aisle, but a 2.5 hour drive turned into a 5 hour drive and we barely made it for the ceremony.  The fisheye accounted for 20% of the keepers (out of about 80) and was used heavily on the dance floor with the camera often held up high and looking down.

From the set of equipment you listed, I'd bring the 10-22, 18-55, 50 and the 430.  The 18-55 would get the most use, then the 10-22 and then the 50.

Lenses / Re: Thoughts on 70-200 f/4 vs 70-300 vs 100-400?
« on: August 03, 2014, 01:11:19 PM »
It comes down to what you value more:  sports vs. travel; and IQ vs. weight.  The 70-300L is a good choice for travel.  It loses a fractional stop compared to the 70-200 f/4 IS, and it's shortness helps for travel.

But if you favor sports over travel, then I would suggest looking into the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II.  Add a 1.4x TC, and it's IQ at 280mm nearly matches the 70-300L at 300mm while being a stop faster.  Add a 2x TC, and it's IQ at 400 is only slightly worse than the 100-400L's although it does focus significantly slower.  The 70-200 f/2.8 II IS might also make your 100 and 200L expendable, depending on how you use them.

The 70-300L is a good lens, but it seems like many people in this forum that have it also have multiple telezooms.  It is the best choice for travel, but if I could only have 1 telezoom, I'd choose the 70-200 f/2.8 II IS and its IQ and advantages in portraiture and sports over its increased size/weight/worse handling and slower AF with TCs attached/etc.

Lenses / Re: advice for new lens´╝čplease
« on: August 03, 2014, 12:44:46 PM »
I'd get the 16-35 f/4 IS first.  The wider AOV will give you more creative options for travel and street.

I don't find a long zoom necessary for travel very often, so out of your options, I'd choose the 16-35, 50 and 135.  It'd give you the wider shots, and give you fast/thinner DOF options.  If you go to a lot of zoos, amusement parks, then a 70-xxx can be useful, but for general travel, I usually leave the 70-xxx zooms at home.

I'd suggest keeping the 35L even if you get the 16-35.  It is a 3-stop difference, which will come in handy indoors or in low light.  I'd suggest selling the 200 if you get a 70-200, especially if it's a f/2.8.  You can always get a 1.4x TC to use on the 135L if you need something a little more discreet.

Lenses / Re: canon 16-35 2.8 II vs. WHAT?
« on: July 30, 2014, 09:46:49 PM »

Dave Dugdale did a q quick A/B of the Tokina 16-28mm f/2.8 to the new Canon 16-35 f/4L IS, and found they were similar in quality - except the tokina can do f/2.8 but does not accept filters due to bulbous front element:

In fact, his conclusion was that he was keeping the Tokina.  So, I would say this is a worthy option to consider.

According to TDP, the Tokina performs best at 16mm.  With both at f/4, the Tokina does have less distortion (as Dugdale commented) but the Canon has less color fringing.  However, that is the Tokina's best focal length.  The corners get worse at longer focal lengths.

Lenses / Re: canon 16-35 2.8 II vs. WHAT?
« on: July 30, 2014, 09:01:15 AM »
Try looking at the Tokina 16-28 f/2.8.  It compares well against the 16-35 f/2.8 II, and is a lot less expensive.  However, the best ultrawide zoom for Canon is now the 16-35 f/4 IS.

Lenses / Re: New Canon L Primes, but Not Until 2015 [CR2)
« on: July 29, 2014, 01:04:15 PM »
There is much more to Sigma's recent success in the quality of their products than in their go-to-market timing.  Sigma is doing well because it is putting out some fine lenses for terrific prices.  And on the data side of things, specifically in resolution, Sigma is handily beating Canon, not just keeping up.  The 35 and 50 Art are the sharpest AF lenses in their respective focal lengths, and by a comfortable margin.

I haven't shot either of the Sigma Art primes, but many trusted reviewers hold both of those lenses in very high regard.  But a lens is more than how sharp it is.  So I could see 'real world' reviews possibly not seeing as large a gap between Canon and Sigma in these focal lengths.

Canon must be working on some next generation L-series standard primes (24/35/50/85) that are intended for very large MP sensors.  I think we are all waiting for those.

- A

Don't forget some other Sigma Global Vision releases:  30 f/1.4, 18-35 f/1.8, 120-300 f/2.8 and 24-105 f/4.  Some like the 35A, 50A and 18-35A are world class.  The 30A and the 12-300S offer slight improvements compared to their predecessors but aren't that much better.  And then there is the 24-105, which may offer slight improvements compared to Canon's 24-105 but also streets at a higher price.

Lenses / Re: New Canon L Primes, but Not Until 2015 [CR2)
« on: July 29, 2014, 12:14:40 PM »
Seeing as how Sigma already released a killer 50/1.4 at an extremely competitive price, I don't see how Canon could compete given that their latest offerings show that all they really care about are slow-aperture IS zooms at exorbitant prices.  The idea that Canon will release something faster than f/2, patent filings notwithstanding, is not exactly something I have a lot of confidence in.

Canon simply does not care about high-quality fast-aperture primes for photographers.  These days, it is all about cinema lenses and cheap consumer-level zooms they can crank out.  Everyone keeps holding on...crossing fingers, hopeful that next year will be the "year of the lens."  Again, just LOOK at what Sigma made.  They have nowhere near the kind of optical expertise or production capability that Canon has, and they made an AF 50mm f/1.4 lens with corner sharpness that is closer to a $3500 manual-focus Zeiss than it is to ANY other such design on the market today.  And then they priced it under $1000.  I have no particular love for Sigma, mind you (their QC and customer service leave much to be desired).  But this is just embarrassing.

Canon used to be a company that pushed the frontiers of optical design.  They pioneered many lens technologies that we take for granted today, such as USM AF; fluorite elements; diffractive optics; image stabilization; all-electronic lens-body communication in the EF mount; and ultra-fast apertures of f/1.0 and f/1.2 that still have no equal today.  I find it maddening that this is the same company that now seems to cr*p out a new EF-S 18-135mm cheapo zoom every six months, or produces some insane $35k cinema lens that only movie studios will buy, and leaves everyone else in the cold because we aren't their bread and butter.

The Sigma 50A came out this year.  It will take years for Canon to respond with something in kind unless they knew Zeiss and Sigma were playing with retrofocus designs years ago.

The 16-35 f/4 IS is a great lens and addresses a lot of concerns that people had in Canon's ability to design sharp ultrawide zooms.  The new 10-18 was a surprise that many were not expecting, and the ef-m 55-200 shows that Canon has not abandoned that platform.  The 24-70II sets the benchmark that the fast L primes will have to beat, and that IQ bar is high.  And like or not, Canon's releases of the 24, 28 and 35 IS lenses has shown that Canon's days of producing non-L primes without IS is over. 

I'm hoping the 50 IS will be a small compact f/1.4 gaussian design that slots between the existing f/1.4 and Sigma's 50A, and I'm hoping that the 50L II will be a retrofocus design that competes against the 50A and the Otus.  Releasing the 100-400L II this year will make it look a lot better than what has been released to date, and anything else will be gravy.  I'm looking forward to the 35L II and the 100-400 II too, but I'm in no rush.  Plus my wallet can't handle it all at once anyway...

Lenses / Re: Lenses in the 20mm range
« on: July 28, 2014, 08:00:01 AM »
I forgot to ask, are you using a full frame 6D/5D/1DX, or a crop sensor camera from the rest of Canon's range?


I'm assuming that he's using FF because a 20mm lens would give a 94 deg diagonal angle of view from his original post.  And if he wants to do a whole room corner-to-corner, then a 17mm lens would get you to 93 deg for the horizontal AOV while a 20 would get you 84 deg.

To be honest, anything could work, even stitching. It is only a matter of convenience. TS-E may be the best choice (as a specialized lens). However, any decent gear combined with good post-processing skills could easily outweigh the best possible equipment, if you know what you're doing. 16-35/4L is a decent multipurpose option.
Stabilized UWA lenses are great for handheld video, but there's no way it could replace a decent tripod. At long exposures (like 0.5+sec) IS only compensates for vibrations, the movement stays + without a tripod it would be difficult to keep the perfect level alignment (if not impossible).

True, although horizontal and vertical tilts have their limits in software.  Past 10 using LR, and the results start looking hokey.  A TS-E is faster to use if a tripod is used.  Shift can be used to compensate for tripod height changes and for getting yourself out of the frame when standing in front of small mirrors (i.e. small bathrooms).

Lenses / Re: Lenses in the 20mm range
« on: July 28, 2014, 12:34:14 AM »
+1 on the TS-E 17.  It was made for interior shots.  The 16-35 f/4 IS may have more uses, but nothing does interior shots better than the TSEs.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 87