August 23, 2014, 03:43:37 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 - Vern

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 7
1
Lenses / Re: 85mm f1/2L II and event photography?
« on: August 22, 2014, 11:41:42 AM »
Great topic!

Not only does the camera body make a difference, but personal taste for blur should be taken into account.

For example, Vern's lovely wedding shot above has too much blur for my taste.  I'd rather have a little less blur and be able to identify my friends/relatives in their wedding pix.  I think photographers may have gotten a bit carried away in seeking maximum blur.  Do clients really want that?  I think they are more concerned that we don't make them look fat.     BTW, I'm not a wedding photographer, so my opinion should not be given a lot of weight.  - pun intended :)

Personally, on my 5D3,  I prefer the 85 1.8 for its light weight and speedy autofocus.  In my recent side by side test, the images were quite similar.   But of course the 85 1.2 can create more blur if you shoot at 1.2.

All I need to do now is find a way to paint a red ring on my 1.8!

Thanks - I did also manage to focus a few shots on the subjects.  ;)The 1.8 is a very nice option and certainly much lighter than the 1.2 - although at 1.8, the IQ of the 1.2 is much better. Not sure if the bokeh at the same aperture would be equivalent either. I do shoot at 1.2, but the DOF is so shallow that getting more than one subject in the focal plane is a challenge.

2
Lenses / Re: 85mm f1/2L II and event photography?
« on: August 21, 2014, 03:48:55 PM »
I used this lens exclusively at my oldest son's wedding on a 1Dx. As I was just a back-up to the pro they hired, I could risk missing some shots - and of course I wanted to be a participant as well. I had the choice of my 70-200 2.8II, but I'm glad I went with the 85 b/c I shot mostly at f1.8 and really got some great shots. Since most were posed, the focus speed was not an issue and the 'look' provided by this lens won the day. Good thing I was back-up b/c the pro did not really deliver excellent shots. If I was on the hook as a pro, I would definitely have this lens on one body while I had the 24-70 2.8II or 70-200 2.8II on another. I don't think another lens would render bokeh as per below.

3
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 11-24 f/2.8L Coming [CR1]
« on: August 07, 2014, 05:47:48 PM »


[/quote]I am in the same boat. There's no real IQ improvement in the 16-35 f/4L IS. They are the same at equivalent apertures. The fact that they are the same weight and size, and that the 16-35 f/2.8L II goes to 2.8 convinced me to skip the f/4, but an 11/12/14 - 24 is more tempting. I realllly hope they go with f/4 on this to keep the weight down, because f/2.8 is bound to be big and heavy, not to mention much more expensive.
[/quote]

I agree about the IQ between the f4 and 2.8II - contrast looks marginally better at f4 w the former, but not really worth replacing a lens over and at f8 where I shoot landscape from a tripod, its definitely not worth a switch (pending further data).

11-24 w or w/o f 2.8 is intriguing. I'd go with the best IQ formula and only prefer 2.8 if it did not degrade the IQ at f4 and above. Size, weight + cost less important for the applications I envisage.

4
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 11-24 f/2.8L Coming [CR1]
« on: August 07, 2014, 04:57:47 PM »
worth waiting for

Was debating the new 16-35 IS 4 to replace the 16-35 2.8II, but only for the IQ - I don't need the IS on an UWA. Now, I can think about having 11-70 mm covered with the same IQ as the 24-70 2.8 II. If my IQ wish is true, I will happily pay the price. Possible in 2015?

5
Landscape / Re: give us a wave
« on: August 04, 2014, 08:27:22 PM »
Hurricane Arthur passed 80 miles offshore of Oak Island on July 3rd. Not an artistic shot, but it was quite a wave. The pier is ca. 20 feet above the water.

6
Lenses / Re: Lensrentals Canon UWA FF lens comparison
« on: July 31, 2014, 10:29:28 PM »
I'll hold off until more f8 results come out. My rationale being that I use the 16-35II 2.8 in two ways - low light people photography in tight settings (need 2.8, tack-sharpness less important since motion blur will be the image limiting effect) and landscape (shot at f8-11 where it appears the 16-35II 2.8 is not far behind the new 16-35IS 4.0). IS on a wide angle is not a big deal to me since I have steady hands and can shoot at 1/10 sec at 16-35 mm with a decent keeper rate, and if I'm shooting landscape, I mostly use a tripod anyway.

All this said, the new 24-70II 2.8 is so sharp that I now debate whether to carry my 24TS II every time I shoot landscape. If I'm not planning on TS movements, the 24-70II seems just as sharp and obviously quicker/more flexible. Maybe the 16-35IS 4.0 is so much better optically than the 2.8 that I will get it just for landscape. f 8.0 will tell (looks similar on the IQ tests from the digital picture site). Make sense?

7
HDR - High Dynamic Range / Re: Post your HDR images:
« on: July 26, 2014, 05:27:42 PM »
Beautiful clouds SwnSng. Here are some from Pisgah National Forest near Mount Mitchell.

8
Sent mine in at the time - they cleaned the sensor, but it has oil spots again now. I have also cleaned the sensor myself several times. I love many things about this body but this bit is frustrating. I guess I will send it in again for cleaning if I can't resolve it myself.  :(

9
Landscape / Re: Sunset landscape
« on: July 26, 2014, 04:22:39 PM »
Sunset on the Blue Ridge. 5DMKIII, 24-70II, HDR

10
HDR - High Dynamic Range / Re: Post your HDR images:
« on: July 13, 2014, 10:09:59 PM »
Sunrise on the sound side, Oak Island, NC. 5DMKIII, 24-70II.

11
Animal Kingdom / Re: Show your Bird Portraits
« on: July 13, 2014, 10:06:23 PM »
Thanks Click - the hummer was a very tight crop. Even w 840mm, they are small and hard to approach. I'm hoping for better goldfinch shots with a little more time in my blind.

12
Animal Kingdom / Re: Show your Bird Portraits
« on: July 13, 2014, 01:53:36 PM »
Summer visitors, immature male ruby throated hummingbird and an American goldfinch. Both shot with 5DMKIII + 600 II and 1.4X III, f8 - loaded the DLO for this combo and applied.

13
IMO - when comparing a prime to a zoom, the real question is, do you need the shorter focal lengths and zoom flexibility? If what you really want is a longer telephoto for avian photog etc., then the 300II is the clear choice b/c it pairs so beautifully with the 1.4 and 2X III. There are a number posts on this combo. Short version is - you get a stellar 300 2.8, a super 420 4.0, and a very, very good, hand holdable 600 5.6 (best at f8). All the combos AF well. It's a costly set-up, but if you can afford it and tele work is what you want to do, you will have no regrets.

14
Animal Kingdom / Re: Show us your Hooters (Owls)
« on: July 03, 2014, 12:42:45 PM »
Beautiful owls all. Here's a barred owl that was fishing in a creek near my house and kindly waited on me to retrieve my camera - 5DMKIII, 600 II.

15
Tern making a turn, from Vern (OK, enough of that) - but I do like this pose.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 7