September 16, 2014, 11:55:52 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 - candc

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 35
1
Lenses / Re: how to get 300 2.8
« on: Today at 11:52:46 PM »
I have the sigma sport and it is a fantastic lens. From what i have seen It is not quite as good at 300 as the canon 300ii but its very close and its a zoom. It is really good with the canon 1.4xiii or kenko pro tc to give you 168-420 f/4. I am excited to see how it does with the new sigma tc's, the current ones are not the best.

2
Lenses / Re: Choose your Weapon: Ultra Wide Zooms for Canon
« on: Today at 11:28:08 PM »
I use the Nikon 14-24f/2.8 on the 5DMK III with a Novoflex adaptor, requires Manual Focus, but it's Landscape so works fine.

Works better on the D3x.

I also use the Canon 8-15f/4, mostly @ 15, find it's a pretty good Lens at 15, certainly better than the older 15f/2.8 Prime.

The Canon 16-35f/2.8 I've almost given up on, all the Canon Primes in this Range work much better, 14f/2.8, 24f/1.4, 35f/1.4, and the Zeiss primes in this range work better than the Canon primes, as long as your Ok with Manual Focus.

I have the 15mm and like it a lot especially with the software we have nowadays like dxo that corrects the aberrations and let's you de-fish it all or partially. I was interested in getting the 8-15 but I am not really into circular shots and I didn't think it was supposed to be any better at 15 than the prime? Is it?

I use both primarily for Underwater Imaging, the newer 8-15f/4 is a much better Lens @ 15 than the older 15f/2.8 @ f/4. The usability of the 8-15 is more restricted as you get lower than say 12mm, at this point it's more about Fun than good Images, still , fun is what Photography is supposed to be about.

For Lanscape work I lean towards the Zeiss 15f/2.8 & Zeiss 21 f/2.8 where the Manual Focus isn't an issue.

The Nikon 14-24f/2.8 is better than anything that Canon currently makes in the Range, but this is a subjective viewpoint, although based on My owning both the Canon 16-35f/2.8 & the Nikon 14-24f/2.8, I've used both these lenses extensively in Underwater Imaging and Landscape, the Nikon beats the Canon in every way, unfortunately. I'de love to see Canon bring a 14-24f/2.8 to Market with the sharpness of the 17 & 24 TSE lenses or even as good as the Nikon.

You might want to give the new 16-35 f/4 a try. I am not sure its suited for underwater photography, I think that's an an application like astrophotography where a faster lens is desireable but for general landscape shooting it's great. it doesn't go as wide as some would like but it goes to 35 and that is a plus for me. It's sharp at f/4 and doesn't need to be stopped down unless you want more dof.

3
Lenses / Re: Choose your Weapon: Ultra Wide Zooms for Canon
« on: Today at 09:42:42 PM »
I use the Nikon 14-24f/2.8 on the 5DMK III with a Novoflex adaptor, requires Manual Focus, but it's Landscape so works fine.

Works better on the D3x.

I also use the Canon 8-15f/4, mostly @ 15, find it's a pretty good Lens at 15, certainly better than the older 15f/2.8 Prime.

The Canon 16-35f/2.8 I've almost given up on, all the Canon Primes in this Range work much better, 14f/2.8, 24f/1.4, 35f/1.4, and the Zeiss primes in this range work better than the Canon primes, as long as your Ok with Manual Focus.

I have the 15mm and like it a lot especially with the software we have nowadays like dxo that corrects the aberrations and let's you de-fish it all or partially. I was interested in getting the 8-15 but I am not really into circular shots and I didn't think it was supposed to be any better at 15 than the prime? Is it?

4
Lenses / Re: Choose your Weapon: Ultra Wide Zooms for Canon
« on: Today at 09:30:23 PM »
I was going to go get a Canon 10-18mm next week but now I'm waiting.  I had talked myself
into making do with the horrid aperture range for 300bucks, especially when I'd mostly be
using it for landscapes.  But when I saw the rumor for the 15-30mm from Tamron I decided
to wait.  If it's under a grand and as good optically as their new 24-70mm I'll grab one and
that will give me more versitility with the faster aperture and image stabilitzation.  I've found
that 20-24mm (FF equivalent) is about the focal length I like the most for wide angle and so
the 15mm for aps-c would be right on the money.

What are people's speculations for price?  Will it be more or less than Tamrons 24-70mm f/2.8 VC?

The new 10-18 looks really good. Wide aperture isn't important to me for a landscape lens because you want to shoot it around f/8 or f/11 on aps-c so that's where the is comes in handy so you can shoot handheld and keep your iso down to earth. It takes filters too!

5
Lenses / Re: Choose your Weapon: Ultra Wide Zooms for Canon
« on: Today at 09:21:47 PM »
I like the range 16-35 f/4 on ff. it's plenty sharp, has good color and contrast, "is" and it takes normal filters. You can even use 2 filters like a nd2 and a polarizer without vignetting. Its weather sealed, not too heavy and a reasonable price. For aps-c I really like the sigma 8-16, its super wide and just about as good as the 16-35 on ff but it doesn't have is, or take filters.

6
Canon EF Zoom Lenses / Re: Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM
« on: Today at 11:10:32 AM »
the image stabilization works great for doing hand held shots like this

7
Canon EF Prime Lenses / Re: Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L USM
« on: September 10, 2014, 07:34:58 PM »
It's been a while since I've posted a cat photo...but this one came out nice - 1D X + 50L - f/2.8 1/160s @ ISO 16,000 + DxO PRIME.

Wow, looks great, especially considering it was taken at iso 16000!

8
Canon EF Zoom Lenses / Re: Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM
« on: September 10, 2014, 07:09:55 PM »
a couple from killarney provincial park

Aha! I think I know that place from a friend that use to shoot a lot in that neighbourhood. Could be because she lives nearby. :)
I'm guessing you enjoyed shooting there - those are lovely photos.

thanks, she is lucky to live close by such a beautiful place. maybe i can go back again soon when the leaves are changing, any picture with the bow of a canoe in it is a pleasure to take!

9
Canon EF Zoom Lenses / Re: Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM
« on: September 10, 2014, 06:39:16 PM »
a couple from killarney provincial park

10
Canon EF Zoom Lenses / Re: Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM
« on: September 06, 2014, 07:50:47 AM »
Mt. Rainier. Wind was the main killer of image sharpness. IS helps a great deal without a tripod.

that's a nice photo of a beautiful place. i don't normally take a dslr on backcountry trips but i am taking this lens and a 6d for a canoe trip into killarney provincial park for a few days. hopefully i will get some good photos along the way.

11
HDR - High Dynamic Range / Re: Sepia Tone or Black and White HDR's
« on: September 02, 2014, 11:15:04 PM »
a couple of some old equipment in the gravel pit across the road. these are one shot hdr done with dxo

12
Canon EF Prime Lenses / Re: Canon EF 15mm f/2.8 Fisheye
« on: September 01, 2014, 11:44:55 AM »
i have always really liked this lens, originally i got it for doing full panoramas. its really sharp and has good color and contrast. its more useful with today's software tools like dxo than it used to be. poor fisheye gets left out of all the best ultrawide talks but i think it deserves an honorable mention.

13
Canon EF Zoom Lenses / Re: Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM
« on: September 01, 2014, 10:39:55 AM »
i really like the basilica photo. the colors are a lot different in the downloaded version compared to what appears on the web here?

the lines and perspective are nice and straight. it looks like you made a software correction? i don't know how much framing you lose by doing that but it looks great. maybe you will be using your tilt shift lens now?

14
Canon EF Zoom Lenses / Re: Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM
« on: August 30, 2014, 07:09:45 PM »
I returned to an old favorite place this morning called South Swamp, almost 3 years to the day of my last visit and I'm happy with the results:

That's a great shot, looks  menacing.

15
Lenses / Re: Best PRIME lenses to take to NYC?
« on: August 28, 2014, 10:18:31 PM »
Then I would say the 35 and the 135

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 35