« on: July 04, 2014, 02:43:25 AM »
Does this mean we will have to reboot the camera efter every picture we take?
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.
Well, it's another one of those impossible questions. But as it involves my favourite lens I will reply. Just get it, there's no way you will be disappointed. It's a 16 year old construction but still performs amazingly well for me on my 5DIII. When the Mk2 comes out you won't have lost much anyway. It has a quality to it, something charts won't show, you'll notice the first time you put it on, feel the balance, snap your first shot and look at it. I love mine and will never sell it. My next purchase is the 50L, no matter how good the Sigma is. I understand the 50L has a similar feel to it as the 35L. But that's only me, that's what photography is to me - feel.
The 50 Art has much more of the same feel of the 35 L than the 50 L, because the 35 and 50 Art has way better sharpness and the shots pop more. You can use corners wide open, not so much with the 50 L.
Beyond that, I have owned six or seven 35 L's and I have shot at least 100k images with them, but IQ wise, the 50 Art destroys it. Much sharper all over, veryvery little ca, no distortion, color and contrast are much better than the 35 L. I know what the feel of a lens is, and I absolutely agree that the 35 L has the x-factor, but for a 50, I would never buy another 50 L when the sigma is out and that much cheaper.
Why I want the 35 L II is because it will be weather sealed, it will be sharper in the corners, less distortion, and color and contrast like the 24-70 mk2 or better and it will absolutely 100% sure be the best AF performance of any 1.4 lens.
Here's a recent 50 art 1.4 shot of my daughter. How sharp is that at 1.4 and how lovely bokeh? LOVE this lens!
The somewhat affordable price of the 16-35 makes me worry...Ha ha, one can't be suspicious enough...
Hey there Arctic,Hi Rusty. thanks for your words. I only do it where my kids are involved, but I know I make other parents and kids happy too which is very nice. Also, it's good practice for me. Just this afternoon I shot horse riding with my oldest daughter, I shot about 250 photos in an hour during very difficult lighting conditions. Fun and challenging. The teacher had me working a bit with the horses so they wouldn't be scared of the camera and the white lens (70-200 2. when I pointed it at them. I only shot jpg (there are limits to my kindness ) so I don't have to edit. The pictures will be used for their Facebook page and their homepage.
Glad you are so generous. You described it well. You are doing the same thing I'm doing, helping out organizations with your time and talents who wouldn't otherwise have what you provide. I shoot my son's high school swim team, church events, a lot of boy scout activities and various other things. It keeps me busier than most pros. But people appreciate it and I get a lot of experience and improve my abilities. It all gives my amateur shooting an important purpose and pushes me to improve.
I try to be considerate when a pro might be involved. My church hosted a 5K fun run race event last fall and I shot it along with the hired photog from the company that promoted the event for the church. I waited a month before I posted my pictures on my site to give the pro a chance to sell images. The pastor later thanked me and commented that they liked my pictures better. I was glad the event was a success and my pictures were well received but I was also glad I didn't initially "compete" with the hired photog either. It's all about a bit of balance and keeping egos in check.
I've shot for my childrens' school for free and also the horse stable where they go riding. Those places didn't have budget to hire a pro, the school had a communications officer, but she didn't have enough time and I could take better shots than her anyway. The horse stable would have to settle for less images and of worse quality, this way I hope have helped their business to make sure the stable can continue their operations. They now have good pictures, maybe not super pro quality as I'm not a pro. But at least good quality.This is the exact opposite approach to what I normally take. I try to hide my gear, use only the gear required, and it stays protected at all costs. I appreciate the volunteer work though. It is surprising that you haven't gotten flamed on the volunteerism piece. So many photogs complain about people taking food out of their mouths. My perspective is if someone can do as good a job as you can for free, then you are in the wrong business.
As a self employed business owner (IT Consulting), I always try to take the high road. There is plenty of business to go around and I don't have time to waste with negative thoughts and comments. If another IT guy wants the business bad enough, he can have it. I just try to provide good service and keep my clients that way. If a client doesn't want my services, I'm not going to beg or try to hold on to them. It's just not worth it. Most of my work is obtained by word of mouth and referrals anyway.
So, with that in mind, I sort of chuckle about pro photographers getting angry about volunteer competition. If the recipient of the photos could afford to hire a pro, they wouldn't use a volunteer. And if the volunteer is as good as or worth the same as the pro, so be it. They still probably don't have the money anyway or they would offer to pay the volunteer or just go without the better quality photos.
I think many pro quality photographers are no different than other tradesmen that offer to do pro-bono work. And you don't usually hear about other electricians, plumbers, carpenters, roofers, IT guys, etc getting upset about losing that business. What's the difference? And how much revenue is really being lost anyway?
He heI should clarify, if you don't own L lenses, then you may want to take extra precaution with your cheaper lenses. All my glass is L or Zeiss, so I'm not sure on the build quality of the lesser lenses, but from what I have read, it is not quite as good. In that case it might be wise to protect them somewhat. It really just depends on what gear you have. Sorry about not being too clear on the first post.
So your first lens was an 'L' lens?
Still no correction of the incorrect IS information though.........
Do a Google search of the lens + Hybrid IS and see what you find. I understand what you are saying and it isn't a Hybrid IS system in the sense of the system on the 100L, but most review sources refer to the IS system in the lens as "Hybrid". From FredMiranda, for example:
"The EF 35mm f/2.0 IS USM Standard Prime Lens from Canon adds hybrid Image Stabilization (IS) to a rear focusing system and ring-type Ultra Sonic Motor (USM) for not only quick and quiet autofocus, but steadier shots in low-light conditions. Optimized lens coatings help ensure exceptional color balance while minimizing ghosting, and full-time access to manual focus is provided while in autofocus (AF) mode allowing you to quickly switch between the two as you need them."
I don't know why you are making such an issue of this, but hopefully this will help...
First, I don't see that mentioning it twice is "making such an issue".
Second, why do a Google search? Copy and pasting something that is wrong does not make it right. More confusing for many, Canon actually have a feature called Hybrid IS, but it is not on this lens.
Why not just look at the Canon press release? "Canon Standard Prime Lens with Optical Image Stabilizer: EF 35mm f/2 IS USM Lens"
The manual: You can use the Image Stabilizer in AF or MF mode
The Spec sheet: OIS box
I appreciate you are brand building, however propagating erroneous information is not a brand I would expect you to want.
The fact that you also misrepresented what the IS actually does in panning mode is also frustrating. Your reviews are very nice, your supporting images a very welcome break from the usual journalist churn it out rubbish that is so common. You know how to take a photo and you actually use the gear to its potential rather than write about what you are given with no enthusiasm or knowledge in the hopes of a promotion to the motoring division of a big publishing house.
That I am asking for simple errors to be corrected shouldn't be seen as a negative, I am trying to help and make your branding authoritative.
I lost all respect for Ken Rockwell after reading this:
I know he, in his weird way, was trying to be "funny"...but so many things just go over the line in that page. When reading his photography pages, and when you see him in the few YouTube videos he is in, you get the feeling is a crass, arrogant buffoon...but when you read his "Where do Babies Come From"...you realize he's everything you fear he is...then you throw up.
I don't even bother to click on links to kenrockwell.com anymore...all I ever see now is...where do babies come from... T_T T_T T_T T_T T_T
This actually makes me accept that a couple of countries Ive lived in has internet censorship. He must have been drunk.
unfortunately for me china didn't block that now i will never un see that either