Messages

1

Lenses / Re: I have a weight limit....what would you bring?

« on: May 17, 2013, 02:59:35 PM »

All interesting and thanks for everyone's thoughts.  Today I am leaning towards the 24-105 + 17-40 + "Shorty 40" (for low light situations) in my Retrospective bag.  I love my 70-200 but on past trips, based on EXIF on LR, rarely used it (this is my first trip with the 5D - my old kit was a crop with 15-85 + 10-22 + 70-200).  I did use the WA zoom for interiors.  I know that I'll miss whatever I leave home, but I've lugged a heavier kit in temps over 100F and it is no fun.

Since you're trying to keep weight down, it seems a bit odd to me to take two overlapping f/4 zooms.  How often did you use the 17-40 wider than 24?  If seldom, leave it behind.  If you hardly ever use the 70-200 because you hardly ever go beyond 70mm (as opposed to because you seldom go beyond 105mm), what about taking 17-40 + 50mm prime?

2

Lenses / Re: Standard Lens for Paris and London holiday.

« on: May 17, 2013, 12:10:11 AM »

It depends on the sorts of focal lengths you like using, how much equipment you want to carry around and for how long, and what you'll be shooting.  The days are long in both cities in the last week of May, so unless the weather's really heavily overcast you shouldn't have to worry much about low light unless you want to photograph inside churches etc., some of which are pretty dark inside even in the middle of the day.  Moreover, with your 6D you may well find that a slower lens with IS yields better results in low light than a fast lens without it, so you could lighten your bag by leaving behind fast lenses (unless you want them for other reasons). 

I can't quite tell from your post, but if you're planning on taking just one lens, would 24-70 II be versatile enough for you?  If so, go for it.  It would be too short for me.  When I was in Paris a year ago, around the same time you're going, I took my 5DII and 17-40, 24-105, 70-200 f/4 IS (if I had had my 70-300L I would have taken that instead), and three 1.8 primes, but except when I was in Notre Dame or wandering around after dark I never used the primes and only took with me either 24-105 or 17-40 + 70-200.  (And, as it turned out, the IS zooms generally performed better than the primes in low light (the results would have been even better had the 6D been available at the time).  The next time I go, unless I just take my Olympus OM-D gear instead, I'll take 6D + 24-105 + 70-300L (both perform really well in low light on the 6D) and leave the rest behind. 

If you're really set on the 24-70, you may want to supplement it with a 70-200 f/4 IS or 70-300L (I guess you could go whole hog and get the 70-200 2.8 IS II, but who wants to cart that around all day?).

3

Lenses / Re: 50 f1.4 vs 85 f1.8.....

« on: May 15, 2013, 03:30:17 PM »

I've been doing a lot of senior photo shoots, and also some general portrait work over the last few years and I was thinking that a prime lens might be in order for better DOF and results. My current photos are very nice and I have gotten many complements on the shoots. I'm just thinking that going prime is the next step. A lot of my photos are head or head & torso shots, so I could go either way, just am not sure which is a better lens as the 50 is pretty old, but people say it's still great. When comparing them on the Digital Pic website, the 85 looked to have a better result on the charts.

Thanks,

In addition to what neuroanatomist says, for head/torso shots the longer lens lets you stay farther away from your subject which, aside from resulting in rather more flattering photos, makes for a more relaxed and comfortable experience all round.

4

Reviews / Re: The Digital Picture Reviews the Tamron 24-70

« on: May 15, 2013, 03:21:03 PM »

babiesphotos' response is a useful reminder of why it's hard to figure out via the internet what a consensus might be (even though it may be easier there than anywhere else).  People like to complain and warn and seem less likely to report a favorable or neutral experience.  Similarly, the problem they reported at lensrentals was announced via a special blog entry, but it took a rather obscure response to a specific comment to report that subsequent copies of the lens are just fine and have no new problems.  I would add that since the folk at lensrentals see more copies of lenses than just about anyone else, and seem reliable/unbiased/accurate in their reporting, their comments on the mechanical reliability of any particular lens are more valuable than most.

The problem you are referring to was with initial production copies at lens rentals.  It was hardly obscure, having been posted all over the internet.   It was a result of a poor design.  Tamron did not admit to fixing it or recall any, they just mysteriously stopped sending out problem copies. 
 
This topic is covering recently purchased lenses that have IQ issues.  They are not falling apart any longer, that part is fixed.

I didn't say that initial problem was obscure.  As of December, lensrentals reported "no new problems".  Perhaps someone who's interested in buying one should ask them for an update.

5

Lenses / Re: EF 24-70mm F2.8 L ver 2 or 3 Prime Lens

« on: May 15, 2013, 11:48:58 AM »

It all rather depends on what body you own (FF or crop), what other lenses you own, what focal lengths matter to you, how much speed you need, how much sharpness matters (including whether the extent to which the difference in sharpness would be noticeable in the sort of photos you takes), how much being able to achieve shallow focus matters, whether weight matters, etc. 

For instance, the three primes you mention together weigh a bit more than the zoom, but you might rather travel light and carry just one or two of them all day long and achieve similar results by getting closer or farther away.  The range covered by the three primes you mention is significantly different from the zoom - does wider than 35mm not matter much, if at all, to you?  Do you regularly want to go beyond 70mm?  It might make sense to consider something else entirely - e.g. 24-105L plus a couple of primes.  Or 24-105 + 70-300L.  (Or, dare I say it, the Tamron 24-70 VC + a prime or two.)  Or....

6

Reviews / Re: The Digital Picture Reviews the Tamron 24-70

« on: May 14, 2013, 03:09:07 PM »

babiesphotos' response is a useful reminder of why it's hard to figure out via the internet what a consensus might be (even though it may be easier there than anywhere else).  People like to complain and warn and seem less likely to report a favorable or neutral experience.  Similarly, the problem they reported at lensrentals was announced via a special blog entry, but it took a rather obscure response to a specific comment to report that subsequent copies of the lens are just fine and have no new problems.  I would add that since the folk at lensrentals see more copies of lenses than just about anyone else, and seem reliable/unbiased/accurate in their reporting, their comments on the mechanical reliability of any particular lens are more valuable than most.

For my part (largely worthless though this information is), I've used two copies, one via lensrentals and one I bought from amazon.  Both performed exactly as they should (I ended up returning the one I bought because it had no relevant advantage for me over my 24-105).

7

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 40D vs. 6D AF

« on: May 12, 2013, 04:41:20 PM »

I can't help with the body decision (I haven't used a 40D but own a 5DII and 6D; and for what I photograph don't see any advantage in the 5DIII over the 6D; you might).  I would note, though, that while the 5DIII has a ton of focus points, they're all lumped in the middle of the frame (I think this is true of all FF DSLRs, isn't it?) in an area not much different from that covered by the far fewer points on the 6D, rather than usefully spread all over it.  I'm inclined to suggest that you hold off on buying a 50mm prime until you've tried your 85mm on your new FF body - you may not feel any pressing need for a wider one (you can experiment with your 24-105).  And while the 135L is a fantastic lens, 135mm isn't much different from 105mm; for a bit more variety you might want to consider the 200 2.8, which creates images that are very similar to those taken with the 135mm but gives you extra reach.  Either way, you can't really lose.... 

8

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Fuji x100(s) to Supplement an SLR

« on: May 12, 2013, 01:38:30 PM »

Based on what I've read about them (I've never used one) I thought the various Fujis sounded appealing, but only the ones with interchangeable lenses (I seldom use a wide angle lens, which rules out the X100/s); and at the time I was thinking about getting a small back-up camera there was nothing longer than 60mm, which is nowhere near long enough for me.  I ended up going with the Olympus OMD instead, in large part so I could best use the Olympus 75mm prime.  I suspect (but don't know for sure) that Fuji does better at very high ISOs, but the Olympus is a marvelous camera (I won't spell out why - there's enough written about it already online).  It doesn't hurt that a smallish bag containing all my M43 gear (body + 5 primes and two zooms) weighs less than, say, my 70-300L by itself, and that the excellent Panasonic 100-300mm lens is a tiny fraction of the size/weight/obtrusiveness of any DSLR equivalent; it's quite amusing to put it next to my Sigma 50-500 OS....   Nor does it hurt that the focus accuracy of this equipment surpasses any DSLRs I've used.

Anyway, I find myself using the Olympus a lot, though in part that may be just because it's the newer toy.  Some of the time I use it by itself, but at other times I take it in conjunction with my 6D or 5DII - it's an easy way to be more versatile with less weight, and with remarkably little compromise in quality (much of the time, none at all).

9

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Do you trust your camera?

« on: May 11, 2013, 03:20:32 PM »

I trust the camera more than I trust myself.   That said, I've owned and rented several different DSLRs over the past few years and my success rate is higher than warrants the number of "just in case" shots I take.  But it does vary with different body/lens combinations.  One of the factors that persuaded me to switch from my Pentax K5 to a 5DII was the superior performance mechanically of the Canon lenses I tried; a much smaller proportion of the photos I took were out of focus after I made the switch, smaller still when I added a 6D (and smaller than my experiences with Nikon D3100 and D600).  I find the fail rate of the 6D + 70-300L combination satisfyingly close to zero.  If I'm in a situation where the fail rate is likely to be higher - e.g. very shallow depth of focus such that the slightest movement by me or the subject will screw it up - then I'll take more.  (I only ever shoot hand-held; the answer might be different if I regularly used a tripod.)

[I must say, though, that my mirrorless camera - Olympus OMD - is in a completely different class in terms of accuracy than any DSLR I've used; if it thinks it has focused accurately, it has (like DSLRs it occasionally won't focus at all, but that's a different matter).  Whether this is because mirrorless focusing mechanisms are inherently more accurate, because you can place the focus point anywhere on the image, because the lenses are well designed, because of something in specifically in the design of the OMD, or some combination of these factors, I can't say; but if it weren't for habit I doubt I would be taking "just in case" shots with it except in special cases (e.g. when I'm using a macro lens).]

10

Animal Kingdom / Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?

« on: May 10, 2013, 02:30:39 PM »

It's when you start adding elements not in the original capture, It's no longer photography.

I could not agree more, adding to the image changes it to photographic art; however, subtracting (the corner of a building, a flying bird, contrails, et cetera) is perfectly acceptable.  Obviously anything you can do it a wet darkroom, you can 'legally' do the same in photoshop.

On the off-chance your comments aren't tongue-in-cheek, what's the (relevant) difference between adding a flying bird and subtracting a flying bird? (They're both additions anyway.) And why is it obvious that the ethics of all of this are defined by what can be done in a wet darkroom?

11

Animal Kingdom / Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?

« on: May 10, 2013, 02:26:24 PM »

I find nothing wrong with these before and afters here.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2013/05/10/aesthetics-versus-truth

It's when you start adding elements not in the original capture, It's no longer photography.

If you're going to take that view, then I guess the question becomes "what's an element?"  It seems to me that a heck of a lot has been added to the first photo, including colors and perceived light.  Why aren't they elements?

12

Lenses / Re: Is An UWA Lens Useful on a Crop Sensor?

« on: May 10, 2013, 11:38:56 AM »

Can you rent one where you are?  If you can, try the Sigma 8-16, which is the widest of the lot and performs well (though not being able to attach a protective filter is a trifle alarming), and judge for yourself.  Sure, you can use it to "get it all in" but to these eyes the results seldom look good unless you're photographing a cramped interior space - outdoors, if you try to "get it all in" you'll likely end up with vast amounts of boring empty foreground.  The main point of these lenses is the fun you can have playing with the distortions they create.  See here, for instance (you may already know all this, of course):

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/wide-angle-lenses.htm

You may find that after the initial new toy excitement wears off these special effects seem a bit gimmicky and lose their appeal; or you may decide that you like the effects but that 8mm is too extreme and 11-12 is enough; etc.  Chances are you'll enjoy finding out.... 

13

Lenses / Re: Can the 70-200 2.8L II IS replace my 100L and 135L?

« on: May 10, 2013, 11:14:11 AM »

It depends what you shoot and in what circumstances.  Not sure what you mean when you say that the 70-200 2.8 II will likely "outperform" the 100L.  I suspect that any differences in sharpness among the three lenses you mention are negligible in actual use, while in my experience you can create better background blur with the 100L and 135L than with the 70-200 2.8 II; this matters to me but may not matter to you.  If weight matters (it does to me, but may not to you) and you don't need f/2.8, consider the 70-200 f/4 IS, which is more-or-less as sharp but smaller, half the weight and half the price price, or the 70-300L, which is perhaps not quite as sharp (though in most practical applications this may not be noticeable), but also smaller, half the weight and half the price - and more versatile, too.   

14

Animal Kingdom / Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?

« on: May 09, 2013, 03:55:25 PM »

Once you composite images, Its no longer Photography to me.

He didn't ask whether the results of his manipulations met some definition of "photograph" but whether the manipulations he performed were unethical.  Are you saying that he can manipulate all he wants so long as he doesn't call the results "photographs"?

15

Animal Kingdom / Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?

« on: May 09, 2013, 03:42:14 PM »

I much prefer the altered image. I'm not sure the clouds were *needed*, but I like them and all the other changes, including the removal of those ugly, distracting, scruffy bushes/trees.  Cheating? Sure, if the sole point of taking a photograph is to show what you were able to make of the scene in front of you using nothing but your ability to interact with a particular lens/camera combination. 

Part of me wants to say that displaying skill/technique is part of the point of the exercise, and that adding interesting subjects and removing boring/ugly ones is as "wrong" as a recording where a pianist who hits 97 wrong notes is able to "fix" it by splicing in correct ones, or where a famous soprano's (Flagstad) high Cs were in fact sung by someone else (Schwarzkopf) and dubbed in.

Another part of me, though, wants to say that photography is different.  Leaving aside honest/accurate reporting, photography is inherently deceptive/manipulative - if you can't "improve" on reality, why bother photographing it in the first place?  The real thing looks better than any attempt at providing a neutral report of it.  For many photographers, the best lenses are those which allow the shallowest depth of field.  Why do we want them?  So we can distort reality and make it appear that the subject is surrounded, not by distracting or ugly details, but by smears of light and colour.  The same is true of wide angle lenses and long telephoto lenses - we want the distortions they provide.  Compared to what all these lenses do, removing a few ugly bushes after the fact seems rather trivial.