April 21, 2014, 08:52:25 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 - Frodo

Pages: [1] 2 3 4
Reviews / Re: 35/2 IS Review by Dustin Abbott
« on: April 06, 2014, 02:24:01 PM »
Yes, I like Dustin's reviews - thanks Dustin.
And yes, I like this lens - thanks Canon.
I bought it for the small size, the sharpness and relatively small depth of field wide open, and for the IS.
Its weakness is bad coma wide open - I've posted elsewhere on this site about that.

I possibly don't understand your problem.  I also produce different aspect ratios, e.g 16:9 for screen, etc.  Lightroom allows for the simple selection of aspect ratios in the crop function ("r").
If you want to expect a range of aspect ratios with one button click, I would never do that.  One of the most important parts of my work flow is cropping for composition and usually crops are not centred on the image.  16:9 will often be lower or higher to get more or less sky.  4:3 will be to the left or right (or more frequently up or down in portrait format).
I would never want a plug-in to crop automatically.

Lenses / Re: 35mm f2 IS for city photography at night?
« on: February 19, 2014, 01:05:51 PM »
Quote from: Frodo link=topic=19640.msg370447#msg370447 date
However, coma is an issue.  I took a milky way shot and coma from city lights at the bottom edge (portrait format) was very noticeable.
Is it possible for you to post this picture? I took a look at lenstip.com but I'm interested in a real life example of this coma issue at F2.0. That would really help in the decision I want to make.

Here you are.  I took this quickly off a table top tripod.  Details 5DmkII, 35mmf/2IS, 15 sec @ f2, ISO 1600.  The max aperture of f/2 allowed me to shoot at 15 seconds avoiding star trails.  However, you can see the coma in the lights on the bottom left and stars in the top.  Stars are sharp and coma free in the centre of the photo.

Lenses / Re: 35mm f2 IS for city photography at night?
« on: February 19, 2014, 04:31:15 AM »
I bought the 35 f/2 IS a month ago and used it with success in DC.  It is very sharp wide open and I have no hesitation shooting at f/2 for a nice shallow depth of field.  The Sigma would be better, but that lens is much larger and heavier.  It is much smaller and lighter and less conspicuous than the 24-105 and I find walking around with the 35mm to be a revelation and this is a big plus when travelling.  I'm considering getting an 85mm f/1.8 to match it.  The IS seems better than on the 24-105, but I haven't tested it.  I took some nice longish exposures of waves handheld, so its also a good waterscape lens.  However, coma is an issue.  I took a milky way shot and coma from city lights at the bottom edge (portrait format) was very noticeable.  My Samyang 14mm f/2.8 is much, much better.  If you need night lights near the edge of the frame and are critical, then this lens is not for you.
But I'm very happy with my purchase.

Canon EF-S and EF-M Lenses / Re: Canon EF-M 22mm f/2 STM
« on: December 25, 2013, 01:33:33 PM »
I love your photos, their composition and lighting.
You have the 6D / EF 35/2 and the EF-M 22/2.  How do you find the two compare in terms of facilitating creativity?  How often would you just take the EF-M out?  Is the combo suitable for reasonably large prints?
I'm looking at getting at EF 35/2 IS as a walk-around lens that is smaller than my 24-105 - also when I go hiking.  But this thread has got me thinking...

Lenses / Re: Canon 400mm f/5.6 L
« on: December 12, 2013, 04:09:11 AM »
I've had my 400/5.6 since the days of film.  I have had this lens for the longest of all my gear.  There is a reason for this.  It is sharp wide open and small.  I shot some wonderful seabird shots with my 7D on a trip in the Southern Ocean last year.
Three tips: (1) Shoot wide open unless you need the extra depth of field.  Quality does improve on stopping down, but not much.
(2) set up your autofocus properly (AF acquisition speed etc) on a 7D (and presumably 5DIII), as well as AFMA.  Even at 5.6 depth of field is shallow, so the AF system needs to work. 
(3) you should use 1/750th when shooting even on full frame - a 1/1000th on crop.   I have steady hands but I need these speeds to have reliably sharp photos not only to stop camera movement, but also the movement of birds.  A monopod is very helpful for e.g. windsurfing photos

Reviews / Re: Rokinon 14mm f/2.8 Wide Angle Review
« on: October 01, 2013, 02:05:33 PM »
Right before I published I went trolling and read quite a few of other reviews on the net.  I was really surprised to find a mixed bag out there.  I was primarily surprised to hear some people claiming that it wasn't very sharp at all.  That sounded really weird to me, as some of the most reputable sources (and my own experience) told a very different story.  It left me asking if either there was that much sample variation (which I haven't really heard) or, perhaps, user error?

There was an earlier version with similar specs but different optically that apparently wasn't as sharp.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Is it flare, internal reflections or a ghost
« on: September 23, 2013, 09:11:03 PM »
These are reflections, could be internal...


Great Engineer's Thinking, Dear Arjay
In my Idea, and It happend to me long time ago.  just 1 small reflective dust on the  front of UV. filter, that create the UFOs  on the dark sky for me. I hope that are the real UFOs, that I can sell to the Newspaper for millions Us Dollars.----Ha, Ha, Ha.

Dust on the filter would not cause "UFOs".  More likely dust on the sensor.  A filter will increase the chance of ghosts, a dirty filter will increase the chance of veiling (a lack of contrast).

Lenses / Re: 14mm mk2 or 16-35 mk2?
« on: September 23, 2013, 06:03:44 PM »
Seems like a low risk proposition- not a lot of money if not used much.  Can you post some pics and tell me what you think are strong points and weak points please?

Two photos attached:
Strong points
- Sharpness (especially no coma (important for star shots) and little CA) - apparently best in class
- Silky focusing

Weak points:
- Manual everything (but you knew that)
- Not sure how robust it is, e.g. mount attached by just three screws.  My focusing ring partially seized on me during a trip to Europe, effectively making the lens unusuable other than at infinity.  I don'tknow what happened, i.e. I didn't drop it.  It was replaced under warranty.

- Distortion.  Quite a few gripes about distortion but I find that LR correction to be excellent with little loss of image area.

Software & Accessories / Re: Adobe Lightroom 5.2 Available
« on: September 21, 2013, 06:37:54 PM »
I was disappointed with the additional features from 4.X to 5, and then to 5.2.  But I did upgrade.  The improvement in the autotone function has made the upgrade worthwhile.  I often process a large number of images and an autotone function is a way to get a quick overview of the images.  Previously autotone was quite unreliable, getting sufficiently close in only about 10% of my images.  Now it is good enough for over 90%.  Of course, final images need more work, but this has made a big difference for me.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Is it flare, internal reflections or a ghost
« on: September 21, 2013, 06:19:58 PM »
Just tidying up some photos from last year and here is a photo of the 24-105 shoot straight into the sun on a 5D @ f11.  I think I would have left my Hoya Pro-1 UV filter attached because of the conditions in Antarctica.  I think that the flare resistance is more than acceptable for a zoom.  The green ghost was easily cloned out.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Is it flare, internal reflections or a ghost
« on: September 19, 2013, 11:22:32 PM »
Here is a photo of a nightscape with my 24-105 @ 24mm and f8 (the bridge photos were with a different lens).  Although I've used just the centre of this image, I've looked at the full frame and ghosts, if at all present, are inconspicuous.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Is it flare, internal reflections or a ghost
« on: September 19, 2013, 11:10:22 PM »
There was a recall of early version of that lens for flare: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/canon-flare.shtml

I have a 24-105 and I find it to be quite ghost resistant.  My 70-200 f4L non-IS was terrible with ghosts when shooting into bright lights, such as the sun - my 24-105 was much better.

The contrast range in your night photos will challenge most lenses, especially zooms with large numbers of lens elements.  Your highlights are completely burnt out (no criticism of the photo), while the skies are relatively dark.  Even so, I've shot night cityscapes with that lens on a 5Dii (e.g. under the Sydney harbour bridge) and I can't remeber ghosts being a problem - I'll check.  Is the sensor of the 6D shinier such that it causes more internal reflections?

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon 6D + 24-105 L combo not that great?
« on: September 17, 2013, 09:15:51 PM »
Please note (i) the resolution of 24-105 f/4 IS on 6D far outperforms that of 17-55 f/2.8 IS on APS-C camera (ii) FF cameras offer DOF flexibility that is not easy to match from the APS-C line. You can easily verify (i) by using the comparison tool on the-digital-picture.

Having both a 7D and 5Dii, I agree.  My 5D classic produced sharper images than the 7D.
DXOmark rates the 7D/17-55 at 9MPix sharpness compared to the 6D/24-105 at 14MPix.  That is half as much again.

Landscape / Re: Milky Way near the moon?
« on: September 17, 2013, 01:35:39 AM »
As other's have pointed out, you can't get them both in the same photo, but why not get them in 2?  A nice exposure of the moon can me combined with your moon free milky way shot. Be as realistic as you want or as over the top. Maybe an 800mm moon, in a wide angle shot of the milky way?

Even here in New Zealand with clear skies, I find that the Moon overpowers the Milky Way when close by. The lovely photo by kirispupis has the Moon some distance away.

Personally, I wouldn't stitch a tele shot of the Moon with a WA shot of the Milky Way - I find those photos kitsch.  I would be tempted to try two shots, one exposed for the Moon, the second exposed for the Milky Way using a black disc on a black wire to shield the sensor from the over-bright moon.  I'd then paste a realistic Moon in the image.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4