Messages

1

Landscape / Re: Sunset landscape

« on: May 15, 2013, 05:23:47 AM »

Sunset tonight down on the beach below our house.
5DII, Samyang 14mm 2.8, 1/60 f8 ISO 400.  Graduated filter in LR 4 darkening the sky above the horizon.  Added vibrance and clarity but no added saturation.  The white speck in the sky halfway above the island is the crescent Moon.

2

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 6D + Samyang 24 Visits Badlands Milky Way Extreme ISOs

« on: May 08, 2013, 02:56:57 PM »

Do you think you'd like to try a tracking mount? That, with image stacking, would allow you to do longer exposures and lower ISOs (or smaller apertures) for a less noisy result.

Can't see how that would work.  The camera needs to be fixed or the landscape foreground will move.  Longer exposures, including exposure stacking would give star trails, which would ruin this lovely photo.

A great shot, well composed with the foreground.  For my personal taste, I would reduce the exposure a little.  I use a Samyang 14/2.8 on my 5DII wide open for 30sec at ISO 3200 for Milky Way photos.

3

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: dissapointed 6d 100mm f2 and 24mm 2.8 (non l)

« on: May 06, 2013, 03:25:59 PM »

I remember disappointment going from my 20D to a 5D (mkI).  The RAW files needed a fundamentally different approach to get the best out of them.  I suspect it is the same with your 400D / 6D comparison.  As others have said, RAW files need processing, otherwise they will be flat.

I doubt very much that it is a focus problem (unless you have a really sick camera).  The 24/2.8 is not one of Canon's best lenses, but the 100/2 is very good.  So I doubt it is your gear.  Spend a little more time in processing.

4

Lenses / Re: How about a new 28-135mm?

« on: May 03, 2013, 08:01:07 PM »

I was happy with the 28-135 on film.  I was happy with the 28-135 on my 20D (matched nicely with 10-22). Hated the 28-135 when I went to a 5D. Replaced it with a 24-105 - huge difference.

See what Canon did when they "updated" the 24-105? Produced a 24-70/4 with less range, similar quality and double the price.  I say leave the 24-105 alone.  Be careful what you ask for when updating the 28-135!

Me, I'd rather have a 17 prime (2.8 preferable, but f4 okay) as the 20/2.8 I had was not great, and there are plenty of reports on the limitations of the 17-40 at 17mm.

5

Lenses / Re: Recommendations for a 180mm macro?

« on: May 03, 2013, 07:49:07 PM »

I know that this does not relate to the lenses you mentioned, but... I'm happy with my EF200/2.8L on a EF25mm extension tube for butterflies and flowers- you get to about 1/3 lifesize.  Lightweight, fast focusing, great bokeh when near wide open.  Sharper than my 70-200/4 with tube.  But no IS.  For anything smaller I use my 50/2.5, but the distance is too close for critters.  FWIW, I tried the Canon life-size converter (brings the 50/2.5 to 1:1) with the 200.  This increases shooting distance a bit, but does not increase maximum magnification much, is no sharper, and does not allow AF.

6

Lenses / Re: Macro lens or attachments to make my current lenses go macro?

« on: April 30, 2013, 09:58:07 PM »

Now the three photos at 1:3
50 focused to 1:2
50 focused at infinity with EF25mm extension tube
50 focused at ininity with lifesize converter.

7

Lenses / Re: Macro lens or attachments to make my current lenses go macro?

« on: April 30, 2013, 09:55:41 PM »

Here 1000 pixel vertical crops of the original images.
First the two photos at 1:3. 50mm focused at 1.5 ft with 250D, then 50mm focused at 0.89 ft (no close up lens)
I note that the second photo is not focused at the same point as the first (bit of a rush over my lunchbreak!).

8

Lenses / Re: Macro lens or attachments to make my current lenses go macro?

« on: April 30, 2013, 09:45:09 PM »

9

Lenses / Re: Macro lens or attachments to make my current lenses go macro?

« on: April 30, 2013, 09:44:00 PM »

Here are some comparison shots:
50mm 2.5 @ f8 and ISO 100.  I used f8 as it appeared that the OP used something similar in the ring shots.  f8 provides sufficient depth of field and a soft background.  All focused on the centre of the same flower.  Live view (so mirror locked up) and 2 sec self-timer.
Large fine, downsized to 1020 pixels high  (I have the original files)

1.   1.5 ft (min focus of 50mm f1.4
2.   1.5 ft with Canon 250D close up lens
3.   0.89 ft (27cm) to give similar magnification (1:3)
4.   0.75ft (23cm) 1:2
5.   Focused at infinity with 25mm extension tube
6.   Set at similar magnification 1:2 with life size converter.
The last two are in the next post.

10

Lenses / Re: Macro lens or attachments to make my current lenses go macro?

« on: April 30, 2013, 05:31:43 PM »

There is no quality loss when using tubes. It is only air inside of them and no glass. You loose 1-2 stops, and you have an extreme narrow depth of field, but you will get youre macro.

Lenses are generally optimised optically at infinity.  I have the 50/2.5 macro.  It has a floating element system, which means it changes optically as it focuses closer, so at 1:2 its not the same as at infinity.  It is better when focused to 1:2, than focused at infinity with the EF25mm.  It is also better at 1:1 with the life-size adapter that has glass than with my EF25mm extension tube.  Simple lenses such as the nifty fifty simply rack the entire optical system further from the focal plane.

However, the (slight) reduction in optical quality may be acceptable.  This will vary between lenses.  My 70-200/4 (non-IS) is definitely less sharp than my 200/2.8 when used with the EF25mm extension tube. Indeed, I suggest that for the OP, extension tubes would meet his needs optically and financially, but a close-up lens would be easier when busy on the job.

I'll do some comparison shots in a few hours of the 50/2.5 with extension tube, life-size converter and with 250D closeup lens.

Cheers

11

Lenses / Re: Best lens for capturing the Milky Way?

« on: April 29, 2013, 04:54:45 AM »

And here is the Milky Way during a hike in New Zealand's South Island.  There was quite a bright moon rising which shone on the hills, but not enough to obscure the Milky Way.  Note the absence of the yellow light from city lights in the previous photo - we were a long way from city lights!
5DII, Samyang 14mm f2.8, 30 sec @2.8 ISO 3200, Lightroom 4.

12

Lenses / Re: Best lens for capturing the Milky Way?

« on: April 29, 2013, 04:47:42 AM »

The Samyang 14mm f2.8 is probably the best value lens for Milky Way images.  14mm means you capture more of the night sky and it means that 30 second exposures do not produce visible star trails.  Wide open is plenty sharp and better than going to a higher ISO.  Lightroom profile corrects both vignetting and the moustache distortion without cropping too much of the image.  There is no hard stop at infinity and with some lenses, infinity is way off.  In mine it is perhaps only a couple of millimetres on the scale.

Here is a photo of Kapiti Island near my house. 5DII, Samyang 14mm f2.8, 30 sec @2.8, ISO 3200, processed in Lightroom 4.

13

Lenses / Re: Macro lens or attachments to make my current lenses go macro?

« on: April 27, 2013, 03:39:16 PM »

So it may come down to whether or not you can count in having time during the wedding shoot to muck about with tubes, or not. After all...time is money.

Neuro is right with mucking about.  I have a 50/2.5 macro with lifesize converter, a 250D closeup lens and an EF25mm extension tube.

I would not recommend tubes for what you want.  The process would be:
- remove existing lens
- attach tube
- attach lens to front of tube
- take photo
- remove lens
- remove tube
- replace lens

I use the tube on my 200/2.8 when taking photos of flighty subjects.

For most convenience  would be the 250D closeup lens.  Assuming you are shooting the 85, you simply need to screw it onto the front.  This will give you between 1/3 and 1/2 life size, which is fine for wedding rings.  This will give you sufficient working distance.  The closeup lens could stay in your pocket.  Quality of the Canon produce is absolutely fine for your purposes, not "rubbish" as claimed by another poster.  I would get one to suit the lens you will use most often and not get a larger (and much more expensive) closeup lens with step-up ring. 

Next option would be a dedicated macro lens.  The 50/2.5 would be fine for your purpose, even though it only goes down to 1/2 lifesize.  Advantages: cheap and relatively small - you want to minimise gear that you carry around.

The 100/2.8 macro is a little more expensive and goes to lifesize, but is much bigger.  You then have 50, 85, 100, 135 and 70-200 which is quite a focal length overlap for someone who will need to carry gear around.

I've done a few weddings.  The key is to be fleet on your feet and not be encumbered with gear.  Hence, my suggestions.

14

Lenses / Re: Looking for a good bang for buck extender with a focus on image quality.

« on: April 26, 2013, 04:56:06 AM »

I recently had a similar question with an extender for my 200 f2.8L II (for use with a 5DmkII and 7D).  I already have a 400 f5.6L, so did not need a 2x extender.  I mainly wanted an extender to give me the option of a 280mm f4 when travelling, when I would just take my 24-105 and 200.  And this is why I didn't want a 300 f4L.

There are few comparative objective reviews of extenders. One of the best seems to be here: http://www.traumflieger.de/objektivtest/open_test/telekonverter/overview.php
Its in German, but it should be clear what it means.  I can translate it if you want.

In the end I bought a Canon 1.4x mkI in excellent condition for a great price.  There is apparently no difference in the optical formula of the three versions of the Canon 1.4x extender.   The mkI does not have weather sealing (but neither does the 200) and apparently has less effective blacking of the edges of the elements (but it looked darn good to me).

The results?  Well first of all make sure your AFMA is spot on if checking out the lens wide open!  Secondly there is a noticeable amount of chromatic aberration when pixel-peeping, but this is very easily and effectively removed with Lightroom 4.  Finally, there is a bigger difference between the in-camera jpg and a well processed RAW file than there is between the lens with and without extender.  Crispness improves one stop down, but I would have no reservations using the extender wide open if I wanted shallow DOF or if I struggled with light.

Finally, autofocus speed is great. I must say I can't tell the difference with the extender and the original lens is very quick.

The biggest issue is the protruding elements from the front of the extender.  This means that you should not put it down face down, and I've noticed a little wear of the flocking at the back of my 200.  And some may grizzle that I have a white extender sandwiched between a black lens and a black body.  Not me.  I'm too happy with optical and focussing performance.

15

Software & Accessories / Re: Adobe Lightroom 5 Public Beta Available

« on: April 16, 2013, 02:43:36 PM »

I'm very underwhelmed.  LR4 was an improvement over LR3, but the subsequent improvements to LR4.4 have been to sort out bugs and add a few more cameras.  In my view, this "upgrade" should really be called LR4.5.  I would like a significant addition, like HDR, before I would upgrade.  I hope that at least they have improved autotone which is largely unusuable and not nearly as good as that available in free products such as Microsoft Office Picture Manager and Picasa.

I find the speed of LR4 adequate.

I will wait for LR6.