Messages

16

Lenses / Re: Zoom vs Primes?

« on: December 14, 2012, 05:51:07 PM »

RLPhoto, sorry if it was taken out of context. My response was to risc32 though, not you, so I didn't mean to imply that however you are doing things is wrong. Just that I personally prefer to be overpacked rather than underpacked and agree with his post.

17

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Do you miss APS-C?

« on: December 14, 2012, 02:18:32 AM »

I think you will h ave a very long wait for new bodies. If you have $3000 you are willing to spend on a body, you can't go wrong with the 5DIII. If you don't want to spend that much and you don't need the insanely awesome AF features, the 5DII is a bargain right now, especially used.

18

Lenses / Re: Zoom vs Primes?

« on: December 14, 2012, 12:58:14 AM »

yeah, rlphoto, i haul more a good bit more stuff than that to wedding shoots. My brother works video at weddings all the time, and he says i use WAY more than anyone he's ever seen at a ceremony/formals, then i use way less the rest of the night. probably cause i'm tired! Although i've sworn i'm done carrying my speedotron 2403 and 3 head around. done, totally, never again, i don't care how nice it would be to have that much power, i'm not doing it.........

(yeah, i'll probably do it the next time i think i'll need it. )

This is basically my line of thinking on the wedding day. I have a ThinkTank Airport Security bag stuffed full of lenses, 3 bodies, and 4 flashes, pocket wizards, batteries, filters, etc... Then I carry another bag with 2 light stands, tripod, and umbrellas. I'd rather put up with the slight hassle and have everything I could possibly need than leave something at home because I think it would weigh me down.

19

Lenses / Re: Ditch 100L for 70-200 L II ?

« on: December 13, 2012, 10:01:01 PM »

You mention the 200L, which is ungodly expensive (Though I know you said you don't want to tie up that much money), so is there any chance of keeping both lenses?

If you are 100% certain you do not need the macro or the much smaller size of the 100L, then by all means, go for the 70-200L. I find I use my 100L 95% of the time as a portrait lens as well, but I would hate to give up the macro capabilities when I need it (Closeup of the rings, flowers, other wedding details, etc...). The 100L is also much more  comfortable to hang around your neck for hours at a time when compared to the 70-200L, but that all depends on how you are using it I suppose.

20

Lenses / Re: Canon 100mm F2.8L IS

« on: December 13, 2012, 04:03:21 AM »

Mine shows up as 100mm in Aperture, MacOS, etc., with Exiftool, and after upload to Flickr.  Sounds like a bug in LR.

Mine shows up as 100mm in LR3/LR4.0-4.2 with both the 7D and 5DIII, with old and new firmware both. Not saying it isn't a bug in LR4, just that I am not experiencing the same bug.

21

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 50 f/1.4 IS in 2013 [CR2]

« on: December 13, 2012, 03:50:51 AM »

shooting at 1.4... just looks amateurish

this is something new to me

For video, going super shallow is cool, but so easily overdone, and has become a 'special effect' with DSLR video these days that's often used too much, with no regards to keeping anything particularly in focus to show off bokeh.
I like shallow, but for subject separation or for a nice dreamy feel when needed, but not for an excuse for poor composition, you can't just keep a single point in focus and ignore how the overall image is composed.
If you need 1.4 for the light, then that's certainly great if IS is part of the package too, but one is better off with a fast wide angle for lowlight video anyways

I fail to see how one would be better off with a fast wide angle. They are two completely different lenses. As a wedding photographer, I need fast everything... fast wides, fast portrait, and fast telephoto. Not sure how one replaces the other.

22

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 50 f/1.4 IS in 2013 [CR2]

« on: December 12, 2012, 10:22:08 PM »

Sure, that's a possibility too. Basically, as long as they fill that gap, I'm okaywith whatever they do. Though, I would think it would make more sense to use a lens they already designed (The new 1.4) rather than designing an entirely new 1.8 IS. Still, I'm open to whatever route they take. Heck, maybe it will drop the current 1.4 down to about $200 and I'll grab that instead.

23

Lenses / Re: what 5 lenses would you want (exclude factors such as buissiness and body)

« on: December 12, 2012, 09:24:47 PM »

Hard to exclude factors such as business and body... so assuming I'm trying to cover all my bases, this is what I would get.

1. 16-35 F2.8 Mark II
2. 24-70mm F2.8L Mark II
3. 70-200mm F2.8L IS Mark II
4. 100mm F2.8L IS Macro
5. 50mm F1.2L

24

Lenses / Re: 100mm macro L on a 7d

« on: December 12, 2012, 09:15:27 PM »

I know you seem to have already made up your mind, but I feel I must chime in on the 100L.

It's an amazing lens, but you mention you will be doing primarily portraits with macro as a bonus. I used the 100L on the 7D for about 2 years, and while it was a fine lens, it was very often too tight for portraits, and I was very limited in how I could photograph my portraits. Sometimes I just couldn't get that far away from the people.

When I upgraded to the 5DIII, I fell in love with the lens as a portrait lens. It's absolutely amazing.

Finally, as someone else said, I would never, ever sell your 50 1.8. It's such a cheap lens, and it provides you with a low light option when needed. There will inevitably be times you need something wider than 100mm, need more bokeh, or just want something small and light, and I would highly recommend you keep your 50mm. Just my opinion.

25

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 50 f/1.4 IS in 2013 [CR2]

« on: December 12, 2012, 09:08:07 PM »

If this comes in at the guesstimated price ($800-$900) then I can't see them killing off the 50 1.4. That's just too much of a price gap in my opinion (And we all know how much Canon values my personal opinion). It would make more sense to me to introduce a 50 1.4 II along with the IS version to fill the gap. If they did that, IS version could be about $300-$400 more than the non-IS counterpart.

I love the idea of IS. It can never hurt to have in case you need it. I just don't know if I would be willing to pay the price premium required for it.

26

Portrait / Re: Portrait - Trying something new

« on: December 11, 2012, 03:20:01 AM »

To be honest, I can't really find a style that I like. I've tried some clouds with a bluish tint, and I just can't come up with something I love. I feel like I'm wasting too much time on this one picture, when I have about 200 others to edit.

Here's what I've done so far. I basically just used a stronger vignette with some clouds to give the vignette some texture. I also cropped it a bit to improve it a little compositionally. Thoughts?

27

Lenses / Re: Zoom vs Primes?

« on: December 10, 2012, 11:42:18 PM »

Like others have said, it's hard to say without knowing more.

That said, I think I would jump on the 24-70 if money is not an issue. Because you are doing street photography, and you don't have any lenses yet, the 24-70 will cover a very wide range of subject matters and give you amazing image quality. I don't think you could go wrong this lense, but if you only get a single prime, you may find you feel very limited. Take the time with the 24-70, figure out what focal lengths you actually need, and if you determine F2.8 just isn't fast enough for you, then invest in the prime.

Honestly though, the route Artifex suggested is good too. It just depends on what you want and your budget.

28

Lenses / Re: 24-105 or 24-70 for weddings, events, travelling (priority in that order)

« on: December 10, 2012, 02:03:55 AM »

Without taking money into account, I would say the 24-70 II without a doubt, every single time. I primarily shoot weddings, and unlike the other photographer who says he rarely shoots @ 2.8 (Not saying he is wrong, just a different shooting style) I find the need to shoot wide open quite often. Not during the formal portraits, of course, but during the ceremony an extra stop would be amazing.

I say this as a current owner of the 24-105L, and I personally avoid it like the plague during the ceremony. I stick to the 70-200 2.8L IS II or primes, as I am not satisfied with the sharpness or the aperture of the 24-105. The 24-105 is a fine lens in its own right, as it is cheap, constant aperture, built better than the 28-135, features IS, and it a great walk around lens with satifactory (Not great) image quality, but if given the choice, I would go with the 24-70L II.

29

Lenses / Re: What's your dream lens

« on: December 10, 2012, 01:29:20 AM »

24-105 F2.8L IS, with the sharpness of the current 24-70 F2.8L Mark II. I don't think that's TOO much of a stretch. I miss that extra 35mm on the long end.

30

Portrait / Re: Portrait - Trying something new

« on: December 09, 2012, 07:34:57 AM »

The Sirren, first, I would like to thank you for taking the time to respond to the thread with your ideas. However, the image you posted, is at about the opposite spectrum of style I'm shooting for. Super over processed, tacky selective blurring (Obviously just my opinion, just trying to help you get a feel of what I'm shooting for here) and her dress looks almost silver now.

Also, unless you rotated it, flipping makes the tilt look even more extreme. Can't tell if you did that of it's just my eyes playing tricks on me. Either way, I don't like the idea of flipping the image, as the Bride and Groom will also be able to tell it was instantly flipped. Again, I apologize if I sounded harsh, I do appreciate your time, this just isn't the direction I'd like to go with the photo.