Messages

6136

Lenses / Re: Suggestions for macro zoom lens

« on: January 16, 2012, 08:21:12 PM »

For any of these lenses, "framing" really doesn't get at the issue - the issue is getting the right magnification and the right working distance.  In truth, the word "magnification" is the exact same thing as "framing" in this case, except that magnification suggests what is really happening, whereas talking about "framing" allows people to think in terms of a zoom lens.

The reason for this thinking is obvious:  The draw of a zoom lens is that you can better control depth of field and you don't need to walk very far to change your framing.  At macro distances, depth of field will always be very limited no matter the lens (most people usually find themselves trying to increase it, not decrease), and working distances will be so small that the effect of a zoom lens of getting "closer" (magnifying) a distant subject is usually not the concern - instead you are trying to get farther away.  In both these cases, it seems that a zoom lens would actually be more of a liability than the simplicity of changing your magnification only by moving the lens back and forth, and focusing.

For slight changes in magnification, yes. But a fixed focal length macro lens cannot change magnification 3-fold or more, as in coin vs. lighter. That's going to require moving the camera - re-framing the shot.

RE: the 135/2 vs the TS-E 90, the 135L achieves 0.19x native and 0.41x with a 25mm extension tube; the TS-E 90 has a much closer MFD and achieves 0.29x native and 0.60x with a 25mm tube.

RE: DoF, that's the main challenge, IMO. With a coin or other object well-represented in 2D (as Mt. Spokane's shot nicely shows), DoF isn't an issue. But with a 3D object like many small products the OP will likely want to shoot, DoF may be a limiting factor. With a macro lens or a telephoto like the 135L, that means soft images at f/22-32 or focus stacking.  Or, a TS-E lens where the tilt allows control over DoF.

6137

EOS Bodies / Re: 1D X \

« on: January 16, 2012, 07:24:54 PM »

i definately wouldnt trust an in camera rendition of an HDR
just saying

Keep in mind that the multi-exposure function isn't just for HDR. For example, you can drop -5 EV then add 5 exposures of a bat being swung. Just sayin'...   

6138

Lenses / Re: Suggestions for macro zoom lens

« on: January 16, 2012, 07:20:29 PM »

To answer the original poster, I believe you are misunderstanding macro lenses. You change the magnification of any macro lens by changing the focus.  To focus, you move the camera back and forth.

True, within reason. But I think the OP was talking about changing framing, the example of coin vs. lighter would require reframing the shot with a fixed focal length lens (and that's the best option, of course).  Focus breathing won't yield that sort of difference in framing.

6139

Software & Accessories / Re: Automatic Microfocus adjustment software

« on: January 16, 2012, 05:13:47 PM »

I've had a number of crashes as well.  I was in a hurry, and am still pressed for time (aren't we all), or I would have written up bug reports for repeatable errors.

I'll be submitting one for the no adjustment necessary error.  It just reported that the current value of -3 was correct and no adjustment was necessary, when the analysis window clearly shows -8 is the best value (and reports -8 as the optimal value in that window).

6140

Lens Gallery / Re: Canon TS-E 24mm f/3.5L II

« on: January 16, 2012, 05:09:18 PM »

True.  The temple was handheld, however, the Custom House Tower was on a tripod (0.5 s exposure, I think).  However, in both cases I was too close, and really needed a 17mm TS-E for those shots - even with max shift, I had to point the camera up a bit to get the full height of the structure in both cases, and that resulted in the perspective distortion.

6141

Software & Accessories / Re: Automatic Microfocus adjustment software

« on: January 16, 2012, 04:49:07 PM »

Have you tried this with the larger target for the 85L at 50X distance?  I haven't, but I am wondering it it would help.  The software sometimes has difficulty finding the target, and if I move closer, it does better.

Apparently, the latest version lets us save the analysis data, but, for now, I'm not goiing to rerun all my lenses on two different bodies just to save the data.

No, I haven't tried the larger target, although I printed it just in case (and used the small macro target with the 100L, actually). 

Interestingly, I'm running the 135L now, and it had issues finding the target at 25x focal length, but not at 50x.  The 135L is also giving the inconsistent results warning (I edited my post above).  The 70-200 II is up next.

It does have trouble estimating the distance, and I'm wondering if that's Canon's 'fault' or FoCal's?  I know from the EXIF that Canon reports out two relevant values, 'focus distance upper' and 'focus distance lower' (not sure what these mean, if they define the DoF, or are confidence intervals, etc.).  But for example, with the 135L it's warning in the Info window that the recommended distance is 6.8 m, and I'm testing at 8.1 m.  Now, I'm pretty sure that 135mm x 50 = 6.75 m, and that converts to 266 inches, and I'm also pretty sure that I know how to use a tape measure - I doubt that I've managed to mis-measure by 4.5 feet!  Oh well, I'm not bothered by it, but it's worth noting.  If it is, in fact, Canon's 'fault' I wonder what that says about the distance information transmitted for E-TTL II flash metering...

6142

Lenses / Re: Fair price for 85mm F1.2 Mark I

« on: January 16, 2012, 04:05:43 PM »

The original version (aka MkI) is optically similar to the MkII, the 'improvements' were a slight reduction in flare, circular aperture blades (better bokeh), and faster AF speed (faster is quite a relative term in this context, as the MkII is anything but 'fast').

I see the MkI listed for $1350-1375 on FM, although you never know the actual selling price.  I usually pay less for items I buy on CL than the going rate on FM.  I'd be tempted to offer $1200-1250...

All of the ones I found were $1800-$1900

Timing is everything.  I paid $1870 for a new one from B&H in June, 2010.

The 85L II is the sharpest lens I own, even more sharp than the 135L.

It shouldn't be...  Do you have both of them AF microadjusted for your camera?

6143

EOS Bodies / Re: Assigning ISO function to a different button on 5D mkII???

« on: January 16, 2012, 03:34:04 PM »

Glad that helped! 

FWIW, as I stated before, the 1D X should obviate this issue.  I assume it will have similar customizations as the 1D IV, where you can actually specify upper and lower limits not only for ISO, but also for aperture and/or shutter speed.  You can also register up to 3 sets of C.Fn settings.  So, you could have a C.Fn set for people-shooting where the minimum shutter was 1/160 s, and perhaps minimum aperture of f/1.8, and then use Av mode with Auto ISO and you'd be good to go.

6144

Software & Accessories / Re: Automatic Microfocus adjustment software

« on: January 16, 2012, 03:21:22 PM »

I see that there have been some fairly significant adjustments made.  I understand the adjustment of one "step" varies depending on the max aperature of the lens but I have seen up to +17 adjustment made on an 85mm f1.8.  That seems like quite an adjusment.  Would you not see this in the photo's IQ?

Without that adjustment, you'd definitely notice it.  If you're 'off' by one or two units (or more with a slow lens like f/4 or slower), you'd probably not notice.  More than that, or with a fast lens, you'd notice.  Not on every shot - with more distant subjects (deeper DoF), errors are less evident.  Also, AF is not 100% accurate.  On a non-1-series body, with a perfectly calibrated lens you might get 8-9 out of 10 shots having acceptable focus, and 1-2 misses.  With a large adjustment needed but not made, those 1-2 misses might actually be hits. 

That sort of thing is a clue that you need adjustment, or need to repeat it.  Say you drop your camera and the relative positions of the image and AF sensors are changed, even by a fraction of a millimeter.  That means your lenses may no longer focus correctly.  In fact, that exact scenario happened to me last October - I was out walking with my two young daughters, my 5DII with 2x II and 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II hanging from a BlackRapid strap from the tripod collar.  The height and angle were at just the right place to push the lens release button, and the camera twisted and dropped.  AFter that, all of my lenses needed an adjustment of about negative 8 units relative to their previous adjustment value.  After that incident, I noticed that while I still had some keepers, my OOF rate went up dramatically.  Re-adjusting all my lenses corrected that issue.  FoCal is easy enough to use, and fast enough (less than 3 minutes per test, with MLU delay increased to 2 s), that I will probably retest lenses every couple of months.

6145

Lens Gallery / Re: Canon TS-E 24mm f/3.5L II

« on: January 16, 2012, 02:06:12 PM »

Let me say, by the way, that you don't need T&S to get parallel lines in the digital era!

True.  DxO can correct keystoning, too.  But you need to know ahead of time that you're going to need that, and frame loosely to allow for the cropping space needed for the corrections.  Plus, you'll have soft corners, not as bad as a de-fish, but definitely soft.

6146

PowerShot / Re: New PowerShot G1 X Sample Images

« on: January 16, 2012, 02:02:14 PM »

The images in the last series show significant smearing in corner/border areas at 36mm. More than is healthy for any lens or camera, IMO.

Chuck Westfall likened the performance of the G1X's lens to that of the EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6, and that lens is mediocre at best, downright poor at some focal lengths.  It's a big sensor in a not-that-big body, and it still has a 4x zoom.  Compromises had to be made, and unfortunately, it may be that lens IQ was one of those compromises.

6147

Lenses / Re: Do you go through stages of loving primes or zooms?

« on: January 16, 2012, 01:58:42 PM »

Definitely buying a mixed order of zooms and primes for me, starting form the beginning when I purchased a good, fast general purpose zoom and a faster prime for portraits.

My history:

• Buy T1i/500D, 17-55mm f/2.8 IS, and 85mm f/1.8
• Buy 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS
• Buy 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5
• Buy 200mm f/2.8L II (used)
• Buy 300mm f/4L IS (used)
• Buy 7D
• Sell T1i/500D
• Buy 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS
• Sell 300mm f/4L IS
• Buy 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II
• Sell 200mm f/2.8L II
• Buy 24-105mm f/4L IS (used)
• Buy 70-300mm f4.5-5.6 DO IS (used)
• Buy 85mm f/1.2L II
• Sell 85mm f/1.8
• Sell 70-300mm f4.5-5.6 DO IS
• Buy 5DII + 24-105mm f/4L IS kit
• Sell 24-105mm f/4L IS (kept the new one)
• Buy MP-E 65mm f/2.8 1-5x Macro
• Buy TS-E 24mm f/3.5L II
• Buy 16-35mm f/2.8L II
• Sell 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5
• Buy 35mm f/1.4L
• Buy 135mm f/2L

6148

Software & Accessories / Re: What smartphone photo apps do you use?

« on: January 16, 2012, 01:23:55 PM »

Apps I have in my Photography folder (on iPhone 4S):

Tapatalk - using photo forums (but not CR, yet)

Flickr - accessing my Flickr account

Field Tools - DoF calculator

LongTime Exposure Calculator - determine exposures with 10-stop ND filters

Canon Lenses - lens info at my fingertips, with links to popular reviews

Canon SG Lens - lens info and spec comparisons

B&H Photo - All my shopping needs 

6149

Software & Accessories / Re: Automatic Microfocus adjustment software

« on: January 16, 2012, 01:07:39 PM »

This one stood out for me, didn't you change your camera to target distance at all during the testing?

The proper testing distance is the distance you use the lens at.
[/quote]

Exactly.  It's important to note that the testing distance does make a difference in the optimal AFMA value.  I'm listening to beep-click-click as FoCal works it's way through a test...but my results so far indicate that testing at 50x focal length (recommended by Canon/FoCal) vs. 25x focal length (recommended by LensAlign) can make up to 5 units difference (i.e. over half of the depth of focus at max aperture).

Other preliminary observations - software has some trouble with fast lenses, e.g. 85/1.2L II, 35/1.4, 135/2, especially at the 50x distance (gives inconsistent results error, but sometimes it succeeds); never an issue with f/2.8 and slower lenses, and while it could be vibration (hardwood floor over basement), with the 85L the shutter speed was 1/4000 s which should be sufficient to avoid any problems with shake.  It still has a few bugs (sometimes it reports no change is necessary, while the analysis report disagrees), and it crashes occasionally (twice yesterday, three times so far today).  But overall, it's a good program, and will no doubt improve with time.

6150

EOS Bodies / Re: Assigning ISO function to a different button on 5D mkII???

« on: January 16, 2012, 12:56:43 PM »

You say you have done this with your 35 1.4 with good result?

Yes, because at the distances I'm usually shooting (5-8 feet for indoor ambient WA shots), the DoF at f/1.4 is enough to get a face in focus (6-16").