November 23, 2014, 10:53:50 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 - neuroanatomist

Pages: 1 ... 435 436 [437] 438 439 ... 985
Lenses / Re: EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x Release Date [CR1]
« on: April 28, 2013, 10:31:58 AM »
... then you can get on releasing or updating sub-$10k lenses that for the rest of us like an updated 35mm & 50mm prime, maybe a 200mm f2.8 IS macro, ... ?

A 35L II seems very likely, especially given Sigma's excellent 35/1.4.

As for the tele macro, I suspect there's a reason the 180L is f/3.5 and not f/2.8.  I think we may see a 200mm f/4L Macro IS at some point...

But of course what we all want (we being RLPhoto, at least) is a 135mm f/1.8L IS.  ;)

Lighting / Re: Should I buy a Speedlite?
« on: April 28, 2013, 08:49:07 AM »
I decided the mono lights will be better for me. Now, one more question for you sir. As you may know the 6D has no sync port.. so would you suggest a hot shoe adapter with an extra PC sync port so I could use a moonlight with no triggers? Or another better alternative?

You could do that, with some cabling. But I do think radio triggers are a lot easier - no wires for people to trip over.

Lenses / Re: 24-105L or Sigma 35.1.4 for 6D walk-around
« on: April 27, 2013, 10:45:40 PM »
Regarding what I shoot in that range when traveling, it would be cityscapes/architecture, gardens, monuments and such outdoors, plus historic buildings and museums/aquariums indoors (when allowed). I'd also use the 6d for crowd shots and step in closer for some detail on individuals when I shoot events for local non-profits (my only semi-pro activity).

To be honest, you could use both.  I really like my 35/1.4 (Canon L bought a couple of years ago, today I would quite possibly get the Sigma) as a nighttime walkaround lens.  For architecture, 35mm often isn't wide enough (although the barrel distortion of the 24-105 is a problem for architecture).  The IS on the 24-105 is good in museums - you get the f/1.4 shutter speed without the f/1.4 thin DoF.

Lighting / Re: Should I buy a Speedlite?
« on: April 27, 2013, 07:42:22 PM »
I suggest avoiding on-camera flash like the plague, unless there's a white ceiling or wall off which to bounce that flash.  For pics of two people, a fast lens isn't as helpful as you'd think - yes, you can keep ISO down with f/1.4 or f/1.8, but DoF will be thin, and prom couples would prefer to both be in focus, I expect.  Of the two options, I'd get the 430EX II, but get it off-camera with a light stand, umbrella, and 'dumb' wireless triggers.

But I'd recommend neither.  A one-Speedlite portrait isn't going to make many people happy. My advice - rent. has a two-monolight kit (with stands, wireless triggers, one softbox and one umbrella, for $133 + $35 shipping for a 5-day rental. 

Canon General / Re: How much would you pay?
« on: April 27, 2013, 02:48:13 PM »
Depends - would the cup of coffee (or tea, as the case may be) include an NDA and disclosure of upcoming plans?  Somehow I doubt Tim Cook will divulge the details of the iPhone 6 or the forthcoming iWatch and iToaster...

That's the crux of the issue right there.  100 2.8 used is $400.  Tubes or attachments are half that cost.  For what I'm thinking, is the difference going to be that substantial?  (And there comes the key...I will notice it, but will my clients?)

Your clients likely won't notice an IQ difference.  You might not, even.  What you will notice is the difference in convenience.  You posted two examples (rings with box and rings on stick) - you'd need a different combo of tube(s) + lens for a tightly framed shot of each (less mag to include the box).  The 100/2.8 (or any true macro lens) gives you the flexibility to focus from infinity to 1:1, so you can get the framing you want in minimum time.  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.

If I am reading this right then the tube would work nice with my 50 mm 1.4?

A 25mm tube on the 50/1.4 would give you 0.53x - 0.68x mag at 4.33" - 3.25" working distance.  A 12mm tube on the 50/1.4 would give you 0.24x - 0.39x mag at 8.9" - 5.6" working distance. 

Lenses / Re: 24-105L or Sigma 35.1.4 for 6D walk-around
« on: April 27, 2013, 01:41:13 PM »
What do you plan to shoot while walking around with a 'walkaround' lens?  A 35mm prime doesn't offer a lot of flexibility.  FWIW, f/4 on FF is like f/2.5 on APS-C for DoF.  The 24-105L is a great general purpose lens on FF.

RE keeping the 50D, at low ISO the 6D image cropped to the APS-C FoV will give equivalent IQ (but only 7.8 MP); above ISO 800 the cropped 6D's IQ will be better.

When my aging 24-105 died, I found an excellent used copy of the original 24-70 for slightly more than 1000. I've since seen others in that price range.

Me, too...but only before the MkII came out.  Now, I see them in the $1200-1400 range.

I've used tubes and close-up lenses, and I have the 100 L Macro.  All have pluses and minuses. 

Tubes: work best with short focal lengths (added mag is focal length / tube length), no optics so no direct effect on IQ, some lost light (autoexposure compensates).  The 40/2.8 with a 25mm tube works quite well.

Close-up lenses: work best with tele lenses (70-100mm is 'break even' between tubes and close-up lenses), no light loss, fixed working distance (front element to subject is 50cm with 500D, 25cm with 250D), slight optical decrement (but it was hard for me to distinguish the 100 L from the 500D on a 70-200 II in terms of IQ)

Macro lens: best IQ, most flexibility, most expensive

Have you guys heard about the 24-70 f4? I just don't understand this lens... Does it have better IQ then the 24-105 f4?

IQ is similar (slightly better at some focal lengths, worse at others).  It's a little smaller and lighter. Main advantage is the 24-70/4 IS is also a near-macro lens.  This morning I needed to switch from my 24-70/2.8 II to the 100L for some close-ups (0.4-0.5x), wouldn't have had to do that with the 24-70/4.  But that doesn't happen often enough to make the 24-70/4 interesting to me, especially at its current price.

Not exactly a 'favorite' but I couldn't get by without unsharp mask.

Lenses / Re: EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x Release Date [CR1]
« on: April 27, 2013, 08:59:03 AM »
...May 14, 2013 is the day the lens will be officially announced with availability coming in September/October 2013

Gee, that's nice.  But then, the MkII supertele lenses were officially announced with availability about 6 months later...and then it was 14-18 months before the lenses were actually available.

Software & Accessories / Re: Tripod- RRS or Gitzo with rebate??
« on: April 27, 2013, 04:44:07 AM »
You really can't go wrong with either.  Personally, I thing RRS is just a little more right.  ;)

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Why do we buy Canon? What idiots are we?
« on: April 27, 2013, 04:38:53 AM »
At least only one of us 'idiots' on this forum doesn't know the difference between a lens and a camera, dilbert.

Pages: 1 ... 435 436 [437] 438 439 ... 985