July 25, 2014, 10:16:29 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 - Sabaki

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 9
If it was real and well priced, definitely. But the filter taking abilities and weight position your spec list firmly in the fantasy region of what's physically possible.

So RS, I'll have to give up some on my non negotiables then?

What would you tweak, to make it possible?

Lenses / Canon EF 12-24mm f/2.8 L - Constructing the Enigma
« on: Today at 08:53:58 AM »
So this post is purely a flight of fantasy and not based on fact but merely on hope.

Personally, I would love Canon to replace the 16-35mm focal length in favour of 12-24mm for it's flagship ultra wide lens. Yes, I do understand that there are many that enjoy that extra 11mm on the long side but as I've pointed out, this is kinda what I would ask for.

My non negotiables are these:
1. Focal length: 12-24
2. Aperture: f/2.8-f/22 (constant across focal range)
3. Weather sealed
4. Able to take filters
5. Unparalleled corner-to-corner and centre frame image quality.
6. Reticulinear

I'm not too concerned about IS for this focal range but I do acknowledge the many reviewers of the 16-35 f/4.0 IS stating IS as being impressive. 

So is this lens possible and what would it look like and weigh? Just how bulbous would such a front element be and would an 82mm thread size be possible?
I'm looking at a weight of between 550g-650g max.
Filtering a lens with 12mm on the wide end will bring obvious vignetting issues. Can this be mitigated?

Lots of fantasy I know, perhaps not even possible.

But if it was real, would YOU buy this lens?

Lenses / Re: Which Bokeh Monster?
« on: Today at 08:33:15 AM »
I would like to say a big thank you to everybody for their advise and insights. I'm closer to making a decision on which lenses will end up in my kit.

I should've mentioned from the get-go that my next three purchases will be a 6D, 7Dii and the TS-E24mm. The 70-200 f/2.8 L IS mkii and successor to the 16-35 f/2.8 somewhere on the horizon.

So once I start doing more paid gigs, my upgrade path, including a bokeh monster, should take maybe 24 months.

Once again, thanks folks. If it weren't for the forum members here, this would be just another photography page, you guys rock

Lenses / Re: Which Bokeh Monster?
« on: July 24, 2014, 12:22:17 PM »
OP is using a crop body

I missed that, thanks for pointing it out!

Sabaki – instead of the 85L II, I'd suggest giving your excellent lenses thinner DoF and more OOF blur by getting a 6D.  Your 24-70 and 70-200 f/2.8 lenses on your 500D are giving you the DoF of f/4.5 on a FF camera; conversely, you would need f/1.8 zoom lenses on your APS-C body to get the DoF your f/2.8 lenses would give on FF.

The other issue is that your camera does not have AF microadjustment, which IMO is critical if shooting with shallow DoF such as a fast prime wide open, even on APS-C. 

EDIT: Since you are getting the 6D, I reiterate my recommendation for the 85L II.

Now this is super interesting Neuro.

Going on your post, is it fair to say that a f/2.8 lens cannot give f/2.8 on a crop body?

I've heard that DOF isn't the same between crop & FF but you seem to have a formula working here.

Lenses / Re: Which Bokeh Monster?
« on: July 24, 2014, 07:57:45 AM »
OP is using a crop body

Hey wickidwombat :)

I'll be getting my 6D shortly, time to delve in the world of full frame bodies ;)

Lenses / Re: Which Bokeh Monster?
« on: July 23, 2014, 04:14:12 PM »
Hey Mackguyver :)

Primarily as a portrait lens and the defocussed effect photography.

I imagine focal lengths 85mm+ helps compress facial features which any client would see as a positive ☺️

Lenses / Which Bokeh Monster?
« on: July 23, 2014, 03:57:18 PM »
So Bokeh Monster is a term I use for those primes that weigh in with apertures larger than 2.8.

Now with photography being very expensive here in South Africa, I've only got space (and money) for one Bokeh Monster in my kit.

Which would you recommend?

I'm aware that the number of aperture blades plays a big part in creating bokeh but I'm also looking for decent AF performance and sharpness. I'm less worried about those abherrations (fringing/vignetting) that can be 'ticked' away in post.

I'd also like an opinion as to whether IS benefits the photographer when working at these extreme apertures.

Looking forward to hearing some opinions, especially those with working experience of these primes.

Thanks in advance guys :)

Canon General / Re: New Speedlite Coming? [CR2]
« on: July 18, 2014, 12:12:54 PM »
Could it be the MT-24EX RT mkii with wi-fi control between body and head?

Then you can throw in battery meter, diffused LED lighting and continuous lighting?

Lenses / Re: What Lenses are missing from Canon's range
« on: July 16, 2014, 05:03:27 PM »
So a good few of the latest Canon zooms are said to have prime like IQ. I would then say that the next primes should be phenomenal bokeh beasts with fast AF.

Canon 50mm f/1.2 IS
Canon 135 f1.8 IS
Canon 85mm f/1.2 IS

Canon General / Re: New Speedlite Coming? [CR2]
« on: July 16, 2014, 02:54:25 PM »
A 400RT series flash would be awesome!!!

I'd love a continuous light function where one could control the light output with a dial. Could be useful for star trails and fill in light for landscapes.

Lenses / Re: Camera setup for dental clinic
« on: July 16, 2014, 07:29:42 AM »
Canon EF 100mm Macro (non L) with the MR-14EX ringflash

The L is a better lens but your use is not that of a macro fundi. And you'll need the 67C macro adaptor which is further expense too

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II [CR1]
« on: July 13, 2014, 03:42:01 AM »
Non extending barrel, shorter MFD, ring focus and for the very least, as sharp as my 400 f/5.6, I'll grab a copy!

Lenses / Re: Need help deciding on my next lens
« on: July 10, 2014, 07:14:30 AM »
This question often crops up but I'm loathe to name a lens, I prefer asking, explain the photos you want to take.

Somewhere in your mind, you dream of taking a certain range of photos that you want to take. See the image then ask which lens can help you realise that shot.

I have been guilty of chasing gear and asked questions like this before. I get advise from very credible folk and follow up and read reviews, opinions etc and I lock and buy.

Months after I bought the lens, I took less than 100 shots with the lens and I realised it's because the images I wanted to take, needed a different lens.

If it's more than 150 on the wide end, then I definitely won't be interested.  If I want a narrow range of focal lengths, I'll get a 400/5.6.  I want a zoom because I need a zoom.

Sony makes a 70-400.

Canon's recent L zooms are cited as having prime like image quality. I could live with a 200-400 like that.

I'm thinking a slightly different recipe for the telephoto...200-400 f/5.6 sans the built in converter obviously.

Was chatting to a few of the guys I know who predominantly shoot wildlife and very few use focal lengths shorter than 200mm.

And yes, if the performance at 400mm is better than that of my beloved 400mm f/5.6, I may just upgrade :D

Dunno why I'm sitting here trying to image how Brian will review a lens I just conjured up in my mind?!

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 9