March 02, 2015, 06:25:43 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 - bholliman

Pages: 1 ... 18 19 [20] 21 22 ... 58
286
I still think this new Sigma will be sharper when equivalently stopped down than the new Canon 50mm F/'something' IS (we still don't know the max aperture yet), but not by so much that I don't want IS and a much smaller lens.

My mind's not made up by any means -- let's see the reviews!  But my 'overall lens sensibilities' / 'best lens for what I shoot' spidey sense remains pretty firmly in the 'small + IS is better' camp.


+1  I'm looking forward to the reviews. 

I'd certainly like to have a better 50mm option than my 50 1.4, but won't pull the trigger on the Sigma until I see if Canon is coming out with a 50mm f/1.8 or f/2 IS this year.  If they do, and its as good, small and light as the 35mm f/2 IS, I'll get one of those.   I seldom shoot below f/2.0 anyway and IS would be very nice.  Canon has done a terrific job with the other IS primes released recently.  The size of the Sigma is a negative in my book.

287
Pricewatch Deals / Re: Deal: EOS 5D Mark III $2549
« on: January 04, 2014, 06:54:22 AM »
There have been some incredible deals on 5D3's, 6D's and lots of high end lenses over the past three months.  Unfortunately, I bought most of my gear at much higher prices in the year or so before the discounting began.  5D's are now going for just $400 over what I paid for my 6D in December 2012!

288
Lenses / Re: Upgrade for 17-55 2.8
« on: January 01, 2014, 05:22:00 PM »
I think in order to get better, you would need to bite the bullet and get the 24-70L mkii and get something like a 10-22 from one of the manufacturers to provide the wider angle needs you may have.  Of course, a company like sigma may release something similar in the future, but my crystal ball isn't that clear.

The sigma 18-35 is better than the canon 24-70ii on a crop body. It doesn't have much range though.  its like having a 28, 35, and 50 on ff.

I have no experience with the Sigma 18-35, but the TDP image quality comparisons show the 24-70 2.8 II to be sharper mid frame and corner at common focal lengths, but the Sigma appears slightly sharper in the center.  That said, I would not recommend the any 24-70 lens on a APS-C body as 24mm just isn't wide enough for most people.  From the review, the Sigma 18-35 appears to be a great lens however.  If I were still shooting APS-C, I'd probably be using a EF-S 15-85 as a walk around lens and fast primes (24-28-35-85) for shallow DOF. 

289
Lenses / Re: DXOMark: Sigma 24-105 f/4 DG OS Reviewed
« on: January 01, 2014, 09:47:22 AM »
I have owned a 24-105L before as well as 2 copies of the 24-70 f2.8L II. Sold all for financial reasons ... got the Sigma last week. It's not amazing but pretty darn good. Great for the price.

24mm Distortion and corner sharpness are better than the Canon 24-105L. The wide end is where I mostly use my 24 zooms.

OS is not bad either. Shot this in the evening, on a moving and bobbling Speedboat yesterday.

This has been gently PP'ed but I have not MA'd the lens yet... it needs a little maybe but I have not done scientific tests.

F9
1/40th
ISO200

Look and feel is solid, barrel is nice and snug, feels more robust than the canon 25-105. Great finishing.

The Canon 24-105 is selling for $600-650 new, do you feel the Sigma is worth the 40-50% price premium?

290
EOS-M / Re: Power eating Pig for EOS-M ?
« on: January 01, 2014, 09:42:02 AM »
I've been getting 150-200 shots from my Canon batteries.  Continuous AF off, mostly single shot.

291
Lenses / Re: Upgrade for 17-55 2.8
« on: January 01, 2014, 09:28:52 AM »
The EF-S 17-55 2.8 is an excellent lens, one of the two best EF-S zooms.  There really isn't a better APS-C option unless its the EF-S 15-85 which has better range, but is slower and variable aperture.  I've owned both the 17-55 and 15-85 and they are both terrific lenses.  According to the TDP crops, the 15-85 looks slightly sharper to me at similar focal lengths and apertures.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=398&Camera=736&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=1&LensComp=675&CameraComp=736&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

292
Lenses / Re: Patent: 16-120mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM
« on: December 29, 2013, 03:29:42 PM »
Looks like a great option!  Hopefully its available in the US when released.  Personally, I don't see the need for anything much longer than this as a native M lens.  If the lens is to large and bulky, I'll just use a DSLR.

I'd like to see Canon add some fast primes (35mm, 50-55mm, 85mm) f/2.0 or faster added to the system and maybe a fast (f/2.8 or faster) normal range zoom if that's possible while still keeping the size reasonable.

293
Photography Technique / Re: Perspective correction
« on: December 29, 2013, 12:34:09 PM »

As for perspective "corrections"/adjustments, I find PS to be very simple, but you do need to understand what you want the image to look like and which direction to move it in to get it there, a couple of keyboard shortcuts don't hurt either. Rather than try to explain the way I do it, I thought a video would better illustrate the method, so I made one, here, forgive the questionable production quality, I only ever did one of these before.

Excellent video, thanks!

294
Photography Technique / Re: Perspective correction
« on: December 28, 2013, 07:32:39 PM »
Thanks for the tips.  The distortion correction in PS is pretty powerful, I've never used it before.  I'll try some additional night shots the next time we have a clear one and try using a grad ND and or multiple exposures to get the moon right.

295
Photography Technique / Perspective correction
« on: December 28, 2013, 09:58:55 AM »
I took this shot this morning and unhappy with how it turned out.  I was shooting up a steep hill and no matter how I adjust the alignment it just looks wrong.  Either the trees are leaning, the building leaning.  Other than buying a TS-E lens, is there any way to make this shot look good?

I'm just learning long exposure photography.  Any way to get the moon properly exposed without severely underexposing the rest of the scene?  Any other suggestions for improvement are welcomed.

This was shot at 10 seconds, f/7.1, ISO 160, 28mm on 24-70 2.8 II lens on a 6D.

296
Lenses / Re: Canon 24-105 vs canon 24-70 ii
« on: December 26, 2013, 09:56:58 PM »
Yes only accurate on the center AF just like I said. And thats about it. Its total crap using the outer AF specially in low light.

I find the outer AF points to be usable in decent light. It's not a great AF system, but certainly good enough for my purposes and many others. If you need a better AF system than the 6D, Canon has some good options (1D series, 5D3, 70D).

297
Lenses / Re: Canon 24-105 vs canon 24-70 ii
« on: December 26, 2013, 04:55:56 PM »
I owned a 24-105 for 18 months before buying a 24-70 II in July.  I kept both lenses for several months and ended up selling my 24-105 in the fall.  I found I always reached for the 24-70 for its sharpness and "look" of the pictures.  The IQ of the 24-70 II is just much, much better.

But, in addition to IQ, I wanted to add that the 24-70 II also has much faster AF, especially in low light, and I believe is focusing in much less light than the 24-105 on my 5DIII.

I'd like to stress the "5d3" part because only 1dx/5d3 are able to make use of the latest lenses (70-300L, 24-70ii) more precise af system, and the 24-70ii is designed in conjunction with the 5d3/1dx af system (lens groups) in mind... there are lensrentals articles on this.

Both means that if buying a 24-70ii for a 6d you're throwing part of your money away and it's a good idea to consider a Tamron as an alternative, I guess that's part of the reason why Canon bundles the 24-105 with the 6d and released a 24-70/4 which doesn't run into the 6d's af problems and at least has IS.

I don't agree.  Auto focus with my 24-70 II on my 6D is super fast and accurate, even in very low light.  I did some unscientific side-by-side IQ and auto focus comparisons with both lenses and felt the 24-70 II AF performed better. 



298
EOS-M / Re: Easy & Cheap LED light for EOS-M
« on: December 25, 2013, 10:23:06 PM »
Terrific shots!  Thanks for sharing Surapon.  These LED panels are a really inexpensive alternative to speedlites.

299
Lenses / Re: Best lightweight crop lens for SL1 & hiking
« on: December 21, 2013, 05:31:43 PM »
Thanks bholliman!  I'd love to hear your thoughts on the SL1 after you've used it.  I considered the M with an adapter.  But the M and the adapter is about the same weight as the SL1 and probably close to the same size.  And I was concerned that it would be awkward to use since it's sort of a live view type of thing instead of a viewfinder thing that I can tuck in close and hold still, etc.  It's not exactly cheap for what it is, esp after adding the cost of the adapter.  But hey, if it's a super item for the purpose, one never knows!!...

Yes, with the adapter the M isn't much smaller than the SL1.  I'm more and more just using the M with just the 22/2 lens since it's small and light that way.  If I'm going to attach my 24-70 2.8 II, I might as well use my 6D.


300
EOS-M / Re: Best place to mount blackrapid sling for carry
« on: December 21, 2013, 05:25:24 PM »
I always attach my BR strap to the lens mount on my 70-200 when I use it on my EOS-M or 6D for that matter.  It balances nicely on the lens mount and I'm not sure I would trust the tripod mount on the M with all that weight.

Pages: 1 ... 18 19 [20] 21 22 ... 58