March 04, 2015, 02:34:00 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 - bchernicoff

Pages: 1 ... 14 15 [16] 17 18 ... 38
I'm staying through Sunday and wondered if any other people from this board would be there.

I'll be shooting the city while I'm there and hope to make it up to Muir Woods for some photos as well.

I don't really see the point of trying to diminish the importance of the dynamic range as measured by DxO by assigning to it a term that no-one is familiar with (aside from "advocating" for a particular brand whose sensors have weak dynamic range, that is)

He says he's using a D800, so I doubt that is his intention.

I've never been to this guy's blog before. It's very interesting. I wish it was better indexed.

Landscape / Re: How Would You Edit This Landscape Photo?
« on: March 07, 2013, 07:32:31 PM »
Here's my take. There are some good renditions here and some frankly awful ones (even ones that didn't intend to be)

Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 85 f/1.2L II
« on: March 05, 2013, 03:51:42 PM »
The review of the Sigma on provides mouse over comparison of the bokeh of the Canon and the Sigma:

Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 85 f/1.2L II
« on: March 05, 2013, 01:54:45 PM »
Thanks for the review, Justin.  The 85L certainly produces some amazing images, but to me just isn't worth the tradeoffs (expense, slow AF, etc...)  I do have the 85mm f/1.8, and, although it is a great lens, it just doesn't come out of my bag that often.  I typically reach for either the 100L or 135L.  But because it (85mm f/1.8) is a relatively low expense, I hold onto it.  I wouldn't feel that same about a $2K lens.  Some nice portraits in there, though.

I agree. As I have stated in other posts, I owned this lens and sold it for the Sigma 85 f/1.4. It's half the cost, the focus barrel is enclosed with a UV filter on, has superior AF, and comparable if not better IQ. Though bokeh is slightly better on the Canon the difference is not a $1000 better.

Have you had the chance to compare the Canon to the Sigma or other 85mm primes?

Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 85 f/1.2L II
« on: March 05, 2013, 01:34:14 PM »
There is no need to debate UV filters (again) in this thread. I wish these forums were better moderated.

Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 85 f/1.2L II
« on: March 05, 2013, 12:29:00 PM »
Did you have any concern with the gap between the protruding barrel and the outer lens body?

I bought a 2711 to sit next to my 27" iMac to gain wide color gamut. The anti-glare coating makes the monitor useless for photographic work. I can't really describe how bad it is. It's like someone put a thin film of prisms in front of the screen. You get multi-colored sparkles everywhere. The monitor now sits on the floor, unplugged.

EDIT: For what it's worth, I don't know if the 2713 has an improved anti-glare filter or not.

Lenses / Re: Photozone spanks the 24-70 F4 USM L IS
« on: March 04, 2013, 01:18:44 PM »
I don't know if I would call that a spanking. The review is mostly very positive with one big gotcha. That big gotcha plus the high cost of this lens means I would expect few to choose it over the 24-105. Maybe that does add up to a spanking.  ;)

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 12-24 f/2.8L [CR1]
« on: February 27, 2013, 03:14:18 PM »
Meanwhile, I truck along quite happy with my Rokinon/Samyang 14mm f/2.8

Canon General / Re: How well do you see color?
« on: February 25, 2013, 08:53:00 PM »
16...with a couple bourbon in me...

Lenses / Re: Photozone has released their review of the Sigma 35 1.4...
« on: February 23, 2013, 07:59:42 PM »
Here are two from today in Brooklyn. Shot with the Sigma...both at 1.4

Canon General / Re: The Canon EOS 7D & EF 400 f/2.8L IS II Break a Record
« on: February 22, 2013, 12:47:08 PM »
That's 4:01 I'll never get back.

I warned you!  ;)

Pages: 1 ... 14 15 [16] 17 18 ... 38