April 19, 2014, 06:09:16 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 - gigabellone

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4
Lenses / Re: Which one should I get?!
« on: January 04, 2014, 08:31:28 AM »
If you want to try the 14mm focal length and don't mind manual focusing and mechanical aperture, the Samyang/Rokinon 14/2.8 could be a good choice. It is sharp and with negligible optical abberrations, except a hefty distortion. It also costs a fifth of the money needed for the Canon counterpart.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Will vintage lenses help me find the way?
« on: December 31, 2013, 09:19:49 AM »
I think I am reading the OP in that they have/had some EF-S lenses that covered a number of focal lengths.  What lenses were they, and we can point you to a few equivalent tools. 

The idea of getting some vintage lenses to use is mostly misguided.  They don't have the coatings and current technology to make use of what the 6D can offer - and if nothing else it will find any and every flaw.  The reason to use vintage glass is to go fully manual or to achieve a 'look' out of camera.  If this doesn't match up with what you want, stick to what you can afford in the current line up.

It's hard to look at the same focal length day in and out, but there are a number of cheap zoom's that can scratch an itch.  Based on what I saw on your blog, a 17-40mm f4, 24-105mm f4 and/or 70-200mm f4 lens should be in your future - cheap even in euro's and you will sell again when upgrading later on for a net-zero cost.  You've spent over 1,600 Euro's on a camera, and it's only as good as the glass you put in front of it.

I've got nothing against primes. I have four of them. But, for someone with a new body and one $100 lens, I feel that a good walk-around zoom is the most economical beginning point. I've done manual focus and primes for 30 years or more, mostly because that was the only choice I had when I began taking photographs. I'm am so over that.

But, if you are talking primes, I can't imagine not having a 24 or 28 mm wide angle and a 100 or 135 mm short telephoto at a minimum. Just those two lenses will set you back more than the street price of a 24-105. I just think it is bad advice to suggest someone load up on a bunch of outdated manual focus primes when they can get a perfectly functional all purpose zoom that will help them learn the craft first.

As you have correctly guessed, i had a T2i with 3 lenses: 18-55mm/3.5-5.6, 50mm/1.8 II, Sigma 10-20mm/4-5.6. The kit lens and the Sigma were sold, and now the T2i with the Tamron 17-50mm/2.8 is for my family to use. I got the 6D a month ago, purposedly bought without the kit lens. F/4 is kinda slow, i knew i wouldn't want to trade the fast aperture with the zoom. I took pictures with the nifty fifty and i discovered i don't like the focal length much. I always feel i'm leaving something outside the frame, and head and shoulders portraits show a not so pleasing distortion.

Renting gear is not an option here in Italy. So it came to my mind that maybe buying cheap vintage lenses, using them for a while, and then reselling, was a cheap way to test many different focal lengths. I have no real interest in vintage lenses.

With the budget i set for my next lens purchase (1500€), i could get the 24/1.4 L, or the Sigma 35/1.4 and the 24/2.8. How did you choose your primes before buying them? Did you always start having a zoom first, and then got the primes based on the experience with that particular focal length?

Vintage wine will help you find the way.

How come it didn't came to my mind? This one is even cheaper than a Red Ring! :D


Re: Will vintage lenses help me find the way?

No, but L lenses will, no matter which one you pick.  Beware of the L addiction, though... symptoms include red rings, improved upper body strength, and the occasional marital troubles... ;)

Yeah, the plan was to test the focal lengths, and then getting Red Rings in those i liked the most. :D

Third Party Manufacturers / Will vintage lenses help me find the way?
« on: December 24, 2013, 09:39:57 AM »
I switched to a 6D some weeks ago, and i'm really loving my new toy :D . However, i only have a nifty fifty to go with it, and now i'm starting to crave for another toy (some of you here call this condition G. A. S. :D ). I'm a gearhead, but i'm also budget-conscious, so, before spending big bucks on L glass, i was considering the plan of getting some cheap vintage primes and adapters to see which focal lenghts would fit my needs. I know nothing about vintage lenses, and the variety and quantity of lenses is a bit overwhelming. I can borrow a Zeiss Planar 1.4/85 with adapter from a friend, so i got that focal length covered. Can you suggest me some cheap 24mm, 35mm and 135mm primes?

Glad to hear it!  How wide of a lens?

In the last days i persuaded myself that the 24L would be the perfect lens for me. 24mm should be wide enough for landscapes, and its large aperture will help a lot in low available light and open up interesting creative possibilities. I think it can cover most of my shooting needs: landscape, travel/street, full body portraits.

I played with my new toy today, and i must say i'm really impressed. It's light, but feels solid. The shutter is quiet, and it's easy and intuitive to use. And i can't believe how clean the pictures look at iso 4000 and over. The AF is good enough, it didn't disappoint after all. Now i only need a good wide angle lens and a sturdy tripod. :D

Just to let you all know, i placed my order for the 6D, i hope i'll be able to play with it this week end. :D

Lenses / Re: Lens dilemma for night sky
« on: November 25, 2013, 06:05:51 AM »
I don't know if this is going to be of any help, but my choice for this kind of pictures will be the Samyang 14/2.8. According to this review, it is a decent performer, and the price is very low compared to UWA from other manufacturers.

Lenses / Re: Lens dilemma for night sky
« on: November 20, 2013, 06:45:23 AM »
If you want to have good star images in the corners you will have to stop down most (all wider) of the lenses for one to two stops, sometimes even 3. So the argument to save money when using at 2.8 optic instead of a 1.4 stopped down to 2.8 is not correct since the 2.8 optic needs to be stopped down again to at least 4.... I even stop down fantastic lenses like the 135/2, the 200/2.8 or the 300/2.8 and 500/4 since you benefit a lot in quality when doing this in astrophotography!.
Maybe you're right, i never used these lenses and i can't swear by it, but if we can trust DxOMark, it looks like the two lenses behave close enough to make a 1000$/€ price difference look a bit of an exaggeration. Check the images attached to this post, i'm looking for a wideangle too, and i need some feedback. :)
The other benefit of the Zeiss 21mm, other than being tack sharp wide open at f2.8 is that it has a hard infinity stop. Sooooo much easier to set in the dark than fiddling with Live View to get focus on an AF lens.
I agree with you, the Zeiss 21/2.8 is the best at astrophotography, but MF makes it a very specialized lens.

Lenses / Re: Lens dilemma for night sky
« on: November 20, 2013, 04:15:06 AM »
I haven't tried it myself, but I heard the Canon f/1.4L II is good for star shooting once stopped down to f/2.8, as coma issues subside at that point.

If you have to stop down to f/2.8 you might as well save a grand and buy the 24/2.8 IS, which is quite good straight from maximum aperture. Unless, of course, you need f/1.4 for other works.

Lenses / Re: Lens dilemma for night sky
« on: November 19, 2013, 05:28:36 PM »
Have you considered the Samyang/Rokinon 14/2.8? It looks like it's very sharp and woth very low chromatic aberrations and no coma. I'm considering it myself as my night sky lens. I think that the 17-40/4 might be a little too slow to photograph stars.

Lenses / Re: Trying to decide on a prime for landscape photography
« on: November 18, 2013, 03:24:50 AM »
I never owned any of the lenses you mention, but i'm looking for a landscape prime myself, so i can share the results of my research with you. :)
MTF charts show that the 17-40 is good enough when stopped down to f/8-11, so i think you're fine with it when shooting landscapes and long exposures. However, if you want take pictures of stars you're going to need a fast aperture and decent sharpness. The 24/1.4L is sharp.in the center, but somewhat disappointing in the corners when used wide open, showing low sharpness and high vignetting. It also shows coma when shot wide open. Stopping down to f/2.8-4 improve things a lot, but if you're stopping down to f/2.8, you might as well save a grand and get a 24/2.8 IS that boasts decent performances right from the fastest aperture. If you need the fast aperture for creative purposes, nothing can touch the canon L.

There's a brand now Zeiss 15/2.8 that's getting lots of praising reviews, but it costs something in the whereabouts of 3000$. The other Zeiss lenses show good sharpness in lab tests, so they are worth a thought, if you can get over the fact they don't have the autofocus.

My considerations: the 24/2.8 IS is a good all-arounder, delivering good performances in all the fields of interests at a fair price. If money wasn't a concern, i would have bought the Zeiss 15/2.8 as a dedicated landscape/starfield lens, and something else for street and handheld low light photography.

My first DSLR was a 550D and I now have a 6D.  The 550D's auto focus does not compare with the 6D's, regardless of how close the specs look on paper.  The 6D's AF is faster and more accurate.

You really need to try a 6D out yourself to see if it performs to your expectations.  If you can't rent one where you live, do you know any other photographers who would loan you theirs for a few hours or days?  Is there a local retail store where you could do hands-on comparisons with other bodies?
many people seem to hate the 6D AF system but it is actually very reliable at least the center point is.
the center AF point of it is more sensitive than any AF point of the 1DX , the 5D3 or my D800E.
I tested my D800E vs my 6D vs my D600 vs rented 5d3 in lowlight , the 6D actually handled extreme lowlight best, no contest here.
the 6D's actually usable ISO6400 combined with the killer lowlight AF make it the best lowlight compact SLR ever from any maker.
that alone makes it worth it and I think it is the best value camera ever made for hybrid photography, I just have to wait ML to come up something amazing for that camera to make it really the hybrid camera.

I'm starting to think that focusing on center point and then crop the picture in post-production would be the lesser, and acceptable, of two evil, the other one being spending a 1000€ premium to buy a camera with a very complex autofocus system that i'll never be able to use at 100% of its capabilities. I'll take some more time to think about it, but it's most probable i'll bite the bullet and get the 6D.

I found this very informative post about the Canon EOS AF system, courtesy of our exceptional fellow forum member Neuroanatomist.

These are the specs of the AF sensor mounted into the 6D (taken here):
Code: [Select]
AF Points
11 points

Center: cross-type at f/5.6; vertical line-sensitive at f/2.8.

Upper and lower AF points: vertical line-sensitive AF at f/5.6.

Other AF points: Horizontal line-sensitive AF at f/5.6.

AF Working Range
Center AF Point: EV -3 to 18 (at 73°F/23°C, ISO 100)

Other AF points: EV +0.5 to 18 (at 73°F/23°C, ISO 100)

While these are the specs of the AF sensor mounted into the 550D/T2i (taken here):
Code: [Select]
• 9-point CMOS sensor
• F5.6 cross-type at center, extra sensitivity at F2.8
• AF working range: -0.5 to 18 EV (at 23°C, ISO 100)

Comparing the two systems brings to a very disappointing conclusion: the 6D sports an AF sensor which is only marginally better than a 3 years old camera costing 1/4 of its price, and in some ways even less capable of the AF sensor built into an entry level dslr costing 1/3: the 650D sports 9 cross-type points up to f/5.6, sensitivity -0.5 to 18 EV.
I know, that central AF point is really good, but still, i'm not very excited about spending 1400€ (after mail in rebates) on a camera with great AF performance in the center, and the same AF system of my 3 years old entry level dslr on other points.

Ive recently bought the 6d and will be retaining my 7d. Firstly Ive not tried the 5dMK3 so cannot comment about it but of the few photographs Ive taken with the 6d Im more than happy with the camera. I mostly shoot landscape in single shot mode and the resolution improvement over the 7d is really noticable. I shot some night shots with the 6d of a street scene with tunsten lighting in the rain at 10,000 ISO I was amazed at the minimum noise and the sharpness of a number plate on a car that was almost black. I agree the AF points at 11 with only the centre a cross point is not the right combination for wildlife, sports etc but then again this is where the 7d still excels by extending the affective focal lengh and its 19 cross point AF tracking.
Right tools for the right job.

I have a headache this morning but I still read through this thread and agree with what most are saying regarding the 6D.  It's not for sports.  Everything else it shines for.  And why are you only buying two prime lenses?  Get the 24-105 + 6D kit and also buy the primes.  It's a great combo.  I own both the 5D3 and the 6D and all I can say is you won't be disappointed with the 6D for what you want to do with it.  I admit that 99% of the time I shoot center AF point  but it works great with all the lenses I've used it with.  It's a great camera.  With all the deals available right now, what do you have to lose?  Buy it cheap now while you can and rent a 5D3 and see if it really matters.  If the 5D3 is so much better, sell the 6D for a profit in the spring and buy the 5D3.  The profit will pay for your "rental" of the 6D and the rental of the 5D3 if you switch.  If you don't switch, you saved a lot of money to buy another lens.

Heck, maybe buy the 6D and the 70D and increase your reach, video creativity and have sports ability too!

Remember, it's the photographer that takes the picture, not the camera.  I've taken thousands of great images with my 5Dc and I never even bothered to buy the 5D2.  I bought the 5D3 a year after it came out and it sucked at low light AF.  So much so that I bought the 6D which stomped all over the 5D3 in low light.  Finally Canon released a firmware in April that improved the 5D3 AF enough that I use it more now in low light.  But the 6D has never disappointed me.  The one issue I have at the moment with the 6D (that isn't Canon's fault) is that my Sunpak RD2000 flash doesn't do ETTL consistently on the 6D.  That's Sunpak's problem, not Canon's.  Still waiting on Sunpak's firmware update too.

Sadly, renting cameras is not an option here in Italy.
My main problem is that the 5D3 is overkill for me: too many AF points that i won't use, and a hefty price tag which is very hard to swallow. Heck, even the 6D is slightly overkill for me: while the wifi is a cool feature to have, i could live without it, and i don't see myself using the gps. For everything else, i know the 6D is the appropriate camera for me. My only worry is related to its outer AF points. Is it really that bad? This guy loves the camera, he's even using the ultra-fast 85/1.2 with apparently no issues while many forum users here and elsewhere keep bashing the outer AF points. I'm really confused.

I've never tried the 5DIII, but I have a hard time seeing how you can be disappointed by the AF in the 6D.  Granted, I don't do sports, and I always use the central point for focusing anyway.  I used a 6D for a wedding after using a 60D for years.  It's not just a step up, but a large step up in every aspect (so it should be a huge leap coming from a Rebel).  The AF was always fast (enough) and accurate.  The only time it was slow enough to be noticed was in very very dark situations, but even then the camera still acquired focus.

Here is a picture I took at a wedding reception (1/160 f/5.0).  There is clearly motion, the ISO is somewhat high (1600) and the light is very dim.  The couple is illuminated by my flash gun, look in the background to assess the ambient light and keep in mind that the flash did not assist during AF. The second image is a 50% detail from the area I was actually focusing on. The third and forth image (1/60 f/5.0 iso1600) is a situation where I could barely see the DJ with my eyes (all the lights are in front of him and all the light in the picture comes from my flash that did not assist AF), but the camera acquired focus anyway! In this case, I have to admit, it took a noticeable amount of time. If I had to give a ballpark number, I would say more than 1/4 sec.

Thanks for the feedback. What about the outer AF points? Have you tried to use them with a fast prime? Are they really that bad?

85mm might be too long in a room. For "environmental portraits", 35mm or 50mm is better, IMO.
I agree on that, that's why the foundation of my lens kit will be a 35mm prime, most probably the Canon 35/2 IS. The Sigma seems the hottest right now, but i'm a little scared about its AF, and i still haven't found a reassuring review of the Sigma USB Dock. I can hold on a bit on the 85, since there's a rumor about lots of lenses to be released during 2014, and i guess there will be a 50 or a 85 (or both) in the bunch.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4