September 02, 2014, 04:37:50 PM

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 - Normalnorm

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 12
61
Distortion may drive you crazy but I have no problems with it as LR corrects for it automatically.

I use the 100 macro in the studio along with the 85 1.8. Both are razor sharp for portrait /fashion.
I also use the 70-200 2.8L v1 and it is also super sharp.

The zoom has tremendous versatility (and weight) and has only a slight disadvantage in ultimate sharpness compared to the primes. The contrast is lower especially wide open. but a little bump in post solves the problem.

The most cost-effective mix IMO would be the 70-200 2.9LII and a Sigma 50.
This would not overlap FL. If you need the macro get the 100L as it also works well as a portrait lens.

The 135 f2 is supposed to be legendarily sharp but if you are not using it wide open all the time you are carrying a lot of weight and expense without any real benefit.

You say you want to get MF setup? If you are having trouble affording the Canon lenses you are going to be in tears trying to buy MF gear unless it is used film equipment and then you will be in tears finding processing and scanning to fit your budget and meet your quality demands.


62
(and the ones that are lured away may find it isn't necessarily going to meet all their needs).

As others have stated, the lens selection is terrible. For those who are excited about adapters to mount EF lenses while retaining AF, all other current examples of this are almost completely worthless if AF speed is of concern to the type of work you do.

The appeal for me is a quasi-open system that allows me to choose what sensor to attach to what lens. IOW, I would be very happy to attach my Canon 17 TS-E onto a 36MP FF camera AND also be able to use the Nikkor 14-24 f2.8. My style of photography is tripod mounted, Live View focus images. AF would be nice with the Nikkor but as I am never shooting action or BIF it is not an issue for me.
For events where snappy AF and cool lenses are required I would choose the Olympus as the lenses and the larger DOF would get me more keepers. The AF is fast enough to keep up with wedding action so, for me, that would be ideal.

As noted, depending on the style of photography one would make different choices.

I am also confident that Sony will offer a better lineup of lenses but I am also confident that people will whine about the price.

63
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sigma 24-105 f/4 DG OS Outed?
« on: October 14, 2013, 11:26:44 AM »
While I am interested in any new lenses that promise quality and novelty I am surprised at how many people are disparaging the Canon 24-105L.
Enormous numbers of copies are out there and still command high-ish prices used and new ones sell steadily it hardly seems that it is a pig.
My own copy is very sharp with admitted weakness in soft edges and distortion but I am able to overcome the distortion in LR and the sharpness in the corners is acceptable when stopped down to f11 in those images that need it.

My biggest concern with the Sigma is that even with the great and admirable improvements they have made in IQ and build quality, their AF performance leaves a lot to be desired. Various review sites have noted the sometimes iffy AF performance and my own experience mirrors that.
If I knew that the AF would be on par with any of my Canon lenses I would be on it in a flash.

64
Some time ago, I've been told by an alleged pro photog that real photogs don't crop, or at least only do minor angle correction. I am wondering if this is true, or it is an old-school fairy tale from the analog age that falls into the category "real photogs don't use auto iso and only shoot in full m".
[/b]

While I have heard the same thing (or variations such as "Use the whole neg, you paid for it") I see no use in being a slave to an arbitrary shape such as 4x5, 6x6 or 35mm. The fact is that an image is your creation and you can do as you see fit. It is not some sort of whack contest to see what you can stuff in a frame.

Although guilty myself, I no longer am enamored of the "cutout neg carrier"or "sloppy borders" trope that used to attest to ones FF integrity. One can easily drop a black border around any shape if it appeals to you but the notion that one must go "mano a mano" with your format is foolish.

65
Well, they can price it any way they want. I am sure they will sell enough to make it worth their while.

What amuses me is that it will leave those complaining about Canon prices a little breathless.

66
Lenses / Re: What does Blue Dot on a box means?
« on: September 14, 2013, 01:28:42 PM »
Its a vegan lens. Slightly more money but worth it.  ;)

67
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sigma 24-105 f/4 OS on the Way? [CR1]
« on: September 08, 2013, 08:04:47 PM »
Have to agree with Neuro.
The current prices of the Canon and its real excellence will be a hard act to follow.

My copy needs a CLA buts is still a go-to lens for 80% of my shooting. What I really need is another for backup.
It is a decent lens, but not really an "excellent" one. It could use way more sharpness across the frame, especially in the corners. I wouldn't use the 24-105L for landscapes.

Sharpness is probably one of the things that Sigma is going to bring to the table.. And lots of it.
In my experience the 24-105 is plenty sharp. I rented the 24-70 2.8 L II and found it only a touch sharper than my lens.
For real world work I have found it to be a great step up from the old 28-75 Tamron that was touted as the top "value" lens at the time ~4-5yrs ago.
The real world for me is working with the vagaries of hand held shooting, motion and the use to which the final image is destined. Even the most demanding applications (large prints) are well served by this lens.

Studio shooting with side by side comparison to my Canon 100 macro (on camera stand) show the macro to have the edge in absolute sharpness and better contrast but no client will ever see the difference.

68
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sigma 24-105 f/4 OS on the Way? [CR1]
« on: September 08, 2013, 03:39:09 PM »
Have to agree with Neuro.
The current prices of the Canon and its real excellence will be a hard act to follow.

My copy needs a CLA buts is still a go-to lens for 80% of my shooting. What I really need is another for backup.

69
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DIY filterholder
« on: September 07, 2013, 01:22:42 PM »
Ben Egbert and I discussed doing a DIY filterholder utilizing the 17's front cap in April 2011. I am not handy so I had to wait until Ben actually did the work and produced a tutorial. (See below). Total cost for parts = $80 or so. You will not ba able to buy the Lee version (if real) for 4x this number. In the meantime, a bunch of folks popped on the internet with the same or similiar idea. Except for some vignetting in areas of the frame that appear when the shift is too strong, works like a charm.
 
http://ben-egbert-photo.com/?page_id=206#comment-1780


Followed his work on another forum and he later said (I think?) that the thing fell of due to the glue not sticking hard enough. He also mentioned that he would not make another one since the front-cap with the standard-holder was better alternative. Smaller and less vinjeting.
If I'm not all wrong.

I saw all the DIY solutions and long ago learned the cost of the materials is nearly irrelevant to the labor and PITA of cutting, gluing and praying it works.

For me the Wonderpana is a very well built solution that really works. Infinitely better than any DIY solution.
YMMV.

BTW @Privatebydesign, I am pleased my 100th post was a helpful one.

70
Having looked at the WonderPana 145 Essentials Kit I am interested in getting one for the polarizer. Could somebody who owns one post a picture of it mounted on the 17TS-E please? Whilst I can understand how it works on the 14mm and the Nikon 14-24 I don't see how it fits the 17TS-E without mounting on the focus ring. It would be a great help if I could see one before ordering, thanks.

Here you go. As you can see it is mounted via the bayonet of the lens cap. Very secure and does not vignette with movement.
Added Bonus is some protection of the front element.

71
Here is a sample with the polarizer.

72
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: ...and now Smugmug.
« on: September 05, 2013, 10:26:51 PM »
While I understand the desire to see a wide gamut image doesn't this create a problem for clients who lack the appropriate monitor setting and browser?

73
I got the Fotodiox Wonderpana filter system for my 17.Very well built.
It accepts a 145mm filters (no Costco does not carry them) and I have a circular polarizer for it that works wonderfully.

They do have grad NDs available but I have not yet upgraded my kit for them.

74
Lenses / Re: AF questions
« on: August 24, 2013, 12:06:58 AM »
Well, there is either 1) something wrong with the lens, 2) something wrong with the body, or 3) something wrong with the particular combination of body + lens.  Or you are just being punished by camera fairies for some offense you have caused them.

I'm going with the camera fairies. ;)

Thanks for the ideas. I do feel that I can understand some of the issues better now.

75
Lenses / Re: AF questions
« on: August 23, 2013, 06:50:02 PM »
Thanks but both the lenses are decent performers to the extent that I doubt that an AF module would see such a poor projected image of edges that the AF would be impaired.

I think the transmission of distance info was for the benefit of auto flash exposure.

The other issue is that these were both new lenses and both were sent in and returned without improvement.

I also note that commenters in other areas will note that "this lens focuses well on my xx camera" or "This lens struggles to find focus".

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 12