July 24, 2014, 10:27:15 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 - infared

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 54
2
Here is a nice dark one......  :-X

<iframe src="https://www.flickr.com/photos/bowne/14599542954/player/d4ff155348" height="1088" width="821"  frameborder="0" allowfullscreen webkitallowfullscreen mozallowfullscreen oallowfullscreen msallowfullscreen></iframe>

3
Lenses / Re: Review: Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS
« on: July 23, 2014, 11:45:59 AM »
In actual use...I am REALLY starting to like this lens..I can see I will be using it a whole lot more than the 16-35 f/2.8L II that I sold to buy it...   8)
The sharpness and the contrast are like the 24-70mm f/2.8l II.  Very good for a zoom.

4
Lenses / Re: Sigma 50mm Art 1.4 Focusing problems
« on: July 22, 2014, 08:02:50 AM »
I have an original Sigma 5Omm f/1.4 and it focuses just fine on my 5DIII. Out of the box no adjustments.
I also own a Sigma 35mm Art  and it performed just fine right out of the box as well. No adjustments.

5
HDR - High Dynamic Range / Re: Post your HDR images:
« on: July 17, 2014, 09:41:03 PM »
Well..its not for everybody...but I like it~   8)

6
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 16-35 F/4L IS -- Reviews are trickling in...
« on: July 16, 2014, 10:35:50 PM »
For those testing the IS, are you half-pressing the shutter (or pressing AF-ON if you use BBF) and then letting the IS system operate for ~0.5 s to fully stabilize the image?  I've often found that if you simply press the shutter on an IS lens, you get a shot that's not much better than no IS.  Here are some tests I did with the 100L.

Good point!!!! I was not considering that although I was half pressing to focus most of the time so I think that the IS was up and running... after listening to the little motor start up you get a feel for what you are saying...it has to start and get up and running and it is NOT instantaneous. Thanks for the help!
I have the 100IS Macro too...and it seems to me that the IS performs better on that lens...so with a wide angle lens I would definitely expect the IS to be so much more effective considering less virtual movement due to the focal length of the wide angle zoom.
Thanks for the help.

7
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 16-35 F/4L IS -- Reviews are trickling in...
« on: July 16, 2014, 09:47:24 PM »
Just ran a crude IS test on my 5D3.

1) IS OFF at 16mm, I netted:

  • 3 out of 5 sharp shots at 1/15s exposure
  • 2 out of 5 sharp shots at 1/8s exposure
  • 1 out of 5 sharp shots at 1/4s exposure

2) IS ON at 16mm, I netted:

  • 5 out of 5 sharp shots at 1/15s exposure
  • 5 out of 5 sharp shots at 1/8s exposure
  • 4 out of 5 sharp shots at 1/4s exposure
  • 1.5 out of 5 sharp shots at 1/2s exposure (a borderline one was called 0.5)
  • 0 out of 5 sharp shots at 1s exposure

3) IS OFF at 35mm, I netted:

  • 5 out of 5 sharp shots at 1/60s exposure
  • 4 out of 5 sharp shots at 1/30s exposure
  • 1 out of 5 sharp shots at 1/15s exposure

4) IS ON at 35mm, I netted:

  • 5 out of 5 sharp shots at 1/60s exposure
  • 5 out of 5 sharp shots at 1/30s exposure
  • 5 out of 5 sharp shots at 1/15s exposure
  • 4.5 out of 5 sharp shots at 1/8s exposure (a borderline one was called 0.5)
  • 2 out of 5 sharp shots at 1/4s exposure
  • 1 out of 5 sharp shots at 1/2s exposure
  • 0.5 out of 5 sharp shots at 1s exposure (a borderline one was called 0.5)


Granted, n of 5 is weak statistical power for a variable like my grip/shooting technique and the method of selecting sharp shots is decidedly subjective, but the numbers above suggest I'm seeing a sliver over 1 stop IS at 16mm and about 3 stops IS at 35mm.

Perhaps infrared has found something here.  I don't want to go on a witch hunt, but can I ask others with this new lens to attempt a similar evaluation?  Your grip / breathing very well may be better than mine, but the approach should work -- use non-IS to find where your ability fails you, and then see how much further IS lets you slow the shutter.

- A

This is very helpful! THANKS!

I think I am not achieving stable images at your level, which from my experience and what I have read about this particular lens...your results are on target and what one should expect!
It may have been over excitement, I hope. I am going to test the lens thoroughly over the weekend and make my decision as to return it or keep it.  This is frustrating...!
Thanks for the general sharpness percentages...now I know what I SHOULD expect!

8
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 16-35 F/4L IS -- Reviews are trickling in...
« on: July 16, 2014, 09:39:56 PM »
Ahsanford,
Yeah..everything I have read is super positive about the IS.  I am an extremely experienced  photographer. 

...

Like I said, I am very experienced and truly know and understand ALL the variables...except the IS ..LOL!

Super helpful, thanks.  I'd agree your test should absolutely net sharp shots.  Something seems amiss.

Potential culprits:

  • How good is your grip / mechanics of holding the camera steady?  I presume this is not your problem, but it's worth ruling out:  pick a 'tough to handhold without IS' shutter speed (say 1/4s for a 16mm shot or a 1/15s for a 35mm shot) and take 10 shots with and without the IS on.  If the IS shots have a higher hit rate and the than the non-IS shots, that implies the IS is working and it may be your grip / holding technique.

  • Do you know the IS is on and working?  One simple test is with your ears.  Verify the IS switch is 'on' and switch the lens to MF (so you don't hear focusing adjustments) and then you press the shutter halfway with your ear next to the lens.  You'll initially hear a little noise at half-shutter-press, but after you let go, the IS motor/mechanism/whatever should be whirring in the background for an additional moment or two.  It's really, really faint with IS in the year 2014, but the sound is there if you listen for it.  If you don't hear that noise, I'd wonder if there was a glitch with the IS internals or possibly you have a faulty connection with the IS switch.  I defer to the nerdy folks and professionals on this forum, but if you can't hear the IS going when the switch for IS is 'on', something is off and I'd consider returning the lens.

  • It could be a poor AF, potentially.  Take AF out of the possible root causes and repeat your test:  switch to MF, go LiveView and 10x manually focus and repeat your 'tough to handhold without IS' test.  And yes, you need to handhold during LiveView for this -- it shouldn't be too hard with these wide FLs (I'm reaching / speculating at this point.)

- A

Thanks for all the HELPFUL suggestions...I have tried to be very specific...have to be to diagnose the situation! Being vague and non descriptive won't get us anywhere. You have brought up some things that I have not tried.
So...I gave a listen...and I can hear the IS motor kick on and continuously run...  I knew it was working as my IS shots  were sharper than my non IS shots...but my concern is that the IS is not performing as intended or at 100%.
Your suggestion about using manual focus is a great idea...that will eliminate one more variable...I am going to shoot more tests over the next few days.  I have a lot of IS lenses and also use Olympus MFT  cameras as well...so I am no stranger to IS...and with all the rant about how fantastic the IS is on this lens I think that I am intuitively finding it lacking a little or that something is not quite right.  Could be me , i.e. operator error or too much expectation! LOL!
I do have good grip tech, etc...but my experience is that if I go thru all those monkey shines to be as rock solid as possible it is to push my results past expectation...which many times I can...but if this lens is at all what it is touted to be I should expect consistent excellent results at 1/15-1/30 while casually (not carelessly) gripping the camera.
Don't you agree?

9
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 16-35 F/4L IS -- Reviews are trickling in...
« on: July 16, 2014, 05:51:11 PM »
I have to say, "never felt a need to take out the Zeiss 21" says a lot about the quality of the zoom. I can't imagine not wanting to take photos with the Zeiss if you have it available at the time. 16-35mm f/4L would have great application as a hking lens to replace a heavier primes kit for landscape. Dragging both the Zeiss and the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 (current landscape and astro-landscape kit, with 6D, tripod, filters, etc - 12 pounds?) up the side of a mountain made me aware that I need to do more conditioning.


Yeah....I have a Zeiss 21mm and the Sigma 35mm Art that I did personal, informal testing against my new Canon 16-35mm  IS.    So...I used to never use my 16-35mm f/2.8 II because the Zeiss and the Sigma blew it away....but damn...these are all very close in sharpness now....hmmmmmmm...the others do offer the faster f/stops though.

I have noticed some funky motion blur in some of my shots caused by the I S though, when I am shooting at reasonable  shutter speeds like 1/30... Anyone else seeing this issue?

I haven't personally, but I haven't shot longer than perhaps 1/8s exposures handheld with this lens yet.   Just curious: have you verified it's a legit lens event and not wind, moving subject, etc.?

I just assumed the IS worked like other Canon lenses.  Reviewers like Bryan Carnathan certainly raved about it:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-16-35mm-f-4-L-IS-USM-Lens.aspx

"Under ideal conditions (standing indoors on a solid floor) and shooting completely freehand, at 16mm, I obtained a decent sharp image percentage down to about .6 seconds for just over 3 stops of assistance. A very slow trail-off in keeper rate ensued and with an occasional sharp image at exposures as long as an unreal 2.5 seconds (as shared above and a new record for me). At 35mm, I had a decent sharp image percentage down to about .4 seconds (just under 4 stops) with a few sharp images remaining at exposures as long as 1 second."

- A


Ahsanford,
Yeah..everything I have read is super positive about the IS.  I am an extremely experienced  photographer.  I just took the three lenses into  a decently lit area of my kitchen and did steady-Eddie hand-held shots.  So I had no moving objects in the frame etc.  In some of my shots with the Zeiss I shot as low as 1/25sec... And the images had classic motion blur...I expected it...but sometimes I can hold steady.  My co/fusion/concern is when I shot with the New Canon zoom. I did not shoot below 1/8sec ...and I shot up into 1/30sec...well within (and above) the range that critics are raving that the lens can handle...now I would think that In the 1/8 area I could have a percentage of sharp shots...but when I start getting into the 1/20sec-1/30sec...I would expect all images to be sharp as the IS should compensate....but some of the images in this shutter range had that double-shot effect type blur...(I think that this is characteristic of IS attempting to freeze the shot, but failing).  It was no just blur like I have with the Sigma and the Zeiss.  I know what that looks like, all too often LOL!
I think we can agree that with the Canon lens on 16mm and the IS on, about 5ft. from subject at f/10 (no it isn't an out of focus phenomenon at this fstop.and I focus at a mid point in the depth of the frame)... These pics should be sharp EVERY time I hit the shutter with this much-touted IS....but some of the frames had that double image softness.
My thought is, and it is why I asked the question here is maybe I have a clunker with faulty IS?
I bought the lens @B &H so I have 30days to return it...
I will do some more testing and see if it is reoccurring.
Would you agree that at anywhere in the zoom range at 1/20sec all my shots should be crystal clear of stationary objects when focused in the middle of the depth of the scene at say f/9-f/16?
Like I said, I am very experienced and truly know and understand ALL the variables...except the IS ..LOL!

10
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 16-35 F/4L IS -- Reviews are trickling in...
« on: July 16, 2014, 02:56:48 PM »
I have to say, "never felt a need to take out the Zeiss 21" says a lot about the quality of the zoom. I can't imagine not wanting to take photos with the Zeiss if you have it available at the time. 16-35mm f/4L would have great application as a hking lens to replace a heavier primes kit for landscape. Dragging both the Zeiss and the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 (current landscape and astro-landscape kit, with 6D, tripod, filters, etc - 12 pounds?) up the side of a mountain made me aware that I need to do more conditioning.

Yeah....I have a Zeiss 21mm and the Sigma 35mm Art that I did personal, informal testing against my new Canon 16-35mm  IS.    So...I used to never use my 16-35mm f/2.8 II because the Zeiss and the Sigma blew it away....but damn...these are all very close in sharpness now....hmmmmmmm...the others do offer the faster f/stops though.

I have noticed some funky motion blur in some of my shots caused by the I S though, when I am shooting at reasonable  shutter speeds like 1/30... Anyone else seeing this issue?

11
Black & White / Re: Black & White
« on: July 16, 2014, 02:40:59 AM »
17mm TSE...it was almost dark...very hard to set the lens tilt, etc. 5DIII is amazing!

+1
How many exposures did you take? 3?

I think I shot 7 exp.  to preserve the highlights around that back door....the image is misleading due to the sensor's ability to record near darkness in the foreground compared to the bright highlights of the sun around that back door.
The dynamic range was extreme.

12
Black & White / Re: Black & White
« on: July 15, 2014, 04:45:49 PM »
17mm TSE...it was almost dark...very hard to set the lens tilt, etc. 5DIII is amazing!

13
Lenses / Re: UV filter on the new 16-35 f/4?
« on: July 13, 2014, 03:24:07 PM »
Come for the rumors, stay for the entertainment!

REALLY!!!!   The train really came off the tracks here.  LOL!
I use filters...my prints hang in galleries...people buy them.   They don't ask if I had a filter on the lens or not. Its all personal choice. I will continue to protect my expensive equipment. It works well for me. If I put a B&W XS-Pro/Nano-MC on my lens and shoot a test with and without, upon close inspection I can see no difference in the images. The only thing that upsets me is that I can't put a filter on my 17mm TSE....especially because the glass sticks out into the room and that makes it the most prone to damage of all of my lenses!  LOL!.

14
Lenses / Re: UV filter on the new 16-35 f/4?
« on: July 12, 2014, 08:02:40 AM »
Thanks for your reply. Is this a slim version (for no vignetting) and can you still use your lenscap?


It is a neutral clear filter to prevent vignetting when using wide angle lenses. You can still use your lenscap.

EDIT:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/756817-REG/


Jack this is what I used on my new 16-35mm IS ..These are always the best in my opinion, too. I have noticed no additional vignetting from the filter.

15
EOS Bodies / Re: The Always Hidden Camera at the World Cup
« on: July 04, 2014, 02:19:23 PM »
Kindof silly to go to such extreme measures to hide a prototype.   What's the big deal. Its just the outside of a camera body, that basically looks like most of the other black boxes that Canon has produced for the last ten years. Right?  It is the tech and the insides that matter and they don't show.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 54