August 02, 2014, 12:33:28 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 - infared

Pages: 1 ... 10 11 [12] 13 14 ... 55
166
EOS Bodies / Re: This is the Way a White Camera Should be Done
« on: November 26, 2013, 09:50:21 AM »
In your post, if you are referring to the EVER-SO-UGLY-AND-PRETENTIOUS 1932 gold-plated Leica that was auctioned off in Hong Kong...it only sold for about $620,000, (estimates for the auction, were at about $1.2million, I believe), ick...I don't get it...I guess it is valuable, but not an object that I would enjoy looking at.
I like white cameras, love them (don't own one at the moment, but I have had two white MFT cameras in the past).
Although the red is a little much..the black kind of counters that, so I think that this is a really smart looking camera.
The renovator in Tokyo did a kickass job on the overhaul....Hey...it is something different!!!!!


No they are referring to this one http://topnews.us/content/259066-leica-m-camera-co-designed-apples-jony-ive-fetches-1805000-sotheby-s-auction

Oh...for a GOOD cause as well!  My mistake...I LOVE this Leica...more than this Canon P. Plus, the Leica is up-to-date.

167
EOS Bodies / Re: This is the Way a White Camera Should be Done
« on: November 26, 2013, 09:10:39 AM »
In your post, if you are referring to the EVER-SO-UGLY-AND-PRETENTIOUS 1932 gold-plated Leica that was auctioned off in Hong Kong a couple of days ago...it only sold for about $620,000, (estimates for the auction, were at about $1.2million, I believe), ick...I don't get it...I guess it is valuable, but not an object that I would enjoy looking at.
I like white cameras, love them (don't own one at the moment, but I have had two white MFT cameras in the past).
Although the red is a little much..the black kind of counters that, so I think that this is a really smart looking camera.
The renovator in Tokyo did a kickass job on the overhaul....Hey...it is something different!!!!!

168
Lenses / Re: Ken Rockwell reviews canon 50mm f/1.0
« on: November 23, 2013, 11:11:18 AM »
May we never speak of Ken Rockwell at Canon Rumors again.


Please...no....NOOOOOOOOOO......We enjoy bashing him far too much!


169
Lenses / Re: Ken Rockwell reviews canon 50mm f/1.0
« on: November 22, 2013, 04:41:43 AM »
 :) ;) :D ;D >:( :( :o I have to admit...those are some real "masterpiece" images KR uses to portray and review such a "masterpiece" lens.  8) ??? ::) :P :-[ :-X :-\ :-* :'(

Didn't know that the lens existed...but I know less about it now. :-0

170
Lenses / Re: More Mentions of 2014 Being the Year of the Lens [CR1]
« on: November 19, 2013, 08:39:08 AM »
......ta,p,tap,tap,tap......um...Canon....we're ALL here....waiting...(as the photography world explodes around us from all other manufacturers).   Yawn.

171
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Zeiss Otus Initial Impressions
« on: November 19, 2013, 08:16:07 AM »
I think that it is fantastic that Zeiss has made this lens!  I guess it is very difficult to make a great normal (for FF) lens...no one has until now.  I cannot afford this lens...but I would love to have the opportunity to view some prints made from it by a skilled image maker.  That would be exciting.

172
Lenses / Re: 16-35 2.8L II - Is it really THAT bad ?
« on: November 18, 2013, 06:34:04 AM »
Hi everyone,

I currently own an old 17-35 f/2.8L which might be about twenty years old...I'm quite satisfied with the sharpness, in the center, even at f/2.8 it makes the job.
I'm concerned by a strange occurrence : when shooting with a strong backlight, i have some kind of de-contrasted circle in the center of the frame. Like a white haze. That's ugly and ruins my shots.

That's why i was wondering about getting the 16-35 II, which is two versions younger than my 17-35 and is supposed to be better. But, reading the forums, i often notice than no one is really happy with his 16-35II. That's why I need your help to determine how better the 16-35II is compared to my 17-35. If it is real better, i'll get it sooner than if it is not that better.

So i need you, 16-35II users, to tell me how good/bad/disappointing it is. Is it a pleasure for you to take it, or you only use it when you NEED an ultra-wide and it 'makes the job" ?

Are you, like me, waiting for a 16/18mm f/1.8 Canon prime ?

Thanks

I have the 16-35II..it's very good "for a zoom"...but doesn't touch the IQ of my 35mm sigma f/1.4 or my 17mm TSE...or my Zeiss 21mm f/2.8...NOT EVEN CLOSE.......but it has versatility and fast autofocus.....everything in photography has trade-offs. What we are ALL waiting for is a 14-24mm to compete with the Nikon!  ::)

173
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Review: Zeiss 15mm f/2.8 Distagon
« on: November 14, 2013, 11:22:03 PM »
The Zeiss 15 is a wonderfully sharp Lens, I bought one a while back after seeing some of Sanj's Images with this Lens, love it, but. It's damn heavy, which you can live with, it's manual focus of course, again you can live with and I actually have grown to like Manual Focus Lenses again after buying this lens, but, what just seems dopy, is the non removable (without a lot of very scary effort) dumb assed Hood.

I eventually went and purchased the 17TSE (with the Wonderpana Filter Holder, so now I can use the 17 with all my Lee Filters, Yippee), now very seldom do I take the Zeiss out, I'de love to put the Zeiss 15 into my Underwater housing to replace the Canon 14f2.8 L II, but the dumb assed Hood precludes that. There isn't any doubt though that the Zeiss 15 is a much better Lens in all departments than the Canon 14, except for the dumb assed Hood.

LOL!!! (Once again....What kind of hood do you have on that $3000 lens?). Funny post!

174
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Review: Zeiss 15mm f/2.8 Distagon
« on: November 14, 2013, 06:38:05 PM »

[/quote]

I have been told since doing my review that there was an earlier version of the lens that lacked the UMC element as a part of the optical formula and was significantly inferior to the newer version optically.  That being said, I went and checked Bryan's lens sharpness tool again and his does say UMC.  His chart shows a significant difference between the 14L and the Samyang, particularly in the corners.  But his results don't seem to match that of other very reliable reviewers, and doesn't agree with my own results, either.

I don't know how to account for his results.  I think Bryan is a great reviewer, but I don't feel like his chart results reflect my own experience.  His results show that the 17-40L is sharper at equal apertures, but I just dumped my own 17-40L because the results were so inferior to my Rokinon.

Look at these two links from ePhotozine:

http://www.ephotozine.com/article/samyang-14mm-f-2-8-ed-as-if-umc-lens-review-19621
http://www.ephotozine.com/article/canon-ef-14mm-f-2-8l-ii-usm-lens-review-23412

Of particular interest in their sharpness testing; it unquestionably shows the Samyang as sharper (than the 14LII), even in the corners.  Anyway, I can only chart it up to either sample variation or reviewing differences (which illustrates why it is important to read multiple reviews and then form your own conclusions).
[/quote]

I checked out that comparison on ephotozine....WOW...interesting ...I had read about the Rokinon(or whatever!!! LOL..as lens by many names..I am already suspicious!)...and the review was not good..and I dismissed it..I am too serious about my photography...but it is great to know that this is out there.... I am going to tell a friend about it.
I totally agree with what you said at the end above...read up as much as you can...get the lens and test it out to make sure....It is all a lot of fun!  Thanks for all the great info..as usual.

175
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Review: Zeiss 15mm f/2.8 Distagon
« on: November 14, 2013, 04:51:49 PM »
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=794&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=2&LensComp=769&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2

Here is a comparison to the Rokinon/Samyang.

The Zeiss is a tad sharper at 2.8, but they are equal by f/4. Though this could be due to TDP having a bad copy.

The Zeiss also has a bit less distortion, but it's also 7% less wide so it's not apple to apples.

I definitely don't see $2,600 worth of improvement.


"The Zeiss is a tad sharper"....LOL..based on the corner resolution in The Digital Picture comparison tool,   I would think that you may be able to shoot sharper with a plastic lens rather than the SamYang...at ALL apertures... I don't think it is worth $359.  ...but hey whatever makes you happy...you are smiling!!!! Maybe around f/8 the SamYang is tolerable.  :P


I don't know what to make of Bryan's review and/or charts (he has never actually reviewed the lens), although I have been told that there are two variations/optical formulas (older and newer) of this lens, but my own review along with that of others say that the new version is in fact basically as sharp as the Canon 14L and is one of the sharpest wide angle optics available for a Canon lens. 

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/532-samyang14f28eosff
Roger here at Lens Rentals says that he is a big fan of the lens and that it compares favorably with the 14L.

I've used about five different wide angle options, and the copy of the Rokinon that I have is so much sharper at all apertures than anything that I have used before that there is no comparison.  I have no doubt that the Zeiss is better still, but as it is about 10x the price...

P.S.  The Rokinon blows the Canon "L" wide angle zooms away in sharpness in every detail.


So Dustin...I believe you...do you think that The Digital Picture is using the same lens that you have or something different???? I  also, really respect Roger at Lens Rental...Did you pay $359 for your lens? ....and it is sharper than the Canon???? REALLY?

176
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Review: Zeiss 15mm f/2.8 Distagon
« on: November 14, 2013, 02:42:40 PM »
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=794&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=2&LensComp=769&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2

Here is a comparison to the Rokinon/Samyang.

The Zeiss is a tad sharper at 2.8, but they are equal by f/4. Though this could be due to TDP having a bad copy.

The Zeiss also has a bit less distortion, but it's also 7% less wide so it's not apple to apples.

I definitely don't see $2,600 worth of improvement.


"The Zeiss is a tad sharper"....LOL..based on the corner resolution in The Digital Picture comparison tool,   I would think that you may be able to shoot sharper with a plastic lens rather than the SamYang...at ALL apertures... I don't think it is worth $359.  ...but hey whatever makes you happy...you are smiling!!!! Maybe around f/8 the SamYang is tolerable.  :P

177
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Review: Zeiss 15mm f/2.8 Distagon
« on: November 14, 2013, 02:35:12 PM »
This could possibly be the perfect landscape lens for me, except that I don't fancy doing this and cutting the hood petals off to use it with my Lee ND grads:

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/01/zeiss-15mm-hood-removal

Oh, and I can't afford it either! Looks like I'm stuck with my crappy Canon 17-40  ;)


Traveler...that is GREAT...Lens Rentals Rocks...but I don't think that I would be buying a $3000 lens and then start taking it apart (and I am extremely handy and like to take risks..but not this!!!!) Thanks for posting that article...you gave me knowledge, but more importantly a great laugh!!!!

178
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Review: Zeiss 15mm f/2.8 Distagon
« on: November 14, 2013, 11:47:53 AM »
I kind of pained over my decision about this lens...(own the 21mm f/2.8 Love it)....after weighing out the options I decided to purchase the Canon 17mm TSE.   I know there are differences but I can't imaging a MF lens more versatile or with better IQ......and at $2179 plus 4% cash back on top of that ...it eventually became a no-brainer.
There is a learning (comfort) curve with the lens..no doubt...but it is so much more capable. Also...with the addition of the 1.4X (which I already owned for my 70-200mm)  I get a very good to excellent somewhat slow (f/5.6) tilt-shift 24mm! The Zeoss DOES have that ever-so-nice f/2.8 aperture and easier filter implementation if that is your thing. We all have different needs.
I am very surprised at the quality of the images with the 1.4X on the camera. Makes the output from my 16-35mmL look "less-than".
I am sure that the Zeiss is incredible ....but I can't imagine being much more ecstatic upon opening an image on my iMac. With the TSE advantage & the considerable price difference..I think I got the best for me.... ..but I bet both lenses have an equal WOWzer factor when opening the files!

http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5483/9068325953_efd08b4659_o.jpg

179
EOS-M / Re: The Next EOS M in 2014 [CR2]
« on: November 11, 2013, 05:22:07 PM »
Just got back from Italy with both the 5DIII and the EOS-M.... M was useful indoors and at night... but totally useless in daylight. EVF would be nice... how much bigger/heavier would it be????.... even a old style "range finder" would make it more useful in daylight. What am I missing????

Correct...it is ( as is any camera) useless in daylight for any serious photography with no EVF...It would be great if it was just a decent quality clip-on VF... then the camera would not have to be any larger. Perhaps the comment above is on the Mark, that this camera is aimed at the consumer market and not meant for the enthusiast market.

180
EOS-M / Re: The Next EOS M in 2014 [CR2]
« on: November 11, 2013, 03:18:43 PM »
I thought earlier reports suggested that the new M would have a VF?   Wonder if that is off the plate now?

Pages: 1 ... 10 11 [12] 13 14 ... 55