April 17, 2014, 11:48:38 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 ... 34 35 [36] 37 38 ... 50
Lenses / Re: 50 1.4 on 5d3 anyone?
« on: December 11, 2012, 03:15:50 PM »
The 50mm 1.4 is a cheap crappy lens. Invest in the 35mm 1.4 L instead.

Terrible advice, just terrible.

I agree..it is terrible advice all the way around. The Canon 50mm f/1.4 is a good lens at that price point.
...and SECONDLY...if you are going to advise someone to buy a 35mm PUUUUULEASE...advise them to buy the new Sigma 35mm f/1.4. It is sharper, better built, new technology and $429 less than the Canon "L"!!!! DUH! LOL!

(can't wait to see some more Artist Series Lenses from Sigma!!! Hope they hold this quality)

YES. I use a B&W 77mm 010 UV Haze MRC Brass Ring. Always attached to my Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II.  The lens cost me $2400. I am protecting it!
All I know is ...every time I shoot with it and pull the images up on screen from my 5D III...I say
.."This photo is so sharp, I can't believe this is a f*#king zoom lens!!!!!"  ....so I am protecting the lens and getting great images. You bareback riders that scratch your lenses ....so sorry. (BTW..I never said that when I owned version I of the lens...and it was the lens..not the filter).
I have B&W filters on all of my lenses...my lenses all cost a LOT OF MONEY..but I will occasionally take the the filter off of a wide angle to shoot as I think that at extreme angles of view the filter can cut down sharpness...I should do a test some day....but I doubt that I could truly tell the difference.  For normal and tele lenses...I know I can tell no difference between high-grade filter and no filter. IMHO it is just academic for me. ...but everyone has their own opinion.

Lenses / Re: Canon 70-200 F/2.8 IS II vs. Tamron 70-200 F/2.8 VC
« on: December 11, 2012, 02:47:51 PM »
Not familiar with Tamron lenses. All I know is that I sold my Canon 70-200mm I to buy the II....and ever since then....every time I shoot with it and pull the images up on screen...I say
.."This photo is so sharp, I can't believe this is a f*#king zoom lens!!!!!"
I think it has to do with the contrast, too.
I can't say for sure as I have not tried the Tamron..but I will bet that it just does not have that WOW factor. My old version one did not have that WOW factor either.
Is the WOW factor necessary? No....but it is really nice to have!!!!!
I am sure that the Tamron is a very descent lens.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D III - Camera of the year 2012
« on: December 11, 2012, 02:40:29 PM »
It is only camera of the year if it works for you and YOUR photographic needs.
Mine does just fine by me...even though I paid FULL PRICE!  WHAH!  LOL!

Lenses / Re: 50 1.4 on 5d3 anyone?
« on: December 11, 2012, 02:37:00 PM »
I use a Sigma 50mm f/1.4 on my 5D3.  More to lug than the Canon...but results are excellent. I am a canon "L" man but I found this lens to be somewhere in between or closer to the Canon 50mm "L". Made a compromise on the 50mm, saved my money and went for the gusto for the ultimate low DOF and bought the Canon 85mm "L". 
...but for the cost and the size and the quality the Canon 50mm f/1.4 is a good lens too!

Lenses / Re: Lensrentals' Canon 24-70 Mk II Variation test
« on: December 11, 2012, 08:42:36 AM »
Fyi: http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/11/canon-24-70-mk-ii-variation

I think this is really interesting and deserves a post over here, because Roger comes to the conclusion that even though the data shows a large variation, the real world difference (well, with the current mp count on Canon) is very small - though shows when pixel peeping or comparing a "good" 24-70 against a "bad" 70-200 or vice versa.

I think most people realize there is sample variation. But this provides a nice illustration showing just how random a test report comparing just one copy of each lens can be. Don’t get me wrong; those reports are totally worthwhile.

But we have to be really careful splitting hairs with camera lenses. With 70 copies tested, I’m comfortable the average (mean) resolution of the 24-70 Mk II is slightly higher than the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II at 70mm. But that difference is much less than the sample variation

I'm wondering how much the difference between lenses will show up when used on the upcoming high mp ff sensors, or when being (dual-)used on crop with higher pixel density?

I am not a scientist or necessarily a Canon fanboy (Check my lens list), but I recently bought a Canon 24-70 II(with reservations regarding price vs "variations" in individual lenses). To my eye, (which is getting old...LOL), the sharpness on my 5D III compares to my Sigma 50mm @F/2.8. I think that that is pretty incredible for any zoom lens.

The question is phrased with few options on purpose. Did you use a UV/haze protective filter on 28-700 f2.8L IS (I or II) during its most recent use?

The aim here is to assess filter use among a narrowly defined group. I have avoided asking do you "generally" use filters as this can lead to subjective "calibration" of the response to suit attitudes that are deeply held but not practiced.

Because ultimately, actions speak louder than well thought out intentions. We all know the usual arguments for and against using UV filters that proponents use to support claims. Some fall back on specific lenses, where IQ may suffer vs. need to protect the front element, and needing it to complete weather sealing etc etc...it is frequently a slew of compromise explanations.

Let us try and gauge what we actually do in practice by taking a lens owned by good many, granted not all; and of 'relatively' decent $ value; with consensus on high IQ (that could arguably be degraded by a haze filter). To increase the sample size, either of the 2.8L IS versions are ok. This lens choice also hopefully ensures we aren't sampling exorbitant superteles or the lower price range lenses; but, something narrowly defined, commonly possessed, yet valuable.

In voting, please let only your actions speak. No "oh I could have" or "oh I wish I had" answers... No fudging...simple question: did you have it on during its most recent use?

Did you mean the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS?

Lenses / Re: Sigma 35mm f/1.4 vs Canon 35mm f/1.4
« on: December 10, 2012, 10:42:01 AM »
"?mTechnically the current Canon 35L is not fully weather sealed like most other L lenses so the Sigma is no worse off. Unless Canon changes this for a new 35, the Sigma will be just as good in theory. Also, do you really think Canon will put out a new 35mm since they just released the 35mm f/2 IS? Two 35's within a year would be rare. And given how good the Sigma is, how good would the Canon have to be to justify the probable $1600+ price which would be more than double the Sigma and do you think you would even see the difference in real life. Anything sharper than the Sigma would hardly be noticeable in most cases. Given that the Sigma exists, I fully expect Canon to announce a new 35L as soon as possible in order to steal away attention but it will probably be a long time before it comes to market. Canon has done this several times recently."

Well, Canon just announced two 24-70mm zooms?
I do agree with most of what you had to say though...
I think that the Sigma looks like a no-brainer at that price...It is offering so much more than the 35mm f/2 IS at about the same price...and performs better than the current "L" equivalent. I think it may be prudent to wait for more thurough reviews...before pulling the trigger...but I see this a a positive development with more Artist Series lenses on the way from Sigma. Even if Canon releases a comparable lens it will come in at at least $2000... It is great to see worthy competition. My 50mm is the Sigma f/1.4 because it offers the best price/benefits package for my needs and I have been very satisfied with that piece of glass. Looks like Sigma is upping the ante here!

Canon General / Re: Remote Shutter Release for Canon 5D3
« on: December 10, 2012, 08:13:32 AM »
Looking for a good wireless shutter release remote that works with 5D3 and if possible with other EOS Bodies as well. Any advice is appreciated.

I use a Photix Cleon II
It's a wireless transmitter, as opposed to infrared. It has different cords for different cameras and is not too expensive. I think there are many products now that you can trigger the camera with via Wifi using your smartphone.  That might be the best and simpliest. I don't own a smartphone so I am not sure, but that avenue may be worth investigating if you are smartphone savy.

Lenses / Re: 16-35L or related primes
« on: December 09, 2012, 10:55:39 PM »
I own the Canon 16-35L (and a bunch of other lenses for that matter), and basically I'd love som feedback on a choice I feel I'd like to make.


1) keep the 16-35 and be happy with a really good all-round wide zoom which is quite sharp, has fast autofocus, and is often stuck on one of my camerabodies (mostly the 5D Mark II),

or 2) Sell the 16-35 and buy the following setup:

  • Canon 14L 2.8 / Zeiss 15 2.8 / Rokinon(Samyang) 14 2.8 (autofocus not a must for me at this focal length)
  • Canon 24L 1.4
  • Sigma 35 1.4 (decided I prefer to get this one over the Canon 35L after reading reviews and seeing samples of image quality on FF

Setup is for full frame. Currently the 5D Mark II and III.

Keep the price out of this equation. I have just decided that if photography is what I want to do as much as I can, even if it's purely as a hobby, why not invest more in fast lenses, since I love the aperture versatility of 1.4s (and 1.2s for that matter).

Also, in theory I don't mind having more lenses to swap between in the 16-35 range if it means better glass and more possibilities in terms of lens speed. But what's your take on the combo of faster-glass-but-more-lenses-to-swap versus the walk-around-wide-zoom?

Has anyone else gone through this process, and do you have thoughts about making a change like this?

I am not going to keep the 16-35 . It doesn't make sense to me to have it if I buy the primes - even if it has a nice walk-around kind of versatility. I just have a feeling I wont use it with the primes hanging around.

Oh - and at these wider focal lengths I shoot mainly landscapes, night skies, and some action sports (snowmobiling, bmx).



I am tortured with this as well. I have the Canon16-35mm f/2.8 II. I also own the Zeiss 21mm f/2.8 for tack sharp images when the situation can be handled with manual focus. The 16-35mm is weakest at the 35mm end, and I just purchased the new Canon 24-70mm II...so I have that end covered, with much sharper results.

I REALLY like all of the lenses you are looking at...especiallythe Zeiss and the Sigma. I plan on buying the Zeiss 15 mm next!...bit unlike you...I am going to hold on to my 16-35mm for when I need AF. Everthing in photography is a compromise!   
The new Sigma 35mm Artist Series looks mighty sweet, too.
Tough making these choices...isn't it! ...fun too, tho.

Landscape / Re: Post Your Best Landscapes
« on: December 09, 2012, 10:43:11 PM »

The first picture is reds, second greens and the third blues...

LMAOROTF To Destin and rpt!....
How could I not have understood a guy named rpt and his RGB ramblings.  Too funny. I got it. Very astute and brilliantly funny rpt! Too bad it was over my head. :-(

Landscape / Re: Post Your Best Landscapes
« on: December 09, 2012, 01:32:32 PM »
I know this is a Canon forum but I'm hoping there is a bit of leniency on the photos, because well.... they aren't Canon. Nor Photoshopped or manipulated for that matter. They're just good old fashion film landscape photography.


I think they are great. Specially the first one. I have a question for you. Did you intentionally post R G B pictures?

Am I missing something here? Isn't everything out of my camera AND on the web RGB? As opposed to CMYK(?), which is for print work....no?

Pricewatch Deals / Re: Canon EOS 5D Mark III Body for $2599 via eBay
« on: December 09, 2012, 11:35:44 AM »
Received the 5d mark iii from them day before yesterday, which I ordered on black friday for $2499. Would give them a mixed review.

I'm always curious.  What happens if your package is stolen?  Is it the shippers responsibility... (they sent it via UPS/FEDEX and UPS/FEDEX said they dropped it off at the right address).  Is it your responsibility for living in a less than safe neighborhood.

And what happens.  Do you call the police and file a report and then submit that to the company and hope they have insurance on the package.

And if they have insurance on the package, does that expire as soon as the package is placed on the front door?? 

And if you do lose a $2500 camera, do you file a homeowners claim since it was on your property? 

This whole process can be disconcerting.

it's simple. If you live in an unsafe neighborhood you just make special shipping arrangements with Big Value, (signature-required shipping, etc.)They will do that. OR you go to the UPS Website when the package ships and have them hold it at their facility.  It's 2012...there are lots of POSITIVE options! :-)

Pricewatch Deals / Re: Canon EOS 5D Mark III Body for $2599 via eBay
« on: December 09, 2012, 10:34:03 AM »

</strong><em>It has been asked a lot as to whether or not these cameras have a warranty that Canon will honour. The simple answer is yes, these cameras have a full one year Canon USA warranty. </em></p>

Yes, but will the camera come packaged with a US/Canada Warranty Card is another question entirely...

As mentioned in a previous thread, I pulled the trigger on this and purchased a 5D3 body on Thanksgiving night ($2,886.06 shipped). After missing the original arrival date (11/29) by more than a week, my camera finally shipped through UPS.

Thing is, my camera shipped from Miami, FL instead of Somerset NJ. It arrived without a warranty card. It seems like depending on where the camera ships from determines whether it comes with a warranty card or not. I did call Canon USA twice and they did say that Canon will honor the warranty if you can produce your original receipt. However, some folks on this board will have you believe that unless you ordered from an authorized dealer (B&H, Adorama, Amazon, etc) then Canon will not honor the warranty, no matter what...so your mileage may vary depending on who you speak with.

Yes, bigvalueinc does have great feedback, but a quick Google search will show that Bigvalueinc's been caught up in scams before (although they have evidently cleaned up their act). All negative feedback has mainly occurred from the Thanksgiving period, when they started shipping from Florida, canceling orders entirely, or delaying shipments by weeks.

Outside of that, the overall deal for the camera cannot be beat and if you're prepared to accept a lack of customer service, and many levels of "grey," then I say jump on the deal. Just use caution. I hope those who pull the trigger have a better experience than I (and others on the board) did.

Big Value is sketchy..but they do deliver your camera eventually. It’s a $700 savings off the going rate!!!…Since you are protected by eBay and PayPal buying guarantees…I think for that kind of savings it is worth the inconveniences. The outfit probably makes so little money on the sales that they are just very under staffed to handle business correctly.
Believe me…I do not like seeing this low price…as I paid $3499 for my 5DIII..but if I had this opportunity to do it over I DEFINITELY would! I live in NJ and would have to pay 7 percent tax and it would still be very worth it!

Yes! the 24-70 II is a special lens. The 24-105, while a fine lens, doesnt come close to comparison in image quality. Also low light focusing will be much nicer @ 2.8.  It is THE finest zoom in that focal length available.   .

I agree. I just did a lot of research on the 24-70 II...balanced against primes. I already own a 50mm f/1.4 Sigma and the  Canon 85L...so I was considering puchasing the Canon 24mm L & the new Sigma 35mm f/1.4 or the new Canon zoom.  Either way I would be spending the same amount of money.
I had sold my Canon 24-105 back in the spring to buy the new 24-70mm...but then there were all of the delays...and this GREAT Sigma 35mm appeared out of nowhere.  I was torn. The price of the new zoom really put me off.
In the end I bought the new Canon Zoom.  It is REALLY sharp and many times it is just great to have that zoom range in your hands an not be changing out primes. Way more interactive..with trade-offs.
The 24-105 is a good lens...but I was never WOWED by it.
Check out this comparison of it to the new 24-70mm II:
..from a sharpness and DOF the new 24-70mm blows the 24-105mm out of the water. (but the 24-105mm is a very good zoom for the money).
I LOVE primes....but I am a little wowed by this new zoom. Could just be the honeymoon period...but my feeling is that it is very prime-like, both in contrast and sharpness (even wide open)....and...unfortunately, you are DEFINITELY paying for that privilege! I do not think you would be unhappy if you bought this lens. I know that I am very content with the decision I have made.
(SteenerMe...I just noticed that U and I have almost the EXACT same range of lenses...no wonder I agreed with you! LOL.)

Pages: 1 ... 34 35 [36] 37 38 ... 50