March 01, 2015, 07:34:28 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 ... 35 36 [37] 38 39 ... 71
Your 6D image is back focused and has shallower DOF.

Yes, you are DEFINITELY back-focused.

Lenses / Re: Best fisheye for canon.
« on: May 18, 2013, 10:16:53 AM »

"I bought the Sigma 15 but had to return it. It was overexposing (inconsistently), the corners were mushy at any f-stop, darker and discolored, the colors were OK but not quite right. I bought a used Canon 15 which is a much better lens. "m

I agree completely...the old Canon is the best the shot of Times's workin!

Lenses / Re: Best fisheye for canon.
« on: May 17, 2013, 07:45:54 AM »
i have the canon 15mm fisheye picked it up used on ebay for $650 a couple of weeks ago. i have used the 8-15L my photo buddy has one and i was going to get one my self but, i couldn't part with the price of entry for the L zoom just to expensive for a specialized lens for occasional use so i went for the alternative, wonderful lens, sharp at f/2.8, fun to use and reasonably cheap, recommended ;)

So....can you borrow your bud's Zoom and give us a side-by-side at 15mm f/4 with a 100% crop for comparison???!!!!???!!!!????   :P
Actually ...I don't really need it...I am very happy with my Canon 15mm f/2.8..paid same price as you..bought it new just as the 8-15mm zoom hit the market.  Its a cool lens, and perfect for "my" needs!!!!!

Lenses / Re: Best fisheye for canon.
« on: May 17, 2013, 06:16:29 AM »
eml....GREAT images...especially love the one of your son....fantastic composition, focus has it all!!!!
I was not aware of the IQ (sharpness) differences between the old Canon 15mm f/2.8 and the new Canon 8-15mm Zoom @ 15mm, (but you know your stuff so I am not questioning your observation).Since the new zoom is 24 years newer...I guess it should have better IQ! LOL!
What the 8-15mm brings to the table is weather sealing, more versatility (I have no real interest in making circular images on my FF...just not my thing) and better flare & CA control....
I have to say...I rarely use my 15mm, but do enjoy the process...many times I get it out of the bag and check a scene only to put it away as it is not working for has to choose ones images carefully with that lens.  I find the small size and lesser cost are also benefits to me for a lens that is not used that often. ...and I have to say that I find that the images that I do take with the lens to be plenty sharp, even for the age of the design. They are very sharp across the frame. I do need my CA sliders in LR for this lens, doubt...but it cleans up nicely. Cost around $600 on ebay...could be cheaper if you get lucky.
I have noticed that some posts are bringing up the Canon 14mm, and also the Zeiss 15mm (killer lens) and the Canon 17mm TSE (double killer lens)...but, (respectfully) these are all rectilinear lenses and I just don't see how they fit into a "fisheye" discussion...They do not apply for me in this context. If I want a fisheye...I WANT the curvature and distortion. That is the whole point to me when I grab that lens.   :-) (now if our discussion was about running fisheye shots thru software to remove distortion, I could see those comparisons to be useful).
I guess it would be nice to have the new 8-15mm zoom on site...but the cost, weight and size (vs. amount of use) deter me from that purchase...although apparently the IQ is better.  (Have looked for side-by-side image comparisons of the 15mm f/2.8 vs. Canon 8-15mm f/4L on the web @ 15mm...but am coming up empty  :()

HDR - High Dynamic Range / Re: Post your HDR images:
« on: May 16, 2013, 10:03:03 PM »
Desktops have changed!

Lenses / Re: Best fisheye for canon.
« on: May 16, 2013, 08:00:03 AM »
Pick- up a used (maybe new on eBay), Canon 15mm f/2.8).  Small, sharp and well built...I even like the whirring of the older focus is a cute novelty.  Fisheye shooting is a lot of fun.

Reviews / Re: The Digital Picture Reviews the Tamron 24-70
« on: May 14, 2013, 07:47:31 PM »
After seeing this:
How could anyone consider one of these lenses? The company blatantly showed us who they are by bringing these lenses to market.  I spent the money (which was dear), for the Canon and never looked back. Great lens that most likely will last for years. If I see the name Tamron I just turn the page...I would not consider any of their products....I also own non-Canon lenses (Sigma & Zeiss) so my outlook is not just Canon fanboy ism....

Please see this:

On November 10, 2012 at 12:04 PM
Jasmin Robert said:

Hi Roger!

Any new problem with this lens? Any others which has failed in the mean time? How does the one repaired hold up now, are they sharp?

I would like to buy this lens but I’m not sure since reading this report, and now that the Canon 24-70mm F/4 has been announced with the macro mode, I’m even less sure! thanks!

On November 10, 2012 at 9:20 PM
LensRentals Employee
Roger Cicala said:

Hi Jasmin,

No new trouble and no more copies to have the second element problem. It’s really doing pretty well, and quite a nice lens.

That's great...but the reviewer at The Digital Picture just purchased TWO unacceptable lenses and sent the lens in to Tamron for a repair and had the lens returned unrepaired.?...reinforcing the bad experience that Roger had with lens elements falling out. I have been shooting for well over 40 years....I have never heard of that kind of failure for a Lens in that price range. (There may be other incidence of elements falling out, but I am unaware of any).
Each of us can make our own decisions..I have stated mine and backed it with supporting info as to my choice. Everyone is free to make their individual choice, as well. If we take in all the evidence here and read some of the experiences in the post above, purchasing this lens seems very risky to this photographer.
I have to say I purchased a great copy of the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L II and am very happy even at the high cost.

Reviews / Re: The Digital Picture Reviews the Tamron 24-70
« on: May 13, 2013, 07:51:12 PM »
After seeing this:
How could anyone consider one of these lenses? The company blatantly showed us who they are by bringing these lenses to market.  I spent the money (which was dear), for the Canon and never looked back. Great lens that most likely will last for years. If I see the name Tamron I just turn the page...I would not consider any of their products....I also own non-Canon lenses (Sigma & Zeiss) so my outlook is not just Canon fanboy ism....

EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Mark III with Continuous RAW Video Recording
« on: May 13, 2013, 08:20:37 AM »
Ahhhh....The embarrassment.....for Canon....

Animal Kingdom / Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?
« on: May 11, 2013, 08:43:33 AM »
I like to leave reality behind..and create something...some like it, some don't...oh well...

If you are a photojournalist, content should stay but you can definitely run image enhancing software on it to give it some snap etc.. as far as I am concerned. I know everyone does not feel that way. MOST images (even Nat. Geo) are heavily worked on...not photo comp. per say...but they are ALL run thru software. I think that probably 90% of "pro" images are today, generally you cannot compete if you just use the "in-camera" image. It's just the reality of the photography industry in 2013.
Whatever that is????
A little bit of ethics can go a long way tho!

Canon EF Zoom Lenses / Re: Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM
« on: May 09, 2013, 07:23:28 AM »
Great Lens!

PowerShot / Re: A New Large Sensor PowerShot Coming [CR1]
« on: May 08, 2013, 10:37:28 PM »
I pray that this camera has a superior EVF or competition beating viewfinder.

From the admin's original post. "It won’t have an OVF or EVF ..."

With the mirrorless sector going like gangbusters Canon is soo late to this party I hope they try and improve on what Fuji, Nikon, Ricoh, and the M4/3rds people are offering which is darn good.

You're's time for an exciting new camera that is not a DSLR behemoth,

I feel the same. But I would NOT hold my breath  :(

TELL ME ABOUT IT,?.I love my Canon FF rocks..but when it comes to small POWERFUL cameras MFT has my vote and my money. I have no idea who would pay these absurd prices for the G series camera when you can own a kickass MFT for less than Canon's silly asking price for a small sensor camera with essentially no viewfinder. Arrogance is the only reason I see.
Now they have this new one coming with a larger sensor and are not even making a lame attempt to include a VF. They just eliminate it??? The M release has no VF or option for one and also has antique AF... I think Canon needs to scrap all of the above and introduce one compact meaningful mirrorless product line...They are a mess in this area.

Lenses / Re: Cheap fisheye for canon full frame?
« on: May 08, 2013, 07:51:43 AM »
there is the lensbaby fisheye:

Rather inexpensive, might buy one myself in time... have to have a Lensbaby Lens to drop that into. Most common is the Composer Pro @$280 Plus $150 for the fisheye =$430 and if you pick up a used sigma or Canon fisheye you are in the same ballpark money-wise with WAY better optics and FF the Lensbaby vignettes intensely on a FF camera...
It does have a certain fun, artistic appeal though!

Lenses / Re: Cheap fisheye for canon full frame?
« on: May 08, 2013, 06:41:41 AM »
Well...I am an L-Lens aholic...but not adverse to other manufacturers. (have two Sigmas and a Zeiss)....and I have no real call for circular images on my FF camera. I own the Canon 15mm Fisheye..I bought mine just before they were discontinued (why did Canon make that choice?), to make way for the 8-15mm, and although it is one of the oldest lenses in the Canon lineup I find mine to be small, sharp and a lot of fun. I researched the Sigma, and my readings told me that the Canon was sharper, built better and had no focus issues, better multi coating, and less flare which comes into play a lot with a I bought the Canon. I considered the 8-15mm, but the COST, the size and the slower f/stop and super-exposed front element just deterred me from buying that lens for a field of view I use occasionally when it is just right. (I thought it would be fun to have the circular, "novelty" option but resisted!!! LOL!). The Canon can stays tucked in my bag with its small footprint and can be on the ready when that fleeting opportunity arrises.  Great little lens..I even like the whirring of the non-USM...kind of a cool photo quirk!!!!!  ;D

Software & Accessories / Re: arca swiss help please.
« on: May 07, 2013, 10:01:49 PM »
That is the beauty of the Arca-Swiss set up...there are many choices. I mentioned above that I like the Kirk plates and I use Photo Clam ball heads on my two carbon fiber tripods...a Gitzo (light traveler) and a Feisol (more sturdy and larger)...I use these plates, heads and tripods for two camera systems, a FF Canon system and a micro four thirds. MY longest, largest lens is my Canon 70-200mm f/2.8LII w/1.4 Ext....
So the beauty of Arca-Swiss is that I made choices for the camera set-ups that I have and the way that I us them.. Lightweight, Price and portability were my top criteria for choosing my tripods, plates and heads. Since I do not have any really heavy long telephoto gear could be (IMHO) lighter weight and less expensive than a photographer using bigger, longer lenses.  I could spend $400-$500 on a tripod (not $1200)..I have found my equipment to be very fluid (does not get I the way of me creating photos, it facilitate it.). Trust me...every time I am around photographers with non-Arca gear...I watch them struggle and fumble and I am glad that I spent the extra money that I did in my Arca-Swiss set-up. For me their is no other choice!

Pages: 1 ... 35 36 [37] 38 39 ... 71