January 28, 2015, 03:31:39 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 - rs

Pages: 1 ... 9 10 [11] 12 13 ... 47
EOS-M / Re: Cheap 400mm advice
« on: July 02, 2014, 02:57:12 AM »
I'd suggest a Canon TC. As you rightfully pointed out, this means your new purchase is also good to go with your other Canon kit.

There doesn't appear to be much in it between the two when it comes to resolving detail:


But of course the 70-200 and 1.4 combo has more reach, and it gives you options with your 5D2 - 70-200/TC and 135/TC, whereas for you, buying the EF-S lens is a one horse trick.

The 2x TC will potentially resolve more detail than the 1.4x and cropping, but the lack of AF on either of your bodies with the 70-200 and the images the 135 would produce make it largely worth ignoring for any purposes other than shooting distance objects using the M with manual focusing.

It's more than just the colour gamut. The non-retina MacBooks have TN displays (high quality ones, unlike those found in cheap windows laptops), so the colours and white point vary quite a lot with changes in viewing angle. All the retina models have IPS, so they should be much more consistent.

Ok... while I'm walking down this road... 400mm or 300mm f2.8L?  I have the 70-200 f2.8L is mkii at present.  I would need to upgrade my 1.4x mkii to the mkiii and get a 2x mkiii. 

That would give me the following:

70-200mm. @f2.8.
400mm @ f2.8
90-280mm @ f4
560mm @ f4
140-400mm @ f5.6
800mm @ f5.6

Mmmm... that sounds delicious.

Which lens to go for really depends on budget, long term plans, and shooting style.

The 70-200 II works so well with 1.4x TC's that it can almost render the bare 300/2.8 II pointless for anything but wider than f4 shots. Obviously the sharpness, bokeh and AF speed take a step up, but it's not like they're lacking on the 70-200 II. However, once the 300 II is combined with a TC, the 300 gains a very real advantage.

Therefore, if you go by the adage that you should buy the lens whose native length is what you primarily intend to shoot with, you could argue that the 400 II makes more sense to pair with a 70-200 II as the only big white in your kit.

The 200-400 on the other hand buys you flexibility. It does next to nothing the 70-200 and 300 together with a selection of TC's does, other than allow you to go from 200 to 560 without any messing about with lens changes and adding/removing TC's, and save you a little bit of bulk to lug around. Looking at it the other way, the 70-200, 300 and TC combo does give you an extra stop at 200mm and 300mm, options wider than 200mm, and slightly more reach at f5.6, together of course with a lot of spare change.

Compare the 200-400 to the 400 II, and the cost gap narrows while the prime advantage widens (f4 at 280mm with both, but one stop faster at 200, 400 and all subsequent telephoto lengths).

If I was somehow in your financial position, I'd be torn between the 200-400 and the 400 II.

EOS-M / Re: EOS-M with Rokinon 300mm EF-M lens
« on: July 01, 2014, 02:37:30 AM »
The bokeh in that first shot is fairly typical for a mirror lens, but it is largely or completely a non issue in your other shots. It seems like avoiding high contrast detail not too far away from the plane of focus is the key to pulling off those great images with that lens.

Nice work!

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 16-35 F/4L IS -- Reviews are trickling in...
« on: June 30, 2014, 05:41:03 PM »
Also see the review on the Photography Blog website. http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/canon_ef_16_35mm_f4_l_is_usm_review/
They come to the same conclusions. Enjoy

I'm confused. I thought it was an EF mount lens:

Quote from: photographyblog.com
It has no aperture ring, which is no big deal unless you wanted to use it on a very old film body.


Lenses / Re: Quality lens system for lightweight travel
« on: June 29, 2014, 02:06:25 AM »
Someone will give me crap for saying this AGAIN and AGAIN. The Sony a7 series fits best in this situation, much smaller and lighter.

Once again Mr. Sony/Zeiss, where is FE UWA for landscape?

Its a appropriate response, the OP asked for other brands.  What generates complaints is where a different question was asked.
If you want telephoto, the A7 cameras don't make much sense. Take the Sony 70-200/4 OSS, and compare it to the Canon 70-200/4 IS. The Canon is shorter, narrower, lighter, and under half the price!

At least my proposed APS-H have a chance to beat or equal to the 1DX in terms of low light and frame rate with the portability of the 6D. What more can I ask for? Only draw back is that it has a low MP count. But Sony has just done  that. There must be someone out there want such type of camera. The existing APS-C cannot match the FF in low light is due to the MP race. With the same technology and same pixel density( read it as pixel size), the APS-C will equal the FF in low light.
It depends upon whether you are going to compare a 100% crop of each camera and look for noise, or compare the image as a whole (or even an equal crop of each).

If you chose to do the sensible comparison (images as a whole, or crop into the same section of each frame), then with equal technology between the formats, the bigger sensor wins every time.

Lenses / Re: 70-200 f2.8ii or i
« on: June 27, 2014, 08:48:26 AM »
I had the mk I. Excellent lens, but if you don't stop it down to f4 or smaller, the micro contrast and detail is very disappointing, unless you only view the images on a small screen or print small.

After some time of using the lens, and getting frustrated by this, I started wondering why I didn't just have the f4 IS version - slightly sharper at f4, half the weight, and at the time, half the price. Plus it would be a perfect way to avoid Tv mode selecting a detail destroying aperture.

Anyway, I've upgraded to the mk II, and the differences I've noticed are dramatically improved wide open sharpness, even more dramatic improvement with TC's, and the IS is much more effective. Other than that it's the same bullet proof construction and exemplary handling.

Having owned the mk II, I wouldn't dream of going back to the mk I.

Lenses / Re: Quality lens system for lightweight travel
« on: June 27, 2014, 08:20:14 AM »
What lenses do you use? Flashes? Typical subjects?

From your one post it seems like landscapes and the 24 TS-E are quite high up your list. Judging by your lack of faith in the EOS M, I'd suggest a 100D or indeed any less than FF mirrorless won't be suitable. And if you can't bare to leave the 24 TS-E behind, there are no worthy alternatives to that and one of Canon's FF from any system short of medium format.

I'd suggest a 6D, reduce the number of lenses, and replace any large lenses with smaller equivalents. I have no idea what you shoot, but tele lenses could potentially be replaced with a 70-300L, and mid range lenses or zooms could be replaced with a 40/2.8.

Failing that, just buy a much larger rucksack!

Lenses / Re: 300 2.8 IS Mk1 v Mk2
« on: June 26, 2014, 08:23:45 AM »
According to test charts there's not a massive difference. In terms of resolving power, the mk II with a 2x TC is reasonably close to perfection. The mk I is just a touch worse:


Compare either to the 600/4 II, and you'll see that the two 300/2.8's with 2x TC's are more similar than you'd imagine.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: New Nikon D800s... Why?
« on: June 25, 2014, 10:58:45 AM »
It looks like it's going to be announced imminently, and named the D810:


Without meaning to repeat a question from earlier on in this thread - why?

Lenses / Re: Why do fast primes not have IS?
« on: June 25, 2014, 03:06:43 AM »
See the 24-70 IS L II or the 70-200 IS L II.
I though we're still on the first version of that f4 lens?  ::)

The FD mount has a shorter flange distance than EF - 42mm vs 44mm - so by the time you've added physical mount adapter to the 44mm, you end up with a total lens flange to sensor distance much greater than 42mm. Either you lose infinity focus, or there are optical elements (much like a mild TC) which further degrade the image quality of these old lenses.

In short, nothing works, bar one ingenious solution made by Ed Mika (who is also a member on this forum)


His solution is custom made for each lens. Not all lenses can be adapted, and the cost makes it pointless on a cheap lens. Good L FD lenses are worth converting.

Lenses / Re: Tamron 90 macro or Canon 100 for portraits?
« on: June 20, 2014, 06:43:48 AM »
This is about "the look" of the images mainly. I'd used my 100/f2 on Sony apsc a700 at f/2.2 quite a bit for a wedding and other people specific shooting and really liked that space. And it was even better on full-frame a800.

100/2 on a Sony (1.5x) crop behaves much like a 150/3 lens on your 6D. F2.8 on FF is slightly better, but throw in the wider angle of view and things change again.

I'd say you've made an excellent choice going with the 100L - mine is simply great. Light, compact, solid, great IS, fast AF (with the focus limiter on), very sharp and great bokeh.

EOS Bodies / Re: DSLR vs Mirrorless :: Evolution of cameras
« on: June 20, 2014, 03:26:13 AM »
On the one hand I understand that the EOS-M takes advantage of mirrorless technology to produce a camera that is more compact.  However, I feel the drawback is that it needs it's own special line of lenses.

I think Canon should also be producing a mirrorless camera that can use it's regular EF lenses.  Essentially it would be a DPAF APS-C or FF sensor camera with a built-in EVF replacing the usual pentaprism and packaged in a body that is similar to other EOS DSLRs.

It wouldn't be more compact, but it would have a similar feel and handling as it's contemporary consumer and professional cameras for which Canon is so renowned and celebrated.

Are you talking Pentax K01 or one of the many Sony DSLT's?

Pages: 1 ... 9 10 [11] 12 13 ... 47