September 17, 2014, 10:01:08 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 - elflord

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 47
46
Lenses / Re: Best lens for baby portraits?
« on: February 23, 2013, 04:19:46 PM »
We're expecting a baby soon, and I thought it would be fun to rent a nice lens to take some early portraits. I assume a fast prime L lens makes sense, but what focal length? Any specific lens rental companies to recommend? Thanks.

The 50mm f/1.4 is a great baby photo lens. You can get very tightly framed shots with this lens on a crop.

As others pointed out, macro is a good choice especially for new born photos. Even in non-macro lenses, minimum focus distance is worth paying attention to. The new 35mm f/2 IS does very well in this regard (focuses closer than 1ft)

It can be fun to play around with wide angle shots (e.g. about 24mm or less on crop) but you can do that with the kit zoom.

47
Lenses / Re: Weddings 70-200mm 2.8 is vs 4 is
« on: February 19, 2013, 10:09:53 PM »
Right now neither of us have a 70-200. I agree there would be no need for us to have two lenses of the same focal length if we were always shooting as a team, but we don't. Sometimes we shoot as a team, sometimes we are on separate gigs on the same day, both needing that focal range. I did propose us each getting our own 70-200s tonight - one a 4, one a 2.8. That made sense to him.

What kind of setup do you have when you're on your own ? Do you have two bodies ? (you have a backup, right ? )

Anyway regardless of setup, you can only shoot with one lens at a given moment, so you could always shoot with the standard zoom until a shot calls for whatever tele you have (whether it's the 135L or 70-200mm f/4)

48
Lenses / Re: Weddings 70-200mm 2.8 is vs 4 is
« on: February 19, 2013, 08:21:31 PM »
I know this should be an easy decision, but my female, 51 yo, 5'3" frame is wanting the smaller, lighter, less expensive f4 to be an acceptable compromise. I am upgrading lenses this year and just ordered a 100mm macro f2.8l is. I also want a 135 f2. Any comments on the zooms? My bf is pushing me to get the best lenses, since we've already invested in multiple 5d bodies. Any suggestions and input appreciated. I do understand the 2.8 ii is great, just worried that it's too much for me to pack for a full day wedding.

At my wedding, the photographers were two lightly built 20-something women. I think between them they were shooting with a 70-200mm f/2.8, a 16-35mm f/2.8 and a 24-70mm f/2.8. At least for the posed shots, the 70-200mm f/2.8 was on a tripod, so

(a) they were only lugging around 3 lenses between the two of them, (one of which was a 70-200mm f/2.8) and
(b) for the most part, they weren't handholding it (never during the posed shots, though they may have been for the candids)

It meant also that at any given time the two photographers were getting substantially different shots.

So speaking to your situation if you're shooting as a two person team, and you are looking to economise on weight, having two of those bulky 70-200mm f/2.8 lenses (if I read  you correctly he already has one) seems like a poor choice (I don't see what having a 70-200mm f/4 would add if he already has the 70-200mm f/2.8 either). So I'd say skip it (maybe get a 135L instead if the two of you need to take tele shots at the same time)

Or were you thinking of a scenario where you're shooting alone ?

49
EOS-M / Re: Future EOS-M Lenses
« on: February 18, 2013, 04:02:46 PM »
The M with EF 70-200 is simply hilarious but the pics are amazing!

I wonder what is it like to handhold such a small camera at arm's length (no VF) with a somewhat heavy lens... Is it too hard to keep it steady?

I hear this objection a lot and I don't really get it. You hold it much the same way you hold a DSLR -- cradle the lens in the left hand, and place the right hand on the camera body. There is nothing "unbalanced" about the combo, because the left hand is under the center of gravity (the lens) and the right hand steadies it.

Generally you don't want to hold the combo "at arms length" (unnecesarily difficult), rather you'd hold it just below eye level a few inches in front.

I've shot with a 135L on a small mirrorless camera and while it looked a bit odd (and manual focus made for an interesting challenge), it otherwise was quite usable. It's no more "unbalanced" than a large tele is on a DSLR.

50
Lenses / Re: New Member / Lens Recs
« on: February 12, 2013, 06:16:15 AM »
Hi guys,

Been lurking for a few weeks now, gaining insights but need to ask for advice, as in 2 weeks i'll be taking the punt on a new 5D3 and I'm budgeting for around 2 lenses to go with it.

My uses: Predominantly hobby, but I will need it a lot of the time to shoot bottle image photography at work (which I have a light tent for).

I really, really like the look of the 50mm 1.2L. I love the creamy bokeh and amazing subject isolation. To complement this prime, I was looking at the 24-105 f4L due to it's good image quality, wide focal range and IS (I want to eventually shoot some vacation videos).

So, is this the zoom you would go for? I had looked at the 24-70 f.28 II but honestly I think with the 50 in my kit, id be at risk of selling myself short with just these 2 lenses to begin.

I understand that due to me upgrading from a Sony a350, and taking the most rapid crash photography course you'll find (I've gone from an ignorant to almost completely grasping the theory behind taking photos in about 4 weeks).

Advice welcomed.

Cheers

Stef

If you're after subject isolation, 50mm on full frame is kind of wide (85mm seems like a more logical choice). Since you haven't been doing this very long, why not rent a few lenses to get a better idea of what your taste is ?

hold off buying more lenses for now, shoot with the one prime and  zoom for a while and it will become clear what will best supplement your kit.

BTW, did you have any plans to buy a flash ?

51
Lenses / Re: Sigma 50 1.4 or Canon 85 1.8 OR 100 2.0 for 5d mark ii
« on: February 06, 2013, 07:21:09 AM »
Hi folks!

I just got my 5d mark ii and still have no lenses because i want to make the best decision. Unfortunately i can only buy ONE because i sold everything i had to afford the 5d!

I`m stuck between a Sigma 50mm 1.4 and a Canon 85mm 1.8. I find them both stunning lenses and very sharp, but i just cant decide.
Will the 85mm be to long for portraits and group photos? And about the background blur, wich one will give a more smoother background, and nicer bokeh?
And the focus, i heard the 85 is much more accurate and faster. For night shots, how will the 1.8 behave?

In my research ive also read about the canon 100mm 2.0, because it woul be more like the amazing135mm 2 but should i wait a little bit more and save more money and buy the 100, is it worth it? I quite woried that it will be too long to be my only lens.
Im driving myself crazy!

Hope you can help me make the best decision so i can take the 5d out of the box and hit the streets!

For night shots you'll need about double the shutter speed with the 85 because of the longer focal length and fraction of a stop difference.

The longer lens (with larger absolute aperture size) will give you better subject isolation but challenging for group shots unless you have a lot of distance to work with.

Because this will be your only lens for a while I'd lean towards the 50. Far more versatile. 

52
Lenses / Re: Please explain the need for f2.8 zooms
« on: January 30, 2013, 08:55:04 PM »
The standard lens requirement for shooting events/weddings seem to be a combination of 24-70/28 and 70-200/2.8, I read both are nailed to a pro's camera 90% of the time (though I have problems doing the maths :-))

A lens with a larger aperture afaik has three advantages: better af on some bodies, better subject isolation/creativity (just one eye in focus) and last not least a "fast" lens is required for "low light" shots.

My question rose when I read the great book "Captured by the Light" by David Ziser who - believe it or not - writes that f4 to f5.6 (for convenience or added safety) is his bread and butter setting for posed candid wedding flash shots, and he used the 5d2 at that time.

Saying that it's his "bread and butter setting" is different from saying that he uses it all the time.

Turning this around, what are the disadvantages of f/2.8 zooms ?

The main advantages are shallower dof (when needed,  not  necessarily on every shot) and that it helps AF performance

53
Video & Movie / Re: Indian Wedding shot with 5D Mark III
« on: January 22, 2013, 06:52:16 PM »
Hi there!

Got a great time with this beautiful couple... let me know yours about it!

Nice work.

To me the depth of field in many of these shots looks very shallow, so I wonder how you get it in focus. Lots of practice pulling focus ? Or do you prefocus each shot (including the ones that start out of focus) before you start recording ? What sort of apertures are you shooting these ?

54
EOS-M / Re: Micro four DoF and lenses
« on: January 21, 2013, 02:33:22 PM »
If you go mirror less, go APS-C.

Why APS-C over m43 ? The difference in dof is tiny. For example, if I compare the NEX with 50mm f/1.8 vs the olympus with 45mm f/1.8 at 6 foot , I get .28ft for m43 vs .3ft for the Sony. If I adjust the to-subject distance so that the subject is framed the same way, I get 0.26ft dof for the Sony -- a slight advantage but nothing to write home about.

OP is right that the new Olympus models have closed the gap in image quality, this is largely due to them sourcing their sensors from Sony who currently have a decisive lead in sensor technology.

55
EOS-M / Re: Micro four DoF and lenses
« on: January 21, 2013, 12:20:36 PM »
I am really attracted by 4/3 system as it is small. I believe in few years the cameras will come with great sensors and IQ that will be good for my needs. Per Dxo olympus om has a slighty better dynamic range than 5d iii at the moment.
What do you think about a future of the lenses.
Why there's no lenses like 85mm f/1.2. The eqvivalent on 4/3 would be 42.5mm f/0.6, right?
 

The micro 4/3 lenses focus closer than the full frame "equivalents". For example, the 45mm f/1.8 focuses at 0.5m, so its dof at MFD is about 1cm (or less than half an inch). The 75mm f/1.8 focuses at 84cm and dof is about 1/4 of an inch at that distance and less than an inch at a more reasonable shooting distance of 5ft (about what you'd use for a typical head shot)

Of course all your EF lenses will work on micro 4/3 and give the same dof as they do on FF (though with a cropped field of view).

56
It's not a personal attack, geez, it's just a joke. 

No problem, esp. since the post wasn't directed at me in the first place - I just wanted to know if you have any real insight in 85L vs. other lenses or were talking off the top of your head... I don't own such a fast prime and thus really cannot tell if there would be a difference.

To answer that particular question, yes I do, and well, I agree with others in that I cannot perceive a difference in IQ with either lens at f/7.1.  I am interested now, and might just have to get them out and do some tests.  Problem is finding time  :-[.

In the meantime I'm going to see if Bryan Carnathan mentioned the lenses in comparison anywhere on his site.

I checked photozone and the TDP chart pictures. photozone has the 70-200 doing better (though neither of these lenses struggle at f/7.1). Based on the TDP chart shots, I think you'd really have to be pixel peeping to tell the difference. So for that particular shot, I agree with those who say a number of different (85mm or zooms that cover 85mm) lenses would have worked

57
EOS-M / Re: To buy M or not to buy M?
« on: January 20, 2013, 08:45:15 AM »
the M that is...   the fuji is awesome...


You don't need a full set of lenses. The lenses you choose for a mirrorless (if you already have a DSLR)  are going to be small normal length lenses that don't have a direct equivalent in the EOS lineup. You can generally get by with 1 or 2 native  lenses (with the fuji I'd just get the 35)

Quote
Fuji is awesome but you need another set of lens.  I'd wait for the next M. 

Perhaps the only point of the mirrorless from Canon is to keep the party faithful from giving up and buying one of the strong products from other manufacturers. 

58
Well, anyway, as Vincent Laforet says in his blog, there is NO reason to own the 85L if you're not shooting it between 1.2 - 2.0, as you might as well own the 70-200 II for only a few hundred $ more, with the ability to have the versatility of the zoom, much faster auto-focus, IS and pretty much equal sharpness.

If you can afford both, well, I'm jealous of you.

There's no reason to own a 70-200 if the only focal length in that range  that you plan to use is 85mm. Fast AF and IS are not useful for this guys use case (subject is more or less stationary, and he would want to shoot at 1/60 or faster IS or not)

59
Yeah, my point is he should have been using the 70-200 II.

But wouldn't it be a "waste" to use the 70-200 II at 85mm ? It goes up to 200.

60
Lenses / Re: 135L vs 85L vs 70-200L II
« on: January 16, 2013, 07:10:15 PM »
I hope no one minds if I hijack this thread a bit (add to it?)... I too am thinking over some of these combos. I currently have a 5D2, 24-105 and the 70-200L 2.8 IS II. I love the 70-200 and I consistently get shots with it that I'm mostly happy with but I do hate how big and conspicuous it is. I'm doing quite a bit of traveling this year and hate to lose telephoto but also am wary of lugging around a big white lens (I'm going to Africa, China, and potentially SE Asia). I was thinking of switching up my kit a little bit.

I was thinking of selling the 70-200, 5D2, and 24-105 and getting a 5D3, 85 1.8, and 135. BTW, I also have a 35 1.4 and a 50 1.8.

I do a fair amount of portrait work and some weddings. I think I'd like to use primes but I guess I'm afraid I'd miss the convenience of the zooms and IS. What are your thoughts? Thanks!

Do you use the 24-105 much or do you find yourself using the 35L and 50mm f/1.8 all the time ? One way to get a toe in the water would be keep your existing kit and pick up the 135L, and sell the 24-105 if you're not using it.

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 47