Messages

571

Lenses / Re: Is this about Normal for Canon 15-85

« on: January 01, 2012, 02:28:25 PM »

The first one was at 19mm

The second shot was at 50mm

Maybe I'm missing something, or maybe it's  these are scaled down jpegs and not 100% crops -- but I see a kind of blue haloing in the 19mm shot (maybe that's CA after you rescale the jpeg ?) but I don't see much evidence of CA in the second shot. 

Anyway, I would expect visible CA for a shot like this.

Here's a 100% crop of a shot I took, 15mm at f/11

572

Lenses / Re: Is this about Normal for Canon 15-85

« on: January 01, 2012, 12:51:46 PM »

These were taken about a 45 degrees from where the sum was coming down.  There is quite a bit of purple fringing on the tree's. I am shooting them stop down at least 1 stop some 2 from maximum aperture.  Could be that use to of the 70-300l is and it being able to shoot wide open

Depending on the focal length you're shooting at, you could get substantial CA. I would notice this when shooting trees at 15mm  against the sky as in your pictures. According to photozone's testing, the effect is most pronounced at both extremes of the focal length range and stopping down doesn't make a whole lot of difference. All the more reason to shoot raw.

http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/465-canon_1585_3556is?start=1

573

EOS Bodies / Re: Ebay or Adorama Used?

« on: January 01, 2012, 12:09:12 PM »

Am I better off going with Ebay or Adorama Used for used equipment? Any advice?

Reputable dealers for used equipment: bhphotovideo.com, adorama, keh.com. The latter have a really good selection of older equipment (film cameras and lenses)

ebay is one place to buy from private sellers though some dealers also list there.

For buying from private sellers, I'd enthusiastically recommend fred miranda forums (fredmiranda.com).

For selling, the dealers will not offer you a very good price -- you are better off selling it yourself to a private party. I'd recommend fredmiranda for this.

574

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 1D X High ISO shot preview

« on: January 01, 2012, 10:00:08 AM »

You're missing the point. The MFT being better than the 5d2 , lol. This depends on a lot of other things than the sensor, how about the rest of the computing in camera? Do you really think they use the same software and the same computing power in a $300 compact as they do in a flagship pro-body?

I did say the 5D (classic), not the Mark II. Processing power is an example of something that really does follow Moore's law (computer processors have doubled in speed every 2 years for the last 40 years). So yes, you would expect the processors in a consumer level 2011 camera to beat the processors in a 2005 pro level camera.

But I don't believe this should matter a whole lot anyway -- DxOMark looks at the raw files, not jpegs.

Anyway, for better or worse, the overwhelming pattern is that newer small sensor cameras don't beat older big sensor cameras.

The overwhelming trend is that ISO performance is more or less directly proportional to sensor area -- so a full frame camera will be about 2 stops better than a micro 4/3 camera and 1-and-some stops better than APS-C. It takes a long time to close that gap -- even the best APS-C sensors (e.g. the new Nikons and the Sonys) still can't beat the 5D classic in DxOMarks ISO test.

So maybe you know something that I don't, but whenever I hear someone talk about how the new camera is 2 or 3 stops "better" than the old one, an alarm bell goes off (especially when the new camera has yet to be run through objective benchmarks).

You know what, I think has to do with politics and crap. Aka, let's make the camera only so much better so that people might want to upgrade,

For the consumer lines, I would buy this. But for the flagship, they hurt the brand (which has implications for the lower end products) if the product fails to impress.

575

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 1D X High ISO shot preview

« on: January 01, 2012, 08:46:32 AM »

Again, the mk4 and mk3 have the same size sensor, way smaller than FF. So based on previous cameras two stops is what you get from the next generation with the SAME SENSORSIZE.

Where do you get this from ? According to the DxOMark numbers, the difference is less than 1 stop: 1078 and 1320 for the 1D Mark III and IV, 1480 and 1663 for the 1Ds Mark II and III. If Moore's law really held for camera sensors, the rebel T3 would handily beat the 5D Mark II.

That is NOT the case here. It also states that the microlenses is used for the first time on a FF sensor, which must be to better the lightgathering to each pixel, now, with a fraction higher res, and less than on the 1ds3 and 5d sensor, it seems the microlens stuff could just as well have been skipped. Look at the 5d and the 5d2, same size sensor, no microlens, yet the 5d2 is WAAAAY better at higher iso's AND with nearly TWICE the res.

The 5D classic is 6 years old. If it works the way you say it does, with a stop improvement every two years, it should be getting handily beaten by micro 4/3 cameras.

576

Lenses / Re: Extending my options

« on: December 31, 2011, 09:39:16 AM »

because all the reviews said that if you can deal with a non-Canon lens, it is better than the 35 f/2 or 24 f/2.8.

It's quite a different package compared to the 35/2.

35/2 pro: sharp across the (APS-C) frame, works on full frame cameras, accurate AF, high maximum magnification for a non macro lens  (about .25, I think it's the highest max magnification of the non macro canon lenses)
35/2 con: old AF system (sometimes noisy), 5 blade aperture (not as nice bokeh), can't manually adjust focus in auto mode

30 f/1.4 pro: a stop faster, modern AF system, wider angle (closer to 50mm equivalent) than the 35/2, 8 blade aperture, comes with hood, sharp in the center
30 f/1.4 con: APS-C only, some users have AF issues (which means either you return it, get sigma to recalibrate it or use micro focus adjust if your camera has it), borders are quite soft even when stopped down

overall, the sigma seems designed for a specific function -- shallow depth of field and/or low light photography on APS-C -- faster f stop and better bokeh really help here. For this purpose, soft corners don't hurt as much because usually that part of the image is out of focus anyway. The Canon looks more like a "walk around" lens -- good performance across the frame, can also serve as a poor mans macro lens.

http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/298-sigma-af-30mm-f14-ex-hsm-dc-test-report--review?start=1
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/157-canon_35_2_50d?start=1

577

Lenses / Re: Extending my options

« on: December 30, 2011, 09:17:46 PM »

Whats the feelings on here, anyone own either, good/bad experiences...  Is the Sigma 30mm better, would a 300mm f4 IS with a 1.4x be better ?  I just don't think that a 17-55mm f2.8 will cut it in the low light I'm taking photos in and struggling to justify £2k extra on a 5DII/III, plus the 400mm I want in the longer term.

I was looking for a normal length prime for APS-C and rented the 28mm f/1.8, and both 35mm lenses. The 28mm f/1.8 was by far the weakest in image quality -- very soft wide open (though it is quite decent stopped down a bit). The 35mm f/2 is an excellent lens if you can live with its quirks -- lack of FTM focus, focus motor can be noisy when it hunts or needs to rapidly change from infinity to close or the other way around, and there are 5 blades on the aperture which results in pentagonal bokeh when stopped down (wide open of course oof highlights are circular)

Keep in mind that for wide shots, you might not always want the shallow depth of field that comes with a wider aperture -- depending on the shot you may need to stop down to get the depth of field that you want. Have you considered getting a flash ?

578

Lenses / Re: Canon 15-85 for a walk around lens

« on: December 29, 2011, 10:21:10 PM »

The 4-stop IS makes up for a lot of light-gathering deficiency.

The IS will help you shoot at a lower ISO setting, but you're still stuck f/5.6  depth of field (again, that's ff equivalent to f/9!). With indoor shots, shallow depth of field is much more critical than outdoor shots because you can't frame the picture in such a way as to get the background 60ft behind the subject.

I tried a little experiment recently. For Thanksgiving, I shot all my indoor stuff with the 15-85. Usual late afternoon and night lighting inside a home. For Christmas, I used only a 50mm 1.8 shooting mostly at 1.8 and 2.0 (no IS, obviously). Well, the 15-85 dramatically outperformed the 50 in image quality overall.

While I don't know the details of this experiment, it doesn't strike me as a fair test -- you are shooting the prime at f/2 and f/1.8 and then comparing it with the zoom shot at f/5 or slower.

The prime is at its sharpest around f/5.6-f/8 , and gets substantially sharper from f/1.8 to f/2.8,  see photozone
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/160-canon-ef-50mm-f18-ii-test-report--review?start=1, the zoom is already close to its peak at maximum aperture (  http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/465-canon_1585_3556is?start=1). 

579

Lenses / Re: Canon 15-85 for a walk around lens

« on: December 29, 2011, 09:13:13 PM »

Given its very uninspiring spec (it's a slow zoom -- equivalent to 24mm-136mm f/5.6-f/9) , it is quite good. It has substantial barrel distortion at 15mm, but that levels off pretty quickly. It is very useful at the wider end of its focal range. The tele end of the range makes it somewhat usable outdoor portraits (provided the background is a long way from the subject), but the fact that it's a slow f/5.6 (that's f/9 equivalent) makes it  less than ideal as an indoor portrait lens. Since I use the 50-85mm range primarily for portraits, I didn't find the extra range that useful and used it mostly in the 15-35mm range.

I'd recommend thinking about what you want it for (walk around means lots of different things -- but what does it mean to you ?) and considering a constant f/2.8 lens or an ultra wide.

I am once again looking for advice.

I am thinking of purchasing the Canon 15-85 Lens and am wondering someone has some hands on experience as far as Image quality goes

My present equipment is
Canon 50D
Canon 70-300L Is
Canon 18-55 IS Kit lens
Canon 50 1.8

I am thinking of the 15-85 to replace my 18-55

Also considered the Sigma 17-50 2.8 OS,  which would give me a constant 2.8 but shorter focal range.

The Canon 17-55 2.8 is out of my  budget

Any thoughts

Thank You

580

Site Information / Re: Any way to see which posts you got positive karma for?

« on: December 29, 2011, 08:56:02 PM »

No one can view the source of Karma.  Thats how it should be, we don't want retaliation or Karma wars.

I think we all agree that no one should be able to view who awarded karma.

But he wants to know which post resulted in karma. How would knowing which posts where rewarded karma invite retaliation or karma wars ? (btw, retaliation and "karma wars" would be very inconvenient to wage if it were not possible to award karma and post in the same thread!)

581

Lenses / Re: Thinking about either getting the 35mm 1.4L or 50mm 1.2L

« on: December 29, 2011, 08:49:17 PM »

Hello CR members.

With rumors of a possible 35mm 1.4L replacement around the corner, I was heavily weighing getting the 50mm 1.2L.

I currently have a 7D, Canon 50mm 1.4, Sigma 30mm 1.4 and Tamron 17-50 2.8 non vc.

I plan on selling the sigma 30mm and tamron 17-50 cause i plan on getting a 5d mkii in the next month.

The canon 50mm 1.4 will be retired as the focus motor is about fried.

So my problem if you call it a problem is Should i just get the 35mm 1.4L or go ahead and upgrade to the 50mm 1.2L?

A big Negative for the current 35mm 1.4L is that its not weather sealed.

I really wanted to take advantage of these current rebates that end 1/7/12

My final set up would be

5D Mk ii ,7D. 35mmL, 50MML, 17-40MML and 70-200mm 4.0 IS L

I hate to say it but i lose sleep over this HAHAHA.

I dont know what to do ??

-Henry

With your current setup, you have full frame equivalent of 48mm and 80mm. Did you consider going with a 35mm / 85mm setup instead of 35/50 ? That would give you more variety, especially when you consider that you can put each lens on either camera.

582

Lenses / Re: 24-70 or 24-105

« on: December 28, 2011, 06:58:41 AM »

24-70 is the PHOTOGRAPHER'S lens. thats my recommendation. only get the 24-105 if you dont care too much about your photos and just want to walk around and point and shoot. the range 70-105 you can easily cover with your feet. Just move around a little. Dont be lazy. eventualy you will know where ther 24 starts and 70 ends as you around in and out of frames.

Using a wide angle lens and standing close to the subject is not the same as standing further back and using a tele lens.

The only way you to get a true 105mm equivalent at 70mm is by cropping ("digital zoom").

583

Lenses / Re: Travel advice - which lenses?

« on: December 28, 2011, 06:17:26 AM »

Hello, this is probably a silly question that nobody can answer but myself.  Even though I know that, looking for perspective from others with more experience.  I'm relocating to Australia for 5 months starting in a week - will be an academic sabbatical, so I'm doing research but will have a good amount of time for traveling.  Lots of photos of my kids, both in the house and out in the bush, plus some travel photography of scenery, cityscapes, wildlife (hopefully).

I'm bringing my 5D classic, and definitely my 28/1.8 and 85/1.8 - my can't-live-without lenses.  I will also have a S95 with me.  Other things I could bring:
EF 20-35 (f/3.5-4.5 version)
EF 28-135
EF 50/1.4
40D
EF-S 55-250
430 EX II flash

If I stick it all in my big bag, it's insanely heavy (at least by my standards).  I don't really want to carry such a thing on the plane - and I assume it is not advisable to check photographic equipment unless you have a hard-sided case of some sort. 

There's something nice about the 5D/28/85 combo and I can handle a lot of different situations with that setup.  Downsides are i can't photograph dramatic vistas at 20mm, can't photo anything far away (like kangaroos and whatnot), and lack the versatility of the 28-135 (although the S95 really takes care of that for the most part).

Anyway, I'm aware that this is an unanswerable question - just looking for any advice people are willing to offer. 

SJP

On a recent trip to Australia (visiting family), I just took the 50mm f/1.4 (with a 5D Mark II). I decided I wanted to keep it simple, enjoy the time with my family and bring a lens that would let me capture that.

If you really want to photograph wildlife, you will probably find 135mm isn't long enough and as you mention the P&S comes close to covering that anyway. You will want to find a way to buy or rent a longer lens if you're photographing wildlife.

Out of what you have, I would stick with the two primes (28 and 85), maybe add the 50. The 28 is already quite wide and you can stitch if necessary.

584

Lenses / Re: 24-70 or 24-105

« on: December 27, 2011, 07:11:03 PM »

Thanks for the suggestion, but I am focussing on zoom lenses as I will be using it in the same manner as the Sigma 17-50 - main travel lens.  Now the Sigma definitely did not reduce the background to a total blur (even at F2., I am just trying to find out if the F4 with the longer focal length (70mm+) and full frame combination will at least match that???

The 24-105 f/4 on full frame is dof/fov-equivalent to 15mm-65mm f/2.5 on APS-C. So it should be quite a bit better on full frame (for shallow dof effect) than the Sigma is on APS-C.

The 24mm-70mm is a faster  lens, but is also a little short for portraits.  I don't own the 24-105mm but know its reputation and I think it would be a really solid choice as a travel lens. For portraits, it's a personal choice but on full frame if I had to use one of those lenses, I'd take 105mm f/4 over 70mm f/2.8.

585

EOS Bodies / Re: Thoughts From Canon on a Mirrorless Interchangeable Lens Camera

« on: December 23, 2011, 07:15:01 PM »

I understand the "high IQ camera in a pocket", but I don't understand the "DSLR alternative in a pocket" or "big sensor + small lens, to make it fit in a pocket" (which, I think, isn't possible without IQ sacrifice). Photography is not about putting things in your pockets. Nice small camera bag is a much better way to carry your fragile, expensive, dust and moisture sensitive photographic equipment.
I do like the idea of mirrorless cameras, but I'm against compromising the IQ and ergonomics while making them pocketable. I like to use LiveView for landscapes, portraits and macro (I'm not an action shooter really). Make it FF in a decent size body with all the buttons and wheels + nice vari-angle LCD + big and powerful battery + wireless flash control + some lens adapters - and I'll buy it.

Thankfully, the products are there to keep both camps happy, and there are legitimate uses for both. My GF2 does fit (with a big bulge) in a pants pocket with the 20mm f/1.7, and fits more easily in a jacket or cargo pants pocket. Of course the GF series made some compromises (in ergonomics and later in features) to push the size down. The larger cameras like Panasonics G3 or GH series are more ergonomic.