July 31, 2014, 07:49:34 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 - mackguyver

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 165
1

Introduced in 2007, the EF 50 f/1.2L has seen its share of controversy due to a design that can lead to focus shifting in certain situations for a lot of photographers. </p>


I think the controversy began when folks attempted to use the lens in ways not consistent with its design.
Oh come on, I'd trade soft bokeh for the ability to see every pore and imperfection any day - not to mention better test chart performance  ;) 

2
I would be really surprised if Canon updates this lens prior to the 35 f/1.4.

Which one would you want? While I can 'dream' an immediate update to both lenses, I'd rather have an updated 35L first.
For some reason the 35mm focal length never did it for me (I'm definitely in the minority) while the 24L II really spoke to me in terms of focal length.  If I could have any prime updated, I'd love to see a 135 f/2 a bit sharper wide open, with IS, better coatings, and 9-blade aperture, or perhaps a 180 macro with 2.8 aperture and 9-blade aperture.
I'd rather have a 180mm macro with hybrid IS that focuses faster.
I have used my 180 macro handheld about 1% of the time, so personally I would not find it of much use and would not want to pay for it, but that's just me...

3
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Fun Arias rant on APS-C vs. FF
« on: Today at 01:12:23 PM »

Also not the first time he's ranted on about Fuji vs DSLRs:

https://fstoppers.com/location/zack-arias-claims-dslr-dead-result-fuji-x100s-3406

To me, someone declaring DSLRs dead or that APS-C is just as good as FF, is just as bad as the opposite - the person that spouts out that DSLRs are king or the FF is the only "real" format.

Both of these are uneducated viewpoints and contribute nothing. In fact I think of Arias less of a knowledgeable photographer now that I've seen that video.

Not all photography is the same, and as a result it requires different equipment. Different equipment requires different tradeoffs. Choose what's best for you, not what someone else declares to be better or worse.
Well said, DRR!  I visit blogs that are specific to certain types of photography and hear so much animus and ignorance out there.  Crop is all you need, primes rule, natural light is for idiots, L lenses are overpriced, only shoot with L lenses, etc., etc.

Each genre of photography has its own requirements and while any gear can be used, some gear works better than others.  For example, shooting sports with a 3fps camera with limited AF is very difficult, but the same camera can produce amazing portraits.  Large aperture lenses are wasted on landscape photographers, but necessary for sports & wildlife.  A 85L is a horrible choice for most shots other than portraits, but can be used for other things.  The list goes on and on and on....

To argue that any one technology, system, lens, or anything else is perfect (or pointless) is pure ignorance (or blatant commercialism supporting a sponsor).

4
I would be really surprised if Canon updates this lens prior to the 35 f/1.4.

Which one would you want? While I can 'dream' an immediate update to both lenses, I'd rather have an updated 35L first.
For some reason the 35mm focal length never did it for me (I'm definitely in the minority) while the 24L II really spoke to me in terms of focal length.  If I could have any prime updated, I'd love to see a 135 f/2 a bit sharper wide open, with IS, better coatings, and 9-blade aperture, or perhaps a 180 macro with 2.8 aperture and 9-blade aperture.

5
Canon General / Re: What do you Splurge on?
« on: Today at 12:59:40 PM »
grip.  I like being able to mount my cameras in unusual ways, i do a lot of video, so I've full size track and dolly, table dolly, fig rig, cowboy slinger, slider, gimbal stabiliser, timelpase motion tripod, mini-jib, video monopod, video tripods, superclamp and snake, magic arms, c clamps, 'the pod', suction cups..  not exciting, but practical.

I do rather find these threads a kind of shower-room excercise of who has the biggest... wallet.  Ok, it's a gear forum, but I'd rather talk about what folk do with their kit...
pablo, did you miss my other threads - as in what do you spend very little money on and what goes unused?

Also, these threads are just meant to be fun, not comparisons of anything as you suggest.  I like to see what other people spend money on - we can't all own everything....and while I love lenses, others love flashes, etc.

I think gear is cool, but certainly not everything.  Many of the best photos I've taken were with a Rebel and the 50 f/1.4.

I think a good forum has plenty of room for a variety of topics.  Check out the Technique and Advice area of the forum for lots of talk about using gear along with amazing examples of the work members produce with their gear.

6
Canon General / Re: What is your Least Used Piece of Gear?
« on: Today at 12:53:27 PM »
200-400. Only when I go on wildlife trips. Once a year max on average.
I'll be happy to "watch" it for you the rest of the year :)

7
The 50L comments drive me a bit batty.  A few questions/observations:

1. People want f/1.0-f/1.2, but sharp to f/2.8
* The original Canon 50mm f/1.0L was much less sharp than the f/1.2L.  Though the aperture is not as wide, the 50 f/1.2 was deemed overall better looking with better sharpness while retaining much of the look of the 50mm f/1.2, and eons less lens flare that was distracting in the original 50 f/1.0.
* Why is there not an f/1.0 lens that is sharp for every focal length?  Might it have something to do with the impossibility of doing so without other massive compromises?  Why is there no f/1.0-f/1.2 24L, 35L, 135L?
* Pointing to the 85L II is irrelevant as it is a totally different focal length, needing a totally different optical formula.  The 85L II also has a lot of compromises, including slow focus, extending front element, fragile rear element, large size, focus by wire, weight, price - it is a stunning lens, but it too has its share of problems.
* Again, the original Canon 50mm f/1.0L was much less sharp than the 50mm f/1.2L and on top of it had all of the disadvantages of the 85L II (slow focusing, fragile rear lens element, large, heavy, etc).
* Other 50mm lenses f/0.95-f/1.2 like the Leica Noctilux are similarly not razor sharp.

2. People want no focus shift
* Focus shift is a symptom of spherical aberration on wide aperture lenses
* If you correct all spherical aberration, the bokeh looks less attractive (see Sigma ART f/1.4)
* Most wide aperture lenses have some amount of focus shift, including the Canon f/1.4 and the Leica Noctilux;  Since the Canon 50mm f/1.2 has purposely uncorrected spherical aberration, there will be more focus shift and less sharpness.
* For creamier bokeh and wider apertures at 50mm, some focus shift is going to be necessary
* A better solution to focus shift is introduce the ability to focus while stopped down in the camera body hardware (like DOF preview, but including ability to focus); or similarly, allow the camera body to make autofocus corrections based on the attached lens, focus distance, and apertures selected.  This would allow the lens to retain the creamy bokeh without focus shift.

3.  People want a Sigma ART f/1.4 clone
* Sigma f/1.4 allows 50% less light than Canon f/1.2.  Less light can mean higher ISOs = less contrast, less sharpness, more noise.
* f/1.4 has about 14% less subject isolation ability than the 50mm f/1.2 due to lesser depth of field at the narrower aperture.
* Sigma's bokeh is not as smooth as the f/1.2's, likely due to all the corrections to get maximum sharpness.  For the same reason, it has less focus shift.
* The Sigma has the size and weight of a zoom lens or prime telephoto, and is a bit unwieldy for a 50mm lens.
* The Sigma has documented focusing issues on outer points on some bodies, not just focus shift, but failure to focus accurately even wide open.

***

In the end, I feel asking for an f/1.0 - or even f/1.2 - 50mm lens that has all the beauty of the 50L and all the sharpness of the Sigma with the light and subject isolation capabilities of f/1.2 is just too much.  I would say if you would prefer a less challenging lens, the Canon 50mm f/1.4 is probably your best bet - or wait for the 50mm f/1.8 IS.  If you are a a sharpness junkie, get the Sigma.  But otherwise, if you want a lens that is awesome all around for portraits, you can't beat the 50L and hence I see no reason to replace it.  There are a multitude of options in the "sharp as a tack" category, I see no reason to extinguish one of the few amazing portrait lenses that is out there (along with the 85L II) to satisfy sharpness junkies.
Good points, but one can dream, at least of a f/1.0 with performance equivalent to the f/1.2.  Unfortunately as you point, reality sets in...and to be perfectly honest, I am extremely happy with the f/1.2 and the f/1.0 shots I've seen are wildly beautiful in terms of bokeh but utterly lacking in contrast and sharpness.  I would be really surprised if Canon updates this lens prior to the 35 f/1.4.

8
Canon General / Re: What do you Splurge on?
« on: Today at 12:14:03 PM »
Addendum:

6. Having two expensive bodies.  Yes, I need a 2nd as a backup, but I have yet to have a catastrophic failure with any Canon DSLR.  I'm sure a SL1 as a backup would make a lot more sense than carting around a 1D X and 5DIII, and would have saved me a lot of cash.

9
Software & Accessories / Re: Rastering of image in CC PS
« on: Today at 12:11:03 PM »
You may need to start over with this photo.

You can definately fix it using the method I mention above.  But if you're haven't put much time into post processing you might as well start over and do it right instead of fixing it.  In the future, shoot in RAW, edit in 16 bit.
Yes, and sorry to gloss over that.  My comment was specifically around the photo being totally overprocessed which has more serious issues that a banded sky alone.   RAW/16-bit is the way to go for sure.

10
Canon General / Re: When a Woman is Fed Up...
« on: Today at 12:09:06 PM »
This is the stuff of my nightmares - and why I have insurance! 

I hope whatever, or whoever, he did was worth it ;D

11
Canon General / Re: What is your Least Used Piece of Gear?
« on: Today at 12:05:27 PM »
Photo backpack.  It just sits in the closet because it's too cumbersome to shoot out of, and I never find myself in a position to carry everything I own.
Interesting - that's probably the one piece of (non-Canon) gear I use the most.  I have a shoulder bag for street / studio shooting, but my Lowepro Flipside 400AW is my constant companion when I shoot outdoors.

12
I'll have a good laugh if they roll out a new Rebel and a 18-300 f/4.5-5.6 STM lens :)

Okay, my wallet will laugh, but I'll cry with the rest of you :'(

13
Software & Accessories / Re: Rastering of image in CC PS
« on: Today at 11:43:33 AM »
It looks like you're using a JPEG or processing in 8-bit as Skirball says.  The terms you're looking for are "posterization" or "banding" and they are caused by low-bit capture (JPEG) and/or overprocessing, especially in 8-bit, which means you are processing it, saving it, then processing it again and again.  If your histogram is spiky instead of smooth, you have overprocessed your photo.  Try to do as much as you can in RAW or at least in 16-bit TIFF to avoid that.  You may need to start over with this photo.

14
Canon General / Re: What is your Least Used Piece of Gear?
« on: Today at 11:38:28 AM »
Of gear that I intend to be part of my active kit....EF 40 mm f/2.8 pancake.
I bought the lens, played with it for about 15 minutes and didn't touch it again until two months later when I sold it.  It's a fine lens - it just didn't fit into my life.

15
Canon General / Re: What do you Splurge on?
« on: Today at 10:56:15 AM »
I bought the 200mm f2 because I couldn't 'make do' with lesser lens :) isn't that the point of GAS?

If the results of a lens can be described as 'magic' - then I'm sold :D

I'm sucker for fast primes :)
I have a self-imposed ban on ever being in the same room with the 200 f/2. I'm sure it would suddenly become a necessity if I ever saw or touched the lens, let alone used it ;) :o ;)

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 165