April 16, 2014, 12:36:05 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 - K-amps

Pages: 1 ... 95 96 [97] 98 99
1441
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 'Rep' tells BBC that "fewer megapixels are better"
« on: September 12, 2011, 09:26:36 AM »
Was "Jurg Ammon" from the still photography or camcorder side of the house? The trend in the last generation of Canon prosumer camcorders was to have future pixels. 1080P video is only about 2MP.

Thats what I tell whoever asks me "how many megapixels does your camera have"... but guys the truth is, that an 8mp image shown on a 1080p TV/monitor looks much better than a 2mp image... why?

1442
Lenses / Re: Good yet affordable telephoto lens?
« on: September 09, 2011, 03:04:52 PM »
This one was taken from 2 meters, shows bokeh  and focus at 400mm.


1443
Lenses / Re: Good yet affordable telephoto lens?
« on: September 09, 2011, 02:37:23 PM »

I wouldn't mind the weight of the lens, but how do you think does the 70-300 compare image wise against the 100-400?

Sample shot both at 400mm to help you decide. I had to aggressively crop them due to file size limit.

Both were handheld. The Hydrant was 18 meters away and the weed about 2 meters or less away. Both f/5.6 shutter was 1/320 and 1/400. It was a bit windy.  High ISO's were used due to available lighting... (cloudy day)


1444
Lenses / Re: Good yet affordable telephoto lens?
« on: September 09, 2011, 10:19:57 AM »
I'd say 2 L macros... sell the Sigmas :-)  Keep the 50mm 1.8 so 3 primes and whole lotta sharpness..

Why would I do that? The quality of both those lenses is absolutely stellar, not to mention that the 85mm is a pretty fast lens with it's 1.4 aperture. The 100 2.8 doesn't even come close to that and the 180mm 3.5 might be a great lens but is somewhat short for what I am looking for.

I just picked up the 70-300mm f4-5.6L IS yesterday, this copy is sharper than the 70-200mm f4L IS I returned. So I know it's sharp and lighter than the 100-400 which is a beast extended. It is also relatively affordable, a newer lens design as some of the other guys have posted.

It has nice reviews and maybe that might be up your alley.

1445
Lenses / Re: 17-40L bad copy?
« on: September 09, 2011, 12:49:53 AM »
Returned the 17-40L, and the 70-200L f4, got the 24-105 f4L and the 70-300mm f4-5.6L IS. And they are both noticeably sharper than the ones I returned...

2 chart crops.  All settings default Camera raw for these. (just did auto exposure/ tone to get some contrast) all other settings of Adobe camera raw = default.



1446
Macro / Re: Canon 100mm IS USM L Macro Photos
« on: September 08, 2011, 04:01:47 PM »

Canon 100mm usm not(IS) sorry can't afford one!!!
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jaredvs/sets/72157622383982672/with/4731866369/

Wow!  How did you get that level of magnification? very nice pic.

PS: I tried both the L and non-L versions. Both very sharp... but my non-L version seemed sharper.

1447
Lenses / Re: Good yet affordable telephoto lens?
« on: September 08, 2011, 03:21:51 PM »
here's an out of the box recommendation.

Get 2 macro primes,
100mm L F/2.8 Macro or the non-L version is just as sharp for 50% of the price.
180mm L f/3.5 Macro

Ok, but the OP stated:

Currently I have the 7D with Canon's 24-70 2.8, and the 50mm 1.8 plus Sigma's 85mm 1.4 and 150mm macro 2.8 OS.

So, how many macro lenses does one really need?   :P

I'd say 2 L macros... sell the Sigmas :-)  Keep the 50mm 1.8 so 3 primes and whole lotta sharpness..

**************

By the way, I returned my 17-40mm and the 70-200mm... I was not very happy with those copies. The 70-200mm tests were on par with my older 28-135mm IS zoom... infact in MF, the 28-135 was sharper, and I know normally the 70-200's are very sharp.

I replaced the 17-40 with a 24-105L F4 and the 70-200 with an 70-300 IS.  I will test them and let you know.

Thanks,
K

1448
Lenses / Re: Good yet affordable telephoto lens?
« on: September 08, 2011, 02:12:08 PM »
I know you asked for Zoom and not knowing how flexible you are on getting a zoom or 2 primes;  vs sharpness you'd like, here's an out of the box recommendation.

Get 2 macro primes, they are the sharpest lens Canon has and would run you about $2200 plus you can do Macro and the worst one is f3.5 but has a very nice bokeh (both of them do) the range covered is not far form one 70-200mm, but if you want ultimate sharpness this is it.

100mm L F/2.8 Macro or the non-L version is just as sharp for 50% of the price.
180mm L f/3.5 Macro

They are both great for portraits. Check their reviews on Fred Miranda.

I know they are not zoom :-)

1449
Lenses / Re: 17-40L bad copy?
« on: September 07, 2011, 09:22:11 PM »
Guys:  Can you please look at these pics I took for my 4 lenses (File names tell you what lens and settings they were shot at):

All were manually focussed
ALl on tripod
IS disabled where applicable
100mm did not have a UV filter attached, rest did

Which one looks good?

17-40mm L F4
28-135mm IS
70-200mm L IS F4
100mm L Macro F2.8

1450
Lenses / Re: 17-40L bad copy?
« on: September 07, 2011, 09:13:46 PM »
Looks fine to me.  Are all these shots with AF?  If so, it might just be your choice of what to focus on (some image features are problematic for AF points with particular geometries, but focus targets are usually designed to activate any type of AF point.

As you asked, they are MF.

Maybe you are learning to use this lens more efficiently!

Some guy said make sure the AF slider is revved back and forth a few times for a new lens... did that... maybe that worked?

1451
Lenses / Re: 17-40L bad copy?
« on: September 07, 2011, 01:14:39 PM »
The image is too small to pass comment on, plus lots of jpeg artifacts you could have taken this with a pinhole!

As I said in my original post you've done exactly what I suspected - close focus wide open!  This lens does not perform well wide open, particularly at the wide end.  Take it outside, plant it on a tripod at f/11 and at 20mm with a remote release & mirror lock up, then you'll be able to tell how sharp it is.  Try it at infinity focus then try closer subjects, use some hyperfocal distance and inspect the images at 100% If you still have a problem post an example full size.

Posted 2 more images... seems weird...

Does the 17mm get better with usage????

1452
Lenses / Re: 17-40L bad copy?
« on: September 07, 2011, 01:13:09 PM »
Here is the 70mm to 200mm @F4 @81 mm both cropped

1453
Lenses / Re: 17-40L bad copy?
« on: September 07, 2011, 01:12:22 PM »
Pick a scene with some fine detail in the center (printed text, for example).  Shoot a few shots with each lens, but much closer with to the subject at 17mm (so the target is approximately the same size in all images), manually focusing each time.  Pick the sharpest shot from each lens and compare them.  If the 17-40mm still seems soft, return it and try another copy.

I am more confused now... with every shot I take with the 17mm, it seems to get sharper... I don't know why. I did as you said and did some test shots. 17mm was stopped down to f8 and the 70-200mm was left wide open at f4 ... so the 17mm did have a bit of an advantage... tell me what you think of the 2 test shots. First is the 17mm @ f8 @17mm

1454
Lenses / Re: 17-40L bad copy?
« on: September 07, 2011, 10:50:20 AM »
Thanks John:  Here is another pic I took at f8. It looks a bit better than F4 but still.. smells like a kit lens or even worse.

The 70-200mm F4L is much better than this guy in sharpness across the board. It is not even close.

1455
Lenses / Re: 17-40L bad copy?
« on: September 07, 2011, 10:31:12 AM »
I have this lens.  It's fine.  I first calibrated it to both my cameras (5dmii and 7d) using lensalign and the microadjusts.  But I'm sure you made similar calibrations so perhaps you have a bad copy?

I do not have lens align, and my 1d2 does not support microadjust that I know of. Currently I am just eye balling it and it just seems worng. I have it ona 1.3crop body so the corners are not even an issue for now. I tried it stopped at f8 still nothing impressive. I put on a 70-200mm and it is razor sharp... I bought these yesterday new form a store locally. I think I can return/ exchange them... should i get a Tamron 17-50 f2.8 instead or replace it with another copy of the 17-40L?

Here a pic I took today. No PP done. Camera was on a tripod. Stopped at f4 though.

Pages: 1 ... 95 96 [97] 98 99