October 25, 2014, 08:30:54 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 - RAKAMRAK

Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10 ... 21
106
Lenses / Internal Zooming Standard Zoom
« on: August 30, 2013, 06:19:14 PM »
Just wondering if any of you know whether an internal zooming standard zoom is possible (either EF or EF-S, but I guess if one is possible, the other would be too)? It might be nice to have 17-55 EF-S (or 15-85 EF-S, or 24-70 or 24-105) which does not extend. Opinions?

107
...I do think the Tamron handles the transition from focus to defocus more smoothly than the Canon.

+1
I was never pleased with the (latest) Canon's rendition of transition areas; went from busy to garish to, "what's that other stuff in there?"
I'm thinking of getting this Tamron in F mount to replace or complement my Nikon 70-200/4vr.  Also a very sharp lens but suffers from similar transitional area bokeh ugliness.  (but it's so small and light..)

Wow, I never thought I will hear this about 70-200 mk II (I hope you guys are referring to that lens) which some here (and elsewhere) consider to be the best canon zoom lens made till date (it surely may be so)! Now day by day my itch of buying the Tamron 70-200 grows exponentially. (now the rose petals will suffer) I should buy it now, I should wait till next year, I should buy it now, I should wait.........

108
Lenses / Re: prime focal length choices
« on: August 28, 2013, 01:39:00 AM »

Personally, I went with the 35L, 85L II, and 135L (the classic 'holy trinity' of fast primes).

I beg your pardon OP but could I add a question to everyone here (in reference to Mr. Neuro's statement, may be he will also jump to share his understanding/opinion here).

Why does not this "holy trinity" include the 50L? Alright, 85 is 50mm more than 35 and 135 is 50mm more than 85. So they are equally spaced. That may be one logic (not a very strong one though). But is there any other reason to exclude 50L? We could have an "unholy foursome" (ok that did not come out right)....

109
Canon EF Prime Lenses / Re: Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM
« on: August 25, 2013, 03:31:40 AM »
I am using 5d iii with this lenses. I want to take more close pictures with this lense, but I don't know how to. too much close makes the picture blurry. check these photos, these are the closest I could take. If anybody could help me ....

First of all I do not think 1/30 sec is fast enough for a 100mm macro (more if you have stopped down) neither for handshake nor for subject movement.

Second how much far away were you from your subject. As far as I understand the MFD of this lens is around 30cm. Thus anything closer the subject will be unfocused.

For good and sharp macro you need the steadiest camera and a fast shutter speed with good light.

110
PowerShot / Re: Canon Announces the Facebook PowerShot N
« on: August 22, 2013, 06:43:13 AM »
Why does not Canon get into the production of Smartphones with Cameras..... it is quite obvious that their lower end P&S market is under siege..... By entering that market Canon can create a whole new story....

111
Canon General / Re: Canon Binoculars
« on: August 18, 2013, 08:59:44 AM »
Hey mrsfotografie, good to know. I was wondering given my understanding of how AF work (the distance of image plane from mirror equal to distance of af sensor from mirror and the split/half covered pixel thingy.) in DSLRs how it would work with binoculars. Thanks for the link. It is always good to something new.

112
Canon General / Re: Canon Binoculars
« on: August 18, 2013, 08:00:19 AM »
Interesting, do these type of binoculars also have AF?

AF in binoculars!! Really? (I am not being sarcastic, I am just astonished if that is even possible)......

113
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: 41 MP. NOKIA LUMIA 1020
« on: August 17, 2013, 11:51:08 AM »
I guess OP is just frustrated at the tall claims of the advertisement he saw. But he is probably mistaking the target audience and customer group of the ad.

114
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: 41 MP. NOKIA LUMIA 1020
« on: August 17, 2013, 11:42:20 AM »
Can you? What do you think? Can it substitute that 300mm f/2.8?

115
Lenses / Re: What is the deal with Canon 135mm f/2.8 soft focus?
« on: August 16, 2013, 01:14:07 PM »
Although Canon website shows this lens to be "current" in production, neither Adorama nor BH photo seems to have it listed!!!

Lenore please do not kill Kirk.

116
Lenses / Re: What is the deal with Canon 135mm f/2.8 soft focus?
« on: August 16, 2013, 08:41:37 AM »
I have not used this lens, but it seems like this is a case where there is no down side to adding the soft focus in post processing. In the film days this lens created a unique look. Now, its just easier and probably better to do add the effect later.

That may surely be the scenario....

117
Lenses / Re: What is the deal with Canon 135mm f/2.8 soft focus?
« on: August 16, 2013, 08:14:14 AM »
Hey @jdramirez, am correct in seeing that you sold off your 100mm macro L for 85mm 1.8? That is something I thought I shall never see someone doing. Interesting.

118
Lenses / What is the deal with Canon 135mm f/2.8 soft focus?
« on: August 16, 2013, 07:57:55 AM »
I was wondering what is the the deal with this lens? There has been no update of this lens (as far as I know) from its version 1. No one here on CR talks about it or asks of it or mentions it!! There is not even a lens gallery for this lens on here! So no one uses/has this lens here? Just idly wondering.

119
Lenses / Re: Macro photography: lens+flash+diffuser?
« on: August 15, 2013, 05:37:00 PM »
The canon 100mm is fantastic. But if I was buying I would buy the Sigma 150. And then create a rig like the one that you can see at my flickr page  :)

If you already have flashes like 600 ex-rt or 580 ex ii then you can have much more control on your flashes with my ghettor rig. The entire rig would cost you around 70 dollars (US$) save the flashes......

120
Lenses / Re: Should I get a clear filter for my lens?
« on: August 15, 2013, 10:53:14 AM »
The OP has created two similar threads on the topic of filters. I am writing my opinion to both the threads here.

Well many people will say many things about the end result of cheap filters - but the ultimate point is whether you think that is so or not. So go ahead and buy some filters (clear, ND, variable ND), whatever you think you want and of course can buy. Put on your lens. Take photos of the same things/scenarios with and without the filters. Then come home and look at the photos. If you see you cannot distinguish between the photos qualitatively then well and good. You have achieved your goals of protecting you lenses' front element/desired photo effect and affordable price. Otherwise, dump the cheap filters and buy a little bit costlier ones and carry out the entire above exercise again.

Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10 ... 21