December 19, 2014, 09:21:46 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 ... 14 15 [16] 17 18 ... 21
226
Lenses / Re: Canon 200mm 2.8 l ii: what's the deal
« on: October 01, 2012, 01:34:43 AM »
The evidence (as presented by you, that this lens is undersold) tells us that people prefer the versatility of a 70-200 zoom more than the seeming lure of 1 f-stop more light and the possible background blur with the bigger max aperture. They probably also prefer the IS on 70-200 f/4 IS which gives you 2-3 f-stop equivalent shutter speed leeway. The one f stop advantage of a bigger max aperture may not be that big a deal as it is sometimes made out to be. But my gut feeling is that the zoom versatility and IS on the tele side weigh in favour of the 70-200 zoom.

227
Lenses / Re: Non L sharp telephoto lenses
« on: September 30, 2012, 01:14:24 PM »
HI,

When I travel I usually shoot on wide lenses, architecture and landscapes 65% of the time on my 17-40, 20% of the time I shot on 50 1.4 street photography, and in my bag I always have my 70-200 2.8 IS II for just in case, and when I walk all day long, after a while the weight of it starts to annoy me, so can you guys recommend me a tele lens with is pretty sharp over f8.

(Not necessary Canon lens)
 
Thanks

If you want a non-L Tele zoom then Tamron 70-300 is best for you. But if you want even more light weight (remember the Tamron is heavier than Canon non-L 70-300) then you need to check at what focal length you use the 70-200 while walking around.

1. If it is around the 70 mm side then you can get the Canon 85 1.8 (or may be even Sigma's 70mm macro) or Sigma 85mm. The canon 85 1.8 is extremely sharp from f/4 (you can get good pics even at f/2.8). Only in extreme backlighting conditions you get purple fringing. Most of the time that will not be an issue. The sigma 85mm is costlier (but not much more in comparison to what I am going to recommend below).

2. If you use the 70-200 around the middle range most of the time then the situation is difficult as I do not see anything other than the Canon L 135mm for your need.

3. If you use the 70-200 around 200mm most of the time then again there is the Canon L 200mm f/2.8. But none of these primes have IS if that is important for you.

4. If you want the same versatility with almost equal IQ of 70-200 f/2.8L IS II, then 70-200 L f/4 IS is your best bet.

See there are two problems with your situation, first, you are looking for a substitute for 70-200 IS II. I do not think you will be happy with the IQ of any lens (save the 70-200 f/4) which is LIGHTER and yet covers the same range (the light weight and price rules out the tele primes) and is non-L. Second problem is as far as I know none of the third party manufacturers make light weight medium tele primes (emphasis on the medium and light weight, which rules out anything below 100mm and the macro primes above 100mm).

I would suggest the Tamron if you are not averse to Tamron, or else get any of the three primes depending on your focal length need.

228
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sigma 70-200 OS
« on: September 25, 2012, 10:11:20 PM »
I am not that much concerned with build quality, as it seems sigma pro lenses are generally built well. But the other two point of yours and background blur when wide open are what I am concerned about.

229
Third Party Manufacturers / Sigma 70-200 OS
« on: September 25, 2012, 08:33:40 PM »
Probably most of you here swear by Canon's 70-200L IS II, and for excellent reasons. From numerous forum posts here I can understand this is one of the best zooms produced, period. But I am not looking for any more info about Canon's offering. What I am looking for is personal experience of those of you who might be using the Sigma 70-200 OS. It would be great if any of you actually used both the Canon and the Sigma. Would you please care to share your opinions and experiences? I am not a professional photographer, so justifying buying the Canon is almost impossible for me. The similar offering from Tamron does not yet have OS/VC/IS. So it would be a great help to learn from your opinions and experiences about the Sigma lens. Thank you all in advance.

230
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Chasing exposure
« on: September 25, 2012, 12:25:09 PM »
If you have the time and inclination the this book might be of some use (I benefited from it tremendously).

"Perfect Exposure" (no kidding, you just used this phrase) by Michael Freeman, Focal Press, 2009.

Some people may recommend Bryan Peterson's "Understanding Exposure", but I think your questions are better answered in Freeman's book.

231
Lenses / Tamron 60mm macro
« on: September 25, 2012, 11:57:34 AM »
Anybody has used this lens? On paper it is 1 stop faster than canon's equivalent, and on APS-C has a nice 90-95mm equivalent field of view for portraits. Any experience?

232
Lenses / Re: 70-300mm For my 5DM2
« on: September 25, 2012, 12:03:10 AM »
Another point, you already have some part of the 70-300 range covered with your 70-200. But you do not seem to have anything on the wider side of the focal length other than the motley 50 1.8.

I do not know what is your photographic style or interest, but still I believe 24-105 will serve you better over all than spending everything that you have on duplicating a focal length that you have already covered to some extent.

Ok, I just read it, you like aviation photography. What do you mean by that? You photograph flying aeroplanes or static aeroplanes? If it is flying then you will need the 70-300 L. I do not think tamron 70-300's AF will do the trick. But if it is standing planes that you photograph and also want something on the wider side, then go for 24-105 (both wide and general purpose zoom, according to some best general purpose zoom on full frame) and Tamron 70-300.

233
Lenses / Re: 70-300mm For my 5DM2
« on: September 24, 2012, 09:58:56 PM »
I cannot comment on the 70-300L.

But I tested both the 70-300 non-L and Tamron 70-300 VC before my purchase. I personally thought the Tamron to be a better lens and so purchased that (and returned the non-L 70-300). I fully realized that what I was buying was not going to be able to compete with 70-300L, but the L was out of reach. With fulltime manual focus (more so with back button focusing), non-rotating front element, and a fantastic VC this Tamron 70-300 has made me pretty happy.

234
Lenses / Re: Old manual focus 50mm: Sharpness
« on: September 24, 2012, 10:04:14 AM »
Thank you everyone for chiming in.

235
Lenses / Re: Vintage Lenses: Any Advise?
« on: September 24, 2012, 10:02:38 AM »
Canon FD lenses cannot be mounted on an EOS (EF mount) body without corrective optics OR modifying the lens mount using the EDMIKA lens mount changing kits. For EDMIKA you need to check for which FD lenses they have created the kit and selling it (or plan to make), as (if I remember correctly) all FD lenses are not adaptable. The corrective optics adapter will however reduce the image quality. Nikon F mount, Pentax K and Screw Mount, Olympus OM can be adapted with a simple adapter without the need of corrective optics.

236
Lenses / Re: Old manual focus 50mm: Sharpness
« on: September 23, 2012, 07:35:29 AM »
I've used a 50mm Pentax SMC Takamur 1.4 on my 50D, there are some issues using this lens on FF, but it can me made to work It is incredibly sharp, just as much as any new Canon glass.  IT's actually just a great lens, one of my favorite, it has just great colors. It can be had for about 100 on ebay.

To confirm: Which version of 50mm Pentax SMC Takumar did you use? was it the metal focusing ring SMC Tak or rubberized focusing ring SMC Tak. Thank you.

237
Lenses / Re: Old manual focus 50mm: Sharpness
« on: September 23, 2012, 07:31:34 AM »
Thanks to both of you. I completely agree with your suggestion that a dedicated macro lens in EF mount would be best for macro work. I rented the 100mm L macro and it was awesome. And next I want to rent the Sigma 150mm OS macro (whenever it is available at my local lens renting shop). They the are perfect solution for macro for sure. No doubt.

But for the time being I am just looking for some "fun" with the entire reversing thing and at the same time do not want to loose on sharpness. I asked for the advice as I was pretty sure many of you have been photographing from the manual days and know almost all there is to know.

@Paul thank you for reminding me the aperture pin thing and the MD rokkor reference.

238
Lenses / Old manual focus 50mm: Sharpness
« on: September 23, 2012, 06:59:29 AM »
I am planning to buy an old manual focus (with aperture control ring on the lens) 50mm lens for basically reverse lens, and extension tube+manual lens based macro work. I am specifically not looking to buy any of the current auto focus macro lenses (or the non auto focus Zeiss glasses). The first reason is of course price (for the time being) and the second reason is I pretty much like the whole ritual of macro photography using the above two methods.

Those of you who have used the different manual focus 50mm lenses produced by different manufacturers (Canon FD, Nikon, Pentax, Minolta, and others) during the film era (or may be even today) could you please share your comments about the sharpness of the lenses that you have used. I am trying to figure out which one out there might be the sharpest (if there is any specifically).

If you think a different lens of a different focal length would be better for my intended purpose then also please share your thoughts.

Any help is most heartily welcome.

239
Lenses / Re: Manual Focus Lenses: Smarter in F-Mount?
« on: September 22, 2012, 04:11:37 PM »
what about Zeiss 21mm?

http://diglloyd.com/ has a comparative review of all the Zeiss lenses. But the reviews are for paid subscribers only.

240
Lenses / Re: Manual Focus Lenses: Smarter in F-Mount?
« on: September 22, 2012, 09:49:30 AM »
OP, I see your point. The message is kind of sad :(. You are loosing long term faith in canon. You are basically half expecting to move to Nikon may in 5 years, or in 10 years, or in 15. :(



The opposite, I'm thinking of going Nikon now and leave the door open if in the future Canon will be best choice again.


My bad, that was another possible interpretation of your statement. :)

You are quite right in your arguments. And as my long and convoluted reply earlier tried to make this point "I do not see any problem with your plan."

The lenses will be of great quality and in any case you would be doing everything manually with Zeiss, whether you buy in canon or nikon mount. Just that you might not be getting lens info on the EXIF data (if that is an issue at all).

Pages: 1 ... 14 15 [16] 17 18 ... 21