Messages

16

Macro / Re: Mp-e and 100mmL sharpness

« on: April 10, 2013, 08:40:18 AM »

I own both lenses and they are both among my most used lenses.

My perception is the MP-E 65 may be a tad sharper at 1:1, but if you are trying to compare these lenses at all then you are asking the wrong questions.  These lenses have completely different purposes.

You will almost certainly need the MT-24EX with the MP-E 65.  The vast majority of my shots with it are handheld and you will need this flash to get anything with it.  In terms of whether you will need a macro rail and tripod, that depends on what you are shooting.  Macro rails and a tripod are really the domain of abstract work or focus stacked closeups.

Personally I own a pair of RRS macro rails and a Gitzo Explorer-type tripod.  I use them far more with my 100 macro than with my MP-E 65, and on the rare occasion I use them with my MP-E 65 it is with a Cognisys Stackshot in order to handle the DOF issue.

For insects and drops of water, however, you'll be shooting hand held most of them time so you'll just need an MT-24EX.

Still, if you are not familiar enough with macro I advise you to stick with the 100L because the MP-E 65 will just frustrate you.

17

Lenses / Re: Europe Vacation: Equipment Advice

« on: March 30, 2013, 11:29:38 PM »

I have been to Europe many times and most recently traveled to Tuscany for three weeks.  You can see some of the photos here - http://www.flickr.com/photos/calevphoto/sets/72157632050781294/

You should be fine with the 70-200/4.  I used to own the 70-200/4 IS and now own the 70-200/2.8 II.  The 2.8 II is a much better lens, but the difference is really only noticeable for portraits and action shots - not really architecture and your typical European shot, unless you are photographing the Palio like I was.

I did have a 24-105 there and was a bit disappointed with it.  On a FF camera it badly vignettes at 24mm.  I would highly recommend you look at a different wide lens.  The 17-40 is probably the best if you're on a budget, but the 16-35 is a bit nicer.

If you really want some nice shots though I highly recommend that you invest in TS lenses.  I took both my TS-E 17 and my TS-E 24 II there and they were the main lenses I used.  There is another thread here with my shots from Tuscany taken with those lenses.

Note that a 580EX is mainly for taking portraits of your family.  I did take one but only used it a handful of times because you only really need one when the sun is behind the subject.  In most cases you can reposition your subject to make the sun work for you.

18

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 7D vs 5D3 noise @ ISO400

« on: March 30, 2013, 11:21:38 PM »

I used to own a 7D, owned a 5D2 at the same time, and now own a 5D3.

The 7D has abysmal image quality at high ISO.  You are correct that even at ISO 400 it was noticeable.  The max I shot at with the 7D was ISO 800, because after that the image quality was simply unacceptable.  With my 5D2 I was comfortable shooting up to ISO 3200 and on the 5D3 I comfortably shoot at 6400 and sometimes at 12800 depending on the subject.

19

Canon General / Re: I'm looking for a telephoto zoom, but I've been underwhelmed before.

« on: March 30, 2013, 11:18:14 PM »

I know you're looking for a zoom, but to be honest aside from the mythical 200-400/1.4x a decent zoom telephoto for Canon does not exist.  I have owned almost every choice at one time or another.

Sigma 80-400/OS - extremely slow AF, unacceptable image quality
Canon 70-200/2.8 II + 2x III - better, but still slow, AF.  borderline acceptable image quality
Canon 100-400 - similar AF to the 70-200 + 2x. marginally better image quality.

The best two choices, and I own both of them, are the 300/4 and 400/5.6.  For most occasions I prefer the 400/5.6 because it has better image quality at 400mm and has the fastest AF of the choices.  I mainly use the 300/4 for occasions when I can easily get close to wildlife (zoo) or for small wildlife that I need to get close to for a decent shot (dragonflies, lizards).

20

Lenses / Re: How Much do you use your Canon EF 16-35mm L ??

« on: March 27, 2013, 02:53:47 PM »

I use my 16-35/2.8 II now mainly for hiking.  For most other purposes I use my TS-E 17 and TS-E 24 II, but I favor my 16-35 for hiking because I rarely take a tripod, I need to keep down on the weight, and the TS-E 17 flares badly with bright lights.

I took this shot with it over the weekend.

A New Hiking Season by CalevPhoto, on Flickr

21

Lenses / Re: New 100-400 to Launch with EOS 7D Mark II [CR2]

« on: March 27, 2013, 02:50:54 PM »

This post came about five days too early.

I waited almost a year at one point for a new 100-400 to release, but ended up buying the existing 100-400.  I used it for a few years and then sold it about two years ago and now use the 400/5.6 - which I like much better.

I might buy a new 100-400, but only if reviews prove that it has amazing IQ (better than 400/5.6) and extremely fast AF.  Personally though I would prefer a new 400/5.6 that has IS and a closer focusing distance.

22

Macro / Re: canon 100L+tubes+2x converter ?

« on: March 22, 2013, 08:51:11 PM »

If you use the 2x, then you have to do 2x + extension + 100L.

So with the extension tubes you have 1.68x, and with the 2x you have 3.36x - though the quality will suck and your minimum focus distance will be nil.

If you want to go above 1x then the MP-E 65 is your best bet.

23

Lenses / Re: 24mm ts-e with a polarizer?

« on: March 22, 2013, 12:16:33 AM »

Personally my favorite polarizer has always been my Singh-Ray Color Combo.  I have a B+W Kaesemann too, but far prefer the effect I receive with the Color Combo.

24

Macro / Re: canon 100L+tubes+2x converter ?

« on: March 20, 2013, 12:48:19 AM »

I have actually done this.  The extension tube is necessary in order to fit the 2x onto the 100L.  However, I did not do this because I needed > 1x magnification.  If I wanted that I would just use my MP-E 65.

It just happens that this lens + a 2x III makes a decent tube lens for microscope objectives.  The objectives I use require a 200mm lens and my 70-200/2.8 II has too much vignetting.  Some day I'll probably pick up the 200/2.8 which does this natively.

I use this with a Nikon 10x and a Mitutoyo 20x.  Here's a shot with the Nikon.  Someday I'll have enough patience to hook my Stackshot up to it and do stacking.


Denim Aliens by CalevPhoto, on Flickr

25

Canon General / Re: your scariest photography moment?

« on: March 10, 2013, 11:03:35 PM »

My hard drive died last weekend. My local backups turned out were not working.  Crashplan, despite sending me regular emails stating that backups were successful, missed my last year of photos.

So I was faced with the prospect of using one year of my work - including trips to Dubai and Tuscany.

Luckily I was able to take the drive somewhere where they managed to pull the data off and place it on an external HD for me.

26

Speedlites, Printers, Accessories / Re: how reliable are cheap third party flashes (yongnuo)

« on: March 10, 2013, 11:01:24 PM »

I currently have two Yongnuo 565EX flashes, a Canon 580 EX, and a Canon 580EX II.

Canon 580EX - Synchronization is now off in the flash, preventing me from using it for my high speed work.
Canon 580EX II - Miniport no longer works.  I have to use a hotshoe to trigger it
Yongnuo 565EX - Both of them still work fine

27

5D MK III Sample Images / Re: 12,800ISO 5DMKIII Images

« on: March 01, 2013, 11:31:59 AM »

Took this shot some time ago @ ISO 12800 with my 5D3. Despite the 1.6x crop that provided more reach I do not miss my 7D at all.


Pileated Woodpecker by CalevPhoto, on Flickr

28

Lenses / Re: Cheap Canon 300mm or 400mm do I Choose?

« on: March 01, 2013, 11:28:04 AM »

Sigma has serious quality issues, which is why there is so much variance between lenses.  My first telephoto lens was the Sigma 80-400 OS.  I admit that I liked it a lot when I had it, but when I finally compared it to a Canon 100-400 there was really no comparison.  They have come out with a few gems in the shorter focal lengths but I would stay clear of them for any telephoto.  Most of those who really like their Sigma telephoto zooms have never used one of the Canon equivalents.

Interestingly their 400/5.6 has reviewed well but they discontinued it - meaning you may have issues with newer camera bodies.

Personally when I owned the 100-400 I really did not have dust issues and had no problems with the push-pull.  It was a nice lens but was not overly different from the 70-200/2.8 II + 2x III.  It won slightly on sharpness and was about the same for AF.  There was simply no reason to carry both in my bag.  Since then as my skills have increased I have become more demanding on what to expect in sharpness and AF, so I now use my 400/5.6 for all birding.

29

Lenses / Re: Cheap Canon 300mm or 400mm do I Choose?

« on: March 01, 2013, 10:02:40 AM »

I currently own the 400/5.6, 300/4, and 70-200/2.8 II + 2x III.  I have owned the Canon 100-400 in the past.

- If you need length, then the 400/5.6 is your best choice.  It also takes a 1.4 extender much better than the 300 takes a 2x. I photograph mostly birds with it, so I am using a high shutter speed in the first place and IS isn't really necessary.

- What I like most about the 300/4 is the close focusing distance.  I therefore use it for dragonflies.  I also use it for the zoo (where animals tend not to move so much), darker situations, and for lizards.

- The 70-200/2.8 II + 2x III is more versatile, but the image quality just is not what I prefer.  The two lenses above are much sharper than the 70-200 with extenders.  The AF is also quite slow, making birds in flight much more difficult.

30

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Finnish wearing on my 5D Mark III

« on: February 25, 2013, 05:02:44 PM »

Try the Swedish version.