September 22, 2014, 02:18:07 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 - J.R.

Pages: 1 ... 35 36 [37] 38 39 ... 99
541
EOS-M / Re: Settings with EF lenses
« on: October 13, 2013, 10:25:35 AM »
I will sound like a noob probably, but what is this "handbook" you are referring to? Funny, now that I think about it, I've never read any user manual of any lens that I have.

542
Lenses / Re: How bad is the 24-105?
« on: October 13, 2013, 04:04:09 AM »
   Lenses are stronger and weaker in an evident fashion, when they are shot in less then perfect conditions.
Give me examples of people in the shots,... not just ants.
 

Absolutely. More often than not, the differences between lenses can be seen only when you shoot in less than ideal conditions. That's why I don't usually bother with "which lens was this shot taken with" challenges. 


Horses for courses.


Yes sir ... Always!

BTW, upon reading your posts regarding the 40mm, I recently tried some panoramas using the pancake and was pleasantly surprised with the results  :)

543
I've had been using the 24-105 inspite of having the 24-70 II. The uses were restricted though to situations where I needed the longer focal lengths and/or IS. However, after getting the 70-200 II, the lens has not been used at all.

I am using the 24-70 II and the 70-200 II now. I've put up the 24-105 for sale.

544
Lenses / Re: How bad is the 24-105?
« on: October 13, 2013, 12:44:12 AM »
@ f11, my RX100 II will deliver same result in the sunny day :-\

And so it should ... I don't see what Pi is trying to prove in this post. Two photos taken at same FL at same apertures* with different (pretty good) lenses, subsequently downsized, will be next to impossible to tell apart.

Edit: stopped down apertures

545
Lenses / Re: No one ever talks about the 28-300 L
« on: October 12, 2013, 12:53:32 PM »
Seems like the perfect walk around lens, especially for travel.

Why is it not more popular? Price?

Weight, Push/Pull design plus the fact that the IQ suffers a bit considering the rather extreme zoom range.

546
Landscape / Re: Post Your Best Landscapes
« on: October 12, 2013, 12:40:55 PM »
Didn't want to get the newer bodies wet so stuck the 24-70 L IS onto the old 5D mk1. Still a great camera, more so in print than on the screen.

Lovely

547
Landscape / Re: Post Your Best Landscapes
« on: October 12, 2013, 12:38:33 PM »

548
EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L II
« on: October 12, 2013, 09:20:47 AM »
I can't help but wonder how Canon will price this. If it is priced the way Canon is going about the new lenses, I expect it to be in the range of $ 1,500 to $ 2,000 but then it will have to be substantially better than the Sigma's offering, which retails for less than $ 900.

Interesting times these, maybe Canon will be caught in a bind and the pricing will be "affordable" just because of existence of the Siggy :)

549
Canon General / Re: UK lens price increases
« on: October 12, 2013, 09:12:37 AM »
Canon has upped its prices for camera bodies in India last month. Doesn't bode well for lenses ... Fearing the worst, I bought what I wanted, last month itself.

That said, our currency isn't a stellar performer. Lost about 20% in a space of two months only to recover 10% or so in the past fortnight and a half.

550
Technical Support / FoCal Aperture Sharpness question
« on: October 12, 2013, 09:08:50 AM »
Hi Guys ... After getting FoCal in June, I've managed to try it out now (the weather in my part of the world has been a bit loony for the past four months with the city I live in recording the highest rainfall in India).

Anyhow, I tried the Aperture Sharpness tool in FoCal for my 24-70 II. I did one test followed by another test immediately. I got different results on the wide end - see below. Then I proceeded to test using the 6D which again gave different results.

The test was done in shade at an EV of 9. Camera was mounted on a sturdy tripod and the target was taped to a cardboard box. Target was 2m from the camera. Focal length was 70mm.

Any guesses as to why I should get different results? I'm can't help but feel that I am missing something.

551
Software & Accessories / Re: Tripod head advice
« on: October 11, 2013, 10:25:53 AM »
I'd suggest you don't get a manfrotto head. It is better to get an Arca-Swiss plate compatible head.

552
Lenses / Re: Longer and faster, better?
« on: October 11, 2013, 09:33:33 AM »
I have made sure I have more lenses than she can control, so if I get one more she will not notice ;)

I guess I need to take this route!

I sold my fav. 24-70 II & 70-200 f2.8 IS II and replaced that with 135L and 300 f2.8 II IS. Zzzyyy....thanks goodness that was just a dream ;D

Even I dream up such stupid stuff about my lenses. Good to know I'm not the only one  :D

553
I try to use anything that makes my images look better, whether it is cropping, using layers, LR adjustments ... you name it ... that's in my opinion, is the whole point of going digital.

I don't care whether anyone thinks PP or cropping is bad or that I am breaking some rule which was made in the days of film. 

554
Lenses / Re: Longer and faster, better?
« on: October 11, 2013, 07:56:33 AM »
I have made sure I have more lenses than she can control, so if I get one more she will not notice ;)

I guess I need to take this route!

555
Lenses / Re: Longer and faster, better?
« on: October 11, 2013, 04:30:48 AM »
I guess i will start saving....  by the time i have enough tucked away for the version II, i might have managed to persuade my wife it is necessary! :)

Good decision.

I too am saving up for the 300 f/2.8 II. The purchase will be funded in part by the sale of the 100-400. Not too sure though that I'll try to persuade my wife though ... I risk getting whacked over the head with one of the white lenses if I'm not careful ... this is one hell of a hobby!

Pages: 1 ... 35 36 [37] 38 39 ... 99