Messages

61

Street & City / Re: Question about long exposure and filters

« on: May 01, 2013, 02:38:36 AM »

Hey, I'm in Asia so it's morning here. Later today, I will try long exposure for the first time. I went to pick up a grey filter last week, but they only had 3-stop filters. I only picked up one and didn't give it more thought. Now having read up a bit on it, I see that I would probably need more. I won't by another filter today so my question to you is the following, can I stack a CPL to the grey filter?

I presume the grey filter that you are referring to might be the Neutral Density Filter. If you are aiming to blur movement, a 3 stop ND  filter has little effect unless you shoot in low light. A better investment should have been at least a 4 stop ND filter and/or a 10 stop ND filter. For this reason, stacking filters is the method that I usually apply to exploit cloud and water movements in not so low light condition. To give you some idea, here are some of my shots using the stacked filter method:

The day I saw the sun
Canon EOS 5D Mark III ı Canon TS-E24mm f/3.5L II  ı Lee 1.2 ND Filter ı Singh Ray LB Warming Polarizer ı Lee 0.9 Soft ND Grad Filter ı 24mm ı 10s ı f/16 ı ISO 100
 
The day I saw the sun by shutterwideshut on Flickr

The pavilion in black & white
Canon EOS 5D Mark III ı Canon TS-E24mm f/3.5L II  ı Lee Big Stopper ı Lee 0.9 Soft ND Grad Filter ı Singh Ray LB Warming Polarizer ı 24mm ı 204s ı f/8 ı ISO 100
 
The pavilion in black & white by shutterwideshut on Flickr

Dusk over Quezon Island
Canon EOS 5D Mark III ı Canon EF24-70mm f/2.8L II USM  ı Lee 1.2 ND Filter ı Lee  0.9 Soft  ND Grad Filter ı Singh Ray LB Warming Polarizer ı 24mm ı 20s ı f/8 ı ISO 200

Dusk over Quezon Island by shutterwideshut on Flickr

Nature's Breath
Canon EOS 5D Mark III ı Canon TS-E24mm f/3.5L II ı Singh Ray 0.9 Reverse ND Grad Filter ı Singh Ray LB Warming Polarizer ı 24mm ı 15s ı f/8 ı ISO 100

Nature's Breath by shutterwideshut on Flickr

I will anyway give it a try, but are there any particular things I need to look out for?

Pre-compose without the filter and shoot in manual focus. Use the live view for precise focussing and the Mirror Lock Up method. Shoot in RAW format to have flexibility later in post to deal with color cast(if there is any).  And most of all, don't forget your remote cable release and tripod.  Shooting long exposure is fun.  Good luck. Cheers. 

Nice images ... particularly the third one where the colors are excellent.

Pre-composing without the filter is a good idea but it creates problems when a zoom lens is being used as the zoom will be affected while screwing in the filter - might throw off the focus by a bit.

Cheers ... J.R.

62

Street & City / Re: Question about long exposure and filters

« on: May 01, 2013, 12:08:15 AM »

You can always stack the ND and the CPL. I've tried with the Hoya ND8 and the CPL on the 24-105 in the past but the vignetting at focal lengths under 30mm was terrible. It might help if the CPL is a slim filter.

Other than the issue of vignetting, I'd suggest you shoot RAW. The stacked filters are more than likely to generate a color cast which will be tough to correct if shooting JPG.

Hi, thanks, yes I always shoot RAW and edit in LR4. That was exactly what I was looking for, if there are any odd things that will show up because of this mix. Unfortunately I have quite cheap filters, can't get good ones where I live. But the CPL is a slim filter. I will shoot from a balcony out over the late afternoon traffic, into the setting sun towards a famous monument here. I will most likely shoot longer than 30mm. I know what you mean about the vignetting, I get it alot also on the 24-105 while using a CPL.

Thanks again!

J

Shooting into the sun with stacked filters not of the best quality might also give you some pretty bad flare and ghosting (I guess you already know that ). Check out this "test" shot I made with the Hoya ND8 to check the optical effects of the filter while shooting into the setting sun (the Hoya ND8 is strictly middle range, neither the best, nor the worst filter out there).

I finally made the decision to go in for the LEE filter system and things are way much better. 

63

Street & City / Re: Question about long exposure and filters

« on: April 30, 2013, 11:20:59 PM »

You can always stack the ND and the CPL. I've tried with the Hoya ND8 and the CPL on the 24-105 in the past but the vignetting at focal lengths under 30mm was terrible. It might help if the CPL is a slim filter.

Other than the issue of vignetting, I'd suggest you shoot RAW. The stacked filters are more than likely to generate a color cast which will be tough to correct if shooting JPG.

64

Lenses / Re: Just bought a 17-40mm F4 L

« on: April 30, 2013, 09:13:30 AM »

What are some things that I should check out to be sure that everything is working as should?
What are good ways the clean the focus and zoom dials(has like a white residue stuff maybe rain/sweat)
Seems to be good to me. Don't notice any scratches or cracks

Asking price was $550, talked him down to $460.
I don't really shoot wide so I wasn't really looking to purchase this lens(really wanted something with IS ie.24-105) but I like to see how good of a deal I can get. Sometimes, I get deals too good to pass up lol.

I used to have the 17-40 but sold it in March. Wanted to "upgrade" to a 16-35 II but am still dithering and wondering whether I made the right decision.

Anyway, back to topic ... after the basic examination of the lens from the outside, the first test I usually do is check a lens for fungus (I live in an extremely humid environment for 6-8 months so used lens deals in my area break down due to fungus).

Shooting test charts as advised is probably the best thing to do but if you don't want to get into it, the only test necessary is to go out and shoot to see if you like it.

65

Canon General / Re: Diglloyd

« on: April 27, 2013, 10:46:33 AM »

Advanced Photography seems the one for me

Hmm ... I've been considering that one myself too. The only fly in the ointment (for me) is that it cant be used offline, not to mention Chambers' very obvious bias towards Nikon.

66

Canon General / Re: The best camera is the one....

« on: April 27, 2013, 10:26:28 AM »

The best camera is the one you understand and can shoot images with.

67

Canon General / Re: Diglloyd

« on: April 27, 2013, 10:00:55 AM »

I subscribed to it last year ... Didn't renew though.

The information is freely available on the net but Lloyd does a good job summarising everything (almost) on his site. What module are you looking for though? I had subscribed to MSI.

68

Technical Support / Re: extention tube calculations? help needed.

« on: April 27, 2013, 08:13:34 AM »

Try this ...

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/macro-extension-tubes-closeup.htm

69

Lenses / Re: EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x Release Date [CR1]

« on: April 27, 2013, 08:11:41 AM »

As of now, a couple of people have said that May 14, 2013 is the day the lens will be officially announced with availability coming in September/October 2013.

Is it possible that someone misread the date as May-14 (and hence jumping to mid 2014), instead of May 14, 2013? 

70

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Fuji X100s

« on: April 25, 2013, 01:20:16 PM »

There are a number of parallel posts covering this excellent piece of hardware (I like it) -

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=13278.0

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=12200.0

Maybe the mods could merge these for conciseness ...

Cheers ... J.R.

71

EOS Bodies / Re: 21mp Sensor in the 7D Mark II? [CR1]

« on: April 25, 2013, 01:11:11 PM »

Carl, I think calling the 10-22 'worthless crap' is a bit much. It's not without it's limitations I freely admit, but it has got me some fantastic images I couldn't have got with any other lens*. Sharpness away from centre viewed close to 100% does suffer, but does that make it worthless crap? No it does not, and frankly, that's offensive.

jrista, from an old Canon lens brochure I have, it appears to me (and I stand to be corrected) that the EF-S 10-22 optical layout is not that dissimilar to the 17-40L (complete with SUD and aspherical elements), apart from smaller elements, presumably for the reduced image circle.

(*-by this, I mean ultra wide on crop)

I did not know it used an aspheric element, interesting. Ultralow Dispersion elements were good a decade ago, but Fluorite elements are far superior today, and considerably lower weight as well. That said, the 17-40 is by no means a 16-35. The 16-35 is definitely the optical superior to the 17-40. Not saying that the 17-40 is bad, but if the 10-22 has a similar design, it explains why it is so good for an EF-S lens. Even so, EF-S lenses are manufactured with the mass-production process, rather than the more hand-crafted process that higher-end L-series lenses get. I also do not believe it uses the higher grade optical glass that L-series lenses use, which would hurt IQ a bit as well.

There is no reason to think that the mount is putting any kind of physical limitations on the lens...materials quality, engineering quality, and whether or not there is a hand-crafted touch and meticulous verification process to ensure optimal performance are what determine the resolving power of a lens.

none of the Canon UWA Zooms have fluorite elements.

10-22: 3 aspherical + 1 UD - $ 819
17-40: 3 aspherical + 1 UD - $ 799
16-35: 3 aspherical + 2 UD - $ 1,629

(Canon MRP, not taking into account the rebates / discounts)

Of course the quality of the elements used is different amongst the lenses but I would say that the 17-40 and 10-22 are very similar except that the elements would be smaller. However, there must be a reason why the 10-22 is more expensive than the 17-40.

Sure, I believe all three lenses could stand to be updated. The 16-35 II is not a particularly great performer in the corners either (at least, not compared to the Nikon 14-24 anyway). I'm just trying to say, if the 10-22 or the 16-35 or any other Canon lens were redesigned and built today, any one of them, hell all of them, could perform much better than their current (and now aging) designs do. Physics is not explicitly limiting the optical performance of the 10-22, nor is the fact that it is a short-back design for a smaller mirror box, nor the fact that it is projecting a smaller image circle. None of those things intrinsically limit the resolving power of the lens...physics is not a "problem" for EF-S. If Canon so chose, they could make the EF-S 10-22 perform extremely well...it would just require more effort to build (especially if they were more hand-crafted like the great whites), and thus would also cost a lot more.

The only thing that is really against the 10-22, or any one of those three lenses, is market segment. Two cost ~$800, the other costs ~$1600. I believe the list price for the Nikon 14-24 f/2.8 is $2200. That extra $600 in cost gets you much better corner performance. It wouldn't matter if it was F mount, EF mount, EF-S mount, M42, or anything else. The mount does not impose a physical limitation on how good the optics in the lens body can be. That is the only point I am trying to make. The Fluorite element comment just has to do with the CA that exists in Canon's UWA lenses in the corners (which is really rather bad, even on the 16-35 II.)

All three lenses do need to be updated. The UWA zoom segment is probably is the Achilles heel for Canon at the moment with no updates in sight. That said, I'm sure the next updated lens will have fluorite elements.

I fully agree though that the IQ a lens delivers cannot be impacted in any manner by the mount it is made for. The IQ is almost entirely a function of the optical elements in a lens.  The EFS 17-55 comes very very close to L lenses and there is no reason it cannot be done with the 10-22. Whether Canon wants to do it ... well its impossible to tell.

72

Lenses / Re: Do you still love 24-105L?

« on: April 25, 2013, 12:52:08 PM »

I've bought  the 24-70 and used it for all but 3 days and I'm hooked. I don't think I'll be shooting the 24-105 again ... Will sell it.

I don't have any doubt this zoom beats the primes hands down in IQ ... The only reason to choose primes is the shallow DOF.

Give it a thought.

Cheers ... J.R

73

EOS Bodies / Re: 21mp Sensor in the 7D Mark II? [CR1]

« on: April 25, 2013, 12:33:39 PM »

Carl, I think calling the 10-22 'worthless crap' is a bit much. It's not without it's limitations I freely admit, but it has got me some fantastic images I couldn't have got with any other lens*. Sharpness away from centre viewed close to 100% does suffer, but does that make it worthless crap? No it does not, and frankly, that's offensive.

jrista, from an old Canon lens brochure I have, it appears to me (and I stand to be corrected) that the EF-S 10-22 optical layout is not that dissimilar to the 17-40L (complete with SUD and aspherical elements), apart from smaller elements, presumably for the reduced image circle.

(*-by this, I mean ultra wide on crop)

I did not know it used an aspheric element, interesting. Ultralow Dispersion elements were good a decade ago, but Fluorite elements are far superior today, and considerably lower weight as well. That said, the 17-40 is by no means a 16-35. The 16-35 is definitely the optical superior to the 17-40. Not saying that the 17-40 is bad, but if the 10-22 has a similar design, it explains why it is so good for an EF-S lens. Even so, EF-S lenses are manufactured with the mass-production process, rather than the more hand-crafted process that higher-end L-series lenses get. I also do not believe it uses the higher grade optical glass that L-series lenses use, which would hurt IQ a bit as well.

There is no reason to think that the mount is putting any kind of physical limitations on the lens...materials quality, engineering quality, and whether or not there is a hand-crafted touch and meticulous verification process to ensure optimal performance are what determine the resolving power of a lens.

none of the Canon UWA Zooms have fluorite elements.

10-22: 3 aspherical + 1 UD - $ 819
17-40: 3 aspherical + 1 UD - $ 799
16-35: 3 aspherical + 2 UD - $ 1,629

(Canon MRP, not taking into account the rebates / discounts)

Of course the quality of the elements used is different amongst the lenses but I would say that the 17-40 and 10-22 are very similar except that the elements would be smaller. However, there must be a reason why the 10-22 is more expensive than the 17-40.

74

1D X Sample Images / Re: Weddings

« on: April 25, 2013, 11:04:14 AM »

Very nice images. However, i feel the shallow DOF is overdone in the first image ... seems to have turned into an abstract. Took me a more than a few seconds to figure out what the image was about.

Cheers ... J.R.

75

Software & Accessories / Re: How long does one wait for the Lee Big Stopper

« on: April 25, 2013, 10:58:30 AM »

No glass ones, but there are filters from other companies made of resin with less colour cast than a Lee Big Stopper.

I knew only of the Hitech ND 10 stop filter that has an even worse color cast. Which other companies make the 4x4 10 stop filters?