Messages

31

Lenses / Re: 40 2.8 with extension tubes

« on: November 13, 2012, 06:53:47 AM »

Bosman, not sure which 70-200 you should with, but the 70-200 works pretty darn well for macro shots as well. You're like me in that you like it wider, but sometimes I like tighter as well and for that scenario, the 70-200 works well. One nice thing with it being a zoom is you can actually use the zoom ring more like a focus ring to get it about where you want it and do fine adjustments with the focus ring. It's a little weird but it works pretty well.

32

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Pricing

« on: November 12, 2012, 12:59:24 PM »

I agree that the price is fantastic, but how many folks here are confident enough in terms of Sigma's AF speed and accuracy to purchase this pre-order?  I ask this in all seriousness, I'm curious to see especially the responses of folks who own the newer Sigma lenses.  I sold all of mine 3 years ago after not enjoying hit/miss rate very much.

Won't be pre-ordering, but will definitely be renting it for a wedding sometime next year for sure. I rented the 85 1.4 and was pretty impressed by it. It's hard to tell how much of the keeper rate was due to my own technique and what was the lenses fault but overall I thought it did pretty good as long there wasn't a huge change in the subjects position.

33

Lenses / Re: 40 2.8 with extension tubes

« on: November 12, 2012, 12:56:37 PM »

Sorry Bosman, I haven't been on here the past couple weeks so I just saw your post. Thankfully Neuro stepped in. Yeah I'm still a little up in the air about this lens for general photography. No doubt about it, it's a nice lens but perhaps it's just not my style for most shots. But for macro, now that's a totally different story.
It's not a macro replacement for sure, but for my level right now it's a great alternative. I'll probably get the 100 IS L eventually but I'm thinking one of the 70-200 models is more important at this stage. So until then, this will be my go to for macro (in combination with the 70-200 IS II with extension tubes as well.

34

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L IS [CR1]

« on: October 29, 2012, 01:55:13 PM »

MPs are not really connected, but pixel size is, and in general, more MP means smaller pixels.  A given amount of shake means a specific amount of movement in terms of arc-seconds.  With smaller pixels, a given amount of movement covers more pixels on the sensor, which translates to more blur.  So, smaller pixels means you need an even faster shutter speed to compensate for camera shake.  1/FL is a film rule.  Even 1/1.6xFL is not enough on a high MP, small pixel sensor.

Thanks for that explanation neuro. I'd always noticed on my crop bodies the 1/1.6 photos were still a little blurry. I just always assumed that maybe I have more shaky hands than other photographers. But your explanation makes me feel better about me being more normal

35

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: 6D Need To Change Something..

« on: October 28, 2012, 04:54:23 PM »

The 6D needed to have a multi-selector. Instead it went with the awkward ergos of the 6D. Ehhh.....

This is actually a signficiant thing turning me off of the 6D.  The multi-selector from the 60D is just awful.

Agreed, although honestly since it's replacing the 5D mark II, and it has the same thing of the center focus point being the primary one you'll use, it's lessened somewhat. Still very annoying. But hey at least they didn't remove AFMA. So I guess they learned from their mistake on the AFMA but it's going to take a little longer for the multiselector pitfall to be realized

36

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Pricing

« on: October 28, 2012, 04:32:24 PM »

Oh man.... why do the 35mm with AF have to be so expensive I dont like the Sigma 30mm since i also use FF analog sometimes. Then the only cheap alternative is Samyang but its MF and im worried im too dumb for that 

Can somebody explain to me why the 35mm price is so high? Is it really THAT complicated to build a 35mm lens? Does adding AF really cost 300$ more (compared wiv samyang) ?

Well when you combine the 1.4 aperture with the fact that it's a moderately wide lens on full frame, then it makes sense. I believe there are more things you have to correct for the wider you go from 50mm than you do going tighter than 50mm. I think I'd also argue that most of the 50mm designs are simpler without any special elements until you get up to the highest level ones. If you try to make a cheap lens by not using aspherical and other glass to correct then nobody's going to buy it as most people prefer zooms and one of the main benefits of a prime is at least as good of quality (most of the time better) with a larger aperture. If the prime lacks in image quality, is it really better than the zoom then which is a lot more convenient? I'm pretty excited about the 35mm. I've used the 85 and it's a great lens in my opinion. If this hits in the $600-$900 region and can beat the quality of the Canon 35 1.4 then I'll definitely consider buying it.

EDIT:
just noticed the Sigma 50 1.4 has an aspherical element.  That helps explain it's better quality than the two lower Canon's. Then again, it's close to a $500 lens and it only has 8 elements vs the 85's 11 and the Canon 35's 11 (I'd assume the Sigma will have similar). A price increase of $200-$400 for the increased complexity isn't unreasonable. Especially considering Canon's 35 1.4 II will probably cost somewhere close to the $2000 range.

37

Software & Accessories / What software do you use for printing DVD covers?

« on: October 27, 2012, 10:47:36 PM »

So I have a Canon IP4920 printer. It came with a program called Easy Print or something like that for printing inkjet printable DVD-Rs. The problem I continually run into is the colors never match what's on the screen. The one today was so far off that I ended up making it black and white because it was so bad. I looked in to see if the program allowed me to set any sort of printer profiles and it doesn't. I tried using Photoshop again today but as always I had tons of issues with it and ended up getting ink all over the DVD tray. What does everybody use for their DVD covers. We used to write out in sharpie and so obviously what we have now is a step up but it's very frustrating and time consuming the current way we're doing it. Thanks.

38

Lenses / Re: Guesses on lenses for Photoplus

« on: October 25, 2012, 02:59:36 PM »

Ouch! $1900 for a new 135? That would be more than double the current. Even by Canon's latest price standards I think that'd be a bit out of whack.

39

Lenses / Re: 100mm f/2.8L IS vs 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II for Macro

« on: October 19, 2012, 08:59:51 PM »

For the first test, I was using it handheld but for the last measurements I took, I mounted the 70-200 using the tripod ring and it was much easier (lens on tripod, not camera).  Getting an estimate on my focusing distance really helped out and I will FOR SURE be using the tripod for macro shots when using the 70-200.  I'll try testing out the 40/2.8 as well.  That sounds like fun!

Aw yeah if you were doing it handheld then that totally makes sense you were having issues Yeah I got my 40 2.8 on the way. I rented it twice and there was a 20% ebay bucks for beach camera so I got it. It'll end up being like $159.20 after you account for ebay bucks. Definitely will be a nice lens to have. Now I just have to decide whether to keep my 50 1.8 and 35 2.0.

Anyways enough off trackness. One other hint. With the 70-200, you can actually use the zoom ring to focus. With extension tubes the focus range is so limited it's much easier to at least get your course focus this way. Then you can do fine adjustment with the focus ring.

40

Lenses / Re: 100mm f/2.8L IS vs 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II for Macro

« on: October 19, 2012, 02:01:21 PM »

Got my Kenko Extension tubes today.  After some mild testing, I like how they work (and feel/weigh) on the 24-105 more so than the 70-200.  It's just too damn heavy!  I'll try it with a tripod too but DAMN!....  I think for now, this combo (24-105+Kenko tubes) will tide me over.  When I do get the 100mm Macro L, I'll want to buy one of the macro flashes with it as well.  Any recommendations?

@AudioGlenn, I haven't had a chance to put it up yet but I did comparisons between all the lenses I own and a few I'd rented for a wedding a few weeks back. Of them, the 24-105 was the weakest performer. The 70-200 on the other hand was pretty nice. Are you mounting the 70-200 directly to your tripod or are you mounting your camera to the tripod? Macro is definitely one case where using the included tripod mount for the 70-200 is very helpful. Also, of the lenses I tested the 40 2.8 was actually the top performer in my opinion (with the 70-200 50 1.8 and sigma 85 1.4 not far behind)

41

Lenses / Re: A final goodbye to my 50mm f1.4 lens

« on: October 09, 2012, 10:53:03 PM »

The only reason I'm even thinking about holding onto the 50 1.8 is it's a lot easier focusing for video than the 35 2.0.

Do you have the 50mm f/1.8 MK I?  The MK II is the poorest lens to manually focus I've owned, and by a large margin.  The MK I is fine. 
 
The 35mm f2 also has a actual focus ring.

Yes I have the mark II. Yes as crazy as it sounds, I find the 50 MK II to be much easier to focus smoothly with video. The 35 just doesn't feel right and takes a large amount of effort to switch. The 1.8's poor performance wide open isn't as much an issue either for video as the resolution is so much lower. Now for pics, I'll hands down take the 35 2.0 but for video it's not half bad.

42

Lenses / Re: A final goodbye to my 50mm f1.4 lens

« on: October 09, 2012, 08:23:16 PM »

Yep it took to about 7.1 for me to get sharp but that only lasted until about 11 or a bit less. Pretty lame range. Funny how I have had unsharp 'sharp ' Canon(50 1.8, 50 1.4, 35 f/2) lenses but all the Sigma's I have had were awesome. Awesome on a crop that is.

I can agree on the 50's but the 35 2.0 has been pretty good for me on crop. You're not talking about corner sharpness right? That lens will never be sharp in the corners but the center is pretty darn sharp. I'm still contemplating whether to sell that or the 50 1.8 and get the 40 2.8. The only reason I'm even thinking about holding onto the 50 1.8 is it's a lot easier focusing for video than the 35 2.0.

43

Lenses / Re: 100mm f/2.8L IS vs 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II for Macro

« on: October 08, 2012, 11:35:53 AM »

Once you're talking about extension tubes so how much closer does 25mm extension take focusing?

That depends on your zoom setting. At 70mm, the general rule would be you're increasing your maximum magnification by 25/70 or about .35. I'm not sure what the maximum magnification is natively at 70mm since the .21x is at 200mm but I would guess you're somewhere between .4x and .5x combined with that. The shots I've done, I think I've put all three Kenko Tubes on.

44

Lenses / Re: Using the 24-70 II for documentary wedding photography - my review

« on: October 05, 2012, 12:49:56 PM »

"What Id really like though is a 24-85mm F1.4 that weighs less and has image stabilisation — I wont hold my breath though."

Couldn't agree more   

Well theoretically, I think that might be possible, but you forgot one thing in there that makes it impossible. Image quality. The greater the aperture the more you need extra elements to deal with all the issues caused by it. Plus bigger aperture requires bigger glass. Thus bigger elements * More elements = Greater weight. In this case (24-85 1.4) I don't even know if it's possible but if it was it would so heavy you couldn't carry it. Now if you said, forget image quality we'll just have say 4-6 big glass elements to meet the aperture objective and not worry about correcting for anything. But hey it's a 24-85 1.4. Who else has one of those? Yet nobody would buy it. Oh and even though it might be advertised as 1.4 aperture it's T-stop would probably be more like t3.8 or something since in order to save on cost they wouldn't coat the elements to prevent light loss in each element. Wanna buy one? I always see signs at a auto repair shops that say you can only have two cheap, fast, high quality. In photography I think you could say light, cheap, and big aperture. I'm not sure if cheap and big aperture so well but you get the point. Bigger aperture means more money. There's no getting around that.

45

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Setting Sharpness At 0 To Better Detect Out of Focus Areas

« on: October 02, 2012, 07:42:25 PM »

I think I read this somewhere one time that some people set their cameras to 0 for sharpness to make it easier to tell if the shot is actually in focus or not on the LCD. Similar to how you get a focussing screen without the tiny micro lenses which make it look sharper than it really is. Is there any weight to this at all? Of course in post you can set it to whatever you actually want.