January 26, 2015, 05:56:26 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 - brianleighty

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 19
Lenses / Re: Dust in refurbished lens from Canon
« on: November 02, 2013, 08:44:39 PM »
Here's another extreme example of lens damage and dust inside the lens, and how it affects image quality ;)


Good of lensrentals to answer.  I guess they didn't point you to Roger's blog?


Thanks. I read those before but it's been a while and for some reason I thought those were focused on a different aspect of things. The lens is sharp (tested against the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II and while a little bit behind held up well at f/4. The lens I'm returning is actually a TINY bit sharper than the other but I bought that one with the 15% off coupon so the $30 difference isn't worth it. Plus the lens I'm keeping is from this year so it also has the new Canon lens cap with the pinch in the center which I've to say I'm really liking much better. Thanks for everyone's help.

Lenses / Re: Dust in refurbished lens from Canon
« on: November 02, 2013, 09:06:06 AM »
It is up to you. But since you posted, I guess you want to return it.
So return it
Not necessarily. I just wanted some reassurance this is normal and I shouldn't worry about it. Thanks for the input everyone. I'm shooting a wedding this weekend. If I don't notice anything in the pictures from that I won't worry about it.

Lenses / Dust in refurbished lens from Canon
« on: November 01, 2013, 11:55:54 PM »
Alright, so I ordered the Canon 70-200 f/4 L non-IS. Actually two as I did not realize I couldn't cancel an order and I had a 20% coupon that I wanted to use. Anyways, so I get both lenses and inspected them. The outside is fine other than some dust I was able to blow off with my blower. Looking through both of them though they both have a pretty good amount of dust in them. I'm trying to decide whether it's worth paying to ship it Canon to have them take it apart and clean it or not. I was hoping one would be clean at least and I could keep that copy but they both have it. I've taken some shots and I'm not seeing anything. Perhaps I'll have to shoot at f/22 at MFD and see if I can see it. I asked lens rentals their thoughts and this is what I got back in reply:

Its hard to say what you might be seeing without a visual but it sounds like either dust or cleaning residue. Most used or refurbished lenses will have a light to moderate amount of internal dust. If they aren't very noticeable, chances are they will never affect your images. There is also a good chance that Canon has opened up the lenses to be repaired at some point and left residue on the elements from cleaning them. This is not ideal, but again will probably never affect image quality. If you are uncomfortable with what you are seeing I would bring it to Canon's attention with some photos of the spots on hand.

I wanted to get everyone's comments on what they thought I should do. Thanks.

Pricewatch Deals / Re: Sigma 24-105 f/4 DG OS Gets its Price
« on: November 01, 2013, 11:48:56 PM »
I second that. The Sigma 85mm 1.4 is no match for the 85L, especially not for the bokeh (yes, there is more than sharpness, even if I think the Canon is sharper @f1.4).


@Radiating:   I really like what Sigma is doing at the moment, but keep the feet at the ground!

I got the 85 1.2 in. Man that things heavy! It's been a while since I shot with the Sigma but what I'm seeing just in test shots tells me this lens is better than the Sigma. How much better? I don't know but I'd definitely say better. I'll have a better idea after this weekend but I can see why people snob their nose at the sigma. But I can also say the Sigma isn't a bad lens. The Canon just has "that look" and I can see why if you've got the money it might be worth it over the Sigma depending on how you're using it and needs.

Pricewatch Deals / Re: Sigma 24-105 f/4 DG OS Gets its Price
« on: October 29, 2013, 10:35:13 PM »

You're living in the ancient past. Sigma's primary motivation now is image quality not price.

Sigma has been releasing lenses that blow their competitors out of the water in quality at around or slightly below their competitors prices:

If you have any doubts take a look at these real world samples:

Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 vs Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 @ f/2.8





There's no comparison, the Sigma is in an entirely different league of image quality. Their 35mm f/1.4 is likewise better:


And their 85mm f/1.4 is both sharper than Canon's 85mm f/1.2 II, and has much less purple fringing (the f/1.2 II has so much you can't even correct it automatically, which is why I use the Sigma)


Sigma makes a better lens that Canon does. Sometimes much better, this is the new Sigma.

I would be very surprised if the 24-105mm OS wasn't marginally better and I'd be very happy if it blew the Canon out of the water like they did with the f/1.8 zoom.

You sure about the 85mm 1.2? I've rented the 85 1.4 and it's a good lens but from what most say the 85 1.2 is still better. The main reason why it's a good deal is the faster AF and being half the price. I'm renting the 85 1.2 for a wedding this weekend so we'll see what I think of it then. The 85 1.4 is a little older than the 35 and 18-35 though so perhaps an indicator of the direction they were heading in. It'd be nice for them to release an "Art" version of it with some minor updates.

Lenses / Re: Sigma 35 1.4 vs Sigma 18-35 1.8
« on: August 29, 2013, 09:37:10 PM »
That is a great deal on the 35.

I took the rented 18-35 on a trip to Chicago and shot roughly 500 pictures, 300 of which were keepers.  I haven't processed any of them yet, as I'm waiting for Lightroom to release a lens correction profile.

My copy seemed to hunt a little, especially in low light.  Keep in mind I shoot on a 60d, so not the greatest autofocus to begin with.  I did like the range a lot; I have a 17-40L so this was pretty close in terms of focal lengths. 

I've been thinking a lot about switching to full frame, and thought maybe this lens would convince me to stay with crop.  No conclusion so far.  I wanted to love this lens, and I still could, but I won't know for sure until I get a chance to process all my shots.

You know Bryan mentioned that it CAN be mounted on full frame, just has a ton of vignetting at the wide end. Curious how well it would do but it's still an interesting lens if the outer quality isn't too bad. Heck the 35 2.0 canon is aweful on the outside on full frame and if it was for the focusing on it it wouldn't be too bad :)

Lenses / Re: Wedding where you can't move
« on: August 27, 2013, 11:50:31 AM »
Two things: 1. Discuss location limitations with the bride and make sure you have this in your contract (the Clients confirm they are aware of location limitations for photography). Clients need to have reasonable expectations. The location is their choice and they need to discuss this stuff with coordinators, priests, etc. They can expect certain shots from the back but they should not be expecting say low right angle shots from the first row, or side shots, etc. These are the limitations of the location which they picked, so they need to have a good understanding of this stuff before the wedding day.
2. Scout the location and have a chat with the priest. Speculating regarding lenses before that is really pointless.

Also, when i work with limited movement situations, I do bring primes but having zooms is a must.

Good luck!

Good points. Thanks. I already have something in my contract about not being able to get all the pictures the client may want but I could probably expand this to include explaining being limited by location or staff.

Lenses / Re: Wedding where you can't move
« on: August 27, 2013, 10:34:19 AM »
Sounds tough...  what i don't understand is why you can't move?
Catholic church. I'm assuming they want the bride and groom to be the focus. They also have limitations on flash which will be fun as I'm used to working with on camera flash. I can still do flash but it has to be from the back of the sanctuary.

Lenses / Re: Wedding where you can't move
« on: August 27, 2013, 10:27:47 AM »
Can you hide a camera or two and use a remote trigger?

Any chance of just doing an re-enactment?  Bride should know what you're working within, so as long as expectations are set, you should be fine.
Yeah, I'm going to meet with the coordinator to see if I can have a remote camera somewhere. Not a bad idea with the re-enactment but we only have one hour before hand (don't want to see each other) and 30 minutes after during which we'll running to try and get the formals done. Sigh people seem to underestimate how formals take. Yes, they are aware of it but I'll reiterate after I found out what I'm actually working with.

Lenses / Re: Wedding where you can't move
« on: August 27, 2013, 12:16:21 AM »
Also, I haven't done a site scout yet but if I am super far back, do I rent something longer than the 70-200 I normally rent or just have wider shots instead? Appreciate the advice.
I would use a wide focal length range for some variety, perhaps 24mm to 200mm, or even 16mm to 200mm.  As for needing anything longer than a 70-200 -- that depends entirely on the location.
Thanks for the input. I understand it depends on location. Would you say if you can get full body head to feet that that's tight enough or is more needed?

Lenses / Re: Wedding where you can't move
« on: August 27, 2013, 12:01:53 AM »
If you can employ one, a 300 f/4 is no more to look at than your 70-200.  A 300 /2.8 might be a bit of a distraction.

Since you brought up the 300, another option I've been toying with is the 100-400. Obviously not quite as good optically but it does have a broad range. For around $19 more than renting the 70-200 I could rent the 100-400 and 135mm f/2 or perhaps even better the 85mm 1.2 to bring back some of the 70-100 range lost by not having the 70-200. Been wanting to try that one out as well but always stick with the 70-200 for it's versatility.

Lenses / Re: Wedding where you can't move
« on: August 26, 2013, 11:49:10 PM »
Yeah, was looking at the 300. I'm assuming you're talking about the 300 f/4 IS correct? My main question was do I go with the 70-200 with an extender or on a crop body for the zoom flexibility or go with the 300 f/4 for the better image quality and faster AF( if I'm using an extender).
If you can employ one, a 300 f/4 is no more to look at than your 70-200.  A 300 /2.8 might be a bit of a distraction.


Lenses / Wedding where you can't move
« on: August 26, 2013, 10:00:49 PM »
So I have my first wedding coming up in a few months where I can't move position. There'll be both me and my wife so at least there'll be some variety but I'm definitely used to moving around for variety. My question for those that have dealt with this is should I try to get as much of a focal range as possible to vary things or just focus more on just catching the best moments? Also, I haven't done a site scout yet but if I am super far back, do I rent something longer than the 70-200 I normally rent or just have wider shots instead? Appreciate the advice.

Lenses / Re: Sigma 35 1.4 vs Sigma 18-35 1.8
« on: August 26, 2013, 09:55:49 PM »
I rented the 35 1.4 a few months back, and it was fantastic.  My rental of the 18-35mm 1.8 comes in today, looking forward to comparing the two.
Bradford any input on how it went. Just curious. I ended up buying the 35 1.4. Haven't gotten to use it too much but got a lot of work coming up in the few months. Got a great deal so I can't complain ($780)

Lenses / Re: Sigma 35 1.4 vs Sigma 18-35 1.8
« on: August 12, 2013, 10:40:22 PM »
I got my 35 f1.4 a few months back and it rarely comes off my camera. I don't have the Sigma 18-35; I do use my Canon 16-35 a fair bit, though mostly only at 16-20. The Sigma 35 is not small, but not too big either. It delivers excellent images and has quickly become my favorite lens.
Thanks for the input. I think the 35 1.4 is more practical for me. I guess I was just looking for an excuse to rent the 18-35 to try it out but the two weddings I've shot with a 35mm prime I've gotten a lot of use out of it. The zoom is nice but it doesn't cover a large range and I can use the 70-200 for that by stepping back some. My minds made up. The 35 1.4 is my next lens. I'd get the 70-200 2.8 is ii but that's currently out of my price range :). I'll just have to keep renting that one.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 19