February 01, 2015, 09:41:48 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 - NWPhil

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 14
1
Lenses / Re: EF 11-24 f/4L USM Specifications
« on: January 31, 2015, 03:00:12 AM »
As for CPL's, here is my 145mm CPL on the 17TS-E, which I often shift stitch to an 11mm fov.

The CPL, as NWPhil says, can be used very effectively for water and shinny services, I use mine for controlling glare and reflections on swimming pools, granite worktops and bathrooms.

I strongly suspect Fotodiox will have an 11-24 version of the Wonderpana out pretty quickly.

Darn, and I believed my 95mm filter was big....

Seems that the new 11-24 has an integrated hood, similar to other newer UWA lenses.
That alone is going to create issues adapting a filer system to it.
For sure I will wait to hear and see test results on this new lens - hopefully, it will at least be equal to Nikon's 14-24 f2.8.
I would not be surprised with the rumored price if the lens was a f2.8 - @ f/4 seems bit too much, but again, maybe it's really even better than Nikon's offering, and sharp right from f/4

The overall size and exterior looks seem fine for me, and if indeed supports a internal focusing design, then even better.
Maybe f/4 is the new f2.8, now that Canon is coming with higher MP cameras and what seems to be a more robust iso - time will tell.
Meanwhile, is very entertaining reading about all this in the main forums   ;D

2
Lenses / Re: EF 11-24 f/4L USM Specifications
« on: January 31, 2015, 12:00:20 AM »
ok, just a quicky with a  P&S - It seems to me that the 11-24 is a little smaller than the 16-35 f/4
Not a precise/scientific comparison, but I think it might close enough

3
Lenses / Re: EF 11-24 f/4L USM Specifications
« on: January 30, 2015, 04:48:57 PM »
wider than 16mm due to the way CPL's work.

CPLs don't work with skies only... nor this lens.

+1
if you need darker skies a gradient ND filter might do the trick - sort of same thing with CPL's, as they can'r be used ALLL the time for everything with all focal lengths.
Very usefull to remove glare in water, shinny surfaces, slow down shutter in some situations, and many other that don't have any or some blue sky

sometimes works fine just rotating a little bit...

Actually that side effect can even show at 35mm but more likely below 24mm

4
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Review: Zeiss 15mm f/2.8 Distagon
« on: January 27, 2015, 03:22:08 PM »
LOL!!! (Once again....What kind of hood do you have on that $3000 lens?). Funny post!

The attached is the "Dumb assed end"

I must admit I didn't research enough before I purchased, the Images from this Lens are 2nd to none among my ultra WA lenses, of which I own several, Canon 14f/2.8L II, Canon 8-15f/4, canon 17TSE, 14-24f/2.8 Nikon, Canon 15f/2.8.

With the exception of the 17TSE, all my WA lenses are purchased first for Underwater WA, secondary function, Landscape, but I sort of suck at Landscape.

I just couldn't imagine anyone handicapping a Lens by having a fixed Lens Hood like the Zeiss 15, in my view, "Dumb Assed".

And, after trying several Circular Polariser Filters it wasn't until I found the Heliopan Slim that I found a Polariser that didn't cause Vignetting, but that Heliopan cost $500 bucks.

So, amazingly sharp, beautiful contrast, smoothest Manual Focussing system I've experienced, but a dumb assed Lens Hood system.

Yes, as has been shown by others you can remove it, but after laying out 3k for a Lens anyone that brings a spanner or a screwdriver within 3 metres of this Lens while on my Camera, is a dead man, or women.

Marumi filters - there is an old test on the web placing a Marumi filter on the top 3 or 5
Not all are good, but neither are the B+H

Indeed - there is more than small distortion, less flare, more contrast and richer rendition, smoother bokeh, and flawless construction .... the major flaw is indeed the price,
Cought it up or take some cough medicine :)
Is not for everyone, regarding needs or wallet. Surely is for anyone taking no compromises and wanting the best available.
People complain so much about super UWA and WA prices, but I see way far less complaints with fast super-teles pricing  (other than not being able to afford them, as indeed they are at least twice the zeiss 15 price).
Extreme lenses are difficult to build and take a lot of R&D money

(Yes, I have a super-sharp Samyang, TS-e 17 and even tried the 14mm II and Nikon 12-24)

5
Lenses / Re: I'm conflicted please help
« on: January 26, 2015, 06:23:51 PM »
Personally, I'd start over with the 16-35 f4, a nifty fifty, the 100-400 ii, and a 600 ii.
If you're gonna keep what you've got, get the 500.
Just my $0.02

+1 on a UWA/WA lens - there is a lot of floor space out there :)

A zoom would be a great choice, and often you will get pretty close to some animals, but if birds are your main goal, then go indeed go with a 500mm at least.
Mind also, that if you will be taking local flights, there are  quite a lot of weight restrictions/caps.
Hopefully, you are in with a private guide/tour, as I strongly advise to carry two bodies, and avoid changing lenses while out and about riding - you will be repositioning yourself quite often.
I would slap the bigger telephoto on the 7D and keep the WA on the full frame - better yet, if you have a good quality P&S with WA, carry bit too. That way you can then have the keep two long focals all the time, snap a couple shots at stops with the P&S, and change to the UWA zoom, when shooting the birds is done for the day or area. Often you will have a chance to stop in some viewpoints, where the WA can be usefull, and then there are some amazing bugs crawling around. Minimize lens changing, but be over zealous doing it; plan to carry a cleaning kits for lens and sensor(if you are confortable doing it),to use it back at your hotel/lodge


edit:
 nightscapes: by all means, bring a rokinon 14mm if you can. The night skies are just amazing

6
Reviews / Re: Impressions from 7DMkII and Comparison to 7D
« on: January 26, 2015, 03:51:58 PM »
I added the 7DkII recently and found the increase in performance amazing. More in my Blog entry:

http://selfpromotionphoto.zenfolio.com/blog/2014/11/7d-mark-ii-the-beast---reloaded

What do You think?
Soory for the not working link...
<link removed by mod>
Is there an actual reason, other than shameless self promotion, that you are going round posting all these direct links to your blog?

You are making no further comment in the threads, you are inking to badly written misleading posts that you could just as easily leave here directly.

+100

I think it's about time the moderators straight the whole thing out - Any blog plagued with commercial/click for profit links should not be allowed, or better yet, create a paying sub-forum for them, and let forum users decide and be upfront aware that they are contributing for someone's site traffic ratings - that simple

7
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Opinions on Sigma 85/1.4?
« on: January 26, 2015, 11:37:14 AM »
Never used the sigma, but what will be your main subjects or type of shooting you aiming for?

There are a few alternatives to the Sigma if you can live with manual focus (with AF confirm thru adapter in some cases)

The Nikon AF85mm f1.4D is a good alternative, with some compromises....
Then you have the Canon TS-e-90mm, Rokinon 85mm ...and ofcourse the Otus 85mm

For truelly unique looks:
Helios 40-2
http://forum.mflenses.com/complete-list-of-helios-lenses-getting-closer-t26100.html
Meyer-Optik Gorlitz Trioplan 100mm f2.8 (15 blades)
https://camerajunky.wordpress.com/2012/09/09/meyer-optik-gorlitz-trioplan-100mm-f2-8/

8
Lenses / Re: Inconsistent reviewing of lenses
« on: January 21, 2015, 03:12:19 PM »
Ok, I do think we need a policy that requires reviewers to be certified and licensed in the state or province where they reside.  Furthermore, such a license should not be issued to anybody who does not have at least an MA and an inspected, state-of-the-art lab.

Facetiousness aside, we get what we pay for in reviews.

And worse, paid influencers are all over the place, even on this website, alas.

To quote Mr. Monk, "It's a jungle out there."

Thankfully, AlanF and others are sharp enough and concerned enough to spot and report poorly executed tests and reviews.

Haven't you heard? if it is on the web, it's true....  :P  ;D

It's good to hear about other people experiences and feedback, but as mt Spokane is saying not everyone is qualifyed to perform reliable tests - there are only a few

9
Reviews / Re: Review of the Zeiss Makro-Planar T* 2/50 ZE
« on: January 20, 2015, 12:14:38 PM »
WOW - I have to say it Dustin, you really disappointed me with this review.

Do you realize the that the throw from infinity to 1 foot is just a smidge over 3/4inches?
Aren't you aware that a common trait, welcomed and desired in macro lenses (even half size as this one) in indeed the heavier focus dampening and long throw below 1 foot range, as precision focusing really matters?
Also, it's very common to see the a very narrow DOF in macro lenses, as it's common to have an above average sharpness.
Further more, almost no macro shooting occurs with a lens wide open- nor even if doing photo stacking.

I am surprised and shocked after reading other reviews from you, seeing you bluntly fail and commit such amateur, uninformed mistakes thru your comments.

Can't compare this lens to a canon 1.8 nor even the Otus 55 - It's a whole different league, and built for a special purpose...but can be used everyday.

You are certainly entitled to be disappointed with my review (BTW, Zeiss certainly isn't: https://www.facebook.com/carlzeisslenses/posts/937419462934961; https://twitter.com/CarlZeissLenses/status/557213223095894016), but I'm not sure where some of your points of view are coming from.

If you have used the lens, then you should recognize that the focus throw is very long.  As I point out, that's great for accuracy, not so great for speed.

The reason for the heavier damping that I give is directly from the president of Zeiss of the Americas.  I don't personally like the weight compared to all other Zeiss lenses I have used.

Of course the DOF is very narrow at macro distances...that's the whole reason I supply that information.  "That aperture advantage over the typical f/2.8 of most macro lenses is great for use in a variety of applications, but macro is really not one of them. DOF is only .08″/1.98mm at minimum focus distance and maximum aperture. That is TINY! Even at f/5.6 the DOF is only slightly over half a centimeter at the minimum focus distance." - The point here is that you AREN'T going to be using the lens at f/2 for macro purposes.

I don't think your particular criticisms here are valid.

I own and use the lens quite often - one of my favorites, and I don't like the 50mm focal range, but this lens it's the only 50mm (not 55) I like to use.

With that said, check again the throw from 1 foot to infinity or even from a more usefull 3 feet. And then compared it what other 50mm with AF are doing, as how much turn they need to accomplish the same.

The dampening on that initial focal range is not bad IMO - indeed becomes a chore after that.
No, I won't use f/2 for macro, but portraits or details at a bit over 5 feet will work very well - in the macro environment, the f/2 allows you to start with a brigher viewfinder view - a bigger difference comparing to the ef 180mm macro from canon, but not so much with the usual 2.8 aperture from other dedicated lenses

In all, looking at a halfsize macro from a point of view used to judge a generic walk-around lens it's faulty to say the least

My criticism applies to your generic review pointers on a non-generic purpose  lens - I can see you coming around this "street" calling a canon EF 500mm as not great for walking around town and shoot candids

10
Reviews / Re: Review of the Zeiss Makro-Planar T* 2/50 ZE
« on: January 19, 2015, 10:07:28 PM »
WOW - I have to say it Dustin, you really disappointed me with this review.

Do you realize the that the throw from infinity to 1 foot is just a smidge over 3/4inches?
Aren't you aware that a common trait, welcomed and desired in macro lenses (even half size as this one) in indeed the heavier focus dampening and long throw below 1 foot range, as precision focusing really matters?
Also, it's very common to see the a very narrow DOF in macro lenses, as it's common to have an above average sharpness.
Further more, almost no macro shooting occurs with a lens wide open- nor even if doing photo stacking.

I am surprised and shocked after reading other reviews from you, seeing you bluntly fail and commit such amateur, uninformed mistakes thru your comments.

Can't compare this lens to a canon 1.8 nor even the Otus 55 - It's a whole different league, and built for a special purpose...but can be used everyday.

11
Lenses / Re: New Rebel & EF 11-24 f/4L USM Coming Shortly
« on: January 16, 2015, 01:57:41 AM »
At last, a Canon lens that goes straight on to my 'need to get' list ;-)

Price looks just fine ...YMMV ;-)
+1
taking quite some time to do it, but it's ok if they do it right
you pay less with bigmas and tammys, but you more likely to get less with resale( not a rule)

12
Lenses / Re: Rumored 11-24mm f/4 true or feint?
« on: January 12, 2015, 11:15:57 AM »
Been long waiting for "whatever"-24mm from canon like many others.
I sold the 17-40, never got to love the 16-35mk2 but indeed I have now the 16-35mm f/4 as a permanent fixture on my camera.
I have also the sigma 12-24mk2, and yes, not sharpest tool in the shed, and one has to be carefull with flare.-but it does the job that a 16 or even a 14mm prime can't do.

I would like to see a 11 or 12mm prime (retilinear) if indeed canon can't release a high quality UWA 11-24.
Better yet if indeed the lens design would allow a flat front element or would have some lens shade design allowing for an adapter.

How difficult would be to make an UWA with a drop-in filter like the big whites have?

13
Lenses / Re: Rokinon 14mm vs 24mm for night photography
« on: January 08, 2015, 04:23:25 PM »
Something to remember when you hear people talking about star trails forming after so many seconds at a focal length...you really may not want to trust them, since they likely don't know what they're talking about.  It really depends on where in the sky you are shooting.  You'll get more star trails shooting perpendicular to Polaris at 17mm than you will shooting directly towards or away from Polaris at 24mm.  Don't put a figure in your head, because you'll be disappointed when it turns out it's not necessarily true.  Even at 14mm, which is really wide, you can start to see the stars beginning to trail if you're shooting east or west at 30 seconds.

That being said, I believe the 14mm is amazing for night photography.  It's a sharp lens on it's own.  It's relatively fast.  I like the 14mm over 24mm focal length for night photography because I can include more stars in the scene while still having an interesting foreground.  You can, of course, do night photography at 24mm, and I've done it, but I personally just like to be able to include more of the sky than 24mm allows.  It really depends on how you shoot.  Besides night photography, the 14mm is stellar (roflmao, get it?) during the day too.  It's true that it's not easy to put a filter system on it, but I've found little use to do so.  There have been a few cases where I would have liked to use an ND filter, but in the end, I just whipped out my 16-35mm.  I've also, with some success, although a lot more post processing, placed my already existant 77mm ND filter in front of the 14mm in several different spots to cover the image, and gotten a series of images I can blend together which is in essence one shot from the 14mm.  This doesn't work with every scene, obviously, but it is one of those last-resort options that you should be aware of.

Hey SP,
please re-read the post again - "a bit more than simple math" .
Besides I am not passing gas - just some broad information; it's up to the OP to dig/search a bit more, and to trust in learned lessons rather than assumed teachers/KIA.
Not all nightscenes can/should/must be pointed at polaris, and many can be shot with FLs way above 24... in many cases only if a tracking gizmo is used
The new 16-40 does a somewhat better job with coma, but still not much better or good enough IMO

DROB: there are filter mounting kits for the Rokinon 14mm:
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1268432
https://www.fotodioxpro.com/catalogsearch/result/index/?essential_lens=246&q=rokinon+14mm
Not sure if the Lee FK can be attched on the Rokinon 14mm - maybe you should email them directly and ask, as you have the system already

14
Lenses / Re: Rokinon 14mm vs 24mm for night photography
« on: January 08, 2015, 10:23:55 AM »
a bit more than simple math, but just to give you an idea:
14mm @ 500 = 35 seconds of exposure before star trails showing up (uou could use 600 but might not work)
24mm @ 500 = 20 seconds

http://www.eveningphotography.com/night-photography-500-rule/
http://www.davidkingham.com/blog/2012/11/how-to-avoid-star-trails

or
http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/barn.door.tracking.mount/
http://www.ioptron.com/index.cfm?select=category&cid=91af533f-b0e2-4dd6-92eb-681025cbb317
http://blog.photoshelter.com/2012/05/six-standout-night-photography-tips-to-help-you-master-the-craft/
http://intothenightphoto.blogspot.com/2013/02/overcoming-coma-aberration-part-2.html
http://www.borrowlenses.com/blog/2013/05/the-best-lenses-for-night-photography-a-case-for-rokinon-primes/

Obviously, you will have to account more light at 1.4 vs 2.8, and in neither case I would shot fully wide open.

Not sure if indeed the Rokinon 24mm is as good as the 24mm minimizing coma distortions

You have the 24-105mmm - use it @24 to get an idea of FOV

....and then you have the Tokina 11-16mm 2.8 (this time you do the google search)

15
Dear Friends and Dear Teachers.
I just talk to my Photographer friends at the Town Camera club, and One recommend me to get This Fastest Lens  CANON EF 50 mm F/ 1.0 L USM= $ 2500 to $3500.
Yes, I have a GAS. Illness again.
Yes, Quite cheap for this fastest Commercial Lens in the Market, But When I do my research last night, and find out that, not quite sharp and great as new Canon 50 MM , F/ 1.2 L

http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/50mm/index.htm

Sir/ Madam, I am not the real Fan of 50 mm Lens, and I already have EF 24-70 MM F 2.8 L, 40 MM. Pan cake,  Canon 50 MM F/ 1.8, Sigma 50 MM F/ 1.4 ( Old model , not Art), Yes, And Super fast Canon EF 85 MM F/ 1.2 L MK II.
What do you think about this F = 1.0 L Lens ??, Sir/ Madam.
Have a great day.
Surapon

So, what's your budget?
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/used/225629?gclid=Cj0KEQiAn9-kBRDloNeUw7Pe_YwBEiQA4HXMU9X1fZN_-lMhlrJQH9pmxvK6EDK5Fcfwz__mSW8VzQEaApII8P8HAQ
or this
http://www.adorama.com/LC50095MN.html?utm_term=Other&utm_medium=Affiliate&utm_campaign=Other&utm_source=rflAID021866&cvosrc=affiliate.021866

Anyway, as Eldar is saying, you would be better off with  the Otus 55mm (there is one for sale at FM btw)

A while ago, I saw a blog showing how to fix the 1.0L - not for the faint-of-hearth; so it's possible to fix the focus issue, but involves dismantling , rewiring and resoldering....

OTUS 55mm
Leica Noctilux 1.0

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 14