November 20, 2014, 03:58:28 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 - drmikeinpdx

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 23
31
Lenses / Re: Sigma 35 Art vs EF 35 IS in real life
« on: September 01, 2014, 03:34:24 PM »
Thanks for the compliments!

I'm still trying to decide if I need a 35mm prime in my arsenal.  I have  a couple of zooms and a 40 pancake that do almost the same thing.  There's no doubt that it's a nice lens, but I don't see myself using it enough to justify a $500 investment right now.

I think I'll wait for the end of year sales and see if I can get one at a good price.  I'm also waiting for Canon to come out with a stabilized 50mm lens in the same series.  Well, I can always dream!

32
Lenses / Re: Sigma 35 Art vs EF 35 IS in real life
« on: August 30, 2014, 08:35:07 PM »
Once you're done renting, are you going to buy it?

Funny you should ask that... I just got an email from LensRentals.com offering to sell me the lens for about 25 dollars more than what I could buy a new one for.  Wonder if they get many buyers that way?  Maybe I get to keep the nice padded case they use for shipping.  Didn't read all the fine print before I deleted the message.

I still have the lens for a few more days, so far I like it.  It makes nice bokeh if I'm close to the model, like within 3-5 feet.

A purchase decision depends on how much I think I will use it.  For me, it would mostly be an indoor lens for available light glamour/boudoir shoots.  $550 for a professional grade lens isn't a lot if you get a reasonable amount of use out of it.

I just posted some photos on my blog comparing the 35 with a 50 and an 85 if you want to see them.  I'd post some here, but they are not appropriate for this forum.

Warning... NSFW....adults only:  http://tinyurl.com/m5x7tsf

33
Pricewatch Deals / A Very Small Niche
« on: August 30, 2014, 08:15:45 PM »
I like the concept of the EOS-M, but I just can't justify buying one.  It would have to fit into a very narrow gap between my S100 and my T2i. 

If I want a pocket camera, the S100 works very well and has a nice zoom range.  If I want to carry a small camera bag with an extra lens or two, then the T2i works great.   

If I didn't own these two travel cameras, maybe the M would make sense for me.

34
Lenses / Re: Sigma 35 Art vs EF 35 IS in real life
« on: August 28, 2014, 12:32:13 AM »
I am renting a copy of the Canon 35mm F/2.0 IS this week.  Using the center point on my 5D3 it focuses perfectly every time with zero AFMA.  Using the outermost focus point, the focus drifts a little front or back, but not much.

It feels strangely light on the 5D3 at first, but you get used to it very fast.

I shoot mostly people, so I'm not all that interested in extreme sharpness. If I needed a 35 prime I would not hesitate to buy this lens over the Sigma or the Canon L.  I'll be testing it some more this week.

35
Lenses / Re: 100mm 2.8 vs 85mm 1.8
« on: August 22, 2014, 09:26:11 AM »
I have the 85 1.8 and the 100 2.0.   Bought the 100 first on the recommendation of a friend and found it to be a bit long for my needs.  I use the 85 about 10 times as much as the 100 for my work.  Have never had a problem with insufficient minimum focus distance.

I thought about getting a 100 L for greater sharpness, but after due consideration I realized that when shooting people, maximum sharpness is a disadvantage more often that it is an advantage.  I would just have to spend more time in photoshop smoothing skin.


36
Lenses / Re: 85mm f1/2L II and event photography?
« on: August 22, 2014, 09:12:00 AM »
Great topic!

Not only does the camera body make a difference, but personal taste for blur should be taken into account.

For example, Vern's lovely wedding shot above has too much blur for my taste.  I'd rather have a little less blur and be able to identify my friends/relatives in their wedding pix.  I think photographers may have gotten a bit carried away in seeking maximum blur.  Do clients really want that?  I think they are more concerned that we don't make them look fat.     BTW, I'm not a wedding photographer, so my opinion should not be given a lot of weight.  - pun intended :)

Personally, on my 5D3,  I prefer the 85 1.8 for its light weight and speedy autofocus.  In my recent side by side test, the images were quite similar.   But of course the 85 1.2 can create more blur if you shoot at 1.2.

All I need to do now is find a way to paint a red ring on my 1.8!

37
I was having the usual problems with the Canon straps, so I decided to try the Capture Pro belt clip from Peak Design.  It's beautifully machined and very secure.  You can pull your camera off your belt very quickly, but you do have to use your other hand to push the red safety release button first.

It's a very comfortable and secure way to carry a Rebel-class camera, but a 5D or 7D class camera gets a bit heavy, especially with the full frame EF lenses that are usually attached.  Oh,  the 5D 3 with the pancake lens is actually quite nice to carry that way.

It can sometimes be a bit fiddly when you are trying to slide the camera onto the belt clip.  I need to practice that more.   I also intend to get out one of my pistol belts and see if that makes the weight less annoying.


https://peakdesign.com/store/capturepro

38
EOS Bodies / Re: No weekend rumors ever??
« on: August 10, 2014, 06:27:28 PM »
I'd love to see you do a review, Mt. Spokane!

Inviting guest bloggers to help support the site with new content is a time honored tradition in the blogosphere.

39
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Quick and Dirty AFMA
« on: August 10, 2014, 01:51:53 PM »
Here's a photo of the target I use for AFMA:


It's about six feet long and each little square is one inch.  I like it because I can test at distances I typically use during a photoshoot.  Also, I can magnify the image on my 5D3's LCD screen and almost instantly find the exact point of focus.

You can also get a rough idea of the general sharpness of a lens and a feel for the chromatic aberration.

I usually take a few shots, refocusing each time, then I can scroll through the magnified images on the screen and quickly see if the focus is consistent.  With Canon lenses in good condition, it usually is.  I've taken this chart with me to camera stores and when meeting Craigslist sellers.

I'm really happy with this method.  You can see some more examples about half way down in my latest blog post about the 85mm 1.2 L.  This one is actually safe for work!  No naughty photos.  (Don't go to part two if you prefer to avoid that.)

http://www.beyondboudoirphoto.com/blog/2014/8/canon-85mm-lens-comparison-ef-85-1-8-vs-85-1-2-l-part-one

40
Lenses / Re: How resistant are L lenses against the shocks/vibrations?
« on: August 04, 2014, 01:19:06 PM »
It's interesting how different photographers treat their equipment.  A few years ago I attended a workshop by glamour photographer Scott Church.  In his talk about the importance of equipment, he proudly stated, "I treat my equipment like s**t!"   He was perfectly happy doing work for the likes of Playboy with prosumer grade Nikon DSLRs.

Personally, having spent most of my life as an amateur photographer with a limited budget, I treat my gear with extreme care.  It's hard for me to comprehend the way some pros do the opposite.

41
Lenses / Re: How many years before we see a 50L II
« on: July 24, 2014, 12:19:06 AM »
I could certainly use a replacement for my Sigma 50 Classic, which is known for it's Timeless Rendering.  Unfortunately none of the other alternatives looks very attractive.  It is indeed a dark time for lovers of 50mm primes.

I am actually waiting for Canon to bring out a stabilized 50 of modest aperture to expand their line that includes the well-reviewed 35mm F/2 IS.

42
Lenses / Re: Canon 24-70 f/4L IS disappointing?
« on: July 21, 2014, 09:31:35 AM »
This thread has many familiar elements for me!  I still love my old Tamron 28-75 2.8  :)

I also love my various prime lenses when I am feeling artistic and have the time to play around during a photoshoot.

But when money is involved, I often use my trusty workhorse, the 24-105. The extra zoom range and the IS is worth more to me than the larger aperture of the 24-70 2.8 at a fraction of the price.

And I think we can all appreciate the frustration of having a lens that doesn't work well.  I was hoping that the invention of MicroFocusAdjustment would bring that sad era to an end, but it hasn't.

Sending your lens back to Canon was probably the best thing to do at this point.  Please let us know how it works when you get it back!

43
While I love the timeless rendition of my 50 Classic, the somewhat random autofocus was getting a bit tiring.  I've seen posts on the net saying that someone sent their Classic in to Sigma service and it came back focusing perfectly.

So last week I packaged up my Classic and sent it off to Ronkonkona (wasn't he a famous disk jockey?) for a tune up before the 4 year warranty runs out in a few months.

Round trip from Portland took 8 days.  Very impressive service by Sigma. The technician included a very short note to the affect that he "adjusted AF data sam"  Not sure what a sam is, but it's nice to know it's been adjusted.

I eagerly got out my big testing chart and did some autofocus testing in open shade outdoors.  I used one shot autofocus. 

Sadly, the autofocus is still somewhat random, definitely no better than before.  I tested at various distances (6-10 feet) and apertures, usually taking two or three shots and noting how much front or back focus.  then went back and tried to duplicate the results.  Sometimes I tried pressing the AF button multiple times to see if it would help.

Most of the time the point of focus is within the depth of field, but often just barely.  Since the lens front and back focused about equally, I decided to leave the microfocus adjustment at zero.

I'm not hearing good reports on the autofocus of the 50 Art lens, so I guess I will just keep enjoying the timeless rendition of the Classic until Canon eventually comes out with their next 50.


44
Lenses / Re: Something with 50mm L lens that make it different
« on: July 18, 2014, 01:58:32 PM »
It has a timeless rendition to it that you cannot explain with an MTF chart or sharpness test.

I love that phrase!  Mind if I use it in the Sigma 50 classic cult?

Join the cult here:  http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=21328.0

45
Photography Technique / Re: 85 vs 135 for portraits
« on: July 09, 2014, 09:55:12 AM »
Thanks for posting that link Sporgon!

Looking at Eastwood's examples, it appears to me that most of the variation in portrait perspective occurs in the range of 24mm to 70mm.  The difference between 100 and 300 was minimal to my eye.


Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 23