October 21, 2014, 12:22:03 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 - The Bad Duck

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 7
16
Lenses / Re: 50mm 1.2
« on: September 24, 2013, 08:38:05 AM »
I was interested in finding out from users whether the 50mm 1.2L is worth it.
I have the 50mm 1.4 and I like it.

I am asking myself the same thing. So I asked.
http://photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00c0Ji
Not too many answers though.

17
Lenses / Re: 50mm 1.2
« on: September 24, 2013, 01:37:17 AM »

18
Lenses / Re: Recommend websites for lens reviews
« on: September 18, 2013, 04:35:55 AM »
- Photozone.de for all-round reviews
- The-digital-picture for contrast/sharpness in testshots. Especially contrast is easy to review there.
- DxO for t-values, to know what lenses to use as the light goes away.
- Ken rockwell for entertainment. If you spend time there you find out that he writes for average joe. If you are an average joe, listening to Ken will serve you well.


After the reviews, it´s time to hit the forums to find out the non-technical details. Photo.net is great and most serious.

19
EOS Bodies / Re: Advice - worth the jump 550d to 70d?
« on: September 05, 2013, 04:38:36 AM »
A used 1D mkIV? Perhaps too expensive, I don´t know. But it is built for what you want to do, and you have lenses for it. And it´s cool!

That, or wait for 7D mkII. Your 550D is not bad, you may be able to stick with it for a little while longer, if you are not loosing sales with your current gear.

Good luck with your choise.

20
Lenses / Re: prime focal length choices
« on: August 28, 2013, 06:47:55 PM »
You have to try them out for yourself. For portraits I seldom go wider than 35mm but I use 28 /1.8, 35L, 50/1.4, 85/1.8 and 135L. The 135 is the best but gets least usage. I do my best portraits with the 50 or the 85... Those are just my focal lengths.

The wider the harder. Distortion is hard to work around. I find that my composition gets static when I use wider lenses. If I don't put the person in the centre he or she will not look too good due to the distortion. 50 or 85 is up close and personal. And it shows. 135 gets me too far away, unless I want a tight headshot. 35 mm for full body or small groups. But it really depends... If I want a lot of compression I back away and shoot long lenses, as long as 300/2.8 for some great portraits.

I'm probably not helping. You need to find out what works for you and the way you shoot and the working distance you want. The advice to set your zoom to certain focal lengths is a great one.

And as my uncle use to say-with a 35 or 50 you get no help from an exotic focal lenght. If you make a great photo with those lenses it's all about content and light. That means that you did a great job, not your gear. I like that!

Good luck.

21
Lenses / Re: Which L Lens to start with?
« on: August 26, 2013, 02:49:44 AM »
Oo shiny upgrades!
What is it that you want your new lens to do? Better low-light shooting? More shallow DoF? More focal length? Less focal length?

1. Landscape = good tripod and a stopped down lens. @ f/11 most lenses are pretty good. Of course the 10-22 is great, you might want to think about that lens, but personally I seldom use ultra wide angle for lanscapes.
  travel = your 18-200 AND a low light lens like the 28 /1.8, 30 /1.4, 35 /1.4 for nightshots on the go. the 10-22 can give cool images in narrow places.

2. Nature, animal, birds (not macro) = as long a lens as you can get. You can never have too much focal length for birds. 100-400 may be a good choise. The 400 /5.6 lacks IS but has a little bit more contrast. Sigma 120-300 /2.8 Sport is a favourite, but expensive and heavy. 70-200 /2.8 II and a extenders is another way to go. Long lenses are either expensive or not very good. And you really should only buy the good lenses. Do it right the first time or regret it and buy the good lens later (and waste money).

3. People (not portrait) = your 18-200. Personaly I prefer primes for shooting people but that´s just me. If you don´t want the short DoF of fast lenses, then there is not much need to get something new. perhaps you would feel different about portraits with a nice portrait lens as the 85 /1.8 or 50 /1.4 and go that way with your people photography?

It´s not easy to choose, that´s why I need a larger camera backpack nowadays...
Good luck!

22
Software & Accessories / Re: Best bag for hiking with a camera?
« on: August 16, 2013, 01:54:57 PM »
Roll your hat or an extra sweater around your camera and use a state of the art running bag. I don't use camera bags on hikes. No worries. Last hike was 14 days and only 25 kg. On a good photo hike you have your camera at your eye anyway, but never ever leave the rain cover no matter what. Or pack everything in a dry bag inside the pack. Good luck.

23
Lenses / Re: Should I replace my zooms with primes?
« on: August 01, 2013, 08:39:57 AM »
Your lenses are very good to be concerned with supplementing and/or replacing them.
Take a few more pictures (at around f/8 or f/11)  print them big and show them to this ... gallery owner telling him you got a new prime lens.

I bet he will believe it  ;D

+1
Stopped down a bit, as I suspect you do when photographing cars, your lenses should be fine. Aim for f/8 or f/11 as that is where most lenses perform their best (have not looked your lenses up though). Rather add a tripod if the cars are standing still.

Good luck.

24
Lenses / Re: Canon primes
« on: July 31, 2013, 03:45:31 AM »
I´m more impressed with my 85 /1.8 than my 35 /1.4 L. the old 35 /2 (non IS) was not too impressive when it comes down to bokeh. Sharp and all, but the backgrunds were not so nice. Then... the 35 /2 IS, or the sigma 35 /1.4 seems to be great alternatives.

So get the 85 1.8 and don´t look back. When it comes to the 35, get any of the three mentioned; they are all very good and somewhat different so the 35 /2 IS might be a better alternative than one of the 35 /1.4s, depending on your needs. Personaly I stop down the 35 /1.4 L to about f/2 most of the time anyway; so the extra stop is usually wasted. (same goes with my 50 /1.4. The 85 /1.8 and the 135 /2 I use wide open without hesitation). Have not done any AFMA on the 35 though, so it may be better than I give it credit for. Some people LOVE their 35 L.

And then one day you have enough money to get the 85 /1.2 L and you get it. Or you don´t, since you love the 1.8. But even when you get the L, the f/1.8 is still more subtle, light and inexpensive making it a nice lens for parties or travel or whatever. It´s not a waste.

25
So, ehm, to sum this thread up so far:
- We have no solid facts that Canon has invested in new tech to make even better cameras.
- We have no solid facts that Canon has NOT invested in new tech to make even better cameras.

This. Is. Canon. Rumors.

Nothing new under the sun, guys, really, chillax :)

26
Focus recompose, wouldn't be necessary in a studio.  A studio should have modeling lamps on its strobes (or else focus assist beam firing via your flashguns).  If you can't get the outer points to work on the 6D with modeling lamps, something is wrong.  Turn them up brighter, or else send the camera to Canon to make sure this much hated AF sensor isn't actually defective.  Some of them have been. 

For the focus-recomposing I've done (not in a studio), I just have not had a real problem with it.  However I certainly would not attempt it with an f/1.2 lens at or near wide open; that would definitely move the subject out of the plane of focus.

+1
But you already know this. Go to f/8 or something, put more light from your strobes, that will also put you on iso 100. All problems solved. In the studio, that is. 5D2 should be great.

Low natural light, no modeling lights or fast moving subjects, that´s another thing. On some speedlights but not all, there are modeling lights to use in a short burst that may be enough for getting focus. Of course, AF-points are not spread out as far as I would like them to be on the 5D2 but that is about the only thing not to like.

But for studio, 5D2 should be a the best IQ/$ you can get. Put your money into better lights instead. Don´t just stop because there seems to be a problem, work around it.

good luck!

27
Canon General / Re: Copenhangen Trip Advice
« on: July 08, 2013, 07:29:14 AM »
I was born and raised in the south of Sweden and have been to Copenhagen a few times.
Copenhagen is just as safe as any city. Beware of pickpockets and if you go to Chrisitania, you need to chill and not offend anyone. I doubt they will have a problem with your camera if you seem like a nice guy. So don´t go around taking pictures - ask for them.

I second the Round tower and the canals. The mermaid (lille havefru) may be a must see but I´m not that impressed.

I´d take a bus or train to a small village by the coast or something to see the countryside instead of going to Malmö or Lund. Although they are nice citys aswell, they are pretty much the same anyway. Unless you are there when Malmöfestivalen is on, that is pretty nice and you should go.

http://malmofestivalen.se/about/in-english (16-23 of august). Lots of music and food from all over the world.

Sweden is also quite expensive when it comes to camera gear but without VAT it gets better. Also I think Sigma lenses are cheaper than ordinary, if that´s what you are into. 

Personaly I use small primes when shooting in the street. 100 /2 could be perfect, as would 24 /2.8 IS and you should absolutely bring your 50 /1.8! Although the 70-200 /4 is the smallest of the whites, it´s still white. Drop the battery grip aswell. You want your camera small. Only models like to have big cameras in their face.

Remember to have smörrebrö and pölse. And of course snaps and beer. The Danish are great designers and almost as good looking as the Swedes, who are almost as good looking as the Norwegians.

Have a great trip.

28
Lenses / Re: 50 F1.4 durabilty question
« on: July 08, 2013, 06:33:07 AM »
I´ve dropped my 70-200 /4 L IS twice from about the same height onto the floor (wood). Not a scratch, perfect shape and perfect results. Dropped my brand new 35 /1.4 L onto tarmac, the af/mf switch took a hit and was loose, just hanging by the wires outside the lens. A small scratch by the mount on the pastics but the rear lens cover took most of the hit. I put the switch back right there in the field. Works perfect.
Then again, they are L lenses and have inner focusing. They should be able to handle some abuse.

Have not dropped my 50 /1.4, cant really say anything about that but my 50 1.8 only lasted a few weeks then broke in two pieces. I use my gear, and although I try to treat it well it doesn´t always work out that way...

If ya want to make an omelet you have to crack som lenses?

29
I seldom do exposures that long, but I do know that Canon still include a piece of rubber to cover the viewfinder. It´s on the camera strap.

Oh the good old days of light metering in the centre of the frame and in the bottom left corner (AE-1). I still think I´m spoiled when I use my 5D´s, or my old 30D for that matter.

30
Lenses / Re: Help me choose 40 v 50(1.4)
« on: July 04, 2013, 10:04:37 AM »
What is your planed usage for this lens?

I have the 50 /1.4 but not the 40 /2.8.

However when it comes to DoF, the 50 /1.4 is a (slightly) longer lens and two full stops faster, that does give quite a big difference. You would notice. The 40 has less distortion BUT the wider angle causes problems with tight portraits. I have no idea if this is how you want to use the lens, but it´s kind of a warning.

My 1.4 however is seldom used at f 1.4 - 2.0 because of
- lack of contrast (and sharpness)
- DoF is thin and hard to controll and get the sharpness where I want it
- For weddings DoF is too short for portraits of bride + groom. For a single person portrait, yes, its quite doable, but when they are both there, better step down to... 2.8. And then they play in the same league.

Since I cant comment on the 40, you´d better read some tests at photozone.de and/or the-digital-picture. Have a look at their test shoots to compare contrast and sharpness, they are very useful.

But a quick look sugests that there is not much of a difference in terms of sharpness when stopped down a bit.
And... the 40 is quite a bit cheaper.

Im sorry that I perhaps did not make it easier for you... but I would not use the 50 /1.4 @ 1.4 unless absolutely needed, to me it´s a f/2 lens. And as I said, I usually use it even further stopped down, so then they are about the same, but one is cheaper.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 7