July 29, 2014, 11:03:25 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 - Dylan777

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 247
31
Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 135mm f/2L
« on: July 16, 2014, 01:33:24 PM »
I've been raving for the 135L for awhile now but it seems to get washed out by the "eermegerd 85mm 1.2!" Consistently... :/

It's a near perfect lens and it deserves a makeover with a bump in aperture and IS. That will make it a lens that I'd have absolutely no reason to own a 70-200II. Dedicated portrait photographers would flock to that prime instead of spending the weight and monies on the 70-200II.
I just love the 135L. It's the reason I like primes over zooms. Light, small, fast and affordable.

Since I don't do photography for living, I can live without 135L. The 70-200 f2.8 IS II is a MUST have lens for my shooting.
It won't replace the 70-200LII but it'd give a nice alternative to shooters who don't need the size and weight and need some extra speed.

There is nothing much to complaint about current 135L, except lacking IS for those 1/60 or slower shots.

I've been thinking about 35mm to go with 135L for low light. The love for 50mm focal lenght has changed to 35mm now.

32
Lenses / Re: Year of the lens....a joke....?
« on: July 15, 2014, 08:22:21 PM »
I could see realistically:

100-400L IS II + 7d2 before photokina,

then announced at photokina:
35mm f/1.4L II
50mm f/1.8 IS
85mm f/1.8 IS
135mm f/2L II
New FF body, maybe

Count me in for 35mm f1.4 II. You forgot IS on 135mm ;)

33
Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 135mm f/2L
« on: July 15, 2014, 08:20:01 PM »
I've been raving for the 135L for awhile now but it seems to get washed out by the "eermegerd 85mm 1.2!" Consistently... :/

It's a near perfect lens and it deserves a makeover with a bump in aperture and IS. That will make it a lens that I'd have absolutely no reason to own a 70-200II. Dedicated portrait photographers would flock to that prime instead of spending the weight and monies on the 70-200II.
I just love the 135L. It's the reason I like primes over zooms. Light, small, fast and affordable.

Since I don't do photography for living, I can live without 135L. The 70-200 f2.8 IS II is a MUST have lens for my shooting.

34
Lenses / Re: Year of the lens....a joke....?
« on: July 15, 2014, 07:49:21 PM »
I've been holding out for Canon's supposed 50mm IS and possibly even an 85 IS.

We're over half way into 2014, I just may have to buy glass from a different manufacturer :/

Any word?

is that a promise or a threat?  ;D

35
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: A7r Arrived - Meeting New Buddies
« on: July 15, 2014, 07:27:39 PM »
Hope everything will go well for you John

I tried the adapter with Canon L lenses...it feels  :-\

That is the exact feeling that I had/have with it. LOL. Although, I pretty much expected to be underwhelmed with the feel ergonomically. Was hoping that the IQ would compensate for that initial feeling. It has not.

Thanks for the well wishing, I certainly hope it works out also as I hate having to return stuff (in this case, from multiple vendors).

If the plan works and you decide to keep it, I highly recommend the Sony grip. It does help with larger L lenses. 

If you REALLY-REALLY like a7r, then, their A-mount to e-mount adapter works BEST with their a-mount lenses - AF is very good. Just more $$$ to spend  ;D

I spent quite a bit of $$$ renting most of A-mount prime and zoom lenses, to test with my a7r series. Their A-mount primes are REALLY good. 135mm A-mount + adapter work extremely well with a7r for portrait works. Hint: DETAILS ;)

36
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: A7r Arrived - Meeting New Buddies
« on: July 15, 2014, 05:31:22 PM »
Hope everything will go well for you John

I tried the adapter with Canon L lenses...it feels  :-\
 


37
Lenses / Re: RLPhotos first impressions of the 16-35mm f/4L - Video
« on: July 15, 2014, 09:46:28 AM »
My last post to wrap up this thread. A final goodbye to the 17-40L for me and looking back at some of my favorite photos it captured before it's sold on evilbay.

Very cool little discussion that really makes me want to take some ND filters with me more often.  Thanks for the nice walk through some of your fun images and their back story.  This helps inspire me to try more stuff, even when I'm tired or not always in the mood while travelling!
Thank you rusty. I know what it's like to travel around and arrive late at the hotel. You end up wanting to just sleep the night away but we could miss so many opportunities. I can't say how important it is, no matter what lens you got, to stay out a bit later and strive to make some cool photos.

I didn't know at the the time that this photo would make it on the cover of the London Planner, but hey! I'm glad I stayed out longer. :) I'd highly recommend a set of NDs for your travel photos.

Priceless, Congrats RLPhoto  ;)

38
1D X Sample Images / Re: Any Thing shot with a 1Dx
« on: July 15, 2014, 09:42:06 AM »
Kids night time hockey practice in pouring rain. (High ISO)

400mm, 
f2.8, 
1/1000,
ISO 12,800.

Great capture Menace. Love the water action and back light. 12fps helps  ;)

39
Software & Accessories / Re: To filter or not to filter
« on: July 14, 2014, 05:28:50 PM »
I don't use UV (protection) filters on my 40/2.8 pancake or on my EF-M lenses, but I do on the all the others that take them.

-1...with Neuro  ;D YUP -1 with Neuro  ;D ;D

I treat all my kids equally :P
Short or tall...I love them all

40

Have you tried it on kids?  It couldn't keep up with mine... 


I have no problem with any critter moving towards me or away. I use center point AI servo. 


Quote
Like the 5DII before it, it does a decent job at tracking subjects moving across the frame, like the bighorns in your excellent image.  Where the 5DII and 6D fail are when a subject is moving toward or away from the camera (away is worse).   I just processed a burst sequence taken with my 1D X and 70-200/2.8L IS II of a gymnast running straight at me and vaulting from springboard onto the pad (which I was standing behind).  All 26 shots in the burst are in crisp focus (lighting was pretty poor, shots were at 1/800 s, f/3.2, ISO 12800).  The 7D would have gotten many of the shots in focus (but they'd have been unusable due to the ISO noise or the motion blur with a slower shutter speed. The noise from the 6D would have been acceptable, but after the first couple of frames, most of the shots would have been backfocused (and I'd have had far fewer shots, of course).


The 7D was the worst Canon DSLR I have owned. It was widely regarded as a "wildlife" lens, yet most big  wildlife is crepuscular in nature, a time when the 7D falls flat. I used my 7D and the 6D in that bighorn series, and the 7D failed. Many, many out of focus shots riddled with noise. Something about even light just played haywire with the copy I had when combined with telephotos.

I'm not surprised at the 1DX results. Awesome camera. 

While not the best photos, here are a couple examples of my 6D with a 300 prime and quick animals (much quicker than children). Very low sunset light, too. I've also attached the corresponding 100% crops.

Everything is do able, little challenging that all. I used mirrorless to shoot my kids jump toward me.

This reminded me how egyptian pyramids were built  ::) times and efforts  ::) ::) ::)






41
Software & Accessories / Re: To filter or not to filter
« on: July 14, 2014, 12:51:18 PM »
I stacked cpl on top of bw 007 clear very often. Same for nd.

42
Software & Accessories / Re: Rain protection for 5D3 and lens
« on: July 14, 2014, 12:45:01 PM »
Have not yet touched tammy....my 5 iii and 70-200 survived couple heavy rain while I was in Hong Kong. Both still working just fine.

43
Lenses / Re: UV filter on the new 16-35 f/4?
« on: July 14, 2014, 12:38:44 PM »
True BW clear filter is 007  ;)

BW 007 are on my lenses as front protection - never remove. CPL can go right on top if needed.

1. It can cause vignetting.
2. It can make it hard to separate the two filters afterwards.

Good thing you haven't been bitten by the square filter bug yet, you'd HAVE to remove your protective filter for those... ;)
With bw 007 I have no issues with what you mentioned.
Could happen on $20 filters though ;D


What does the price of a filter have to do with vignetting?
And while brass is less sensitive to thermal expansion than aluminum, if there is a bit of grime or moisture, it can still make two thin rings stick. The inner ring of a B+W CP-L is very thin and hard to grip to produce sufficient torque.
Sorry, I was just trying to be helpful. I am aware you are not using $ 20 filters.
There is no different in iq (in my own eyes) with or without bw 007. I stacked the two quite often. No problem with removing the CPL so far.

Thanks for head up though

44
Lenses / Re: UV filter on the new 16-35 f/4?
« on: July 14, 2014, 11:02:28 AM »
As someone who uses filters - all of the time unless I'm shooting into the sun or using a CPL/ND filters - I am amazed at how some of my 4-6 year old filters look.  Most of them have at least a few serious scratches on them and all of them are covered with numerous minor scratches.  These are high quality filters - B+W & Hoya HD - so that's the not the issue, but obviously they are doing their job.  If my front element looked like this, I'd be very sad, even though I know that it really doesn't affect image quality.  It would kill the resale value.  I've sold lenses with a fair bit of external wear, but perfect glass, and they've always sold well.

Also, I bought the B+W 77mm XS-Pro Clear UV Haze with Multi-Resistant Nano Coating (010M) for 16-35 f/4 IS and it fits great.  The inner barrel of the lens moves back & forth a lot more than any other Canon lens I've owned so I think a filter is a good idea on this lens.
Same here. My work is more important than cuddling my lenses front element. Fast lens swapping in and out of bags, fingerprints, residue, dust and then needing to hurry to clean them off with my sweat soaked shirt on a summer Texas wedding, the occasional spray of champagne at the reception or some booze that happens to find my lens from party happy patrons. Then take the same lens to the beach the next day for a session with the groom and bride alone with sand blowing against my lens. Go home, rinse off all the sand from my camera and wipe off my lenses.

Broke a filter once from a stray rock directly into my lens, no hood would have helped, grabbed my tshirt and unscrewed the broken filter and continued shooting.

I'm always surprised when I unscrew the filter to sell a lens to see the damage it takes and a pristine perfect front element.
Glad to hear that I'm not the only one, and I also use hoods nearly 100% of the time.  I haven't broken a filter yet, but I have trashed several hoods.

True BW clear filter is 007  ;)

BW 007 are on my lenses as front protection - never remove. CPL can go right on top if needed.

1. It can cause vignetting.
2. It can make it hard to separate the two filters afterwards.

Good thing you haven't been bitten by the square filter bug yet, you'd HAVE to remove your protective filter for those... ;)
With bw 007 I have no issues with what you mentioned.
Could happen on $20 filters though ;D

45
Lenses / Re: UV filter on the new 16-35 f/4?
« on: July 14, 2014, 10:19:30 AM »
As someone who uses filters - all of the time unless I'm shooting into the sun or using a CPL/ND filters - I am amazed at how some of my 4-6 year old filters look.  Most of them have at least a few serious scratches on them and all of them are covered with numerous minor scratches.  These are high quality filters - B+W & Hoya HD - so that's the not the issue, but obviously they are doing their job.  If my front element looked like this, I'd be very sad, even though I know that it really doesn't affect image quality.  It would kill the resale value.  I've sold lenses with a fair bit of external wear, but perfect glass, and they've always sold well.

Also, I bought the B+W 77mm XS-Pro Clear UV Haze with Multi-Resistant Nano Coating (010M) for 16-35 f/4 IS and it fits great.  The inner barrel of the lens moves back & forth a lot more than any other Canon lens I've owned so I think a filter is a good idea on this lens.
Same here. My work is more important than cuddling my lenses front element. Fast lens swapping in and out of bags, fingerprints, residue, dust and then needing to hurry to clean them off with my sweat soaked shirt on a summer Texas wedding, the occasional spray of champagne at the reception or some booze that happens to find my lens from party happy patrons. Then take the same lens to the beach the next day for a session with the groom and bride alone with sand blowing against my lens. Go home, rinse off all the sand from my camera and wipe off my lenses.

Broke a filter once from a stray rock directly into my lens, no hood would have helped, grabbed my tshirt and unscrewed the broken filter and continued shooting.

I'm always surprised when I unscrew the filter to sell a lens to see the damage it takes and a pristine perfect front element.
Glad to hear that I'm not the only one, and I also use hoods nearly 100% of the time.  I haven't broken a filter yet, but I have trashed several hoods.

True BW clear filter is 007  ;)

BW 007 are on my lenses as front protection - never remove. CPL can go right on top if needed.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 247