Messages

481

Lenses / Re: The great battle: primes vs zooms

« on: December 17, 2012, 08:10:40 PM »

I'm assuming you already compared(hand-on) your primes Vs 24-70 f2.8 II?

How do you recomp....f1.2 lens at 1.2? not saying you can't with crop in pp

Yes, I did - with my hands and my eyes. 24-70 II is sharp @ F3.5. But, 85/1.4, 135/2, 200/2 are far better @ F2.8 than 24-70 II @ F2.8.
I do not recompose with any lens, because the right moment of a shot is lost and sometimes correct focus is lost too.

24-70 II can only reach up to 70mmm and you compared to 85, 135, and 200mm?

What I'm seeing in my 24-70 II is extremely sharp at f2.8....I haven't shoot at f3.5 or smaller yet.

Pic below was taken inside a pre-school classroom. I cropped nearly 70%, no flash of course @ f2.8. You have any pic at f3.5 on your 24-70? 

482

Lenses / Re: The great battle: primes vs zooms

« on: December 17, 2012, 07:17:41 PM »

I'm saying regardless of cost, I'm asking would you prefer to carry around one set or the other. Is the weight worth the sharpness

You seem to miss the point of using prime lenses.  Its more depth of field, and low light needs that drive users to primes.  Sharpness has less to do with it.
If I'm shooting in very low light, I have little choice.  Same if I want very shallow depth of field, f/2.8 might not be enough.
Many primes are as sharp or sharper than zooms, not a big issue for me.

Sharpness and overall IQ is the main reason to use primes for me. (even in "enough light" situations)
Zoom I use only in a situation I know I do not have enough time / space / clean place to exchange lenses.
Thus "...weight worth..." - yes it is! ;-)

My 50L is not sharper than my 24-70 f2.8 II @ 50mm f2.8 nor f1.2

Better bokeh is what we looking for in primes

Than go and buy a better prime... I do not prefer the whole picture blurred against sharp isolated subject.
+ all my primes used for stills are sharper @ 2.8 than 24-70II@50, F2.8...
PS: Your 50 is only acceptable in the center, but I usually do not prefer center composition...

I'm assuming you already compared(hand-on) your primes Vs 24-70 f2.8 II?

How do you recomp....f1.2 lens at 1.2? not saying you can't with crop in pp

483

Lenses / Re: The great battle: primes vs zooms

« on: December 17, 2012, 05:26:58 PM »

I'm saying regardless of cost, I'm asking would you prefer to carry around one set or the other. Is the weight worth the sharpness

You seem to miss the point of using prime lenses.  Its more depth of field, and low light needs that drive users to primes.  Sharpness has less to do with it.
If I'm shooting in very low light, I have little choice.  Same if I want very shallow depth of field, f/2.8 might not be enough.
Many primes are as sharp or sharper than zooms, not a big issue for me.

Sharpness and overall IQ is the main reason to use primes for me. (even in "enough light" situations)
Zoom I use only in a situation I know I do not have enough time / space / clean place to exchange lenses.
Thus "...weight worth..." - yes it is! ;-)

My 50L is not sharper than my 24-70 f2.8 II @ 50mm f2.8 nor f1.2

Better bokeh is what we looking for in primes

484

Lenses / Re: Canon 50L Sharpness at f1.2 ???

« on: December 17, 2012, 04:22:30 PM »

It's sharp enough for portraits in the center for me. I love the look.

Have you run your 50L through FoCal with your 5D III bodies? I just wonder what other owners are getting from their 50L?

I don't even own FoCal, or any focus calibration software. Infact, I haven't AFMA'ed any of my lenses. They all have been flawless from the factory. ( Fingers crossed .) 

Wow....you must be very lucky man, a f1.2 lens without AFMA.

Before AFMA, I did a quick test by setting up 4 markers. The distance between each of these markers is about 1.5" back. As you can see the lens has focus shift issue. I was focus on 1st marker(red). You can see the red is not in focus, the green does. That focus shift is gone after AFMA.

For now...it's all about sharpness.

Edit: back focus issue

 

485

Lenses / Re: Canon 50L Sharpness at f1.2 ???

« on: December 17, 2012, 01:58:49 PM »

It's sharp enough for portraits in the center for me. I love the look.

Have you run your 50L through FoCal with your 5D III bodies? I just wonder what other owners are getting from their 50L?

486

Lenses / Canon 50L Sharpness at f1.2 ???

« on: December 17, 2012, 01:49:46 PM »

Hi guys,
I recently bought a 50L. I ran through FoCal 3-4 times. The results I got are very similar on all runs.

At f1.2, FoCal showed my 50L is best at -5 and sharpness is 753. I looked at my 24-70 f2.8 II, at f2.8 the sharpness is over 1000. Even my 16-35 II, at f2.8 the sharpness is above 800.

Questions:
1. It's normal for that 50L sharpness to be below 800 due to large aperture?

2. At f1.2, what is the sharpness on your 50L through FoCal?

Thanks
Dylan

487

Lenses / Re: The great battle: primes vs zooms

« on: December 17, 2012, 11:22:45 AM »

Zooommmmmmmmmmm

488

Portrait / Re: Food pics - help required

« on: December 17, 2012, 08:58:38 AM »

Hi All

help required, a friend is opening a restuarant soon and has asked me to take some shots not only of the place and the staff but also of the dishes.

now never having taken foodstuff pictures (other than on my iphone went out eating) I havent a clue what would be the best equipment to use, i currently own

5D Mk3
24-105 f4 lens
430 II flash

50mm F1.4
70-200mm f2.8 II
100mm macro L f2.8
manfotto tripod

what would you recommend from a equipment perspective and any assistance with techniques would be great..
time to go home make lasagne and practice I think !

Cheers
scott

The photo shoot should be after your breakfast, lunch or dinner. Not before

489

Lenses / Re: Difficulties choosing next L series

« on: December 17, 2012, 08:44:41 AM »

Just bought my first FF, and I am torn on my third L lens to purchase. As of now I have three lens: 50mm f/1.2, 24-70mm f/2.8, and a 100mm 2.8 macro.

As of now, my love seems to be anything dealing with long exposures.

What to do, what to do?!?!

I am a sucker for sharpness, and don't mind pretending like my credit card is fake money, and then crying about it once I get bill.

I'm renting the 14mm 2.8 ii but unfortunately haven't been able to test it to my liking due to the continuous rain..

I guess what I'm asking is..what L series would you get that's under 24mm focal range?

I'm aware this question has probably been answered multiple times on here, but I'd rather someone on here repeat themselves over the same passion I possess than watch my girlfriend roll her eyes again with disinterest.

Thank you!

Hope you are not paying min on your credit card .......if that is the case, I rather have no lens. Just my 2cents.

490

Lenses / Re: Lens checking methods 24-70II

« on: December 17, 2012, 08:36:23 AM »

Just another quick point: I am talking about sharpness and not vignetting.

As Neuro and other memebers mentioned before, use LiveView(LV) Vs Viewfinder(VF) to compare sharpness. I found this method very usefull.

1. If LV is sharpner than VF, then AFMA is needed. 
2. For 24-70 II, try to compare it to 70-200 f2.8 IS II around 70-75mm. Sharpness should be tiny more or less

491

Lenses / Re: Patent: A New Canon EF 50 f/1.2 & Suggestion of a Full Frame Mirrorless?

« on: December 17, 2012, 08:07:03 AM »

Okay..  Can someone inform me why full frame-mirrorless would be a good thing?  Since I only really care about DSLRs, I don't bother keeping up with the benefits of mirrorless cameras...

If you travel from US to Asia 4-6 times a year, you will see why I want FF mirrorless - travel friendly and cleaner images under low light are the keys of this monster. AF speed is not important when you do landscape and still shooting.

492

Lenses / Re: Patent: A New Canon EF 50 f/1.2 & Suggestion of a Full Frame Mirrorless?

« on: December 16, 2012, 06:31:19 PM »

FULL FRAME MIRRORLESS.......I say 2014

493

Lenses / Re: 2013 - The Year for 400mm Lenses? [CR1]

« on: December 16, 2012, 04:09:33 PM »

I would appreciate a 100-400 2.8 :-)

You must be a back surgeon.

Or couple million $ in the bank

494

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 35 f/2 IS Resolution Test

« on: December 16, 2012, 01:19:12 PM »

I like lensrental reviews. It's easy to understand for an ave Joe like me.

I can't believe I'm saying this... the new Sigma looks better than the Canon and now test shows is out perform the big boy....WOW. Where is 50mm f.1ish Sigma?

As for the Sigma 50 1.ish, have you checked out the Sigma 50mm 1.4 EX? Great performing lens at a great price. Used to have major focus issues (Never experienced it myself, but I've only borrowed the lens a handful of times) but apart from that, it may be what you are looking for.

Thanks for the info on the Sig.

I just picked up 50L. After a quick run through FoCal(-7 AFMA), the lens is excellent at f1.2

495

Lenses / Re: 2013 - The Year for 400mm Lenses? [CR1]

« on: December 16, 2012, 01:09:02 PM »

Would be nice to see what Canon has to offer on the new 100-400.