August 29, 2014, 02:04:28 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 - mememe

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5
31
EOS Bodies / Re: Another Spec List for the Entry Level Full Frame EOS
« on: July 25, 2012, 08:07:21 AM »
18mp would be cool cause its the 1dx sensor.

I would buy it.

32
Lenses / Re: Question...To UV or not to UV...that IS the question!
« on: July 19, 2012, 11:06:03 AM »
I only use them if i know dirt is flying towards me. (in conclusion: NEVER)

33
Lenses / Re: New Canon 50mm Coming? [CR1]
« on: July 18, 2012, 03:08:04 PM »
I guess all new lenses will be at least built like the 28 and 24mm. Cause you can see a new design "line" in the 3 new lenses (40, 24, 28)

My canon 1.4 is usable at 1.4 and its really not soft! always depends on the copy you got...

34
Lenses / Re: New Canon 50mm Coming? [CR1]
« on: July 18, 2012, 01:58:53 AM »
I'd rather pay $2k for a mk2 version of the 1.2L that doesn't focus shift and isn't soft wide open, than $850 for a mk2 1.4

What are you comparing the 1.2L to in order to call it soft at f1.2?  There is a post above this that mentions the focus shift.

+1.

Never seen the famous focus shift and is sharp at 1.2.

RLPhoto,

This is where people have it WRONG.  The 50L's top quality is that it IS SHARP wide open, the problem is that the 1.4 surpasses it's sharpness stopped down.  It is sharp wide open.  I'm in agreement with you on this one.

Mine was also sharp wide open (not as sharp as stopped down but usable sharp enough to geht crispy results). BUT it did the shift!

35
Lenses / Re: New Canon 50mm Coming? [CR1]
« on: July 17, 2012, 02:59:55 PM »

When I owned it (briefly), I compared it to my 85LII, and it was shockingly soft.  Have also tried 2 other copies which both exhibited the same thing.  At f/2, it was razor sharp, but if I'm going to shoot at f/2, I'm not going to spend $1500.

Mine was ok. Not as sharp as the 85 but it was ok...

And back to Topic: If its a 1.4 it must be stunning. Sharp to the edges at 1.4. Cause its price is really ugly

36
Lenses / Re: A New EF 50 f/1.8 IS? [CR1]
« on: July 11, 2012, 08:09:11 AM »
I dont like that "We put IS in EVERYWHERE" thing...

Cause it makes them very expensive lenses.

37
Lenses / Re: Battle of the 50mm's - 1.8, 1.4 and 1.2L
« on: July 04, 2012, 01:53:08 AM »


Believe. 8)

But this is at 1.2 isnt it? It can be good there but when stopping down the focus moves. (you can see this in the photozone tests where he focusses on the milimeter-chart and stops down. Focus moves away and at some point its even possible that the point that was sharp at wide open isnt in the DOF when stopped down)

And thats i guess why so many 1.4 (and even 1.2) canons are a bit "soft" (not 100% in focus) at 1.4. Cause they have to make a compromise for focus accuracy stopped down and wiede open. If wide open hits it 100% even in close distance, stopping down will go bad.

I once made the mistake of making a microadjust for near conditions on my 1.4 canon wide open and then taking (important) Pictures of people 2m away stopped down to f4... Focus started most times somewhere a little bit behind the ears...

I sold that microadjustment camera cause it makes me crazy trying to get the perfect result and there are so many things to keep in mind for not making it perfectly wrong :)

38
Lenses / Re: Battle of the 50mm's - 1.8, 1.4 and 1.2L
« on: July 03, 2012, 02:48:32 PM »
Interesting.... Try focus on something 0.5m away. Set to mf. Make picture on 1.2/1.4 and so on. I cant believe :)


39
Lenses / Re: Battle of the 50mm's - 1.8, 1.4 and 1.2L
« on: July 03, 2012, 02:31:27 PM »
Yeah, 50 isnt really easy with canon...

the 1.8 feels cheap and has a lack of aperture blades
the 1.4 gets f*ck*d up if it gets pressure on its front when turned fully "in"
the 1.2 is often said to be soft (but its only an issue when u view the full image)

What i really hated at the 1.2 version was the focus shift (focus jumps away when stopping down). I didnt expect that from such an expensive lens...
The 1.4 also has that Problem.
The 1.8 doesnt have it (looks like for me).

I ended up with the 1.4. If you know about the shift u can work around. And leave the sunshade on it and the focus a bit out while in ur bag...


Or get the shorty fourty

40
Lenses / Re: Unboxing of the the Canon EF 24mm f2.8 IS USM
« on: June 29, 2012, 02:09:58 AM »
Wow the f2.8 Image (and even the f4) of your copy looks bad... I hope its just calibration.

After the pancake being so sharp at 2.8 there is no excuse for that lens being that soft. I mean its f*ing expensive...

If you look at the 5.6 image out of the 5d you notice that the extreme edges are a bit soft. And thats not nice for that price if you look at what the shorty fourty does...

41
EOS Bodies / Re: 7D Firmware officially announced
« on: June 28, 2012, 08:05:40 AM »
Just a try to keep the 7d selling a bit...

42
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: The 5D Mark III & SD Memory Cards
« on: June 25, 2012, 11:23:06 AM »
Guys i can tell u why canon did this... Cause SD-Cars SUCK.

43
EOS Bodies / Re: 1D X Unboxing
« on: June 24, 2012, 06:58:08 AM »
Why is there no eye-piece installed?

44
As far as i know i cant order at your preferred shop (BH) in Europe, right?

45
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 STM Information.
« on: June 07, 2012, 11:21:56 AM »
I need a physics lesson:

Why cant they put bigger glass in it, and make it pancake size 40mm F0.5 or similar? :)

I guess bigger glass means longer Lens

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5