February 28, 2015, 09:06:22 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 - Viggo

Pages: 1 ... 57 58 [59] 60 61 ... 149
871
Well, I confess to being one of the idiots, paying obscene amounts of money for a manual focus lens. I just ordered one and I am really looking forward to get my hands on it  ;D

For those of you who don't want it and don't understand how anyone else would want it, go and do something else than irritate yourselves on this thread. And for the record, I do use AF on most of my other lenses ...

Review!  ;D

872
Lenses / Re: Protective filter for 24-70 II - standard or thin?
« on: October 16, 2013, 03:58:24 PM »
Don't forget to scroll sideways or the problem isn't visible ;D

Why scroll sideways?  I can see the left upper/lower corners without scrolling.  If the vignetting is worse in one or two corner(s) than the others, there's likely a slight decentering of an element in the lens.

I had to scroll sideways here at least.

To me it seems quite even when looking at them here, but the very far corners and small area becomes veryvery dark.

873
Lenses / Re: Protective filter for 24-70 II - standard or thin?
« on: October 16, 2013, 03:40:04 PM »
Here are three shots, one with only B&W xs-pro and one with Heliopan HT slim (no front threads) and onw with the pol stacked on top of the clear filter.

Only Clear


Only pol


Both stacked


Don't forget to scroll sideways or the problem isn't visible ;D

Nothing is done to either image. And that darkening of the outer corners doesn't go away with +100 correction in Lr, and when pushed even more to try and correct it adds a great deal of noise. At this point 24mm becomes useless imo.

874
Lenses / Re: Protective filter for 24-70 II - standard or thin?
« on: October 16, 2013, 10:56:29 AM »
You can't stack filter on it anyway, use as thin as possible. I have a BW slim and tried a non front thread pol
On top and vignetting can't be corrected.

875
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 6D af tracking: experiences & usage cases
« on: October 16, 2013, 06:07:39 AM »
The fastest way to get oof images is setting 1st image to release. I Improved my tracking so much when setting the 1st image to only focus. If the first shot is off you have to use Erratic settings to try to get the next One focused. If you set 1st image to focus, and the Other settings to provide stable tracking and allow your point drifting without focus jump it will give you loads better hit rate.

I use single point and Case 1 for slow and normal subtle movement, and 4 point expansion and +1 on acc/deacc And -1 on sensitivity for erratic behavior , works great. (This is all on the 1dx)

876
EOS Bodies / Re: Holidays 2013: Where the Heck is Canon?
« on: October 15, 2013, 04:41:01 PM »
I vote for:

• Release updated versions of the 35/1.4L and 100-400L.

+100 for the 35 L II, I was just now flipping through som older images shot with the 35, and I miss it!

877
Since all lenses are massively front focusing I say it's the
Body that needs calibration.

The reason I send in both lenses and bodies is because they adjust the body to a reference body, and then
The lenses. That way lenses you buy later, that aren't whacked out, will need only slightly adjustment. All of my lenses have only needed -4 to +3 . The 24 L II needed +13 and that's obviously the lens, but it was not a very good AF lens even adjusted correctly. If that is because of the big adjustment or a useless lens, I don't know.

878
EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L II
« on: October 12, 2013, 05:57:11 PM »
So when the 35 L II comes out it will most likely be the best focusing 1.4 lens of

Hopefully, the 24 1.4 II wasn't though.

Lol, no that is true, my first two went straight back, focused at random , and the third was at +13 and
Also highly unstable. The two 35 L's I had were awesome though .

879
EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L II
« on: October 12, 2013, 04:06:06 PM »
"Only a red-ring fanboy will buy this"

I have tested the Siggy and the 35 L has been the holy grail absolute killer go to lens for a VERY long time and where it counts the most for me will always be AF and the L destroys the Siggy. Not
Even close.

So when the 35 L II comes out it will most likely be the best focusing 1.4 lens of
All times... Combine that with weather sealing and I'm buying!

880
Look, the reviewer obviously hasn't read the commentary on this website regarding the lens because quite clearly, without autofocus, this lens is not worth $4000 and nobody will buy it without autofocus, even if it is the sharpest lens since the big bang.
Really??? I can think of at least one (close to this keyboard) that can´t stand the temptation ...

Pluss en! (+1)

881
Look, the reviewer obviously hasn't read the commentary on this website regarding the lens because quite clearly, without autofocus, this lens is not worth $4000 and nobody will buy it without autofocus, even if it is the sharpest lens since the big bang.
Nobody will buy it?  Leica's entire M lens line is manual focus and in the price range of $1,500 to $11,000.  They sell as many as they can make, so photographers certainly do buy expensive manual focus lenses.  Not every photographer has the same needs, or the same budget.

"as many as the make" indeed, there's ONE guy putting them together. But the Leica people have a completely different patience than Canikon people do. I used to work at a shop were we sold Leica and if a lens had to be serviced 3 months was FAST, and 5-6 months the average to wait, lol. And here their 24 f1.4 is 8400 usd  ;D

One guy?  Not really.  And they do sell.  The idea that "no one" will buy a $4k manual focus lens is unfounded.  It won't sell a lot, but it will sell.  The initial samples online look superb, easily comparable with Leica lenses in the same price range.  Based on that, this lens will sell.

I wasn't really being that literal ::) But you can see the name of the guy who put it together, that says something.

And I have never said the 55 is too expensive, I am the first person who posted about this here lens when I first heard about it and have been waiting a long time for. Unfortunately they took too long so I bought the 200 f2 instead. Someday I will buy the Zeiss, it looks to perform in the way they hyped it.

I saw (almost) the same 3D pop from a 55 image as I get with the 200, and that is waaay above any other 50 I've seen.

882

"roughly f4" ? I think it's actually f2.5.


not realistically. shoot an f/2.8 lens and it makes a HUGE zone appear to be in focus and it's not easy at all
realistically I'd call it closer to f/5.6 to be honest terms of how well you can use it, especially if you don't take 10 minutes to rock back and forth to it

Set the lens to 5.6 and push the dof button and you don't see a difference in dof and brightness?

883
Look, the reviewer obviously hasn't read the commentary on this website regarding the lens because quite clearly, without autofocus, this lens is not worth $4000 and nobody will buy it without autofocus, even if it is the sharpest lens since the big bang.
Nobody will buy it?  Leica's entire M lens line is manual focus and in the price range of $1,500 to $11,000.  They sell as many as they can make, so photographers certainly do buy expensive manual focus lenses.  Not every photographer has the same needs, or the same budget.

"as many as the make" indeed, there's ONE guy putting them together. But the Leica people have a completely different patience than Canikon people do. I used to work at a shop were we sold Leica and if a lens had to be serviced 3 months was FAST, and 5-6 months the average to wait, lol. And here their 24 f1.4 is 8400 usd  ;D

884
Canon EF Zoom Lenses / Re: Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM
« on: October 08, 2013, 03:45:42 PM »
Sweet shot Neuro, really nice bw convertion.

885
I'm honestly surprised by the negativity around price with this lens.  It's a niche lens with a complex design and near flawless image performance that demands a large price.  So be it I say.  I'd like to purchase it, but two things will prevent me from doing so in the short term:

  • Canon does not have a high megapixel body yet to take advantage of this lens.  Granted, there are certainly other benefits such as color rendition, contrast, edge-to-edge sharpness, but my guess is that it really shines with a high megapixel body
  • Manual focus through the viewfinder on newer Canon models is an exercise in frustration if you are extremely anal about perfect focus placement.  Forget about it on the 5D III, as the viewfinder presents an image with an f-stop well smaller than large ones on prime lenses.  I have a 1D-X, but have yet to try one of the focus screens that can be purchased, so maybe I can go that route.

Regardless, I find this thens very intriguing and hope to be able to rent a copy to try at some point.  I will reserve any judgment on price until then.

As MP goes up, difraction limitations increases...so the pros and cons of high MP cameras on a 35mm format is unkown at the moment.
It's true, the 5DIII and all Canon stock screens render a DOF of roughly f4...which is a million miles away from fast primes (f1.2). For f2.8 glass, it's not so important but for fast primes, it needs to be worked around. The 1Dx, 5DII and 6D have interchangable screens and when fitted with a "g rated" fine focus screen, the actual DOF can been seen in the viewfinder...but the screen is somewhat darker (fine if you are using primes). I have found that the Spot AF system (which I think isn't on the 1Dx - please correct me if i'm wrong) is fantastic and nailing a precisely placed point of focus, but it's tricky.

 

"roughly f4" ? I think it's actually f2.5.

The 1d X have the spot-AF in the same way the 5d3 does, and also an advantage over the 5d3, the ability to set spot-metering to any focusing point.

I have the EC-S focusing screen for the 1d X, but I stopped using it after buying the 24-70 II, and it was indeed tricky, because metering isn't supported so you will be doing a fair bit of compensation.

Pages: 1 ... 57 58 [59] 60 61 ... 149