November 23, 2014, 11:23:12 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 - Quasimodo

Pages: 1 ... 26 27 [28] 29 30 ... 64
406
Black & White / Re: Black & White
« on: May 07, 2013, 02:14:27 AM »
Cold Cape Afternoon~

What a beautiful tranquil image :)

407
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Outdoor portrait noob help
« on: May 07, 2013, 02:13:36 AM »
Hi one last question regarding lenses. Ive been using my sigma 70-200os lens for the few portraits I've done. Would the canon 85 1.8 be a good investment for portrait work considering the 70-200 I've been using is pretty good? I'm curious on bokeh and such and the l is out of my price range

It is one of the great value for money lenses of Canon. Also the quickest AF of the 85's

To me it is not redundant with a 1.8 vs. 2.8. It gives you other possibilities. Also working with a prime forces you to move more to compose, which imho is a good thing. A friend of mine has the 1.8 (I have as you see the Sigma 1.4) and it feels great. It is very quick. It suffers from CA, but then again so does the Sigma, and the mighty 85L II, albeit not so much as the 1.8. This is easily fixed in Lightroom or other programs. I believe that money vs. value this is imo on of the two great offerings from Canon (the other is the 50 1.4).

So it wouldn't be redundent even though I have a 70-200? My copy of the sigma is sharper and on par bokeh wise than my old 70-00 f4 canon to give you idea of my current lens

408
Reviews / Re: Review - Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM
« on: May 07, 2013, 02:08:50 AM »
Quote
And last (but not least) new Sigma just doesn't feel right. It's like Batman first batch of helmets - looks kewl, black and shiny, but when you smack it, it cracks open. By which I mean the plastic feels cheap to touch

IMHO, because Sigma has been at the lens game for a while, the proto-Batman analogy is clever but not really appropriate in this case.  I left the 35mm out on my desk for a week, just to stare at it.  I believe it is a thing a beauty.

+ 1

409
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Outdoor portrait noob help
« on: May 06, 2013, 02:02:17 PM »
Hi one last question regarding lenses. Ive been using my sigma 70-200os lens for the few portraits I've done. Would the canon 85 1.8 be a good investment for portrait work considering the 70-200 I've been using is pretty good? I'm curious on bokeh and such and the l is out of my price range

It is one of the great value for money lenses of Canon. Also the quickest AF of the 85's

410
Lenses / Re: 35 & 85 or 50 & 100 for photographing kids
« on: May 05, 2013, 05:14:52 PM »

Get the 135L first and it's the start of a long and enduring love affair. It's my favorite lens. I got both the Sigmas you mention, and the 35 is great, and the 85 will also be great, .... until you try the 1.2 ;) Sure it is slower (the fastest is actually the 1.8, then Sigma 1.4, and then the 1.2), but there is something about the dreamy IQ of the 1.2 that keeps you wanting it badly. I saw someone suggested the 100L here. Great lens, but imo the AF is a bit too slow for action portraits.

Just my two cents.


Way back when I had a Canon 30D, I tried the 135L. It was amazing—definitely one of the most impressive lenses (if not the most) I've ever used. But I don't think I've ever tried a 135mm on full frame, and I don't even have a zoom in that range, so I probably should give it a shot.

It's even great with the 2xIII TC :)

411
Lenses / Re: 35 & 85 or 50 & 100 for photographing kids
« on: May 05, 2013, 04:56:18 PM »
I'll definitely have to think more about this. First step, maybe I should see if I can get by with the 24-70 II indoors. I do have a 430 EX flash I sometimes use with a "black foamie thing" (as recommended here: http://neilvn.com/tangents/about/black-foamie-thing/), but frankly I don't like the extra bulk of flash.

The other question is whether I can live with a max aperture of 2.8 between 24-70mm from a depth of field perspective. In Justin's review of the Sigma 35/1.4 on this site, he says "The fast aperture and shallow depth of field will capture special moments with amazing clarity while isolating distracting backgrounds." I wouldn't have that ability with the 24-70.

That said, maybe the solution is to go with the 35 & 85 right now, since those are the focal lengths I think I'll use most, and get the 135 later. The 50 & 100 might not make as much sense if I plan to get the 135 eventually.

Get the 135L first and it's the start of a long and enduring love affair. It's my favorite lens. I got both the Sigmas you mention, and the 35 is great, and the 85 will also be great, .... until you try the 1.2 ;) Sure it is slower (the fastest is actually the 1.8, then Sigma 1.4, and then the 1.2), but there is something about the dreamy IQ of the 1.2 that keeps you wanting it badly. I saw someone suggested the 100L here. Great lens, but imo the AF is a bit too slow for action portraits.

Just my two cents.

412
Lighting / Re: Stands made for assistant carry/point?
« on: May 03, 2013, 02:51:50 PM »
I've been using my Benro Carbon monopod, but I guess that this solution is lighter, not to speak of slimmer :)

413
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Outdoor portrait noob help
« on: May 03, 2013, 04:20:41 AM »
This is the one I use.

Thank you.

I have a similar round one (1m) but want to buy a larger with the shape you have, and another smaller (50cm) so the subject can hold it comfortably when bouncing light to face.

414
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Outdoor portrait noob help
« on: May 02, 2013, 05:19:11 PM »
Get a giant 60" scrim and another pair of hands to hold it near the subject. Instant soft-box for cheap.

Got a link for aa good one? :)

415
Black & White / Re: Black & White
« on: May 02, 2013, 11:13:50 AM »
One from yesterday , any kind of feedback is very welcome  :)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/pleroma/8699275424/#

Very nice!

416
So I really like the post work this photographer uses on her photos, but I can't quite place my finger on what techniques were used to achieve the look. Here's an example:

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151375869157124&set=a.10151043132512124.423771.597667123&type=1&theater

Can anyone give me some pointers as to how I might get this feel using Lightroom 4?

Thanks!
Jordan

To me it has this very instagram feel to it. Not sure how you acheive it in lightroom, but I have seen that it has been covered as a topic in several photoshop magazines lately, so I guess that googling instagram effect for lightroom would yield some result?:)

417
Lenses / Re: Need Some Advice
« on: May 01, 2013, 03:37:08 AM »
LOL, I hear you :)

You have good equipment. It might be me, but shooting in ettl mode with my 430 and 580 gives a harder light in my eyes than with my 600. So if you can borrow a 600 and possibly a ST-E2 and a lightstand (also a softbox) for the groupshot?

There is also a long thread (can't remember the name now) with a guy in your situation (2 months ago) where you will find a lot of helpful comments from experienced wedding shooters.

Good luck, and shoot in Raw and have lots of storage with you. Easily 3000 shots for such an event :)

418
Lenses / Re: 24-105L or Sigma 35.1.4 for 6D walk-around
« on: April 28, 2013, 12:07:38 PM »
I've been pretty happy with my 50D kit for general travel/nature/event photography, but I've been wanting to pick up a FF camera to achieve shallower DOF more easily for portraits and lower noise when shooting indoor events (e.g. my son's plays in dark theaters). I downloaded RAW samples from DPR for the 50D, 6D and 5D Mark III and played with them all in LR 4, and I was shocked at the difference between either FF and 50D (easily 2 stops in noise and better contrast across the board). I was leaning towards a 5D mark III, but I just can't justify the extra cash (as an amateur) and don't want the extra bulk and weight for travel, so I've settled on a 6D for its smaller size and GPS.

My dilemma, though, is whether to buy the kit with 24-105L or skip it and put the $500 towards a Sigma 35 1.4 HSM. I already have a 17-40L, 70-200 F4is and 85 1.8, so that wouldn't leave too big a gap in FL, and since what I'm really missing with my 50D is DOF control the large aperture 35 seems really appealing (particularly after the reviews I've read here). The 35 at 1.4-2 looks better than 24-105 at 5.6-8 to my eye. I used to shoot fixed FL lenses exclusively in my film days, so I know the pluses/minuses of that from a creativity standpoint and have no problem "zooming with my feet".

Any opinions of 24-105 vs 35 1.4 for a walk-around would be appreciated. Either way I intend to keep the 50D for now (probably bolted to the 100-400L for zoo/wildlife work).

Thanks

-Wade

Get both :)

For a walkaround the 24-105 is brilliant. To get creative, or low light, or street,- get the 35/1.4. I have both and they are both great, but with different uses. I had however a strange flarephenomenon that affected sharpness on the 35, as I wrote about in another thread here. The result is that I don't use it in studio, but for many other situations.

419
Lenses / Re: 24-105L or Sigma 35.1.4 for 6D walk-around
« on: April 28, 2013, 12:01:22 PM »
So if am getting this right my 135 is actually f 3.2 on my wife's 600D? Is this true even if it does not exist any FF options?

Yes, for equivalent DoF, the 'crop factor' applies to aperture as well - the APS-C equivalent to the 135/2 on FF is a hypothetical 189mm f/3.2 lens.  The FoV changes because of the smaller sensor; the DoF changes because to get the same framing with the cropped FoV, you need to be further from the subject (e.g. to take a head shot, you're further with a 135mm lens on APS-C than FF), and increased distance means deeper DoF.  Exposure isn't affected (metering is the same), although obviously you can use a higher ISO on FF for the same amount of noise.

Ok, thanks. I learn something new every day :)

420
Lenses / Re: 24-105L or Sigma 35.1.4 for 6D walk-around
« on: April 28, 2013, 11:39:49 AM »
What do you plan to shoot while walking around with a 'walkaround' lens?  A 35mm prime doesn't offer a lot of flexibility.  FWIW, f/4 on FF is like f/2.5 on APS-C for DoF.  The 24-105L is a great general purpose lens on FF.

RE keeping the 50D, at low ISO the 6D image cropped to the APS-C FoV will give equivalent IQ (but only 7.8 MP); above ISO 800 the cropped 6D's IQ will be better.

Just re-read. Is it opposite? I.e. That the 600D and 135 is actually f1.25?

Pages: 1 ... 26 27 [28] 29 30 ... 64