Messages

16

Lenses / Re: Quick decision help: canon 24 vs zeiss 21

« on: December 07, 2012, 08:36:34 AM »

Thanks for all your thoughts.

Whilst I was very excited by the zeiss i went with the canon. It was a lens I have wanted for a long time, and I haven't even looked into the zeiss very much because I just always assumed Id never have one. So i went with what i had researched most. Plus i got the guy to know an extra £20 off, chuck in postage. And it has filters, and its weathersealed. So im happy. I think :s lol.

The best thing about both lens' is that they both hold their value so well. So if I practise manual focus on this, if i decide i prefer the colour or the slightly wider feel of the zeiss I can always sell it and buy a zeiss if the opportunity comes up again i guess!

Thanks again. I love that I can always count on this forumn for some input.

17

Lenses / Quick decision help: canon 24 vs zeiss 21

« on: December 07, 2012, 05:03:28 AM »

I have the opportunity to buy either a zeiss 21mm distagon or canon 24 1.4 mkii. Both used, both £900 ( the canon comes with some filters). I have to choose today really and I dont know what to do. I had always been set on a canon 24L thinking i could never afford the zeiss, i rarely see it second hand!

I want a sharp lens and i would mostly be doing enviornmental portraits. So the subject would be smallish in the frame, and the backround would be hopfully bold and dramatic.

I think I would miss the f1.4, but then i got frustrated at images not being tack sharp pn my 35L 1.4 wide open.

Also I have never used a manual focus lens, but i guess at such a wide focal length it should be too hard?

Ive heard so many conflicting oponions about both in regards to sharpness. Some saying the zeiss is only better in the corners.

I would be interested in landscape and shooting stars in the future. I have seen amazing examples with the canon, then I have also seen people bashing the coma at f1.4?

Im using a 5dmkii, I dont have a preference on focal length as im guessing both will be pretty wide!

Any thoughts?

Thanks

18

Lenses / Re: Visualising focal length perception.

« on: November 29, 2012, 07:09:54 AM »

Some more examples here i think

http://stl-photography.com/blog/category/weddings/

http://www.creativelive.com/courses/wedding-photography-business-boot-camp-sal-cincotta
photo with the car infront of building... what focal length would this be?

19

Lenses / Re: Visualising focal length perception.

« on: November 29, 2012, 07:07:18 AM »

Do you think 24mm is too wide for enviornmental portraits like this? I quite fancy the 24mm prime.

http://blog.kubotaimagetools.com/?tag=authorcraig&page=2

not really the first one, although that is kinda cool how couple dont look too weirdly distored.

20

Lenses / Re: Visualising focal length perception.

« on: November 29, 2012, 04:38:20 AM »

Thanks everyone, this was exactly the discussion I was hoping for. Im also trying to analyse alot of images, trying to figure out how they were created. This helps alot.

21

Lenses / Visualising focal length perception.

« on: November 28, 2012, 09:47:47 AM »

I hope the title of this thread isn't misleading. I only use primes, I dont know why, I just like them. Im trying to understand how focal perception effects photos.

For shooting small groups, and if space wasn't an issue, is the best reason to use the widest lens possible before distortion factors show up, because it gives the most sense of depth to the photo?

Imagine the worlds best telephoto lens, that would allow me to photograph a group of 6 people or so from the other end of a football pitch and crop in, still retaining amazing sharpenss. It would still look weird because everything would look so compressed and there would be no depth to the photo right? Or would this scenario infact depend upon how close they were stood to a backround.

Is this a suitable way to visualise this focal length perception or am I missing something? What would you suggest to be the longest focal length to be used for group photos, space permitting?

22

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sigma 35 f/1.4 DG HSM First Impressions

« on: November 23, 2012, 05:53:04 AM »

There are some signs of onion brokeh which isnt too pleasent.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1167718/5

However im not very knowledgeable about how often situations that create onion brokeh occur. All the other samples seem to have a very nice brokeh. Can anyone enlighten me as to whether this should be something to be concerned about?

23

Lenses / Re: Portrait Lens

« on: October 01, 2012, 11:42:40 AM »

I LOVE my 135L f2 and use it at every possible opportunity.  The only time I would go shorter in focal length (for a head and shoulders or just tight head shot) is if the room was too small for my 135mm. I like the compression, and i like it at f2. Saying that ive never had the chance to play with a 50L or 85L and im sure theyre amazing too.  Although im sure I would struggle more to get both eyes in focus because i'd just HAVE to shoot at f1.2 haha.

24

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 6D Specs Leaked?

« on: September 14, 2012, 09:27:18 AM »

What does f2.8 in regards to AF?

Thanks

Specs are interesting, maybe my 5dmkii wont loose that much value after all.

25

Lighting / Re: Need Assistance on how to improve skin tones with strobes

« on: September 14, 2012, 04:55:42 AM »

This might help as i have a similar problem with babies. I use ACR, so i hope the same applies to you using lightroom. But i discovered just last night that the tab that says HSL (Hue, Saturation, Luminance) is very good. I set it to luminance then adjust the red and orange until im happy. Sometimes playing with the saturation and hue can help too on the red slider.

Only problem i have with this is it sends with lips too bright, so then i use the burn tool drop of back down.

If there is smaller problem areas i take it into photoshop and use a lasso to select the areas, then use a selective colour adjustment where it lets me play with the magenta channel and the black slider is good too.

Hope that helps.

Craig

26

Lenses / Re: Need advice on indoor low light lens choices.

« on: September 06, 2012, 11:52:06 AM »

I have 5d mkii with 35L, 50 1.8 and 135L. Im really happy with my low light abilities. Only thing id change now is swapping the 50mm 1.8 for the 50mm 1.4 or the sigma 85 1.4. And getting a 16-35L zoom for wider, or maybe holding out for a newer rumored version seeing as I dont have much money left for kit atm. 35, 50 and 135 cover a very nice portrait range, id just like wider for lanscape shots and night sky photos.

27

Lens Gallery / Re: Canon EF17-40mm f/4L USM

« on: August 17, 2012, 11:56:00 AM »

I'm quite pleased with this one, so pleased it's one of my entries in the Oxford Flickr Group's exhibition at the Botanic Garden in Oxford.


Flowers in the Botanic Garden by taperoo2k, on Flickr

Really awesome, how did you process this?

28

Lenses / Re: New Wide Angle Zoom Discussion & Opinion

« on: August 15, 2012, 10:52:23 AM »

Isnt there a filter holder for the nikon 14-24? I agree 16mm but sharper would be fine.

29

5D MK III Sample Images / Re: Some jewelry made by my wife taken with the 5D MKIII

« on: August 15, 2012, 04:11:33 AM »

@ M.ST... Out if interest what about the IQ dont you like. I think its incredible. Id be so proud if I produced anything like that. What is it about my untrained eye that im missing?

OK fair enough, I can understand it wouldnt be good enough for a huge brand campaign, but something smaller surley its good enough?

Thanks!

30

Landscape / Re: Perseid Meteor Shower. Share your photos.

« on: August 13, 2012, 05:24:15 AM »

Excellent work guys. Im really wanting to get into this. I only have a 35L that might be appropriate. Is this going to be wide enough? Also how do you set focus? Do you set it manually to infinity? With a 30 sec exposure will the camera capture alot more stars than the eye can see? Thanks!