September 02, 2014, 02:57:47 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 - risc32

Pages: 1 ... 14 15 [16] 17 18 ... 31
226
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Rokinon 14mm f/2.8
« on: November 22, 2012, 09:34:05 AM »
the camera will not know what fstop you are using, nor will it stop down the lens during exposure. you can either use it in M mode and use the force(as i do with my film cams) or set your aperture value on the lens itself, then while in a mode set it to the same, and use your camera's meter.   
 while i like to use the force, i'd probably go the "a" mode route.

227
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sigma 35 f/1.4 DG HSM First Impressions
« on: November 22, 2012, 09:29:47 AM »
After having a horrible time with sigma repair a few years ago, and not being to impressed with their IQ or build, i swore off sigma forever. Looking at their new 35mm, and reading what Roger has said about the apparent sigma company turnaround, and very kind words for this lens, i'm very strongly reconsidering.   

in fact, i'd said i'm 90% sure i'll buy this lens in the next week or two. maybe later today. ?

228
Lenses / Re: Is the EF 800 f/5.6L IS Due for Replacement? [CR2]
« on: November 19, 2012, 07:25:25 PM »
so not only has the lens hood for the relatively newly replaced 400 2.8 IS no longer available, the hood(same hood model) for the still in production 800mm is no longer going to be made? 

 man, with service like that, i might have to reconsider third party gear. It's things like this that keep me anyway from third party gear, but when canon's no better AND living at a much higher price point....

229
don't even think of bouncing off a gym ceiling with a shoe mounted flash. that's just not going to do anything but drain your batteries. and,,.. i gotta go my 3yr old needs me, i'll check back in a bit to see if you got any good advise...

230
Lenses / Re: Portrait: 85mm 1.8 or 100mm 2.0
« on: November 17, 2012, 05:08:30 PM »
i had a 100 f2, and now own a 85 1.8. the 100f2 was a terrific lens. The 100 has metal filter threads,while the 85's are plastic. they both focus very quickly, and are both very sharp. the 85 seems to have more CA than i remember the 100 having, while the 85 seems to have a bit better bokeh. they both are really great lenses, and i don't think you can go wrong with either. really the main differences are the focal length and speed, and even then there isn't much in it. The only reason i'm now running the 85 instead of the 100 is for that extra 1/3rd stop in speed. i already own 2.8 zooms, so i just wanted something more removed from them.

231
i'm not sure some of the people here have ever been out of their mother's basement.

232
Lenses / Re: lowlight lens Af action resource?
« on: November 12, 2012, 08:47:18 PM »
well, just the other day i noticed that someone somewhere on here said something about how they loved their 135f2, but the focus was not so great. now, i know that's bull cause i've used one for an indoor soccer tourney, but this is the sort of stuff you can find all over the net. So no one has made an even somewhat scientific test minded test? with all these sites out there, nothing?
   
just stupid stuff, like the site i read the other day where the guy was recommending a 24TS for sports, and a 50mm1.2, and 75-300 IS L as good beginner's lenses.  I forget what the recommended the 90mm TS for, but it was retarded. actually, I don't even have a clue what a 90mm TS might be really good for, but i bet it has a use. 

 it must... right? 
     

233
 maybe you guys just haven't read as many reviews and opinions as I have. A few times I've read that the 1dmk4 had much better lowlight AF using the spot AF setting. My understanding, coming from reading tons of stuff, is that the larger AF points help with tracking in good light, while the smaller point can help when the lighting is low. I don't know how many of you have used 1d's before, but they DID at least up until some point, suck in low light, and they just still may. IF i was to stand in the church with a bride walking toward me, with the AF set to focus priority, she would walk right on by while i never got a single shot off.  I've yet to try it(spot AF), as I'm very reluctant to start fooling around during a wedding shoot, but the one i had for this saturday fell through (don't ask! ha!). perhaps I can gleam some info with some tests of my own.  at least with the 1d i could have a bright red AF sensor light up, and stay lit.

234
Lenses / lowlight lens Af action resource?
« on: November 12, 2012, 08:24:49 AM »
I'm looking for some info on how well different lenses Af in low light conditions. I haven't been able to find much of anything on the net thus far. I know much depends on the camera body, but i'd still like to get any info i possibly can. Anyone got any thing? I'm even thinking about getting my gear out and running it threw a bit of testing in my kids playroom while slowly dimming the lights to see what can be learned. but i have only a small lens collection, and most of the lenses I'm curious about I don't own. Thanks

235
I'm in the same boat you guys are in. It's a sad site to see me at a wedding reception holding a pose for so long to get a shot, while someone with a P&S can walk up and grab it much faster. Honestly, between this and the black AF points, i'm not sure that the initial reviews of this camera, the ones that were written up before the camera was released to the public, were at all legit. A few of those guys where wedding photographers, and i can say that they are 100% BS. 95% of wedding receptions are dark, and they are all lit to roughly the same level(cave!) and the 5dmk3 is lost. now it's not as lost as my 1dmk2 was, it was so lost it never found itself..
    hmmm, we now have a 1d level AF, do we get crap 1d level low light AF? I assumed that most of the 1dmk2's bad lowlight AF was due to it's design age, but maybe not. I think my 5d is about the same age, and it was much better.... hmmm, maybe it's something inherent in the 1d class AF, hence they will be no fix.  damn.

you guys tried using the spot focus setting?

236
Lenses / Re: 16-35 II vs. 24-70 II
« on: November 10, 2012, 02:56:02 PM »
I haven't, but as a happy owner of a 16-35mmv2 i'd eat my hat if the 24-70 didn't give it a sound beating. I consider a 24-70mm f2.8 a much less extreme design, coupled with the much higher price point and a handful or years newer design, i can't imagine anything less.

237
Lenses / Re: do image stabilisers decrease image quality?
« on: November 08, 2012, 08:24:50 PM »
so the lens elements, most of them you say, are "correcting" the image not improving it... hmmm. where i come from correcting problems IS improving the image. Maybe you are trying to say that all those silly elements are fouling things up, and that leads to more elements to fix these new problems, and so on, and so on. hmmm again, but i don't think so. i guess a billion dollar company with the better part of 100yrs making lenses can learn some stuff from us here.
  note to Canon HQ- use much fewer lens elements from now on cause companies like leica make do with only a handful.
  I've watched a few Canon lens production videos on youtube, namely the 500mmf4, and to me at least it looks like they have things well under control.
  as am typing and rereading your last post i've decided i don't even know what you're trying to say.

238
Lenses / Re: 24-70 F/4L IS - Why I will Buy/Not Buy this lens.
« on: November 06, 2012, 06:32:38 PM »
800 + 800 = 2300  ?

 At 1000 US yes, any higher, no. I like my recently purchased 24-105.

239
i missed a fair bit of shots for this very reason at a wedding shoot a week or two back. I only tried it with my 580. maybe i should have swapped that out for another model? i wouldn't have thought so, but between this and the black AF points, i'm about ready to try anything. I still can't believe that owners of the 7d were never bothered by the black AF points. that's just silly.

240
that's a very funny comparo, i nearly thought i was reading the onion.(reason to buy the 5d, 1/8000th shutter...) the 5d is a very good camera, but the mk2 is better in a number of ways, and you'll have to weight it's advantages -vs- cost for what sort of things you are looking accomplish. I have a 5d for a few years now and use it regularly, despite having a mk3. i think i've cleaned the sensor once.... maybe. the LCD isn't so bad, but clearly not current tech.

Pages: 1 ... 14 15 [16] 17 18 ... 31