December 22, 2014, 12:13:54 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 - risc32

Pages: 1 ... 18 19 [20] 21 22 ... 36
286
Pricewatch Deals / lensrental's 7.5/10 used zeiss 21mm, $1,314
« on: November 25, 2012, 08:58:22 PM »
I know it's not exactly a black friday super deal, but i think this is a very good deal for the guy who isn't concerned about hairline coating marks.

287
Lenses / Re: Focal Distance: furthest possible maintaining blurred BG
« on: November 25, 2012, 08:13:39 PM »
When i started reading the thread i wasn't understanding the OP. I figured it perhaps just over my head, but the terminology seemed a bit funny. Then i got a better understanding of what he was asking and promptly agreed with neuroanatomist and his side. This might be a hard thing for some to get their head around.

288
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sigma 35 f/1.4 DG HSM First Impressions
« on: November 24, 2012, 03:56:19 PM »
I noticed the somewhat funny looking bokeh in most of the shots posted on the net, but really for my style anyway, it isn't an issue at all. YOU guys who see creamy goodness in hte 35mm samples need your eyes checked, and i just bought one of these. People who are into bokeh, and blowing things OOF really shouldn't be fooling with 35mm lenses in the first place. usually it's a guy with a 1/2 frame camera using a 35mm for OOF effects. I would simply say, get a man's camera. And don't tell me you can't afford one, 35m film cams are super cheap and the 5dc isn't terribly expensive either.

289
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sigma 35 f/1.4 DG HSM First Impressions
« on: November 22, 2012, 04:14:15 PM »
Aj, thanks for that link. the shots that were done against the sun are very informative to me. Nothing got washed out, as i've had happen in the past with a few of the sigma lenses i had. Some were so damn bad i had replace them just due to that issue. nice 18pt sunstars, and at least at these sizes, very sharp and colorful. but with it being autumn they should have a problem being colorful.

 i ordered one. also, note B&H have extended their return period until jan 18th  !!!  If i can't find a deal breaker by then, i probably never will.  fingers crossed.

290
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.

291
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. ?

292
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....

293
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...

294
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.

295
i'm not sure some of the people here have ever been out of their mother's basement.

296
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? 
     

297
 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.

298
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

299
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?

300
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.

Pages: 1 ... 18 19 [20] 21 22 ... 36