September 23, 2014, 02:44:43 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 ... 21 22 [23] 24 25 ... 32
331
i'm sure there are variable at play here that have to be considered but since we are talking about the ziess 21mm f2.8 i for one would look pretty hard at the canon 24mm 1.4. is photozone biased? look at the resolution charts for the ziess and canon next to each other. they are full of praise for the ziess, and call the canon's performance a rollercoaster. well, i don't know what numbers they are looking at because their numbers show canon is better than the ziess everywhere, then drops off as the aperture is opened to amounts the ziess can't even reach. perhaps canon shouldn't have permitted this lens to open wider than f2.8, then it would have gotten better press. add autofocus, weather seals, and a 77mm filter size and it's really looking good. 

332
the other thing about the ziess is that is has a bit of complex distortion, and heavy corner shading at 2.8. also I noticed you didn't mention that it's manual focus only as a "con".  probably very nice working manual focus ring, but for me that's still a con.

333
Lenses / Re: 85mm f/1.2 ii or 135mm f/2
« on: August 27, 2012, 12:57:40 PM »
maybe you are just taking the photos from to close a range. i really doubt a lens's distortion would noticeably distort a face at all. unless you run it up on them, but that's not from the lens. but that's why i like my 70-200 at 200mm or break out the 300mm for tight shots.

334
Lenses / Re: When are Canon going to revise the aged 20mm F2.8 ?
« on: August 27, 2012, 12:39:46 PM »
with the recent updates of the 24mm and 28mm with no word on the 20mm i bet it's either not going to happen anytime soon, or never. i'd be interested in a wider than 24mm 1.4, but i don't see how they "need it". nobody else has it, and people seem to be doing just fine. it'd be cool just to throw one out there, maybe an 18mm 1.4. sure it'll cost $3,000, but it'll be a cool watermark. i just doubt it, esp with the economy in the crapper. besides, from what i've seen the 16-35mm has that 20mm spot at f2.8 covered and does it better, and if you can live with f4 you'd have to say the 17-40mm has it covered as well. but, what about the existence of the new 24 and 28? they have IS, and i bet that signals no IS wide on the horizon. otherwise at some $800 each what's the point?

335
EOS Bodies / Re: 5d Mk III dilemma
« on: August 27, 2012, 08:15:06 AM »
what Random Orbits said, and since i'm a minimalist(not that you could tell from looking at all the junk i have around) i'd sell the crop camera and ef-s lenses as well. unless of course you just want to keep the second camera for operational reasons. otherwise with the 5dmk3 and 24-105f4 i'm sure i'd never reach for the 60d 18-200 combo again. looks like you have a nice kit, have fun.

336
EOS Bodies / Re: I love Primes.
« on: August 24, 2012, 02:21:37 PM »
the research wasn't to intensive. it maybe took 2 hrs with google's help, but then i think i got a handle on it. it's just weird. 

337
Lenses / Re: Why pick 16-35 f2.8 over 17-40 f4
« on: August 24, 2012, 02:14:00 PM »
i had the 17-40, bought a 16-35, and then sold the 17-40. i find the 16-35 to have somewhat better IQ, but the main reason i bought it was that i do a lot of shooting in dimly lit areas and the extra stop is a big help. It's handy also because at these wide focal lengths i can actually use 2.8 and not have nearly everything out of focus due to the larger depth of field. i figured i wouldn't notice the difference between 16mm and 17mm but i did. not huge, but i did notice it. last thing, i felt that a lens for (around) 2x the price for 2x the light gathering ability was a pretty good deal actually, as most of the time the jump from f4 to f2.8 on a top lens costs 4-5x as much. i've never heard anyone look at that that way, but that's the way i see it. i really had no complaints with the 17-40, it was fine, the 16-35 is just better.

338
EOS Bodies / Re: I love Primes.
« on: August 24, 2012, 08:28:59 AM »
nope. sorry, i've done a bit of research on this and it seems that with a prime lens you are going to have to live will whatever angle of view your lens provides.

339
EOS Bodies / Re: I love Primes.
« on: August 23, 2012, 11:14:02 PM »
now this is a silly turn of events.
   hey, charlie, II just so happen to have a 16-35 that i think needs a new owner, as i'm strongly considering replacing it with a......24mm.  yup.

340
EOS Bodies / Re: I love Primes.
« on: August 23, 2012, 11:08:11 PM »
sweet, first to vote against primes. they have their advantages sure. i have a couple, but i'll take a zoom. Sure they are small, and light(until you get a few of them), but barring the long teles they are at the very least matched, usually beaten in IQ by zooms(the L variety). for all of you out there with zooms that want to be liberated, i can come over to your house free of charge and epoxy your zoom lens in your preferred focal length.(provided it's within your zoom's focal length range) I'll even do weird custom stuff like 80mm, 140mm, or even 103mm, whatever you need. Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying zooming all over the place is a replacement for moving closer or further away from your subject. All the distances and angles play a large role in the final results.
 really though, obviously sure they work great for a great many photographers, I'm just not that guy.

341
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Cheap Camera Ideas...worth it?
« on: August 23, 2012, 08:24:59 PM »
35mm f2 or a point and shoot. either of those + a large memory card. a 50mm on a crop is just to long for general purpose. i can't even think of a reason to recommend a tele.

342
i usually keep my gear in an air conditioned environment, and leave a window open or 1/2 open during the drive to my shooting location to try and level out the temperature of my gear to the outside air. Maybe it wasn't given enough time. I thought i had a better understanding of this, but after a little google search i just got confused so i thought i'd post my question here. Some of the stuff i was reading said the gear needed to me warmer, some said colder, some talked about how the gear was getting cold because the lens was aimed into space, and it's cold in space. don't aim it there until you really need to, well that doesn't seem practical.  Make a huge lens hood to protect it from the cold, then something about empty fields and trees... anyway, thanks for the info, it's really cool how one can go on the net ask a question and get info back from others who've done what i'm trying to do and actual meteorologists. thanks.

343
I've only recently had this happen but now that i'm doing more of this thing it's bound to happen all the time. I was really surprised to see it on my images. I didn't see a thing on the LCD out in the field, but i'll be looking closely in the future. I've added an image that most clearly shows the problem. thanks

344
what timing! i just tried this very thing for the first time last week. I was wondering what could be done easily with my gear and a location i've been using for shots of the ISS. after a few shots i decided to jump in the frame myself. i didn't have my wireless shutter thingy so i really did jump into the frame. during this 30second exposure i was wonder if i was even in the frame, and if the coming truck's headlights would ruin the shot. anyway it worked, so i'll do more, and bring my wireless shutter tripper. I guess focus stacking would be the only cure for my being so far OOF.

345
EOS Bodies / Re: review the 5D3 reviews
« on: August 20, 2012, 02:19:38 PM »
i've got no issues with the jpgs from the 5dmk3 at all. i think they are just swell, although i don't use them. maybe i'm just easy to please.

Pages: 1 ... 21 22 [23] 24 25 ... 32