April 16, 2014, 12:08:39 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 - untitled10

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6
31
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D2 Dust :|
« on: November 12, 2012, 04:56:22 PM »
Lock up the mirror and use the blow cleaner again.

32
Lenses / Re: Post your wishlist for to-be-released lenses
« on: November 08, 2012, 07:16:06 AM »
Does anyone consider a 35 1.2 a possibility? or a 24?

33
United Kingdom & Ireland / Re: Hampshire UK
« on: November 08, 2012, 07:14:16 AM »
Also, in southapton there is a photography club in the art house,  anyone else considering joining?

34
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Back Up Body
« on: October 27, 2012, 07:03:19 PM »
+1 Definatly 1dmkiii, sell those 7ds towards some loverly new glass c;

35
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Upgrading from sony to canon
« on: October 27, 2012, 09:14:09 AM »
Ironically, I have been thinking Sony is looking better and better, especially with the finally-NEX-I-can-live-with NEX6 and A99.  Sony is bound to release a scaled-down full frame body to compete with 6D and D600, and the price is likely going to be much nicer.
And they still have weak lens selection for both lineups. The NEX line barely has 10 lenses, and that says nothing of whether they are any good. Same is true of A-mount, especially if we are talking for full-frame; the cheap primes just really aren't there. You have to go third-party in many cases.

Although they did have nice cheap crop primes, a £120 RRP 35mm 1.8 and a £100 RRp 50mm 1.8 but only worked on crop were loverly lenses although they were extremely plasticity and had terrible polygonal apertures :s

36
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Upgrading from sony to canon
« on: October 24, 2012, 01:08:34 PM »
Hey i'm finnally making the move from sony to canon what i've been using is:

Sony A33
18-55 3.5-5.6
70-200 f4.0
35 f1.8

I'm upgrading to:
5d mkii
17-40 f4.0
50 1.4
135 f2.0
Battery grip
16gb Cf card
spare Battery

My predicament is weather to buy a 430ex ii with a couple triggers or a Tameron 28-75 2.8
I mostly shoot longboarding, landscapes a little bit of portraiture low-light events, day time events and quite a lot of video, but I really want to experiment with flash but not sure I want to lose the focal range capability for video or lowlight shooting, recommendations?

Thanks, Harvey

Good decision. Whilst Sony has better sensors, Canon has some of the best Lenses around. Especially they're prime selection.

The glass wsa the main reason along with video that im moving to canon
also, om the length issue I was going to go for a sigma 120-300 2.8 OS in the distant future

37
Lenses / Re: A New EF 800 f/5.6L IS II? [CR2]
« on: October 22, 2012, 08:21:33 AM »
How about these upgrades:  a 135 f/2.0L IS, or a 200 f/2.8L IS ?

Would love to see the latter,  still black with better iq the the 70-200 is ii maybe c;

38
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Upgrading from sony to canon
« on: October 21, 2012, 02:04:06 PM »


I never really shot that long any way, thanks for pointing that out though, and the main aim of the 17-40 is for the wideangles needed for longboarding be it filming or photography

I did not know this about the 430ex what 3rd partys with ttl have 360 rotation if anybody knows?


Just a question: do you need to go as wide as 17mm for longboarding?  Keep in mind that the 17-40mm on full frame is roughly equivalent to a 10-22mm on a crop body.

If you do want to use the 17-40mm for action, you need to consider that wide open, in the corners it doesn't provide anything vaguely resembling sharpness:



At f/4 at 17mm the 17-40 can't even achieve corner resolution of 1200 line widths per image height!

At f/4, the 16-35 is considerably better:



At f/11 the performance of both lenses, in terms of resolution is pretty close - so for anyone shooting landscapes, it is pretty much a wash.  However, for anyone shooting action, the 16-35mm is the better choice -albeit at a much higher price.

If you don't need the extreme wide angles of those lenses, you could rather look at something like a 24-105 f/4L IS USM, or Tamron's new 24-70 f/2.8.  (I would be hesitant to recommend the Canon 24-70 f/2.8L II unless you are shooting professionally. - We've just got one for my wife's business, but it is really expensive, and you really need a good reason to spend that much money on a 24-70mm lens.)

BTW: The MTF charts above are from Photozone - http://www.photozone.de - They have some pretty good lens reviews, which may be worth reading before you make your final choices.


Yeah, ive used 18mm on full frame once and it was perfect , 18 on crop was wayy to long

I did not realise quite how bad the corners were, would use at f11/16 be good enough for landscape do you think?

39
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Upgrading from sony to canon
« on: October 20, 2012, 11:54:49 AM »
There were some comments about rather getting the 16-35 f/2.8.  My view, rather is that you are missing a standard zoom.  I would rather go for the 24-105mm f/4L IS USM than the 17-40mm.  It is a little pricier, but the 24-105mm is probably one of the all-round most practical lenses. - Despite the fact that it is only a f/4, it is still very popular with wedding photographers.  I would try to get the kit with the 5DII and the 24-105mm f/4L - that is very good value.  The only downside of the 24-105 is that the bokeh is a little busy with certain backgrounds, and can be a little distracting.

Just another comment about the 17-40mm on full frame - for landscapes you need to use it around f/8 to f/11 to get any semblance of sharpness in the corners.  This is an example:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/specular-images/7524804780/#in/photostream - Even at the highest resolution I have uploaded to flickr, you can see that the corners leave a bit to be desired - this was shot at f/16, so I would have lost a little sharpness to diffraction again as well. - In a 100% crop, the corners are mush. - I'm not trying to say the 17-40 is a bad lens - just understand its limitations.  It is however a very usable walkabout lens for a crop frame body as well.


I would concur with the other posters about the need for a flash.  Something to think about is the fact that Canon's 4x0 series flashes do not rotate through 360 degrees, which can be a problem when using bounce flash indoors.
I know it is a very expensive option, but also think about Canon's radio triggering system with the 600-EX-RT - it is an impressive system, just getting one Speedlite and a trigger already costs a bomb. - It may be worth considering taking the path of first buying a third party flash to get started, and then saving for a 600-EX-RT. That path, however, sees you committed to the Canon radio trigger system! - Make an informed decision, and understand the consequences of your decision. ;-)

One obvious gap in moving from your old kit is at the long end.  Your 70-200mm on the Sony is equivalent to a 320mm at the long end on the 5DII.


What you probably need to consider is which aspect of your photography to concentrate on first.  That will allow you to spread your purchases over time.  If you can afford to keep your old camera while you start building up your new system, that may help you to still enjoy all aspects of your photography, even though your new system does not cover all of your interests.


I never really shot that long any way, thanks for pointing that out though, and the main aim of the 17-40 is for the wideangles needed for longboarding be it filming or photography

I did not know this about the 430ex what 3rd partys with ttl have 360 rotation if anybody knows?

40
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Upgrading from sony to canon
« on: October 19, 2012, 03:53:04 PM »
I know you have not asked this question but I would get the 16-35 over the 17-40.

oh I would if I could but alas my budget limits me unforitnatly 

Compare to Sony, Canon is blessed with a wider range of cheaper third party options. You might want to consider a flash from Yongnuo (565EX, 568EX, YN-468 II) and a pair of YN-622 radio triggers which together will give you equivalent functionality including off-camera E-TTL. Put the money saved towards the Tamron.


Im quite determined to keep with canon on this one, but I may have a look into this, thanks

41
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Upgrading from sony to canon
« on: October 18, 2012, 01:20:40 PM »
Hey i'm finnally making the move from sony to canon what i've been using is:

Sony A33
18-55 3.5-5.6
70-200 f4.0
35 f1.8

I'm upgrading to:
5d mkii
17-40 f4.0
50 1.4
135 f2.0
Battery grip
16gb Cf card
spare Battery

My predicament is weather to buy a 430ex ii with a couple triggers or a Tameron 28-75 2.8
I mostly shoot longboarding, landscapes a little bit of portraiture low-light events, day time events and quite a lot of video, but I really want to experiment with flash but not sure I want to lose the focal range capability for video or lowlight shooting, recommendations?

Thanks, Harvey

42
Lenses / Re: Why is there no 700mm?
« on: October 18, 2012, 09:11:42 AM »
Perhaps its also difficult to build. Ive heard 50mm is easy to build but 35mm is more difficult thats why there arent so many 35mm lenses with wide aperture out for example.

That's because of the flange distance compared to focal length, 35mm is shorter than the 44mm flange distance and thus has to use a different lens type, but once you get over 200mm's or so then it just stays pretty much the same albeit larger, 700mm would be very slightly simpler than an 800 because you would need smaller fluorite elements to correct for chromatic aberration, that is the major problem with longer lenses and what makes all these so expensive, due to the Rn'D and expensive materials used to correct the difficult of a longer focal length.

43
Technical Support / Re: Removing Vignetting On 3rd Party Lenses
« on: September 10, 2012, 05:08:30 PM »
You can do this in light room in bulk, look for some tutorials to show you

44
Lenses / Re: Lenses for 1DC?
« on: August 29, 2012, 02:57:44 PM »

45
Canon EF Prime Lenses / Re: Canon EF135mm f/2L USM
« on: August 20, 2012, 07:26:52 PM »
like to hear some comments about this photo.
*like how well the bokeh and etc

I honestly think the shutter speed was a little too low....

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6