November 27, 2014, 08:19:28 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 - Random Orbits

Pages: 1 ... 24 25 [26] 27 28 ... 93
376
Lenses / Re: Zeiss 21mm f/2.8 or 24-70 mm II
« on: January 17, 2014, 02:08:13 PM »
For me, 24mm isn't wide enough for landscape, the 17mm TS/E is too impractical and Canon's 20mm is junk leaving only the 21mm Zeis.

TS-E is impractical, why?  Because it doesn't accept filters easily?


Quote from: NancyP link=topic=19117.msg358110#msg358110 da
te=1389982491
Do you find the polarizer useful at 21mm, or does it result in obvious artifact (sky gradient)? Actually, I know that it must, because I have used a polarizer at the 15mm end of a zoom on APS-C, and the effect is noticeable on a plain blue sky. I have been considering whether to buy a polarizer at 82mm diameter, or the 105mm diameter used to mount on the Lee holder - both options are ungodly expensive ($260.00 to $400.00 for B&W XS-PRO Nano "wide"). I suppose that one inconspicuous use of a polarizer on ultra-wide angle lens might be in a shot without significant amount of sky, eg, woodlands shot.

A polarizer can be useful even for WAs.  It can be used for water, but I like using it for snow, and in some cases can be used for the sky depending on where the sun is and what effect you're trying to go for.  Although, you might find youself using it more if you choose to get a canon/tamron 24-70 in the future.   ::)

377
Lenses / Re: 135L or 100 Macro IS?
« on: January 17, 2014, 01:57:29 PM »
I would vote for the 100L.  135L is bit limiting on APS-C.  It shines for portraiture on FF, but it's a bit too long on APS-C to be used the same way.  If you want a more general purpose telezoom, then a 70-xxx makes more sense than either 100L or 135L.

The macro is nice because it allows you to take a general pic and then focus close on details.  You don't have to use it 1:1.  Even using it at 0.25-0.5x will give you greater magnification that most lenses and gives you more freedom to compose your smaller subjects.

378
Lenses / Re: Zeiss 21mm f/2.8 or 24-70 mm II
« on: January 17, 2014, 07:55:28 AM »
How many lenses are you considering?  It looks like you're considering 3:  Zeiss 21, a Canon 24 prime (24L II, TS-E 24mm f/3.5 or a 24mm f/2.8 IS?) and Canon 24-70 II.

I've tried a Canon 28mm f/2.8 IS, and honestly, I have not found the IS to be that useful.  I can handhold it to about 1/20s and still get good results.  With IS, I can get to to 1/10s and maybe 1/5s on occasion.  In those type of situations, I'd usually prefer a tripod to IS for scenes that are not moving.  If people/animals are moving in the frame then you want something 1/60s or faster and IS makes no difference.

If the Zeiss 21 is wide enough for your needs, then get it.  If you have enough money, the Zeiss 21 and the Canon 24-70 II is a formidable combination.

379
Lenses / Re: Sell 16-35 II for 24-70 II/24TSE?
« on: January 16, 2014, 07:48:05 AM »
I would suggest getting the 24-70 II first and deciding how that works for you, and if you need wider, then take a look at the TS-E 17 as Eldar suggested.  Unless you need the movements, it might not be the best use of your money to have two excellent lenses at 24mm:  24-70 II and the TS-E 24.

Yes, TS-Es make it easier to get panos because of shift, but it some cases, it is not a substitute for a wider lens in some cases.  Most of the time it works well, but think of scenes where there is a lot of movement due to wind or due to animals moving through the frame.  One option is get the TS-E 17 and use the 1.4x to approximate a TS-E 24.  It won't be as sharp as either the TS-E 24 or the 24-70 II but others have used it and it's worked well enough for them.

I too have the 16-35II but rarely use it.  I use the TS-Es most of the time, so I only use the 16-35II when travelling light.  A 16-35/50/70-xxx is an easy way to cover a wide focal length range and handle indoor/outdoor lighting and still get high IQ.

380
Lenses / Re: 17-40/4 L DxO Tested
« on: January 15, 2014, 09:36:39 AM »
This is one potential reason why I've stayed away from their software.  If they can't characterize the lenses correctly, does it affect their software products?

I think that's one of the reasons why people are frustrated by the DxO 'tests'. Their software programs are quite highly regarded by many, in sharp contrast to their 'score summaries' which are joke, and a poor one at that. Trying to condense a lens's performance into a single 'score' is an insult to their programs.

I've never really tried DxO software.  I currently use LR for basic edits and cataloging, Nik for B&W conversion and some HDR,  and PS for focus stacking and photo-stitching.  For others that use the same software that I use, is there an advantage to using DxO software?  If so, which programs do you find useful?

381
Lenses / Re: New Wide Angles Lenses in 2013 [CR2]
« on: January 14, 2014, 09:29:22 PM »
Oh totally! They need something in that ultra wide range other than the costly 14L. Their foolin no one with the 8-15 fisheye! I opted for the Samyang 14mm f/2.8 instead as I got fed up waiting. It's a pity I can't use filters with it though. Blasted bulbous ends! Haha!

What is the widest you can get without going bulbous end? Is it 16mm? I imagine a 12-24 or 14-24 would be quite expensive anyway and wouldn't take filters.

Zeiss' 15mm takes filters -- 95mm filters.   :o

382
Lenses / Re: 17-40/4 L DxO Tested
« on: January 14, 2014, 08:19:02 PM »
This is one potential reason why I've stayed away from their software.  If they can't characterize the lenses correctly, does it affect their software products?

383
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: 6D + SIGMA 24-105 f/4 Art = locks up
« on: January 13, 2014, 02:01:11 PM »
Perhaps it would be worth trying the same experiment with a Sigma 35 in a store to see if all Sigma lenses behave like this...

Either way, it looks like Sigma failed to reverse-engineer how the Canon firmware/software behaves exactly.  At least with Sigma, there is a chance that they'd release new firmware/software so that you can update it via the USB dock...

384
EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: Microadjustment Automated
« on: January 13, 2014, 09:16:21 AM »
Nobody mentioned it - I'm quite sure they will block 3rd party lenses (eg a lens needs to identify itself correctly).
Even the Sigma USB dock does not really help. I have the 35 Art lens and you can set only 3 focus distances (~0.30 m, ~0.60m, infinity). While the focus is perfect @ f/1.4 for these distances, it is quite off between 0.60m (+14 in the USB Dock tool) and infinity (+3 in the tool). No way to correct that at the moment. Sigma still has issues here.

+1.  I wouldn't be surprised if a change like this would lead to compatibility issues with 3rd party lenses.  It would be one thing if 3rd party lenses would function as they had before and the canon lenses gained increased accuracy, etc, but it would be another if the 3rd party lenses are bricked.  As much as people complain about Canon bodies not accepting 3rd party batteries after a firmware update, not being able to use 3rd party lenses would be much worse.  Not so much an issue for MF lenses only (i.e. Samyang), but it would be a large threat to Sigma/Tamron.  Even if Sigma were able to provide updated firmware after a few months, the damage will be done.  People may blame Canon for breaking compatibility with 3rd party lenses, but a lot fewer people would be willing to take the risk of buying 3rd party lenses again...

385
Lenses / Re: macro lens and techniques
« on: January 10, 2014, 05:19:58 PM »
What do you mean by "losing a lot of picture at the edges"?  Mechanical vignetting?  If so, what is the max aperture of your 50?

Or are you talking about being limited by the fixed magnification ratio, which is determined by the focal lengths of the two lenses that you are using?  If so, then a dedicated macro lens makes a lot of sense.  You can use different magnification ratios up to 1:1, which gives you more freedom for framing and then use the reverse lens technique for more specialized shots.  Either that or pick up the MP-E 65.   ;D

386
Lenses / Re: The 10 Oldest Canon Lenses in Production
« on: January 10, 2014, 05:10:07 PM »
I don't think that Canon should replace the 50mm f/1.4 with a f/1.8 IS. The reason being the Sigma Art lenses.
I would hazard a guess that a new Canon 50mm f/1.8 IS would be a similar price to the new Sigma 50mm f/1.4. That would be an interesting choice.

I wouldn't be surprised if the IS goes into a f/1.8.  A lens at f/1.4 with IS is too close to the L, unless they made a f/1.2L with IS, but Canon's strategy seems to IS their non-L lenses, and maximum apertures are reserved for their L counterparts (i.e. at 24mm and 35mm).  With the Sigma 50 coming in larger than the previous version, a small and compact 50 f/1.8 IS would be great for those that value low weight and discretion while the 50L II would have to offer more than the S50.

387
Lenses / Re: The 10 Oldest Canon Lenses in Production
« on: January 10, 2014, 02:44:00 PM »
I'd buy a 20mm f1.8 (or 2.0) L if it was on par with the 24L & 35L

I'd be interested in that too, which would allow much to ditch the 16-35 II.

388
Lenses / Re: The 10 Oldest Canon Lenses in Production
« on: January 10, 2014, 02:28:44 PM »
You know it's slow in Canon land when people start making lists like this to pass the time!

Only if you ignore the DR threads.  ::)

389
Lenses / Re: The 10 Oldest Canon Lenses in Production
« on: January 10, 2014, 01:19:03 PM »
To be fair, though, the two lenses mentioned here are both rumors.  The actual lenses and their respective apertures haven't been announced yet. 

As for the three non-L IS versions that have been announced, two of them kept the same aperture as their predecessors (24/2.8 and 35/2).  Both jumped in filter size (52mm to 58mm and 67mm, respectively), although Canon doesn't seem to be very concerned with filter sizes any more. 

Only the 28mm dropped from 1.8 to 2.8, which is a shame because a 1.8 with IS would have been a great "normal" lens on crop and would have made a real distinction between the new 24 and 28.  But Canon has kept the original 28/1.8 thus far, so apparently they weren't ready to kill that particular darling just yet, despite the sense it would have made.  Now they have two 28s in the lineup, which sell for about the same amount new, with the only spec differences being aperture and IS. 

Trying to make sense out of Canon lineup decisions is maddening.  For instance, why start putting IS in your wide angles rather than your telephotos???

The 28 f/2.8 IS replaced the 28 f/2.8 non-IS.  The 28 f/1.8 is still being sold; the 28 f/2.8 non-IS is not.

Also agree with Ellen that Canon is leaving the option open to release a fast 28mm lens.  The non-L IS lenses are 35 f/2, 28 f/2.8 and 24 f/2.8.  The Ls go 50 f/1.2, 35 f/1.4 and 24 f/1.4.  A 28 f/1.4 L would slot nicely between the 35 and 24Ls.  Although I'm not sure if there is a sufficiently large market for 28mm primes anymore.  It seems like the 24s are a lot more popular than the 28s.

390
Reviews / Re: Review: EOS M System
« on: January 10, 2014, 12:21:12 AM »
hello everyone,

kinda curious. I have my M with 2.0.2 firmware verison and Samyang 8mm f/3.5 fisheye. However, I couldn't use this 8mm on M. Shutter button wouldn't work and the touch shutter woudn't either.

I changed mode from Av to Tv to M and P. None of them worked. Neither Intelligence mode nor Video worked.

Anyone got a clue?

Thanks all.
jSiras

Did you try Custom Function IV (screen 7) to set Release shutter w/o lens = 1 (Enable)?

Pages: 1 ... 24 25 [26] 27 28 ... 93