July 25, 2014, 05:11:21 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 ... 31 32 [33] 34 35 ... 86
481
Lenses / Re: What lenses would you bring for this travel-trip?
« on: August 13, 2013, 05:57:53 PM »
The TS-E 17 is better for tall buildings or for interior shots, but the TS-E 24 is more versatile for general landscapes and pano-stitching (especially if you have close foreground objects near the edges).  It is harder to make 17mm panos interesting.  Extenders can be used on them to give you more framing options but the TS-24 will be sharper and faster than the TS-E 17 + 1.4x.  In your case, I can see the TS-E 17 being more useful for the trip, but how much would you use it after?  Is it worth renting it for the trip or buying it and possibly selling it in the future?

Are you going to be bringing a tripod?  If not, then I'd avoid the TS-Es for now.  Shooting handheld with shift is easy enough, but to get the best results, you'll want to shoot at ISO 100 and take mulitple exposures to blend later, which will give you the most leeway when post-processing them later.

+1 on the fisheye.  Defished or not, it would give you creative options in urban landscapes.

If I were you, I'd take the
  fisheye
  16-35
  ts-e 17
  50
  135
  1.4x for both the ts-e and 135
  tripod

The 135 would be the least used, and the 16-35 and the 50 the most used.

482
Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 100 f/2.8L IS Macro
« on: August 12, 2013, 10:06:02 AM »
Focus could be an issue on the focus limiter switch? And I'll also note that f/2.8 on a macro photo is incredibly thin, and I wouldn't expect much to be in focus at that. Have you tried a live-view manual focus, with IS off, on a tripod just to be absolutely sure? If that doesn't work then yeah - best to send it in while it's still under warranty.

+1.  Check the focus limiter switch.  If it is in the range that you are trying to use it (non-macro in good light), then check live view.  If live view is a lot better than PDAF, then send it to Canon to have it checked out.  I had a lens that worked in LV fine but wasn't sharp until f/5.6 using PDAF.  Canon adjusted the lens, and it was much better after.

483
If you're happy with what you have, stay with what you have.

However, the newer lenses and bodies will only be supported by newer versions of Lightroom.  Getting the 5DIII was a big factor for me in moving from LR 3 to 4.

484
Lenses / Re: Lens selection for trip to Ireland
« on: August 11, 2013, 07:58:29 AM »
Depends on how much other gear you're bringing and your budget.  Are you bringing a tripod?  If yes, it might be worth renting the TS-E 17 and TS-E 24.  The 17 is more useful inside, where the spaces are smaller, and the 24 is more useful outside.

If you're not bringing a tripod, then the 16-35 will be just fine.

485
Lenses / Re: canon 50mm 1.4 vs 1.2
« on: August 09, 2013, 09:22:47 AM »
thanks everyone for your comments.

I guess I'm interested in the 1.2 strictly to use at 1.2. One thing that annoys me about the 1.4 is that I've always found the AF accuracy to be particularly poor. My copy needs +20AFMA which doesn't help.

Also servo AF on the 1.4 is completely crap.

How is the AF accuracy and AI servo performance on the 1.2?

AF accuracy is good, but gets poorer with lower contrast targets in dimmer conditions like all lenses/bodes.  The only difference is that f/1.2 allows you to shoot at much lower light levels.  Accuracy also degrades at MFD (more like a bias), so I avoid being near MFD because I've AFMA'ed the lens at longer distances.

The 50L is OK in servo, but it is no match for the 24-70L II or the 70-200L II.

486
Technical Support / Re: Canon 70-200 and 5DII sloppy fit
« on: August 09, 2013, 08:19:59 AM »
Normal.  Happened with my combo and many forum members have had the same experience.

487
Lenses / Re: Canon 14mm II for "Yangshuo, China"
« on: August 07, 2013, 11:22:06 PM »
Sounds like the 16-35 II is the right choice for you.  The problem with the 14 is that most people would opt for another lens to fill the 15-23mm gap, so that's two lenses plus the 24-70 to cover the UWA range.  Are the 14L and TS-E 17 better IQ-wise.  Yes, but you lose a lot of versatility and time to gain a wider FOV and TS capability, and I don't think that trade is worth it for a short trip.  If you lived there or had enough time to get the perfect shots, then yes, those lenses would give better "wow" results.  For real estate and architecture, those ultrawide primes come into their own, although even then the 14L is not wide enough and I find myself pulling out the fisheye and defishing it.

488
Lenses / Re: What should I upgrade? I can't be done, can I?
« on: August 07, 2013, 10:56:25 PM »
You know you want the 100L back.  Just because it can go to 1:1 doesn't mean you have to use it at 1:1.

I  do miss it,  but I think that is more because I develop an emotional attachment to my gear.

Perhaps, but I find myself toting around the 100L a lot more often then just for macro shooting.  The max mag spec for the 70-200 II and the 135L are low.  A zoom gives you a form of compositional freedom, a fast prime gives you a DOF and low light freedoms, and a macro gives you magnification freedom.  I've found quite a few instances where I'm framed a shot with the 135 or 70-200 and it wont' focus because I'm too close...

489
Lenses / Re: canon 50mm 1.4 vs 1.2
« on: August 07, 2013, 10:41:20 PM »
Never had much luck with the f/1.4.  AF from f/1.4-f/2 was hit or miss and it got significantly better at f/2.8.  50L is a lot more consistent and a lot better wide open.  Like others have said, the 50L renders better and is more suited for portraiture.  If you want a more general use lens at 50mm, then the 24-70 II will be better than any EF 50 prime at f/2.8 and smaller.

490
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: More body upgrade from 40d questions???
« on: August 07, 2013, 10:23:24 PM »
Thanks to all of you who responded.  Guess I'll be shopping for a new lens.  Hmmmm...  70-300L or wait for the new 100-400L?

Mike

Try out the lenses in a store if you can.  The 100-400L is almost as heavy as the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II.  The 70-300L is much more compact and significantly lighter.  I'd opt for the 70-300L but if you want the lens primarily at the long end, then the 100-400 may be the better option.

491
Lenses / Re: What should I upgrade? I can't be done, can I?
« on: August 07, 2013, 08:59:28 AM »
You know you want the 100L back.  Just because it can go to 1:1 doesn't mean you have to use it at 1:1.

492
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 100-400 f/4-5.6L IS Update [CR2]
« on: August 06, 2013, 12:58:45 PM »
I'm hoping for better IQ in a lighter package.  It will get the former, but the latter seems unlikely.  Can't wait for reviews of this lens to start dribbling out.  Hoping it will start shipping sooner rather than later, so that it might be on the rebate list that much sooner.   ;D

493
Lenses / Re: Canon 14mm II for "Yangshuo, China"
« on: August 06, 2013, 11:00:58 AM »
I like the 14mm II and TS-E 17 better than the 16-35 II, but the 16-35 II is hard to beat for travel like this.  The 14 II is prone to CAs and does not take filters, but it has better IQ than the 16-35 II, is wider and is more compact.  Unless you plan on using the 16-35 II at 16mm exclusively, I wouldn't consider the 14mm prime.  And the 14mm feels a lot wider in usage than the 2mm difference from the 16-35 II may indicate.

If I had the choice and had sufficient time, then I'd consider the TS-E 17 over the 16-35 II.  The shift will help for architecture/landscape shots, and it can help get you some nice panoramas.  But it is MF only.  In this case, the 24-70 would be the primary, and the TS-E 17 would be for the special shots.  If you're going to be crunched for time, then the 16-35 II offers good IQ but is much more versatile.

494
Lenses / Re: DXO Mark, testing ?
« on: August 04, 2013, 09:41:37 PM »
The body matters in these scores, and the body that is selected according to your link is an 350D, which is an 8 MP camera.  Change the body to a 5DIII and the score jumps significantly.

The 200-400 gets close to prime lens IQ, even according to DXO

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Publications/DxOMark-Reviews/Canon-EF-200-400mm-f-4-IS-USM-Extender-1.4X-review-does-the-performance-justify-the-price/Canon-EF-200-400mm-f-4L-USM-Extender-1.4x-vs-prime-telephoto-equivalents


495
Reviews / Re: Review: Tamron SP 70-200mm f/2.8 VC USD
« on: August 01, 2013, 01:01:01 PM »
What would the opinion be amongst those of you who have (or have used) both the 70-300L and one of the 70-200 f/2.8 variants?  This is, to me, a tough question.  One of the things that I love about the 70-300L is that it can stand up in most camera bags and thus doesn't take up any more room for travel.  I am about to leave on a cruise and will be packing the Tamron 24-70 VC + the 70-300L as it has become my go-to kit and can fit in a sling bag.

Moving to a 70-200 f/2.8 variant changes the rules for travel.  But as an experienced event photographer, I would certainly say in that arena a 70-200 f/2.8 is perhaps the most valuable tool a photographer could have.

Thoughts?

If I could only have 1, then I'd have to choose the 70-200 II and live with its size and weight.  The 70-300L is a  very capable lens, but the 70-200 II focuses more accurately (especially on lower contrast targets) and tracks moving targets better and I find I like its colors better and requires less post-processing than the 70-300L.    The larger aperture max aperture helps to diffuse the background an the vignetting wide open only helps to make the subject pop more.  If sports and portraiture are your thing, then the 70-200 II is tough to beat.  It also does better getting to 400mm with the 2x.

The 70-300L does well by achieving IQ close to the 70-200 II in a compact, lighter and less expensive package.  It wins at the long end compared to the 70-200 II + 1.4x but loses a stop, but its biggest advantages are size and weight.  It's a great travel lens.  For those that are more concerned about weight and size of a 70-200 II, the 70-300L is an attractive option.  I'd opt for a 70-300L over a 70-200 f/4 variant.  The 70-300L is still a little shorter and more packable (fits bags vertically) than the slimmer but longer 70-200 f/4s and it has a longer native focal length range while losing a fraction of a stop.

Pages: 1 ... 31 32 [33] 34 35 ... 86