October 25, 2014, 02:43:48 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 - Random Orbits

Pages: 1 ... 32 33 [34] 35 36 ... 92
Lenses / Re: EF 8-15 FE Vignette Issue
« on: November 09, 2013, 10:48:52 PM »
Lens hood is off. I took a couple pics on my FF to show it better. I don't mind so much but there were a couple shots that had the vignette on the right and not the left. The only thing I can do in post to fix it is crop which sucks when you want to go really wide. No issues on 8mm; It's a full circle. I think I'm going to end up going to Canon service to look it over.

Not normal at all.  My lens vignettes equally in each corner when I shoot wider than 14mm on FF.  Have it checked out.

Lenses / Re: Macro lens for the missus for christmas
« on: November 07, 2013, 04:40:26 PM »
+1 for the 100L.  For serious macro stuff, a tripod and flash are required, but the 100L does well informally and especially well for portraiture.  I really like having the ability to take a picture of something and then get close for a detail without changing lenses.  IS helps, but for outside work, wind can often be a bigger obstacle than light/camera shake.

Anyone else having an issue where it shows up in PS6 but not in LR?  I'd rather launch from LR, rather than LR -> PS -> Analog Efex...

i also like sigma lenses but i think it is a lens issue with the new ones. there should only be 2 variables, the mount to image sensor distance and the mount to af sensor light path distance. that remains constant so should cause consistent focus misalignment.  once you calibrate a sigma lens with the dock it makes changes to the focusing characteristics of the lens and does not consider any camera lens pairing. when i have done this the 2 lenses 18-35 and 120-300 work the same on the 3 camera bodies i have tried them on. i don't know all the inner workings but it seems more like the lens is just not calibrated right to begin with?

in order to really set the lens right with the dock you need to make 4 focal range x 4 distance corrections and they can be all over the place?

the 2 lenses that i have would be unusable by most peoples standards without the dock adjustments.

How do the dock adjustments work on multiple bodies?  If you dock adjust the lens on body 1, will AFMA on body 2 get it to be accurate, or do you have to readjust all those values specifically for body 2?

EOS Bodies / Re: An Announcement Coming in November? [CR1]
« on: November 02, 2013, 08:00:32 PM »
Its not greed, its business.  Mirrorless sells horribly across all manufactures compared to DSLR, so why would Canon stack their resources in a category that fails to sel?

Mirrorless has sold horribly up to now, because products offered ranged between "inadequate and horrible". EOS-M (dog-slow, no EVF), Nikon 1 (dwarf-sensored, too expensive), mFT (generally too expensive and not small/light enough compared to APS-C), APS-C sensored NEX did rather well ... compared to Sony SLT/DSLR sales ;-)

Wow, so the mirrorless products have not been good a value proposition to date!  What a surprise.  It might happen in a few generations, but not in 2013 nor 2014.  I'll wait when native lens families are more well developed.  f/2.8 primes for $1000?  Not interested.

Lenses / Re: I'm done - I have all the lenses I need
« on: November 01, 2013, 04:43:11 PM »
I'm sure I sound a bit nuts :o, but I'd like to thank that I have all I need to own.  Has anyone else "completed" their lens kit?

Would this change with the advent of a 14-24L f/2.8?

Lenses / Re: Help. 50mm 1.2 ?
« on: October 29, 2013, 08:01:03 PM »
Agree. I used three copies, they needed different MA (the current one needs none). They all focus very well on my 5D2, no complaints at all. I can focus well even with the outer AF points, unless it is really dark.

To the OP - the 50L is an excellent lens. Sharp enough wide open, with some loss of contrast with backlit scenes  wide open (well, avoid them), excellent color rendering, great potential for good bokeh.

My 5D2 AF with the 50L was hit or miss (mostly miss) at the outer points.  Center point AF was good.  With 5D3, AF with non-center points is almost as good as the center column.

Lenses / Re: 85L or 135L?
« on: October 28, 2013, 12:26:20 PM »
Hmm, If you attach a Kenko 1.7x Teleconverter to the 85L you'll get a 145mm f2. So why another expensive lense? ;)

I guess this combo would work well in ai servo with... snails!   ::)

Pricewatch Deals / Re: Have you ever purchase camera gear from BuyDig.com
« on: October 28, 2013, 12:17:29 PM »
Bought one camera and at least 2 lenses from BuyDig/Beach Camera, and never had a problem with the equipment I bought there so I never dealt with their customer service.

Lenses / Re: Which TS lens is better
« on: October 22, 2013, 11:23:01 AM »
Both TS-Es are very good at what they do, so it comes down to which focal length suits your needs better (as others have already stated).

Both TS-Es can use extenders, but the image degrades slightly.  The 17 also has slightly less swing than the 24, so the 17 + 1.4x will not be able to correct as much as the 24 does natively.

For buildings, especially interiors, I use the 17 primarily.  For landscapes, it's the 24.  I also find that TS-E 24 panoramas are more pleasing than the 17s because the subject to camera distance is longer and the foreground objects aren't stressed as much.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sony A7 or A7R pre-order list
« on: October 18, 2013, 09:47:07 AM »
Sony has published a road map. 15 lenses in 2 years is really not bad for a whole new system. Has Canon done better with the EOS-M?

Moreover, Samyang has confirmed the release of FE lenses in a couple of months. Not to mention Leica, Voigtländer, Nikon, Canon, etc etc via Metabones adapters that even retain AF. Sigma and Tamron will also express an interest sooner rather than later, to try and conquer this whole new market. If this system lacks something, it's certainly not lenses - not for long.

And no, the A-mount has not been abandoned. Together with the A7/r, Sony has announced a new 70-200/2.8 for A-mount and a new enthusiast camera is scheduled for 2014.

This roadmap?


Is there a more detailed one for the outer years?  Those unmarked bars are far enough in the future that Sony probably has not committed the big development bucks to it.  If the system sells poorly, those plans may never be realized.

A f/2.8 35 prime?  A f/1.8 55 prime?  A f/4 70-200?  A f/4 24-70?  A f/4 wide-angle zoom?  So far, their planned offerings are slower than their DSLR counterparts.  No f/2.8 zooms?  Why buy into an expensive system to get the FF sensor and not be able to use fast glass that APS-C cameras can already use natively?  And how many Sony adaptors are there?  It looks like Sony is trying to hedge their bets (A, FE mount, etc.), and it'll be a mess for a while.

The future may belong to mirrorless, but technology development is not a smooth transition.  Early adopters can get burned (minidisc or Sony-proprietary memorsticks, anyone?).  I'll wait.  And battery technology is a big issue.  There really isn't anything better than lithium batteries on the horizon and 300 shots/battery is not going to cut it.

Lenses / Re: 16-35 2.8 vs 70-200 4 on 650D
« on: October 17, 2013, 11:01:59 PM »
I would suggest getting a APS-C zoom first, unless you plan on moving to FF in the near future (less than 6 months).  If the price of a new 15-85 or something similar is too steep, try looking for a good used copy.  The range of the 16-35 is too short on aps-c, and it is pricy to be used that way.  On FF, it becomes more of a specialty lens, and it's IQ isn't that great.  If you get this general purpose zoom for APS-Cused, then you won't lose much selling it when you move FF.

And, if you have sufficient additional funds, I'd suggest getting the 70-200.  It's good on APC-S, but it'll really come into its own on FF.

Near term:  T4i, 15-85, 50, 70-200.

Sell 15-85 when moving to FF and get kit lens:  5D or 6D, 24-104, 70-200.


Why? 70-200L II + 1.4x TC gets you nearly there, is more compact and lighter, and costs less.

Why?  Because that combo does not "nearly get you there", it merely gives you a 100-280 f/4, and it weighs 3.5 pounds...and it costs not much less ($2200 + $500 = $2700).  It's also only f/4, rather than f/3.5.  So that's why.  Think about it...50-300 millimeters of zoom at f/3.5.  There's a lot of shots you can do in that range from 50 to 100mm that you would miss...and that you even miss with the 70-200 without a TC.  A "fast" ultra-wide zoom...wider and faster than the much-loved 70-300 f/4-5.6.  Weighing the same or less than the 70-200 f/2.8 ii...I want one!

Right, f/3.5 is such a big difference from f/4:  1/3 of a stop.  And at <= weight of a 70-200L II.  You're dreaming!

Canon needs to make a 50-300 f/3.5 IS, and charge $3500 for it.  Most of you would buy that instead of the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 OS.  Why?  Because IT'S A CANON "L"...

Why? 70-200L II + 1.4x TC gets you nearly there, is more compact and lighter, and costs less. 

Lenses / Re: 1st timer tot he boards need advice
« on: October 14, 2013, 05:15:07 PM »
A 35 prime would fit the bill.  When I used a crop body, the 35L was my go-to lens indoors.  At 35mm, the 18-135 is at f/4-4.5, so the 2 stop advantage of the 35 f/2 IS will be huge.  Personally, I'd opt for a 35 f/1.4, but that involves a trade between price, weight and size.  Even now, I prefer fast primes to zooms for indoor stuff (esp. without flash); outdoors, the zooms usually have the advantage.

Pages: 1 ... 32 33 [34] 35 36 ... 92