September 02, 2014, 03:53:23 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 ... 33 34 [35] 36 37 ... 88
Lenses / Re: Canon L or Tamron/Sigma advice
« on: August 20, 2013, 01:23:40 PM »
Generic answer:  it depends on how you intend to use the lenses.

Dustin, a member of this forum, has the Tamron 24-70, and it works well for him (see his review threads -- he posts a lot of images).  The digital picture also has a review that is worth looking at:

The general consensus is that the Tamron is close to the Canon version 2 in IQ and signifcantly better than the Canon version 1.  I haven't tried the Tamron, but I have used the Canon 24-70 II and can vouch for its IQ and that the 24-70 II does indeed focus and track very well for sports (on a 5D III).  I used it for a young boys basketball game, and it behaved like a shorter 70-200 f/2.8 IS II, AF-wise.  Some will value VC over AF performance, so it really comes down to how to intend to use it.  The Canon 24-70 II is better overall, but is it worth the 1k difference to you?

If I were choosing between the 35L and the Sigma 35 and didn't have either, I'd choose the Sigma 35.  It has better IQ and it costs less.  But given that you already have the 35L, I'm not sure if it's worth the transaction  costs associated with switching, especially if you'd consider a 35L II (if it ever comes out).  It depends on how often you'd use it.

Lenses / Re: Lens recommendations for upcoming road trip and beyond?
« on: August 20, 2013, 11:56:38 AM »
In the age when cells phones account for the majority of all pictures, anything much bigger is going to make you stick out.  You might be able to get away with an EOS-M or a NEX system with a few lenses in your pockets, but anything SLR-like is going to stand out.  You would stand out more with the 70-200, but when your attempt for discretion is blown, it's blown, and whether or not it's blown by a little or a lot doesn't really matter.

Those that shoot sports and candids of kids moving around will value the 70-200 more.  I have better results with the 70-200's servo AF than the 135.  The 135's AF isn't slow, but it feels like the 70-200 is faster and tracks better.  Those that shoot portraits or can control the camera/subject distance will value the 135 more.  You can also get extenders (1.4x and/or 2x), but the 70-200 will be slightly better natively near 200mm and can get you to 400mm at f/5.6.

It doesn't seem like you'll need to zoom at that much and it looks like you have your heart set on the 135L and it fits your style, so go with the 135L.  Consider getting extenders to give you more reach.  You can't go wrong with either.  But be forewarned, you might find youself with both someday.   ::)

Lenses / Re: Need daily lens suggestion
« on: August 20, 2013, 11:04:42 AM »
What are you guys seeing in resale for your high-end EF-S lenses? 

I've got 3 of the 4 decent EF-S lenses that I barely use collecting dust (10-22, 15-85, 60 macro) and just curious what you've seen for resale in the last year or so.

I *DO* have a bad case of 'accessoritis' or 'upgradaphilia', so to the OP, if you're the type that's not content with technology and constantly upgrading . . . the EF-S lenses are great, but you may have some regret down the road.

I know, admitting I have a problem is the first step.   ;D

I sold my EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 last year for about 850 and my refurbed 10-22 for 600.  I "lost" about 100 on the 17-55 and less than 50 (including taxes, shipping, etc.) on the 10-22, so I was able to recoup about 90% of what it cost me to purchase the lenses.

There are so many used 17-55s and 10-22s floating around that buying new makes less and less sense.  Canon refurb with a sale is usually a good deal.  I'm guessing that EF-S lenses tend to have lower resale value because they are transitional for those that do move to FF.  Some L-lenses also have lower resale value.  Think of those that purchased a 24-105 in a retail box at 1000-1100 a year or two ago.  The kit value used to be 800-900, and now it's dropped to 600-700.  That's worse resale value than the 17-55.  Again the 24-105 is a transitional lens.

Those that get gear when it is first available tend to pay the most.  Those that wait for rebates and sales pay less, and those that buy refurbed or used pay even less.  If you hold onto the lens for a few years and then try to sell it, you'll get roughly the same price, so buying the gear at the lowest price is key.

And +1 to those recommending the 17-55 f/2.8.  The smaller sensor needs all the light it can get, which is why Sigma's 18-35 f/1.8 is such an attractive option.

Lenses / Re: Conversation with pro re: 50L vs. 50 f/1.4
« on: August 19, 2013, 12:53:39 AM »
Not to be argumentative, but I know you are possibly the biggest supporter of the f/1.2 here.  Outside of the bokeh, can you replicate the contrast and color in lightroom? 

And again... not to be argumentative... or maybe I should say, With all due respect (Talladega Nights anyone?), I haven't heard of the 50 f/1.2L having a magic bokeh except recently.  The 135L yes, the 85mm f/1.2L yes, even the 200mm f/2L... I've even heard contrasting opinions regarding the bokeh of the 70-200mm f/2.8L Is mkii.

I know bokeh can be subjective, but would you contend that the 50's bokeh is on par with the 85/135/200?

The topic comes up from time to time, but this has been going on for years.

The 50L is not for everyone.  For IQ parameters that are easily compared (i.e. resolution), the 50L is not leaps and bounds above its non-L brethren.  I tried the 50 f/1.4 on several crop bodies (including the 7D) and it was a maddening experience.  AF accuracy and consistency was bad from f/1.4 to f/2, and colors were flat/tended to washed out wide open.  I had the 17-55 f/2.8 IS at the time, and I saw no value in the 50 f/1.4.  Test reviews tend to evaluate lenses using LV pointed at static subjects.  The 50 f/1.4 that I used performed much better in LV, but there was no way that I'd use an AF lens only in that way, and with AI servo, it tracked horribly.  The experience was so bad that I didn't even try another fast prime for a while.  It wasn't until I tried a 35L that it dawned on me how much better the 50 f/1.4 should have been.  I got my 50L used because after reading a lot on the net, I was inclined not to like it.  I figured I could resell it at a slight loss, at least well within a rental fee, so I gave it a go.  It's been a couple years, but I still have it, and for a while it was my most used lens because I didn't have a midrange zoom for a while after moving to FF.

If you are expecting to use the 50L like how you would use any L lens, you will be disappointed.  It has a lot of quirks, and I won't bother shooting near MFD with it.  However, if I'm with friends and family and it's dim (esp. indoors or at night and when no one wants/expects the flash to go off all the time), the 50L is my first choice because I can rely on it wide open and because it's the most versatile focal length for me.  Would I sell if it Canon comes up with a better alternative?  Absolutely.  Do forum members that own the 50L own it just because of the red ring?  No, but it is on the correct side of the cost/benefit analysis for us.

Lenses / Re: Canon 135mm F/2
« on: August 18, 2013, 11:39:38 PM »
Only you can decide if the price difference is worth it. But the 85 on crop is like 135/2.8 on FF (in terms of DOF, noise and FOV) with much worse sharpness/CA/PF wide open:

Those crops do not say it all: the 135L has excellent bokeh.

Wow!!! The results from the link above tells it all.  Thank you.

On the other hand, the 85 should perform quite well on your 6D. Some find 135mm a bit too long.

Make sure you're comparing with the same camera and aperture.  The embedded link compares the 135 on a FF body at f/2.8 to a 85 on a crop body at f/1.8.  No contest.

If you compare both at f/2 with the 1Ds III, then the 85 f/1.8 looks much better than it did on the crop but still falls short of the 135 f/2.

Lenses / Re: Lens recommendations for upcoming road trip and beyond?
« on: August 18, 2013, 04:26:03 PM »
Because you generate income from it, I vote for the 70-200 II.  I'm not sure how much you'd use it for your trip though.  As long as you're using something besides the neckstrap (i.e. holster or strap) for support, the weight should be fine.  For those that always want the best IQ, the 70-200 II is the choice.  The 70-300L has a narrower max aperture and doesn't track moving targets as well as the 70-200 II, but it IQ that is close and is much more compact.  The more you travel, the more attractive the 70-300L becomes.

Lenses / Re: Can 24-70/2.8 II replace 35/1.4?
« on: August 16, 2013, 03:01:09 PM »
Before the 24-70 II, I covered the range exclusively with primes.  In good light, the 24-70 II is the choice.  But when the sunlight fades or if I'm indoors, the fast primes come out.  It's nice having the additional two stops of aperture to trade for DOF or ISO/shutter speed.  For me, it's not the 35L that is the most threatened by the 24-70, but the 24mm prime. 

EOS-M / Re: My EF M 11-22 has arrived
« on: August 16, 2013, 10:18:49 AM »
With an 18mm flange distance the EOS-M couldn't have a sub 20 (ish) pancake design. Anything shorter than 20-16 or so is going to involve a retrofocus design and they don't fall into the simple lens design of the "pancake" type.

How about a short stack instead?  ::)

Lenses / Re: Macro photography: lens+flash+diffuser?
« on: August 15, 2013, 05:07:53 PM »
How serious are you going to get with macro?  Have you considered the Sigma 150 f/2.8 macro?

The 100L is a fine lens.  It's what I use for macro most of the time and for other purposes, but if you are a macro nut, then longer focal length options may be better.  The IS helps handheld, but for blending focus stacked images, a tripod and manual focus is the way to go.

The 600 ex-rt is a fine flash, but you'll want to use it off camera if you can for macro (controlled by the 7D pop up flash).  The mt 24ex is nice because the twin heads can be positioned independently but the features are getting dated (limited number of groups, etc.) compared to the newest flashes, and it is pretty much only good for macro.

Lenses / Re: Should I get a clear filter for my lens?
« on: August 15, 2013, 10:15:23 AM »
It depends on the cost/value of the lens.  Good filters cost 50 and up, depending on size, brand, etc.  I like B&W, but I've also had Hoyas.  The Hoyas are less expensive but I found them harder to keep clean.

I get filters for L lenses, but I don't bother with the EOS-M lenses.  500 is about the threshold when I start considering getting a filter for a particular lens.  It also depends on how you intend to use the lens.  I tend to use those that are more weather resistant and filtered when the weather gets bad.

Super cheap ones may be uncoated or single coated, and would be more prone to flare and would lead to a higher transmission losses.  Some would argue that any filter would degrade the image even if it is undetectable in practice, and it's true theoretically.  Any piece of glass will change the transmission characteristics, but so will a dirty front element, and I would rather clean a 100 filter rather than the front element of 1000 lens.  In the field, I'll clean it with what's at hand, including my shirt, which is what happened when my 70-200 mounted on camera worked itself loose from a BR strap and fell lens first into the muddy ground.  The hood was reversed because I was walking from the car to the soccer field and hadn't yet set up the camera to shoot.  I tried cleaning the filter, but couldn't get it clean enough so I just took it off, got my shots, and cleaned the filter once I got home.  The B&W filter cleaned up fine and I still use it today.

Lenses / Re: What lenses would you bring for this travel-trip?
« on: August 14, 2013, 08:48:59 AM »
I always bring my tripod for shots of landscape and architecture :)
I've used the old 24 TS-E and kind of liked it for shooting buildings in my own town when I tested it.
For landscape 17mm TS-E would be better aswell as for the indoor shooting.
But the 17TS-E is not as sharp as 24mm, especially not shifted (I've read..)

Today I'm used to make panos with my 70-200 handheld, but that's kind of hard to do with buildings that are quite near though :)
In Dubai I guess that there will be very large and nice buildings and sometimes not that much room or space.
Perhaps you can take several shots with the 24mm instead?
And if I visit a church or something I can use the 24mm for pano indoors aswell? Haven't tried it though so hard to say.
This picture is taken with the old TS-24 (single shot. Its a local church here in UmeƄ, Sweden.

Renting the TS24 / TS17 would cost about $1000 for a month. If I buy it afterwards, the rent is free (I just pay for the lens as I've bought it right of the start).

Thanks for the input!

It's true that the 17mm isn't as sharp as the 24mm, but the 17 is the sharpest of Canon's UUWAs and it is more than adequate.  Sharper than the 14mm and much sharper than the 16-35.  You won't be disappointed.  And for a rental fee of 1000, it makes sense to buy it outright.  I've heard that the Ziess 15 might be a tad sharper, but I've never tried it, and at those focal lengths, I'd rather have the movements anyway.

If you're using the movements to fix the perspective you won't have much freedom to stitch, so a wider lens is more useful in this case.  If you need to fix the perspective at 24mm, try using the extender.  I've never shot with the extender but have verified that it fits.  In the end, you'll likely end up with both ts-e 17 and 24. =)

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
  ts-e 17
  1.4x for both the ts-e and 135

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

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.

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.

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.

Pages: 1 ... 33 34 [35] 36 37 ... 88