October 26, 2014, 01:09:11 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 ... 34 35 [36] 37 38 ... 92
Lenses / Re: 50mm 1.2
« on: September 24, 2013, 09:57:07 AM »
I am asking myself the same thing. So I asked.
Not too many answers though.

Those answers are fairly representative for those that have kept the 50L.  It is true that the 50L does not outresolve the other EF 50mm AF options by a large/significant margin (see 50mm shootout article by LensRentals).  The reviews use MF/LV focusing, which does not take into account AF performance, which was a big negative of the Canon 50 f/1.4 I used.  The 50 f/1.4 AF was inconsistent wide open to about f/2.8.  It was accurate at f/2.8 but if I was using it stopped down so much, I'd opt for a 2.8 zoom.  The 50L is much more consistent, which is why people that shoot wide open a lot tend to drift toward the 50L.  It also does better on better AF Canon bodies (i.e. 5D III).  Are images softer at 100% than the 35L and 85L wide open?  Yes, but no 50mm EF optic is going to do better wide open (f/1.2 or f/1.4).  Are the colors and bokeh better?  Yes, the images look like L images and the bokeh is a bit smoother.

Is it worth it?  For most people, then answer is no.  It should not be a user's first fast L prime, and definitely not a user's first L lens.  The 24L II, 35L and 85L II are all more forgiving than the 50L.  It is not a good landscape lens (there are plenty of cheaper and sharper options).  It is not a good detail lens (not a good performer at MFD if it has been AFMA'ed at typical portrait distances).  However, it is a good portrait lens.

Lenses / Re: 135L + 1.4x extender IQ question
« on: September 24, 2013, 09:12:19 AM »
Used it a couple times, but it's not as good as a 70-200L II, so I only use it if I can't bring the 70-200.  Not having IS is more of a hindrance than the hit on AF speed because most of my situations tend to be dim and inside.

Lenses / Re: Canon 16-35 II f/2.8L AND/OR Canon 14mm II f/2.8
« on: September 20, 2013, 01:58:39 PM »
I'm a mechanical engineer so I probably understand optics better than most.  Qualitative opinion is what I am seeking.  What will the extra 2mm and 6 deg FOV give me beyond the physics and math?

Did you use your 17-40 much at 17 and/or wish that it was even wider?  If not very often, skip the 14mm focal length.

Lenses / Re: the future of 1.2 L lenses ?
« on: September 20, 2013, 10:28:53 AM »
It's funny I was searching for that data just the other day.

There used to be two core reasons for f1.2 lenses, light gathering, at which they always made huge image quality compromises, and very narrow depth of field. With modern iso capabilities the light gathering aspect has become less important, but the ultra narrow dof is as important as ever. Canon have always delighted in their lens selection and the speciality lenses have always been a key component of their lens system. I don't see the f 1.2's going anywhere, interesting that they have come out with a $5,000 CN-E 35 T1.5 before an EF 35mm f1.4 MkII.

Is the CN-E the same optical formula as the 35L (with focus breathing removed) or is it better?

Lenses / Re: Canon 16-35 II f/2.8L AND/OR Canon 14mm II f/2.8
« on: September 20, 2013, 10:23:19 AM »
According to TDP, the 14 has about 6 deg greater HFOV.  In practice, it feels a lot wider than 16 than the 2mm indicate.  The 14 is better optically than the 16-35:  sharper and less distortion.  I never liked the 16-35 much wide open.  It's soft (compared the the 14L, TS-E 17), and the bokeh is nervous wide open.  If you intend to shoot indoors, then every mm counts.  If you're outside and can move, then the focal length difference isn't that significant and the 14's advantage is allowing you to get closer and "magnify" or stress foreground features more.  I tend to use the 16-35 when travelling light, but if I'm bringing more gear, the 16-35 stays home in favor of the 14 and the 17.

I use the fisheye (defished), 14, 17 and 24mm to shoot houses depending on the size of the space.  Outside, the 17 is useful for large buildings, but I prefer the 24 for landscapes (especially for stitching).  First evaluate your 16-35 and determine whether or not you need to go wider, and as danski0224 suggested, try the 14 before buying it.  The 14 is expensive (I got mine used at a good price) and does suffer from CA (although I've had better corner performance experience with the 14 compared to defishing, unlike privatebydesign), and you might find that 16mm is sufficent for you.

EOS Bodies / Re: New EOS M This Week? [CR1]
« on: September 20, 2013, 07:51:06 AM »
yep. I would consider 3k USD/€ fair value for a very compact, FF-sensored EOS-M with better sensor, better IQ, better AF, more features (e.g. WiFi, GPS, EX-RT-controller, fully articulated LCD],  4k "retina" EVF and better ergonomics - compared to D800 and 5D III. :-)

Let's see... More features than a D800 and a 5D III and costs less than a 5D III.  Sure, I'd like that too.

Lenses / Re: 70-200 f2.8 IS (Ver 1) used or 70-300 F4-5.6 IS L New
« on: September 18, 2013, 08:58:01 AM »
70-300L works really well outdoors, but if you go that route, then you might want to supplement it with a 85 f/1.8 or 100 f/2 or 135L for portraiture/indoor usage.

When buying used, check the corner for equal sharpness (centering), IS on/off if has IS, clean glass, etc.  Shoot it open and stopped down.  Do the rings work well, etc.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Back button and focus points 5diii
« on: September 18, 2013, 07:37:27 AM »
I don't focus/recompose unless I have to (subject is beyond the outer points).  For stills, I enable spot focusing and use a single point.

Lenses / Re: the future of 1.2 L lenses ?
« on: September 17, 2013, 03:03:23 PM »
The problem is, the best autofocus available is only going to do so much with such shallow depth of field.  If we were talking a supertelephoto lens at a daytime sporting event, then yes the 5D3 would very much be the better camera.  But for these slow AF portrait lenses, there's not that much advantage to having those 60 AF points.  One or more of them might pick something you don't want it to focus on...so if you're going to limit the points in use, on a stationary or slow moving subject (person)...then there isn't really an AF advantage with the 5D3, in my opinion.  Indeed there might be a disadvantage in very low light...and certainly there is no significant image quality advantage at low ISO, and really none at all at higher ISO.

He would be better off at least buying a 6D as his "second" camera, rather than worrying about f/1.2L lens obsolescence on his existing and highly compromised-IQ crop bodies...using them as his second body(s).  This whole thread is rather silly (L lens obsolescence).

Yes, I loved getting the ear or nose in focus when using the 5D II's outer points with fast glass when aimed at the eye, or relying on spray and pray for a still object.

The 5D III gives you more freedom in composing the image because the camera still autofocuses accurately using outer points.  And AI servo is useable with the outer points as well which makes it much easier photographying young kids whose "sitting still" is not still.

Lenses / Re: the future of 1.2 L lenses ?
« on: September 17, 2013, 12:38:56 PM »
Do your homework and buy refurbished/used/new with rebate at a good price.  You can't control when new versions of lenses will come out or their prices (most likely higher) but you can control how much you would lose.  And if you lose $100 or less on buying/selling a lens, then it's well within the amount that it'd cost to rent it for a week, which isn't bad at all.

Software & Accessories / Re: Yet another storage thread
« on: September 17, 2013, 12:13:45 PM »
I use a combination of shelves and cases.  I like using Gura Gear's Et Cetera cases for flashes and accessories.  Lenses and camera split between a large camera bag and shelves within an armoir.

And yes, I am thinking about getting a gun safe down the road.  Something heavy and bolted to the concrete floor.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: I jumped ship...
« on: September 11, 2013, 02:26:56 PM »
I did recently jump on the tamron boat with the so-far superb 24-70 VC. Which it seems like I've been holding out forever on a 24-70 zoom but at 800$ on Craigslist. Why not?

How does the Tamron work with outer points in servo?

Lenses / Re: Did I get a bad copy of the EF-S 17-55 f2.8?
« on: September 10, 2013, 11:47:45 PM »
The 17-55 has been AFMAed, right?

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: New iPhone: Final Nail in the Coffin
« on: September 10, 2013, 03:59:26 PM »
I've never had an iPhone but I do use the wife's iPad, and it's too slow for sports and too noisy for indoor/low light situations.  My cell phone is about as dumb as can be -- no data, no internet, no text; just use it as a phone.  Am I in the minority?  Absolutely.

P&S sales will continue to go down until the smart phones saturate the market, but they'll still sell in the hundreds of thousands/millions.  The problem with cell phones is that they are size limited.  They are expected to fit in pockets (at least for guys), and they still need to provide all the other functions expected of them.  P&Ss can be larger, and can use better lenses, larger sensors to their advantage.  Perhaps whatever replaced the CMOS sensors will be able to make smaller sensors as good as FF today, but until those disruptive technologies arrive, we're stuck with incremental improvement.

A lot of friends use the phone as the primary camera already, but the quality of the pictures taken are not very good and they don't back up the data.  So, what happens if the phone is lost/damaged/stolen?  They get a new one, but they've lost everything.  There goes a few years of pictures.  Maybe they can get some reduced sized versions from Facebook or whichever app they use, but those often aren't high enough resolution to print.  And when those companies go out of business or change their model, there is no guarantee that those images would be preserved.

Photography is a mostly a hobby for me, and I do it to preserve memories.  I might have a dozen pics of my grandparents, and a few dozen of my parents before they got married, and a few hundred of them since then.  Now that I've had kids, I've snapped thousands of pictures.  We take the best ones to create digital scrapbooks (easier to duplicate if the kids want their own copies later), and then print them.  My kids are young, but they've already forgotten a lot and they get a kick from looking at the scrapbooks, which jog our memories and get the conversations going.  Those conversations don't happen looking at an iPad.  Quite a few friends have remarked how they wished they had scrapbooks/photo calendars like that, but they don't have the pictures to make it worthwhile.  When film was king, everyone developed their rolls and got prints.  Those prints usually were stored in shoeboxes in closets, under the bed, etc. but people still had them.  What will people have to show the next generation?

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: About to drop some $$$ again...lol
« on: September 10, 2013, 02:55:41 PM »
Or pick up the 24L and the 100 non-L macro, if your budget can stretch a little.  $150 for a rental would make a significant chunk of the price 100 macro, especially if you can get it used.  Then upgrade to the 100L later, if you think it'll improve your product.

Pages: 1 ... 34 35 [36] 37 38 ... 92