January 30, 2015, 10:28:11 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 ... 41 42 [43] 44 45 ... 96
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.

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.

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.

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.

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...

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.

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?


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.

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.

Pages: 1 ... 41 42 [43] 44 45 ... 96