October 01, 2014, 09:05:10 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 - spinworkxroy

Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10 11 ... 18
121
Lenses / Re: Portrait Lens
« on: September 30, 2012, 08:18:19 PM »
I know there are many great lens for portraits, but due to price and other lens I've decided my next purchase will be either the 24-105L f4 or a 100L f2.8 macro.

I guess the decision will mostly come down to whether I value to versatility of the zoom, or the bonus of macro.

But what I wanted to ask on this site, is will there be much difference in the quality of portrait shots, taken at the same focal length, at say f5.6 and above?

Thanks everyone.

Ben

I truely understand where youre coming from.
But before that…you didn't state what camera you're using and what lenses you currently have. That will matter on what lenses you get.

From my point of view, don't worry too much about people saying this lens is not that sharp wide open at F1.2 etc…if budget isn't a problem, i'm sure everyone would get every prime L Canon made…and i'm sure you have a budget, like almost everyone else :)
Also, it isn't often you're going to shoot wide open for portraits for starters…shooting wide open is more an "art" that will come much later so don't worry too much about wide open and bokeh madness for now.

If you don't already own a good walkabout zoom, then definately the 24-105 will be fantastic for you. You'll use it not only  for portraits but also for almost everything else.
If you're using a crop camera, than the 100 becomes 160mm which might be too much for portraits.
True, the 85 f1.8 isn't fantastic at f1.8 but at 5.6 which you are going to use alot in portraits, it's almost identical to the 85L and definately alot better than the 24-105L.

Personally, i shoot 90% portraits and of those portraits, 70% of them are at f4-f5.6 only.
And when i started out, i used the 24-105 all the time on a crop body and it was great.
However, now on a FF, the 24-105 isn't sharp enough at the corners.
I've since switched to the 50 f1.4 and 85 f1.8, yes both NOT the L versions because well, i can't afford both of them. I would like to but i can't and at f.4-5.6, there's really not much improvements between them..and you can grab a used copy of those lenses for much less than 1 L lens.

So yea, for a start, get the 24-105…it'll be a lens for everything until you get more comfortable and know which focal range you want and what lens to get ultimately in the future…but the 24-105 will always be a handy lens to have to whatever reason.

122
Software & Accessories / Re: who uses Focal or similar?
« on: September 30, 2012, 01:35:32 AM »
Personally, I do use Focal but i find that it's only useful to a certain extent.
Firstly, for wide angle lenses you won't really need to do much AMFA..you really can't tell the different and the adjustment is done wide open…i doubt many will shoot a wide angle landscape type shot wide open anyways.

It works well for more" zoomed" lenses…for me 50mm and above. And i don't even think it works for zoom lenses that well since the 5D wil "average out the in betweens"

However, for specific lenses like 85mm or Macro lenses..it works fantastic..you do see a huge difference if your lens is out.
But, depending on the distance and lighting condition, Focal might give varying results so it's best to do the adjustment at the distance you USUALLY shoot at….

123
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D3 - problem?
« on: September 28, 2012, 06:41:11 AM »
I guess the button is a 50/50 love/hate thing.
The best thing Canon should've done was to make the button "lockable" so for people who don't like it can leave it "unlocked"

124
EOS Bodies / Re: Dynamic Range & Camera IQ
« on: September 27, 2012, 04:46:55 AM »
very interesting thread this is...these are tests i would never do on my own.
question is...how often do you have to PP your images so much to this extent? I've personally maybe only faces extreme DR scenarios like once or twice a year... maybe I'm just not shooting enough or I'm only shooting in ideal conditions..but for me..if the situation isn't ideal..I'd rather not shoot. maybe the Canon cameras suffer from all these mentioned problems..but unless you're saying every one of your shots are like this...I'm sure 99% of the time it performs great!   

125
Lenses / Re: New Pancake Lenses
« on: September 23, 2012, 07:46:02 AM »
Yes, Canon should make more pancakes.
Consider how good they managed to make the 40mm at that price and the IQ is just superb…
They really should make more..at least aother 1 or 2…at 17mm and 24mm maybe?

126
Lenses / Re: Are Primes really better for portraits?
« on: September 23, 2012, 04:46:48 AM »
Got a question concerning the last picture:

why is nearly the complete hat out of focus, although parts of it are in the same area as the sharp face. I'm talking about the sliver brooch look alike thing and the dark violett parts around it.

To answer YOUR question: The eyes seem to be sharp, as i said above: the rest of the pictures looks strange

Don't look at the hat..the purpose was to showcase the eyes and the rather "blur" look of it..it's not the sharpness i would like from a prime lens.
This hat was made blur in post production..as with the entire photo..except the eyes…
I was trying to make everyting else OOF so that i can emphasize on the eyes but because on it's oww, they eyes weren't sharp IMO..it doesn't stand out at all

Here's what my friend took and his photo did not have ANY sharpening involved and yet his eyes are so much sharper and he was using a 24-70 lens.


127
Lenses / Re: Are Primes really better for portraits?
« on: September 23, 2012, 01:42:44 AM »
Quote from: vuilang
TBH: when i read your post: 5dm3+portrait+L is too expensive+ portrait @ F5.6... I laughed & wondered: Did you think spending $3000+ on the 5d3 will make your photo to be much improved? what enforced ur stance on never "lower" than F4.0?
Try to loose it out a-little bit... Shoot at f1.4, f2.0 etc.. experience it, have fun with them.. the L lense are especially designed to shoot at those aperture... the 50 1.4 & 85 1.8 isnt a slouch.. they do performe amicably well


Well, i had those primes before i had a 5D3. And buying L equivalent of those lenses will cost way more than the 5D3…and since i'm not a professional and i don't get paid for my shoots, i can't justify replacing all my lenses with L equivalent.
Actually, i asked this question because of a recent shoot i did with a friend who was using a 24-70 but not a Canon so i can't borrow and well, we were basically taking the exact same shot and his image was much sharper than mine was in the eyes and i even had to do PP sharpening and still can't compare with his unprocessed.
That's why i figured maybe a 24-70 might be more versatile and sharper than an 85 prime that is so old in design.

So are there actually any portrait photographers who actually use a 24-70 for shoots?
Maybe i should give an example of what i mean..
This was shot at F4 and focus was on the eye on the right…but..it's not sharp IMO…


128
Lenses / Re: Are Primes really better for portraits?
« on: September 23, 2012, 01:25:10 AM »
Well..when I started portrait...I've always read primes are better than zoom..hence my decision...Not really knowing much then...and i would agree if compared to the older zoom lenses.. as to why i shoot only at 5.6..it's just my choice of framing..I'm not that into bokeh..

129
Lenses / Re: Are Primes really better for portraits?
« on: September 23, 2012, 01:05:19 AM »
Again...I'm not shooting at max aperture.i never go below f4 and with portraiture i do...low light is also not and issue. I never go over iso800. The question is..Can the new 24-70 zooms be better than a prime at f5.6 and low iso... should i give up the primes or will i regret it...i know i can rent one and try but i doubt just one day can I really get my answer...so I'm hoping there are others who have already replaced their primes for a zoom and share their experience...bare in mind..I'm only looking at f5.6 and not max aperture
If you are serious about wanting a 24-70mmL, buy one from Adorama.  If it is not everything you had hoped for, you have 30 days to return it.  This is not a free rental deal, only serious people should do this, please don't abuse it, or it will go away.  At any rate, you will only be out the shipping cost both ways and you can give it a serious workout.

Haha..unfortunately I'm not in the us..and where I'm from..No one gives any full refunds for any reason...i guess I'll have to just rent one for my next few shoots and decide on my own...it's better than buying and selling 2nd hand...

130
Lenses / Re: Are Primes really better for portraits?
« on: September 23, 2012, 12:54:07 AM »
Again...I'm not shooting at max aperture.i never go below f4 and with portraiture i do...low light is also not and issue. I never go over iso800. The question is..Can the new 24-70 zooms be better than a prime at f5.6 and low iso... should i give up the primes or will i regret it...i know i can rent one and try but i doubt just one day can I really get my answer...so I'm hoping there are others who have already replaced their primes for a zoom and share their experience...bare in mind..I'm only looking at f5.6 and not max aperture

131
Lenses / Re: Are Primes really better for portraits?
« on: September 22, 2012, 10:43:32 PM »
Prime lenses do have a simpler structure, so they can be made ideal for portraiture and other uses.  But some zooms ( 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II and 24-70 f/2.8 I/II) are very good for portraiture as well.  I don't have primes but because I usually use my 70-200 f/4 IS, I use it for portraiture as well.

Yes the 70-200 is a great lens but i don't use telephotos often at all..I do have a 70-300 which i've only ever used once so I can't imagine myself getting a 70-200 for portraits alone.
At least the 24-70 could still be used for many other things.
If only they made a 24-105 f2.8 that's as good as a 24-70..

Anyways, i went to do a comparison at the digital picture between the 85 prime and both Canon and Tamron 24-70 and although the center sharpness is better on the zooms, and on paper the zooms should also be better in the borders and extremes, the actual result isn't so...the 85 surprisingly is a lot better in anything other than the center...

Oh Canon...PLEASE update your primes...

132
Lenses / Re: Are Primes really better for portraits?
« on: September 22, 2012, 10:05:55 PM »
While wide open, the lenses are not super sharp, you generally do not want portraits to be super sharp anyway.  If the images are really oof, try using live view and live AF.  If the results are better, you need AFMA.  AFMA is difficult to do properly, I messed my AF up when I first did it.  FoCal gives excellent results.
There are some zooms that are sharper, but they don't open to f/1.8 either.

I am using Focal for calibration and it has improved the lens sharpness without AFMA but it's still not enough.
And i don't shoot anything below F4 so i'm not bothered about zooms not going to f1.8..because the 24-70 goes to f2.8, and with IS..it's as good as 1.8

133
Lenses / Re: Are Primes really better for portraits?
« on: September 22, 2012, 10:04:21 PM »
I'm coming from an angle where i only shoot 50 or 85mm..nothing more since that's all i own right now so i'm not comparing anything above 85.

Also, i don't shoot below f4, so wide open isn't a concern for me.

That's why i'm contemplating the 24-70 because that rage is pretty much what i'm shooting my portraits at (i know there's a missing 15mm at the end)

I believe there are many other 50 and 85 prime shooters that also have the same problem as me?
The old Canon primes are well…OLD and the new Zooms are much improved over the old ones and i dare say (just base on MTF) that the new zooms are much sharper than the old Primes I own (on paper at least)…
I just wanted to know if there are any other shooters out there who actually gave up their 50 and 85 primes and went for a zoom instead.

134
Lenses / Are Primes really better for portraits?
« on: September 22, 2012, 09:31:57 PM »
I believe this is an age old question that has been asked many times.
But that was when zooms weren't fantastic in terms of sharpness.

I currently shoot portraiture 90% of the time and i constantly use the 50mm f1.4 and the 85mm f1.8 prime lenses only for my shoots..granted they're not the L version but those are way too pricey. I'm shooting on the 5Dmk3.

However, i'm always "struggling" to be happy with the results i'm getting. The photos aren't bad but i jus wished they were a tad bit sharper. I've done all the AFMA stuff and still am not happy. In fact, i'm even happier with the results from my 40 f2.8 STM lens but that lens just isn't fantastic for close up shots.

Therefor this question…should i give up both primes and go for a new standard zoom lens?
It seems the new 24-70 from both Tamron and Canon are impressive in terms of sharpness in the center and corners. Primes are still better at extremes but i'm more bothered about center sharpness.

Looking at MTF charts for both these lenses at 70mm f5.6 (5.6 is what i usually shoot at, sometmes f4 but never lower), their center sharpness values far exceed what both my primes can do (because they're both VERY old designs?)

I admit, i wished Canon would update their 50 and 85 no L lenses as they're both like 20yrs old, but until that happens, should i just go for the Tamron 24-70? It's sharp, it's cheap, it's got IS…other than it being only 70 and not 85 which i'm used to…are there any other "negatives" as to why people use primes for portraits more than zooms? Especially the new models..

I'm asking becuase i never owned a 24-70 so i have no clue how it's like shooting with it. i only have the 24-105 which is a horrible lens if you want sharpness, but that's not what i bought that lens for in the first place.

Any comments will be greatly appreciated in helping me decide to give up my primes and go for the Tamron or just stick with the primes.

135
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 1DX VS 5D MKIII Cameras
« on: September 22, 2012, 06:46:33 AM »
I guess the question is not which camera is better…we all know the 1DX is better.
The question is, what type of shooting do you do most of the time…it's not about what type you "might" do but what you currently do.
If you do sports 90% of the time then there's no headache there.
If you do more landscapes or walkabouts or random shooting then maybe the 1DX is a little to heavy.

For me, the reason why i didn't get the 1DX other than not being able to afford one is because i didn't like the size and weight.
I love my 5D3 because it's much smaller and lighter and i only do potraits 90% of the time so AF speed or FPS isn't my priority.
Yes, the grip is rather big BUT i like to be able to have the option of taking it off and get a smaller size camera to carry around when i do not need the grip…on a 1DX, you don't have a choice to reduce the weight.

Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10 11 ... 18