April 21, 2014, 01:48:46 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 - LuCoOc

Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10
121
Landscape / Re: Yosemite national park
« on: July 03, 2011, 08:34:35 AM »
wow. you had a very clear day. i have the same shot @18mm but there's lots of air distortion in it.

The two pics below were taken with a tokina 10-17 fisheye at mariposa grove  in the south of the park

122
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 4K Sooner Than Later?
« on: June 29, 2011, 12:49:41 PM »
Hell, give us medium format video!

What are you willing to pay for it?100K with lenses?

123
Lenses / Re: I want a ef 18 mm f.1,8 L is. Canon can you here me
« on: June 08, 2011, 01:59:39 PM »
An 18mm or 20mm ef-s prime would be usefull. Third party manufacturers already started to produce 50mm equivalents (Sigma 30mm 1.4 DC)... how about a 35mm equivalent?

124
Lenses / Re: EF 50 f/1.4 II & EF 50 f/1.8 III [CR2]
« on: May 14, 2011, 03:29:10 AM »
If the 50/1.4-II goes to $600-$700, what of the 50/1.8-III?

Does that become the new 50mm $300 lens?

If FTM and real USM goes into the 50/1.4, what for the 50/1.8?

A newer 50/1.4 at around $500 would be more to my liking.

I'm pretty sure canon will raise the price to 600-700 $/€. The gap between the current 1.4 and the 1.2L is big enough for them to do that :'(
Anyway the current lens developements showed impressive improvements maybe we see that in the primes too?!

125
Lenses / Re: 15-85 vs 17-40
« on: May 14, 2011, 03:23:01 AM »
check out the comparison-tools at TDP http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Comparison-Tools.aspx but be aware, studio tests won't tell you the whole story.
 i think most of us know them but also read his reviews. they're great :D

126
Lenses / Re: EF 50 f/1.4 II & EF 50 f/1.8 III [CR2]
« on: May 13, 2011, 05:14:53 AM »
Would this 50mm f1.8 be Canon's first MK III lens?


No there is the 75-300 III http://www.canon.de/For_Home/Product_Finder/Cameras/EF_Lenses/Telephoto_Zoom/EF_75-300mm_f4-5.6_III_USM/

i would like to see a new 1.4. i could find myself paying 600€ for a decent imagequality

127
EOS Bodies / Re: best quallity ,full framecanon dslr choice ?
« on: May 08, 2011, 04:31:01 PM »
If you need it now, buy it now. if you dont need it now, wait.
Everything will be cheaper in the future.

you can do that. both current full frame cameras (5D II and 1Ds III) deliver impressive image quality.
however if you want to wait you could also buy a used 5D I and sell it when a 5D III or 1Ds IV comes out. you won't loose much money that way if at all because your 5D I's value isn't influenced by any product anouncements.

128
Maybe you should take a look at the ZE lens set offert by Carl Zeiss

https://photo-shop.zeiss.com/en/Products/1930-446

Following is a quote from the Link

Attractive offer for filmmakers and photographers
The five Carl Zeiss SLR-lenses come in a special waterproof and robust case. Special inlays ensures that each lens fits perfectly inside the suitcase and protects the lenses from shock and vibration. The SLR Lens Set is IP67 waterproofed.

Included lenses:

Distagon T* 2,8/21 ZE (Canon EF-Mount);
Distagon T* 2/28 ZE (Canon EF-Mount);
Distagon T* 2/35 ZE (Canon EF-Mount);
Planar T* 1,4/50 ZE (Canon EF-Mount);
Planar T* 1,4/85 ZE (Canon EF-Mount)

129
Lenses / Re: Obsessing
« on: April 27, 2011, 06:25:27 AM »


A good photograph rarely depends on lens sharpness.



A good photograph rarely depends on lens sharpness as long as you don't need large prints. And yes - corner sharpness isn't neccessary for every image... it depends on the photographers style and what s/he is taking a picture of. I really respect comments like yours but I don't like them to be generalized.

130
Lenses / Re: EF 24-105 f/4L IS II [CR1]
« on: April 19, 2011, 09:43:15 AM »
I've always wondered: Is the only advantage of reverse zooming (like the 24-70L) being able to use a hood that doesn't move? Or is there more behind that design?

I'd love to see more lenses that reverse zoom with stationary hoods.

This hood design is more effektive than a hood mounted to the moving part of the lens. the 24-105's hood is actually for 24mm. a hood being more effektive at longer focal length would cause vignetting at the wide end of the lens. however the 24-70's is all in one and ensures maximum flare resistance.

131
Lenses / Re: UV filter for 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II?
« on: April 07, 2011, 06:06:22 PM »
Please allow me to make two humble remarks:

1. I have not found a filter which does not add additional flare to my lenses - be it cheap kit lenses or be it Canon L lenses. For this reason I do not use filters unless needed (i.e. polarising filter).

2. The purpose of the filter is to protect the front lens against damage. I do not know how much the front lens of an L objective costs (I only heard that most would cost less then 100 Euro), but consider (the price of a front lens repair minus costs for protecting filter) against additional flare. For me a saving potential of some 10 Euros (or 14 USD) does not outweigh making my pictures worse on a system which costs 4.000 Euro.

But you decide for yourselves.

May be someone has an idea how much a front lens repair costs?

I wish everyone always good light!


My two reasons for using protection filters are:

1.) completed weather sealing if used with 1d bodys
2.)reparing the front element of your lens might only cost you 10-20 bucks more than the filter but for sure 2-3 weeks to get it repaired unless you're cps-member i guess

132
Lenses / Re: UV filter for 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II?
« on: April 07, 2011, 10:38:38 AM »
Hi!
i don't have a particular filter to recommend since i don't have an overview about all the filters availlable. however i'm using an hoya hd 67mm uv filter for my 100L and am satisfied with what i see :)

my advises are:
1.) you've probably spend 2500$ on your lens wich is build out of 23 single lenses. that's more than 100$ each lens and about the budget i would spend on a filter if i wanted to use on on a 70-200mm.

2.) i don't own this lens but this german website (http://www.traumflieger.de/objektivtest/open_test/canon_70_200_28_is_II/overview.php said at the end of their review filters (even slim filters) will cause vignetting with this lens.

133
EOS Bodies / Re: Should I wait?
« on: March 18, 2011, 05:33:30 AM »
if you only want it for video you better get a camcorder. a dslr is a stilcam with die ability to capture video. autofucus hardly works. however it depends on what you want to use it for. anything thaat moves faster than a slow walking human won't work i think

134
Canon General / Re: what should i do?
« on: March 17, 2011, 12:40:42 PM »
correct me if i'm wrong, but my opinion is that canon doesn't have anything like a d7000 simply because the aimed their products different in the last year. X0D line rebelized an 7D as an upgrade. so you either have to step up or get a cam that might be less feature filled than the d7000.

135
Lenses / Re: 24-70 II in April? [CR2]
« on: March 08, 2011, 11:19:40 AM »
I don't see Canon making this lens video optimized. None of the other recent releases have been. This lens has been on the short list for updating for quite some time: as long as I have been following canon rumors at least. Since 2006 or so. I'll be able to unload my 24-105 if this comes out. I'll miss the range, sure, but it'll force me to carry my 70-200 2.8 II more.

My question is whether this lens is being introduced to improve optical quality or to improve operation when new cameras are used in video modes. I own a current 24-70 and I can't imagine trying to zoom with it while taking video footage. It has been rumored that Canon will be introducing new video-oriented EF lenses in the near future. Could this be the first? One thing they might do is modify the EF lens mount to add power zoom functionality.

Just a conjecture.

the new supertelephoto lense have this "power-focus"

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