September 18, 2014, 05:45:45 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 - RLPhoto

Pages: 1 ... 112 113 [114] 115 116 ... 231
1696
Lenses / Re: 100mm 2.8L Macro IS as a portrait lens
« on: January 27, 2013, 08:37:28 AM »
BUT, can you definitively give the focal length and aperture of RLPhotos' three images?

Assuming little or no cropping, I'm guessing the dog was shot with a 85@4.0 or something along those lines, maybe shorter. The ratio of very large nose to tiny eyes means it was a relatively short lens to get that perspective. The apeture had to be smaller to create enough DOF to keep the nose and eyes both in focus since the dog has a long snout. It will be interesting to see what the actual setup was.

Nope all these images are shot @ f/2. The trick is proper technique to get what you want in focus.
If you can't tell between f/2.8 and f/2, bah you might as well shoot f/4 lenses because you won't be able to tell the difference either.

1697
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Emergency wedding, of sorts.
« on: January 26, 2013, 11:12:13 PM »
Scout your locations. It's more important than any gear your going to rent.

1698
Lenses / Re: 100mm 2.8L Macro IS as a portrait lens
« on: January 26, 2013, 11:04:35 PM »

They're not suppose to privatebydesign. That's why they hire us photographers because we can discern these differences for them and to give them our vision.

I know, that is exactly why they do!

You can try and hide behind veiled superiority, I have worked for some pretty discerning clients too, I know definitively none of them know the difference between a 100 shot at 8 feet and f2.8 and a 135 shot at 11 feet and f2, they know lighting, posing, framing, they demand on time results of a high enough quality to do the job, they don't give a damn how I achieve that.

But we are getting off point, as I keep saying, both lenses are very good lenses, however for me, and I would suggest the majority of users, the functionality that the 100 IS Macro L has that the 135 f2L doesn't have are more useful than the functionality that the 135 has that the 100 doesn't have.

I can well understand people buying either lens without considering the other, but if people are considering both I believe in a toss up between the two most people will get more out of the 100.

And that's your decision. I like the f/2 look and my clients don't know what exactly that is but they like it as well.

In the end, there is nothing the 100mm macro can do for portraits that the 70-200LII cannot do. I'd wouldn't buy the macro solely based on this fact. The 135L may not have IS, but it gives a unique look at f/2 that neither of these lenses can give.

1699
Lenses / Re: 100mm 2.8L Macro IS as a portrait lens
« on: January 26, 2013, 10:32:42 PM »

If you have that mentality, go shoot the 70-200 f4L IS. No one will be able to tell the difference between the 2.8.

Most people couldn't tell the difference between f 2.8 and f4. Getting to the difference between f2 and f4 then we are getting into an area where I would hope most on here could, so no, if narrow dof is what you are trying to achieve then f4 is not particularly effective.

You seem to take offense not at the content, which is well backed up with maths, but at the contrary message. This is a forum, a place for ideas, nothing you have put forward supports your opinion, you can't point to an image, anywhere, that is unmistakeably shot with a 135 f2, that is not confrontational, it is just the truth. Don't forget I have a 135 f2 and used it for years, though all on film, I now have the 100 IS macro and know I couldn't tell the difference.

The 85 f1.2 does the narrow dof field well for two reasons, it is fast, obviously, but because it is a medium focal length you automatically move closer for the same framing, this also narrows your dof even more, however when comparing the 135 f2 and the 100 f2.8 the tables turn, you stand closer to frame the same for the slower lens, because you are closer your dof is less, seriously, we are talking 1" difference in dof on a wide open portrait from the two lenses.

If your buisness model is based on ultra narrow dof and you are getting lots of buisness then obviously the $5,000 more expensive 200 f2 makes sense, if you are anybody else the difference between a 135mm image shot at f2 and a same framed 100mm image shot at f2.8, well, that 1" dof difference is marginal at best.

Thank you for illustrating my point, people will know which image they prefer, but they can't accurately and consistently tell the focal length or dof used for each image.

They're not suppose to privatebydesign. That's why they hire us photographers because we can discern these differences for them and to give them our vision.

1700
Lenses / Re: 100mm 2.8L Macro IS as a portrait lens
« on: January 26, 2013, 10:13:03 PM »

If you have that mentality, go shoot the 70-200 f4L IS. No one will be able to tell the difference between the 2.8.

Most people couldn't tell the difference between f 2.8 and f4. Getting to the difference between f2 and f4 then we are getting into an area where I would hope most on here could, so no, if narrow dof is what you are trying to achieve then f4 is not particularly effective.

You seem to take offense not at the content, which is well backed up with maths, but at the contrary message. This is a forum, a place for ideas, nothing you have put forward supports your opinion, you can't point to an image, anywhere, that is unmistakeably shot with a 135 f2, that is not confrontational, it is just the truth. Don't forget I have a 135 f2 and used it for years, though all on film, I now have the 100 IS macro and know I couldn't tell the difference.

The 85 f1.2 does the narrow dof field well for two reasons, it is fast, obviously, but because it is a medium focal length you automatically move closer for the same framing, this also narrows your dof even more, however when comparing the 135 f2 and the 100 f2.8 the tables turn, you stand closer to frame the same for the slower lens, because you are closer your dof is less, seriously, we are talking 1" difference in dof on a wide open portrait from the two lenses.

If your buisness model is based on ultra narrow dof and you are getting lots of buisness then obviously the $5,000 more expensive 200 f2 makes sense, if you are anybody else the difference between a 135mm image shot at f2 and a same framed 100mm image shot at f2.8, well, that 1" dof difference is marginal at best.

My clients don't care between f/2 or f/4. That's my job and If I can see the benefit for f/2 I will use it.

1701
Lenses / Re: 100mm 2.8L Macro IS as a portrait lens
« on: January 26, 2013, 09:18:48 PM »
The point of the one stop difference in portrait shooting is quite different from the point of one stop faster for telephoto shooting, your comparisons are weak and your argument disingenuous.

Shooting telephotos: compare a 300mm f4 at 1/125 second to a 300 f2.8 at 1/250 second, that extra shutter speed could well make the difference in subject motion or camera shake and is the primary reason for fast telephoto lenses, being able to achieve higher shutter speeds.

Shooting portraits: 135mm f2 at 11 feet, for a 3" dof; 100mm f2.8 at 8 feet (for the same framing though fractionally different perspective) for a 4" dof.

Now you can argue this as much as you like, but I know that practically nobody could tell the difference between the two images shot in the portrait scenario. Sure people will pay thousands for an extra stop, I have two 300 f2.8's and have never touched a 300 f4, but in portrait shooting, unless you are plying the one trick pony of ultra narrow dof, the one stop faster turns out to have very limited functionality, the macro IS on the other hand has functionality in bucket loads.

Yet again, I am not saying the 135 is a bad lens, is isn't, it is a superb lens (though long overdue a makeover), indeed Zac Arias stated that lens alone is worth owning a Canon system for, though he ended up not using it much, favouring the 85 f1.8 ( http://zackarias.com/for-photographers/gear-gadgets/canon-switch-update-all-is-well/ ). But unless you are going to primarily shoot at f2 then there is nothing the 135 has over the 100 macro, indeed once you do go to f2.8, a mere inch difference in dof, then the 100 macro has many advantages over the 135.

If you have that mentality, go shoot the 70-200 f4L IS. No one will be able to tell the difference between the 2.8.

1702
Canon General / Re: Why did you choose Canon?
« on: January 26, 2013, 08:24:05 PM »
1. Lens selection, particularly primes.

2. Ergonomics. Nikons hurt my hands.

3. Flash. That's right, the 7D flash system was just a good as the d700 I used and the 5D3 is even better. Now with the 600RTs, even more to love canon flash. It's a shame no 1/250th sync for 5D cameras.

4. AF. 61 point is brilliant.

5. Rental avaliability. A lot of local shops carry only canon equipment and very few nikon stuff.

1703
Lenses / Re: 100mm 2.8L Macro IS as a portrait lens
« on: January 26, 2013, 08:03:26 PM »
Don't be naive.

200mm f/2 - 70-200 f/2.8

300mm f/2.8 - 70-200 f/2.8 + 1.4 TC

400mm f/4 DO / 200-400 f/4 - 100-400 4.5-5.6

400mm 2.8 and upwards have no zoom equivalents in the range.

A stop is a lot. Don't belittle that fact.

Except for the 400s, those aren't supertelephotos. And the 200-400 doesn't officially exist yet.

Your original quote specified "super-teles" versus "L-grade zooms"

Check the EF Lens lineup here:

http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup

You could maybe make a marginal case for your original point by comparing the 400 f/5.6 against the 100-400, but the 400 f/5.6 is really just a 300 f/4 with a built-in teleconverter. Generally, "supertelephoto" really only applies to lenses with a physical aperture of 120mm and bigger.

But your original statement, that it's only one stop that separates supertelephotos from L zooms, is quite misleading. Those zooms all have apertures of about 70 mm. Indeed, that's almost a constant from the 70-200 f/2.8 all the way through the 100-400, as well as the 300 f/4 and 400 f/5.6 primes, and even the 85 f/1.2. In contrast, the majority of the supertelephotos have apertures twice that size, which is why they're in a league all unto themselves.

Cheers,

b&

One stop of light is the same difference between the 135L and 100L. Which is the same one stop which seperates a 70-200L to a 200 f/2. Some are willing to pay the 5000$ for a stop yet, you belittle the twice the light advantage of the 135L as not a reason to chose it over the 100L. Super tele, meh, I use that term loosely for big expensive glass that 99% of people won't own.

The principle is still there in my comment, a stop is big step and enough to choose between lenses.

1704
It's quite simple. A larger sensor/film will be less critical of the flaws in the lens infront of it. IE: it's make bad lenses not look so bad.
Not entirely accurate.

It would be equally sensible to claim that a small sensor will be less critical of the flaws in the lens infront of it. Lenses tend to perform their worst in corners, and if the sensor does not record anything in corners, you avoid such problems.

-h



What I have been saying for a while...

Only someone who's never shot MF would say this.

1705
Lenses / Re: 100mm 2.8L Macro IS as a portrait lens
« on: January 26, 2013, 12:16:50 PM »
I love it when a user says "it's only one stop" while they forget its only one stop that separates the super-teles from L grade zooms.

Eh, no. Not hardly. Not even close.

Except for the not-yet-available-for-sale 200-400, the fastest 400 you're going to get in a Canon zoom is f/5.6. The supertelephoto 400 is f/2.8. That's not only two stops of light, it's the difference between Group A autofocus (all points doing everything they can) and Group E autofocus (no dual-cross points, no high-precision points, cross points only in the center, mostly just horizontal-only points) with the 1Dx and 5DIII. Even the 24-105 f/4 has better autofocus performance than a zoom that reaches 400. Indeed, the 400 f/2.8 with a 1.4x teleconverter still has better autofocus than a zoom with 400mm -- and no zoom will cover 560 or autofocus worth a damn there if you somehow kludge it.

And context is key, too. Few people doing telephoto portraiture are doing so in conditions so dark that they're ISO-limited with a 5DIII or a 1Dx, with the rare exception of theatre and concert photographers. And DoF at standard portrait distances is already so insanely shallow at f/2.8 (let alone f/2) that most portrait photographers are going to be stopping down to at least f/4 if not f/8 to maintain sharpness of more than a single eyelash.

In contrast, typical shooting distances of a Great White are much longer. Typically, you're taking a whole-body portrait if not even a group shot, as opposed to a head shot. By the time (before, actually) the action is close enough for a head shot with a Great White, you're dropping it and picking up your second body with the 70-200. Depth of field is still shallow, but you've got more room to work with at those distances. That, and you need much faster shutter speeds than you do for portraiture or even the theatre or concert hall.

There's a reason why you'd always shoot a Great White wide open on the field and often wish it was even faster, but few successful studio portrait photographers are often pushing the aperture limits of their lenses.

Cheers,

b&

Don't be naive.

200mm f/2 - 70-200 f/2.8

300mm f/2.8 - 70-200 f/2.8 + 1.4 TC

400mm f/4 DO / 200-400 f/4 - 100-400 4.5-5.6

400mm 2.8 and upwards have no zoom equivalents in the range.

A stop is a lot. Don't belittle that fact.

1706
Is Full Frame sharper than APS-C?

After Way Too Much Time spent reading this thread, I still don't know :P

It's quite simple. A larger sensor/film will be less critical of the flaws in the lens infront of it. IE: it's make bad lenses not look so bad.

In the '80's a got an adapter to enable my Pentax 6x7 lenses fit 35mm cameras.

I was quite disappointed in the results on 35mm - they were definitely not as sharp or contrasty as the 35mm lenses.

And they made cool lenses like this back in that era.  8) 240mm F/1.2

1707
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Question about 5DIII's NR settings
« on: January 26, 2013, 09:43:33 AM »
I don't use in camera NR but I do keep long expo NR on standard.

1708
Is Full Frame sharper than APS-C?

After Way Too Much Time spent reading this thread, I still don't know :P

It's quite simple. A larger sensor/film will be less critical of the flaws in the lens infront of it. IE: it's make bad lenses not look so bad.

1709
Lenses / Re: 100mm 2.8L Macro IS as a portrait lens
« on: January 26, 2013, 09:34:59 AM »
I love it when a user says "it's only one stop" while they forget its only one stop that separates the super-teles from L grade zooms. Infact, if its only one stop, why bother with f2.8? F/4 is good enough.

A stop is twice the light. Some want a a whole stop of ISO performance but put down a stop of advantage on a lens? I wish my paycheck was a stop better!

1710
Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 50 f/1.2L
« on: January 25, 2013, 09:15:55 PM »

Test charts don't impress everyone.

Neither do the images from the 1.2.

Especially test charts images shot @ 1.2.

Pages: 1 ... 112 113 [114] 115 116 ... 231