October 24, 2014, 11:13:18 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 - RLPhoto

Pages: 1 ... 117 118 [119] 120 121 ... 234
1771
RLPhoto

Ramon L. Perez Photographer

My photo is of a low-key self-portrait which shows the style of photos I like with my currently most used lens, the 135L.

1772
Lenses / Re: Can You Beat it?
« on: January 25, 2013, 04:22:44 PM »
EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM @ just under $800?

I don't own any L glass.  For this price it looks like a good first L lens for my FF camera.

What do you think?

Saw a version I of this lens for 350$ with the built in hood. Didn't buy it.  :P

1773
Lenses / Re: 100mm 2.8L Macro IS as a portrait lens
« on: January 25, 2013, 03:48:33 PM »
"I prefer the extra compression"

I'd challenge anybody in a double blind test to accurately be able to tell the focal length used between the two lenses. Focused at "normal" portrait distances it wouldn't surprise me if the focal lengths were almost the same anyway.

35% more compression and the extra stop of speed is what made me make the same choice for the 135L. Its also the reason I decided to pass on the 85L for portraits, too tight and it will produce bigger noses.

These are my tastes and If I was able to notice the difference, that's enough for me to choose 135L > 100L for portraits.
Again, I'd challenge anybody in a double blind test to accurately be able to tell the focal length used between the two lenses. Focused at "normal" portrait distances it wouldn't surprise me if the focal lengths were almost the same anyway.

The one stop of speed might make a difference, if you regularly shoot at f2 and reproduce small. People forget that dof is output sized and viewing distance specific, in this age of small web based output I well understand people chasing faster lenses, I print, and often big, at decent print sizes f4-5.6 only give you a couple of inches of sharp dof.

Ok, so what are you trying to say? That there is no discernible difference between the 135L and 100L?

1774
14 pages later, how hard is it to believe that FF is sharper than APS-C?  ???

1775
Lenses / Re: Have 5D3, will shoot... but which lens?
« on: January 25, 2013, 02:48:28 PM »
Hi all,

I bit the bullet and have decided to buy the 5D3 as an upgrade for my 50D. I am however hesitant on which lens to buy with the 5D3:
24-105L f4 or
24-70L f4 (wait a bit for prices to drop) or
17-40L f4

I already have the following canons: 28 1.8, 50 1.4 and 70-200 f4 IS FF lenses but will need a FF UWA or FF standard zoom replace my sigma crop zooms (17-70IS  and 8-16). I ended up not using the 8-16 a lot because it seemed wide and did not have any overlap with my 17-70.

I mainly shoot portraits, street, architecture. I like the primes and use them a lot, but do want a zoom lens for general walk-round.

The 2.8 lenses (16-35LII & new 24-70 canon & tamron) look great, but the extra size & weight put me off and cannot justify the extra cost. I believe I can accept the softish corners of the 17-40 I read about. The high ISO of the 5D3 will offset the slower aperture of the 17-40 as well.

I figure the 70-200 will do nicely as portrait lens, super sharp, and I am sure a longer prime will follow as well for better bokeh, so I am thinking maybe I should start with UWA instead of standard zoom. How important is the 30-100 range?

Which to buy first? UWA or standard zoom? Did any of you readers skip the standard zoom go straight for the UWA zoom? What do you shoot primarily?

Any advice & views would be appreciated!

Regards, Roeland

17-40, 50 1.4, + 70-200 F/4 - What else is needed? :D

1776
Lenses / Re: 100mm 2.8L Macro IS as a portrait lens
« on: January 25, 2013, 02:04:50 PM »
"I prefer the extra compression"

I'd challenge anybody in a double blind test to accurately be able to tell the focal length used between the two lenses. Focused at "normal" portrait distances it wouldn't surprise me if the focal lengths were almost the same anyway.

35% more compression and the extra stop of speed is what made me make the same choice for the 135L. Its also the reason I decided to pass on the 85L for portraits, too tight and it will produce bigger noses.

These are my tastes and If I was able to notice the difference, that's enough for me to choose 135L > 100L for portraits.

1777
Lenses / Re: 100mm 2.8L Macro IS as a portrait lens
« on: January 25, 2013, 01:52:28 PM »
The 135L is the better portrait lens but the 100L can be one as well. I prefer the extra compression and extra speed for portraits. At F/2, the 135L can already be a pain to PP all the flaws in a face and the macro would be even sharper @ F/2.8.

1778
EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: 6D not usable for shooting video?
« on: January 25, 2013, 11:19:13 AM »
Oh my... Is that a new holographic roof installed on your building?

1779
Technical Support / Re: at what shutter speed you turn IS off?
« on: January 25, 2013, 11:17:39 AM »
I keep IS off until I need it. Pretty straightforward.

1780
PowerShot / Re: A camera for backpacking into the wilderness...
« on: January 25, 2013, 11:13:37 AM »
G1x or G15 for long, multi-day trekks for weight and whatever you want for day hikes.

1781
Software & Accessories / Re: Starting to work with RAW. Help?
« on: January 24, 2013, 10:57:05 PM »
Get Lightroom 4. Adobe is more consistent with making software than anyone else and I trust that.

1782
Lenses / Re: 200mm F2 IS OR 135mm F2
« on: January 24, 2013, 03:29:30 PM »


This is what you are looking for when his site comes back up...
http://stepheneastwood.com/tutorials/Tutorials_Lens_Perspective.htm


Yes, I've seen those before. But what really is the take-away from that? What are the practical implications? Clearly, you don't want to use anything under 50mm for head shots. We kind of knew that already but this series makes it even more clear. And yes, even 50 through 85 can be borderline depending on the model. But seriously, what is the difference between 135 and 200 or higher here? If you shuffle those samples around or just show real life samples I bet most of us wouldn't be able to tell what was shot with a 100L, 135L or 200L. They all work for this really well and it becomes more a question of other factors that you may prefer or not. Distance to the subject and type of location being the more important ones here I think.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/791634/0


Those are wonderful but that's not the question. My argument is more that those could be taken by a person with that eye and talent for locations and lighting with a 200 or a 135 - and probably a bunch of other stuff. Just by looking at those I really have no clue as to what they were shot with. I've seen pretty similar shots that were done with the 50L or 85L. The difference in perspective at the longer end is not that obvious. And with regard to the OP what I meant to say is that it more depends on your style and how and where you like to work to decide between those two fabulous lenses - with the focal length being the most important factor.

The photographer explains why those shots have the 200mm/2 look to them and how the 135L doesn't quite match up to it.

1783
EOS Bodies / Re: Which is better? 5D MKII or 6D?
« on: January 24, 2013, 02:38:11 PM »
The 6D is a slightly-microwaved 5D2 and re-served to us canonites for the next 4 years.  ;D

1784
Gigapan

Forget composition, just take it all.

1785
Lighting / Re: Fastest Sync Speed
« on: January 24, 2013, 02:30:57 PM »
Dont think so. The 6D even got 1/180 probably to give another reason to get a higher priced body. I guess they will leave the faster syncs to the 1D series, cuz thats what professionals use with their flash firing going wild :P

If they did do it, I'd buy one.

Pages: 1 ... 117 118 [119] 120 121 ... 234