November 28, 2014, 01:49:12 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 ... 119 120 [121] 122 123 ... 236
1801
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.

1802
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.

1803
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

1804
Gigapan

Forget composition, just take it all.

1805
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.

1806
The Great Picture > LF > MF > 35mm > APS-C > M4/3 > Compact Sensors

This shows that if your film is big enough, a Hanger door could be a lens.  8)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Picture

1807
Black & White / Re: Your best Architectural & City B&W shots?
« on: January 24, 2013, 01:23:46 PM »
Lots of tripod love in this thread.  8)
Wow! How did you figure that?

Good compositions.

1808
Lenses / Re: 200mm F2 IS OR 135mm F2
« on: January 24, 2013, 01:11:44 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

1809
Landscape / Re: Post Your Best Landscapes
« on: January 24, 2013, 12:21:03 PM »
We should start a CR landscape Exhibit and go on tour.  ;D

1810
Black & White / Re: Your best Architectural & City B&W shots?
« on: January 24, 2013, 12:06:21 PM »
Lots of tripod love in this thread.  8)

1811
Lenses / Re: 200mm F2 IS OR 135mm F2
« on: January 24, 2013, 11:56:12 AM »
200/2L > 135L/85LII > 200/2.8L

IMO, for portraits anyway

1812
Speedlites, Printers, Accessories / Re: Canon 600EX-RT review
« on: January 24, 2013, 11:30:32 AM »
Love the review and I will eventually dump my 580II's for some 600RT's in the future. It's just at the moment, I want to invest in some newer strobes.  :P

1813
Not one bit, waiting for FF-EVIL that doesn't require the sale of a kidney.

1814
EOS Bodies / Re: Where are you EOS 70D?
« on: January 24, 2013, 11:17:15 AM »
I expect the 70D to be a repackaged 7D and the 7DII to be a step-up from that.

1815
Lenses / Re: 200mm F2 IS OR 135mm F2
« on: January 24, 2013, 11:13:11 AM »
The 200 f/2 is the portrait lens. The 135L is the closest thing to it for budget users.

I think you will find that the design brief for the 200 f2 was primarily lowlight and shorter long focal length sports, that it is used very effectively for portraits by some is a complimentary use for it. Certainly if you want to see ten or fifteen 200 f2's together just go to any ATP World Tour event. Canon made the 85 1.2 as a pure no holds barred portrait lens and considered AF of secondary importance to the "look" it gives.

I remember for years the sample images for the 300 f2.8 IS are head shots portraits, though nobody would doubt that portrait shooters are not the primary market for that lens! Though there are a few that use it, for instance I do, but primarily because I have one and don't need the 200 f2.

EDIT: Obviously the 200 f2.8 is the budget version of the 200 f2.

Used the 85L II, Found it kinda meh when I already have the 135L. The 200/2 is the best portrait lens canon makes IMO, its just expensive and heavy. Sure it can be used for sports as well.  ::)

The 200/2.8 is a lens I've never been particularly fond of when the 70-200LII does the same thing. I used the 200/2 at a buddys house for about an hour, and instantly knew it was in a league of its own.

Pages: 1 ... 119 120 [121] 122 123 ... 236