December 20, 2014, 03:14:22 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 ... 119 120 [121] 122 123 ... 237
1801
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.

1802
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!

1803
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.

1804
Lenses / Re: 100mm 2.8L Macro IS as a portrait lens
« on: January 25, 2013, 09:11:41 PM »

Don't waste your time. I've used both and chose the 135L on the extra compression and the stop of light and that was on just my 5Dc's green tinged screen. If your arguing that the 100L is a better portrait lens, your mistaken. Many already agreed to the 135Ls clear superiority in portraiture and that's what the OP is going to do mostly.

I have used the 135 too, indeed I still own the FD version of it. I am not arguing the 100 is a better portrait lens, what I am saying is for the vast majority of users most of the time they couldn't tell the difference between images from either, that is a very different position to assert. Throw in the macro ability, full weather sealing and the hybrid IS and for most people the 100 makes a "better" (more useful) lens.

Consider this, there is nothing that the 100mm macro can do for portraiture that cannot be done on 70-200LII, while the 135L gives me twice the light of either for effect or practical purposes.

The 100L is a fine macro lens, and my original comment said that it can be used as a portrait lens. I prefer the 135L.

1805
Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 50 f/1.2L
« on: January 25, 2013, 08:07:14 PM »
well, it is a very special lens. And it should be used with a tripod. Don`t laugh....but the field of depth at 1.2 is soooooo small.....Just a little move by model or photographer...and your point of focus has gone...
Sorry for my bad old school english  ;)
the field of depth is small an the resolution are not convincing for the price, a highly over rated lens who may impress
on some people

Test charts don't impress everyone.

1806
Technical Support / Re: at what shutter speed you turn IS off?
« on: January 25, 2013, 07:41:58 PM »
it´s correct that IS slows down the AF.
so if you don´t need it turn it off.

when i use a shutterspeed of 1/1000s and above i turn it off.
even with my longest lens i don´t need IS with such a fast shutterspeed.

ps: and to the clown above... not everyone here is shooting for years. so if you have nothing of value to say... just say nothing. no need to be a jerk.

You mad bro?

1807
Lenses / Re: 100mm 2.8L Macro IS as a portrait lens
« on: January 25, 2013, 07:27:30 PM »
Ok, so what are you trying to say? That there is no discernible difference between the 135L and 100L?

The vast majority of the time for the vast majority of users yes there is effectively no difference in "normal" portraits. I would be very interested to know the actual focal lengths of the two lenses when focused at, say, 10 feet.

They are both superb portrait lenses, the 135 for the longest time stood alone as an exceptional lens in that range, and for the performance a very good price, but the 100 IS macro added a very interesting alternative and I for one, when buying the macro, was well prepared to not like it and sell it on, but that didn't happen.

How can we set up a double blind test?

Don't waste your time. I've used both and chose the 135L on the extra compression and the stop of light and that was on just my 5Dc's green tinged screen. If your arguing that the 100L is a better portrait lens, your mistaken. Many already agreed to the 135Ls clear superiority in portraiture and that's what the OP is going to do mostly.

1808
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.

1809
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

1810
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?

1811
14 pages later, how hard is it to believe that FF is sharper than APS-C?  ???

1812
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

1813
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.

1814
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.

1815
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?

Pages: 1 ... 119 120 [121] 122 123 ... 237