Messages

766

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Help to make my decision.

« on: January 31, 2013, 07:25:52 PM »

You have no FF lenses, which mean's you might as well just sell everything and start new with FF.

1. Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC.
2. Canon 100mm F/2
3. 5D2 or 5D3.

Skip 6D, Not good value for $$$.

I WOULDN'T do that - I would skip 5D II and take 6D for these reasons.

1. Newer camera - with extra features, wifi etc
2. True Auto ISO in "M" mode, 5D II has fixed auto ISO at 400
3. Better AF - more accurate then 5D II

In actual use, the 6D will fail in everything the 5D2 will performance wise and no better than the 5D2 in getting the shot. Same FPS, nearly identical terrible AF, and 98% viewfinder. The 5D3 will have none of these limits.

So why waste those extra 500$? Get another lens. Don't waste it on the fluff from the 6D and that's why I consider it bad value for $$$.

In which way? 6D AF center point is way MUCH BETTER 5D II, so what is your point?

 your still stuck only using the center point. That's the issue.

767

Lenses / Re: 100mm 2.8L Macro IS as a portrait lens

« on: January 31, 2013, 06:52:08 PM »

If you cannot display a single photo PBD, I continue to lol at you because since I cannot take you seriously. XD

You can't take me seriously? Really? You are the one who claims a "unique look", but can't actually show it. I have displayed four images, the only one you commented on as not being the 135, was from the 135, others have also displayed images. What difference does it make where the images come from? I think the only person who hasn't now got the point by now is you. You can continue with the personal attacks, like I said, it doesn't worry me in the slightest, but you are showing yourself and your opinions up for the pointless fallacies they are.

4 images, that aren't yours lol.

I've showed my proof, where's yours!?!

768

Lenses / Re: 100mm 2.8L Macro IS as a portrait lens

« on: January 31, 2013, 05:55:21 PM »

was that a answer to me?
if it was, it is time for you to understand perspective and  also define what you mean with a better  portrait lens, that the ears is moving forward? flatter ?

No it wasn't.

But you do want to know, re-read my posts. I don't feel like wasting more time defining this. 

769

Lenses / Re: 100mm 2.8L Macro IS as a portrait lens

« on: January 31, 2013, 05:37:13 PM »

If you cannot display a single photo PBD, I continue to lol at you because since I cannot take you seriously. XD

770

Lenses / Re: 100mm 2.8L Macro IS as a portrait lens

« on: January 31, 2013, 04:34:01 PM »

Your opinion = irrelevant until I see some of your portraits from these lenses.

It's would be equal to me recommending a Ferrari or Zonda while I only used a ford. If you shot many portraits, you would likely also agree with the 135L being better for just portraits.

So you can't tell the difference, but then I knew that. Your only defense is to resort to insults and insinuations. I shot the 135 on film for years, now I find the 100 macro a much more versatile lens with much nicer bokeh and vastly greater functionality.

After calling me dumb, do you want to know how dumb you are?
"The kid doesn't look f/2. Bokeh is harsh."
"When I see a 135L image, I know it ...."
That was shot with the 135 at f2.2, you might still be fooling yourself, but I doubt if anybody else is impressed with your avoidance, insults and insinuations.

You haven't shown an image with "a unique look, 35% more compression, twice the light, and much less dof" that you purport the 135 gives you, because you can't, there is not enough to distinguish between the two.

I have little respect for measuabators in photography. I've already displayed work with both lenses and I chose the 135L for already said reasons. If my conclusion is that the 135L is better and that's too much for you to handle, go ahead and waste your time. Preaching to the choir. I simply cannot respect you as a photographer until I've seen photographs with your work with BOTH lenses. Then atleast I could respect your opinions on this topic.

The 100L is a good portrait lens but the 135L, now that's a great portrait lens.

771

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Help to make my decision.

« on: January 31, 2013, 04:19:18 PM »

So why waste those extra 500$?

Well, some things come to mind... (from http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=1130)

• higher iso capability
• less banding
• higher dynamic range
• center-point af up to -3lv
• silent shutter
• faster fps
• longer battery life
• shorter release time
• better metering & auto-wb
• hi-res lcd
• small & light but good grip
• top wheel lock
• gps built-in
• wifi built-in
• newer firmware:
  
  • full support for rt flashes,
  • in-camera multishot/hdr
  • in-camera ca correction
  • 7x bracketing
  • dual afma for zooms
  • servo af customization
  • flexible min/max auto-iso
  • min shutter speed setting
  • orientation-linked af point

+1 ... And also remote shooting with a smartphone and better weather sealing

Or $500 in depreciation I suppose rather than invest in another lens. 

772

Lenses / Re: 100mm 2.8L Macro IS as a portrait lens

« on: January 31, 2013, 04:04:41 PM »

The kid doesn't look f/2. Bokeh is harsh.

The ice-cream guy looks totally 135L. That's the look.

What I find most un-impressive is that none of those are your photos mr.privatebydesign. Lets see your photos comparing these lens.

Now here is my input. Which of these were shot with a macro and the 135L?

So far you have committed to two images from eight, I wonder if you got any right from eight, I'll tell you which of my post were which in a couple of days, Plamen will have to tell us his.

Why would you find my lack of images impressive? That is such a strange thing to say, through this entire thread I have tried to get you to post images that display that "unique look" only the 135 can give you, do you think the "compression" of my 100 is different to others? That my lenses dof is better? I have also already pointed out that I don't have the 135 in EF, only FD. You are the one who has kept saying "only the 135 can do that", "35% more compression", "twice as much light", well, show me, because so far you have failed.

As for your four images, judging by the horrible bokeh I would say images one and four are with the 135, images two and three with the 100, assuming it isn't a trick question.

Don't be dumb. When I see a 135L image, I know it and will point it out.

As for you, you have no photos with either lens thus I hold your opinion irrelevant as you haven't shown you've used the equipment.

You are very wrong, all of them are 135L images. Stick that in your lens mount and smoke it.

So which of the four I posted are the 135? You already said not the girl on the swing, so three more guesses. What difference would it make if I have used either, I am asking you to post an image that has the "unique look" of the 135, you know, the images with "35% more compression", "twice the light", "much narrower depth of field", I, and others, have posted images shot with both and you can't tell them apart, I am not the one being dumb here.

Having said that I knew that images one and four were with your 135, the 100 doesn't have harsh bokeh like that, I got two right, 50%, even though it was a trick question!

Your opinion = irrelevant until I see some of your portraits from these lenses.

It's would be equal to me recommending a Ferrari or Zonda while I only used a ford. If you shot many portraits, you would likely also agree with the 135L being better for just portraits.

773

Lenses / Re: 100mm 2.8L Macro IS as a portrait lens

« on: January 31, 2013, 03:49:58 PM »

The kid doesn't look f/2. Bokeh is harsh.

The ice-cream guy looks totally 135L. That's the look.

What I find most un-impressive is that none of those are your photos mr.privatebydesign. Lets see your photos comparing these lens.

Now here is my input. Which of these were shot with a macro and the 135L?

So far you have committed to two images from eight, I wonder if you got any right from eight, I'll tell you which of my post were which in a couple of days, Plamen will have to tell us his.

Why would you find my lack of images impressive? That is such a strange thing to say, through this entire thread I have tried to get you to post images that display that "unique look" only the 135 can give you, do you think the "compression" of my 100 is different to others? That my lenses dof is better? I have also already pointed out that I don't have the 135 in EF, only FD. You are the one who has kept saying "only the 135 can do that", "35% more compression", "twice as much light", well, show me, because so far you have failed.

As for your four images, judging by the horrible bokeh I would say images one and four are with the 135, images two and three with the 100, assuming it isn't a trick question.

Don't be dumb. When I see a 135L image, I know it and will point it out.

As for you, you have no photos with either lens thus I hold your opinion irrelevant as you haven't shown you've used the equipment.

Horrible bokeh? hahahahaha. You are very wrong, all of them are 135L images. Stick that in your lens mount and smoke it.

774

Lenses / Re: 100mm 2.8L Macro IS as a portrait lens

« on: January 31, 2013, 12:53:57 PM »

and you are right, this is a Iphone 4s, and what do I meant by this?
If we are showing pictures from one or another lens they do not tell us much if there not are two identical images captured.

Great because test charts are always more useful than actual photos made with the equipment.

775

Lenses / Re: 100mm 2.8L Macro IS as a portrait lens

« on: January 31, 2013, 12:07:01 PM »

is this taken with a 100mm or a 135?

Might as well be shot with an iPhone. It'd look more appetizing than this.

776

EOS Bodies / Re: 5D III or 1D IV for sports!

« on: January 31, 2013, 09:28:23 AM »

Nothing touches a 1D camera for sports. Without a doubt the 1D4 is better but the 5D3 can do AF just as good but alas, too slow FPS.

777

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Help to make my decision.

« on: January 31, 2013, 09:12:53 AM »

You have no FF lenses, which mean's you might as well just sell everything and start new with FF.

1. Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC.
2. Canon 100mm F/2
3. 5D2 or 5D3.

Skip 6D, Not good value for $$$.

I WOULDN'T do that - I would skip 5D II and take 6D for these reasons.

1. Newer camera - with extra features, wifi etc
2. True Auto ISO in "M" mode, 5D II has fixed auto ISO at 400
3. Better AF - more accurate then 5D II

In actual use, the 6D will fail in everything the 5D2 will performance wise and no better than the 5D2 in getting the shot. Same FPS, nearly identical terrible AF, and 98% viewfinder. The 5D3 will have none of these limits.

So why waste those extra 500$? Get another lens. Don't waste it on the fluff from the 6D and that's why I consider it bad value for $$$.

778

Lenses / Re: 100mm 2.8L Macro IS as a portrait lens

« on: January 31, 2013, 08:57:01 AM »

The kid doesn't look f/2. Bokeh is harsh.

The ice-cream guy looks totally 135L. That's the look.

What I find most un-impressive is that none of those are your photos mr.privatebydesign. Lets see your photos comparing these lens.

Now here is my input. Which of these were shot with a macro and the 135L?

779

Lenses / Re: Please explain the need for f2.8 zooms

« on: January 30, 2013, 10:14:07 PM »

I love it when users say "it's only one stop" when comparing lenses. One stop is a lot! That's twice as good! Some users complain they couldn't tell the difference in rendering from faster glass and then complain that everyone one else can't see the difference.

780

Lenses / Re: 100mm 2.8L Macro IS as a portrait lens

« on: January 30, 2013, 10:04:53 PM »

No need to buy a 100L for portraits when you have a 70-200II. It just not worth it for just portraits.

The 135L give you the extra speed for a unique look neither can deliver and its small, compact and fast.