April 19, 2014, 05:34:15 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 - Northstar

Pages: 1 ... 18 19 [20] 21 22 ... 80
286
Canon General / Re: Winter Olympics....anyone going?
« on: January 16, 2014, 09:58:15 AM »
I would but I still miffed about Pussy Riot being jailed.  :o >:(

i had no idea...wow. 

287
Lenses / Re: Canon 135mm or Tamron 24-70mm
« on: January 16, 2014, 06:58:03 AM »
I don’t want another f/4 lens; I want something faster like an f/2.8 or f/2. Yes I shoot some weddings and the last one I shot I used both my Canon 17-40mm f/4 and my Canon 70-200mm f/4, both good lenses but both are f/4 also the 17-40 is a wide angle lens.

If I had the money I would love to buy the Canon 24-70 f/2.8 II lens, but I also noticed in a previous topic someone mentioned the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 and from my research yes overall the Canon is a better, only just, than the Tamron, but not £1000 better! I am very impressed with what I am reading about Tamron. In terms of quality and performance I am reading that the Tamron fits in between the Canon 24-70 MK1 and the 24-70 MK2.

So I think you get the idea I would like a general purpose lens which is good in low light, f/2.8 is not bad, and one which is more suited to weddings than my 17-40mm. I have read a lot of reviews comparing the Tamron 24-70 to Canon’s and as I have said, the Canon is better than the Tamron but only just and I am very close to buying the Tamron. My dilemma is I love the look of the Canon 135mm f/2, the price is not that much different to the Tamron 24-70. So both are very good lenses but I am not sure which one is best for me right now. I am leaning towards a 24-70mm as it would sit in nicely between my 17-40 and my 70-200, also the fact it is more versatile than the 135mm.

I would appreciate your views on this, thanks!

It sounds like you're looking for a fast and special lens to fit in between your 17-40 and 70-200... My advice, wait for this new Sig 50mm 1.4 art lens.

From what I've read, it's going to be a pretty special lens and probably will sell for less than $1000.

I obviously wouldn't wait a year for it, but it sure sounds like it might be available pretty soon.

Also, regarding the cost of the canon 24-70 vs the tamron 24-70....remember, high quality lenses from a leading brand like Canon are assets, not an expense.  If taken care of they will only slightly depreciate over time, they'll work better and last longer, you'll enjoy the experience of using it more, shooting with the best lens gives you more "street cred" with potential clients and other pros, and the resale value will probably be $1000 or more in 10 years if you want to sell it.






288
Canon General / Winter Olympics....anyone going?
« on: January 16, 2014, 06:14:38 AM »
With the Winter Olympics coming soon, I'm curious if any of the thousands of photographers here on CR will be going?

If you are going, what gear are you going to bring, and what will you be shooting?


289
Animal Kingdom / Re: Show your Bird Portraits
« on: January 16, 2014, 05:10:32 AM »
Gang Gang, male. Not his best pose as we were all putting up with a 46c day. He, and his mate were sitting in a wattle in my front garden for most of the day. I had positioned a large water bowl under the bush, which they would use on occasion. Note that both hold their wings open, in an attempt to cool down, as much as you can in this heat :)


Gang Gang, female.


What an interesting looking bird...I'd never seen one before., thanks for posting.  46c is hot..wow.

By the way, it's funny to read about the unbearable heat there when it's unbearably cold here. (Wind chill is -20 degrees Fahrenheit)

290
Landscape / Re: Post Your Best Landscapes
« on: January 16, 2014, 05:03:55 AM »
One from yesterday.

Cool shot!  It would be interesting to see the same shot after a hard rain.

What part if the country is this?  AZ?

291
Animal Kingdom / Re: Show your Bird Portraits
« on: January 16, 2014, 04:54:54 AM »
This last Saturday I decided to head to a local slough even though it was hazy(marine layer) and a bit of smoke was coming from somewhere.  There were a few ducks that drifted within minimal focus range while they were dabbling but the real treat was as the light started to go.  In the forested section a flock of House Sparrows started a ruckus and then a whoosh of wings, a shape flew away from them into a tree next to me.  I spent the next 15 minutes watching a juvenile Cooper's Hawk have a meal and preen less than 20' away.  Here's a shot of it taking a break between the appetizer and main course.   5D MK III, 600 f/4 v2 w/ 1.4TC III(Wish I had removed it but didn't want to disturb the hawk)  1/160 : f/5.6 : ISO 2000




What a good story ERHP!  And a great capture...love the detail that can be seen in the Hawk's head.

292
EOS-M / Re: Power eating Pig for EOS-M ?
« on: January 15, 2014, 05:31:41 AM »
Make sure Continuous AF is turned off.

+1

I have a pair of LP-E12s, each lasts for well over 100 shots.

Thanks you, Sir, Dear Teacher , Mr, neuroanatomist
I will too.
Surapon

I tried it today with my 85 f1.2L with continuous AF on.  Hahahaha..was almost hard to hold the thing.  The AF motor torqued the camera all over the place.  I would expect about 15 minutes of battery with that combo.  It worked though but worked better with 1 shot only.

Ha, Ha, Ha, Dear Friend Mr. East Wind .
You like me, We both try to Put the Big Engine of 12 Cylinders BMW in the Honda Civic Body, And want to get 5o Miles per Gallon.
But, When we use with the Monster 85 F/ 1.2 II, We must use the Transformer/ Add on equipoment for not let the camera tilt forwards----Ha, Ha, Ha.
Have a great Sunday.
Surapon

LOL...And now you're ready for some street photography!  :o  ;D

293
5D MK III Sample Images / Re: 5D MK III Images
« on: January 14, 2014, 08:18:14 AM »
How long have I been on these forums and been one of the early adopters of the 5DIII and I've only just seen this thread....lol!
Ok, here's a few recent images from me, all 5DIII goodness and exif intact for your perusing pleasure:


















This last image is a re-process of an earlier image to pull back the dark details on the horizon.
Lenses used here are 8-15 L fisheye, 16-35IIL, TSe-17L, 24-70IIL, 70-200 f2.8 L IS II


Great shots GMC....where was that 4th image taken?   

294
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: a(nother) 14y/o looking for feedback
« on: January 11, 2014, 07:08:39 PM »
I really like 1,6,and 8.   My least favorites are 5 and 2.  All if the others are solid shots.

Welcome, and continue to post!


295
EOS Bodies / Re: New 1DX Firmware Version 2
« on: January 11, 2014, 04:58:14 PM »
it says i can't download it for apple OS mavericks

anybody else have this issue?   or can i just download the mountain lion or lion version and it will be just fine?

update....you have to have the latest version of EOS utilities( 2.13.40) to successfully download the firmware update.

just in case anybody else is having an issue.

296
EOS Bodies / Re: New 1DX Firmware Version 2
« on: January 11, 2014, 03:07:59 AM »
it says i can't download it for apple OS mavericks

anybody else have this issue?   or can i just download the mountain lion or lion version and it will be just fine?

It's just a zip archive with the firmware file inside.  The ML or Lion downloads are fine.

Sounds good, thanks!

297
EOS Bodies / Re: New 1DX Firmware Version 2
« on: January 10, 2014, 11:10:21 AM »
it says i can't download it for apple OS mavericks

anybody else have this issue?   or can i just download the mountain lion or lion version and it will be just fine?

298
Software & Accessories / Re: How many cards?
« on: January 10, 2014, 06:04:40 AM »
After reading some posts here I decided to order two 16gb lexar 1000x cards for $100. 

You guys sold me on the need to have some extra cards....so now I have 5 total for my two bodies.  (And a dozen plus cards that have been and will continue to gather dust because they've become too small/slow).

299
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: EOS-1D X Firmware Version 2.0.3 Released
« on: January 10, 2014, 05:46:42 AM »
Does Magic Lantern still work after the update?

:)

Did it ever work with the 1dx?

Doctor: After your hand operation you will even be able to play the piano! Patient: Great, I could not do that before!
;D  ;D  ;D


Lol..Tron, an oldie but a goodie!

300
I mean to say that double gauss f/1.4 or faster lenses have image quality that is so incredibly bad that it's off the scale.

Compared to 85mm or 35mm primes @ f/1.4 double gauss normal lenses have:

10 times less spacial resolution
5 times more chromatic aberration
4 times more purple fringing
4 times as much hazing

Nevertheless, ...

  • As of 2012, the 50/1.2L tested better for resolution than any 50mm from Nikon, Zeiss or Sigma on LensRentals' shootout.  That's a success. 
  • The 50/1.2L stopped down delivers a wonderful look that is not accounted for in those tests but that is known to photographers.  The advantage of the lens is not the slight extra bit of light going from f/1.4 to f/1.2 — this is less important than ever in the digital era.  And it's not the bokeh at f/1.2 — that's not a useful aperture for a lot of what a 50mm is used for.  Instead, the advantage is the overall look, especially for portraits, and especially stopped down 1, 2 or 3 stops.  That look is why some photographers describe it as their favorite lens.  In that regard too, it's a success. 

Even though you say it's a fact that 50mm lenses are "horrible", it's also fact that many photographers buy, use, enjoy and often prefer 50mm lenses.  That says the photograph is what matters, not the metrics.

Even though a lens may be "just right" for some photographers, it won't & can't please everyone.  A manufacturer can't make a lens that pleases everyone, or the variety of lenses that would be needed to please everyone.  So whatever they make, someone will be unhappy that their personal goals for a new lens weren't met.

It appears that Nikon designed their new 58/1.4 with similar goals — it offers a very nice look, similar to the 50/1.2L based on what I've seen online.  It's not surprising that Ming Thein recently wrote about the Nikon 58/1.4:  "No intention of buying one since the demos I tried in Japan a couple of weeks ago were pretty soft and ‘glowy’ at f1.4 ..."  It's not his kind of lens — so he bought the Otus instead.

With the 50/1.2L Canon delivered a lens that some photographers very much wanted and that measured very well in the 50mm ecosystem of its time.  It doesn't please everyone, but it pleases some photographers very much.  The fact that the Otus raises the bar is great, but not so relevant for the many photographers who are simply not interested in a $4k manual focus non-weather-sealed lens, even one as good as that. 

Now we eagerly wait to see what Sigma brings to the table ...

You do have a meaningful point here, basically:

Canon 50mm f/1.2 @ f/1.2

Center Resolution: 4/10 
Average Resolution: 0/10
Lack of Chromatic Aberration: 3/10
Lack of Purple Fringing: 3/10
Lack of Glowiness/Hazing: 2/10
Bokeh Transition Quality: 8/10
Lack of Bokeh Artifacts: 10/10
Contrast & Color: 10/10
Lack of Onion Bokeh: 8/10
Lack of Ugly Distortion: 8/10

The Canon f/1.2 L is one of the worst lenses in a few categories, and one of the best in others. Personally I like a well balanced lens.

I actually switched from using a Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 L II, to a Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 VC because of this idea of balance because it has much better bokeh transitions, lacks bokeh artifacts, and has much better color and contrast than the Canon II, which is 3 times more expensive. Which to most people would be a hugely sacrilegious switch, considering the advantages in resolution and the fact that the Canon is an APO lens, which is mind blowing. But after using both the Canon 24-70mm 2.8 I, and II, and the Tamron 24-70mm 2.8 vc, I stuck with the Tamron. The Canon 24-70mm II just has a look that is way too clinical, it makes things look ugly and lacks color and contrast, and the bokeh of the Canon 24-70mm 2.8 I just looks  busy. I also tried the Nikon 24-70mm 2.8G and it was actually between the Tamron and the Canon I 24-70mm in almost every way. The Nikon had some business in the background but was a little better controlled than the Canon.

Simply put the Tamron 24-70mm VC takes the best all around photos out of any of the Canon or Nikon compatible 24-70mm f/2.8 lenses (You can also adapt Nikon lenses to Canon and manual focus). Go figure, though I still keep a spare in case I run into onion bokeh issues, which is the lenses only major flaw.

I also don't like the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 because it takes too much away from other categories to achieve it's resolution. After owning the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 (the best one I found out of several copies) I sold it and went back to the Canon 35mm f/1.4, because it has much less purple fringing, lacks that weird mustache distortion, and has slightly nicer bokeh.

I used to be very obsessed with resolution, but experience has taught me that a well balanced lens takes better photos.

The Canon 50mm f/1.2 is not a well balanced lens though. At resolutions above 1024 pixels on the short side, it really shows a lack of detail, and even at resolutions below that you have to basically walk on eggshells to get it to create a sharp image wide open. There is no room for error. It also has a painfully high level of purple fringing.

At f/1.4 I like the Canon 1.2 over the 1.4 though because the 1.4 has very busy bokeh which is very noticeable at that aperture, even though the 1.4 has more resolution at that aperture. However I think that the Sigma 1.4 is better than either Canon at 1.4. It basically combines the strengths of both Canon lenses into one, and you can't beat that. The Nikon 58mm is basically a lot like the Sigma 1.4 wide open, except the Nikon is super sharp. It's a shame then that the other main difference is that it has so much purple fringing.

In conclusion, excluding the Otus due to price:

Canon 1.4 @ f/2.0 = best
Sigma 1.4 @ f/1.4 = best
Nikon 58mm 1.4 @ f/1.4 = too much purple fringing
Canon 1.2 @ f/1.4 (or f/1.2) = Capable of great images in the right hands but only up to web sized wide open, due to extreme softness.

Also @ f/1.4 Zeiss 50mm Sumi = Sigma 50mm = Nikon 50mm G f/1.4 (for the most part they deliver basically the same images)

I wouldn't shoot with any 50mm other than the Otus wide open though as the image quality of the double gauss design wide open is just really unacceptable.

If Sigma is releasing a new 50mm though that means that they have probably made huge improvements in image quality. Lets just hope there are no downsides.

Radiating...you definitely provide an interesting point of view.  Thanks for posting your thoughts/opinions.  But, to choose a Tammy 24-70 over the Canon 24-70ii due to better overall image quality, really?   

To me, it seems you may have become a bit too obsessed with bokeh as compared to resolution.   While a pleasing bokeh is nice, it's importance relative to resolution is minor.   IMO. 

My 24-70 2.8 ii creates images with such incredible sharpness, contrast, and color that it eliminates the need to own a prime in that focal range unless you need to work wider than 2.8.

Back to topic...i have been waiting a long time for a 50mm lens that can create sharp and contrasty images at 1.4, and has accurate and fast AF.  So I'll be buying this lens immediately when it's available and keeping it if it performs as required.

Pages: 1 ... 18 19 [20] 21 22 ... 80