October 21, 2014, 04:06:45 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 - GMCPhotographics

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 49
16
Lenses / Re: The New Canon EF 400mm f/4 DO IS II
« on: September 15, 2014, 07:35:46 AM »
If they solved their bokeh problems, perhaps the lens would have more appeal, but I think that bokeh is a problem inherent in the DO design?

The 400 didn't have a bokeh problem.  The 70-300 DO was the lens with the sometimes weird bokeh. The internet seems to have lumped both lenses together as if they were one and the same.  Spec highlights on the 400 could have a bit of a bullseye effect but that was about it. The OOF areas aren't as nice as the 300 2.8 or 400 2.8  in my opinion, but they aren't really problematic either.

I think the 400 f4 DO II would be pretty amazing if it were about 2/3rd or 1/2 the cost of a 300 2.8 IS II but that's really unlikely.


That depends on your definitions of "problem" and "bokeh".

I think the 400 MkI does have bokeh problems, I used one for a day and got it to do stuff like this, I am sorry but for >$6,000 I want much better than that. Now I will admit that I personally shot over water like this regularly, so for me it was an unsurmountable issue, and I can well understand others happy and extensive use that never induces such low quality, but for me the 300 f2.8 IS MkI and 1.4TC was a much better, and cheaper, buy and in my opinion DO sucks, yes the 400 DO sucks less than the 70-300 DO (which really sucks) but they both suck.

I'm not seeing any Bokeh or contrast issues with that pic you've posted. Shooting into the light (contre-jour) with sparkly waves regardless of the supertele will pretty much give you what you've posted.
In the image you posted, I would be more concerned with your burnt out highlights than the quality of the Bokeh.
The contrast in this image is particular high and prolly needed better post prod to pull more out of the RAW file.







Careful metering & careful post prod. Notice the quality of the bokeh is very similar and the contrast is less.
These were taken with a 5DIII, ef 400mm f2.8 LIS and with 1.4x or 2x TC's
I choose the far more heavier f2.8 version because it's IQ is a lot better than the f4 DO version (I can use a 2x TC and get amazing sharpness wide open) and I really like the extra stop...sometimes f2.8 is the only way to go!

17
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Zeiss Otus 1.4/85: The New World-Class Lens
« on: September 11, 2014, 10:39:01 AM »
I wish people would STOP calling this lens a telephoto. It's 100mm long with a focal length of 85mm. It's NOT a telephoto lens...ok. The Canon, Sigma and Nikon are...but this Zeiss is not.
I'm also sick of reading on "review" sites that 85mm is a semi telephoto focal length....no it isn't. A lens is either a telephoto or it isn't.
Go look up the definition on Wikipedia.

18
Lenses / Re: The New Canon EF 400mm f/4 DO IS II
« on: September 11, 2014, 10:29:48 AM »
I'm more than a little confused with this new lens...it's actually heavier than the outgoing model? Surely the whole point of a DO lens is that it's uber small and light. And Canon have made a heavier versions? Whaaaaat?

19
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Zeiss Otus 1.4/85: The New World-Class Lens
« on: September 09, 2014, 04:45:34 AM »
I'm sure these are wonder optics that live up to their billing, regardless of how overblown some of the verbiage is in the marketing slicks. 

But for my money, I think I would pour my $ into a medium format system for portraits before I considered the Otus lenses.  I could do a lot more with, say, a Pentax 645Z and a couple of lenses, than by adding the Otus lenses to my lineup. 

Just my take on them. 

Doesn't mean I won't lust after this 85mm...

How much better is this lens compared to the Canon EF 85mm F1.2L II?  Is it worth over twice as much?  I  don't know and I am not trying to be cynical.  I would just like to hear what people say.  Thanks.

I'm not jumping ship...my 85mm f1.2 II L is a thing of photographic joy and beauty.

20
Lenses / Re: 35mm f/1.4 L to 16-35mm f/4 L
« on: September 09, 2014, 04:43:40 AM »
I regularly swap between them, I use a 16-35 for a wider view on the world. But the 35 f1.4L is my preferred "weapon of choice". I prefer the look I get from it's images than I do from the the f2.8 at the long end

21
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 8-15mm f/4L Fisheye - Durability?
« on: September 09, 2014, 04:41:59 AM »
It's as durable as you are careful with it. If you bounce it off a concrete floor...it's going to mark and chip. But objective lenses are far more durable than people give them credit for and usually far more durable than the expensive but crappy filter people buy to protect their objective lens.

22
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Zeiss Otus 1.4/85: The New World-Class Lens
« on: September 09, 2014, 04:38:27 AM »
Don't you just hate the moronic marketing blurb that goes with lenses these days? What a load of B/S!
Why can't they just say...hey! it's got amazing optitics, you REALLY need to try this puppy. It aint a real f1.4...but most f1.4 lenses aren't either. It's big and heavy and it's manual focus which makes it crap for sport and nature. But use it for available light portraiture and it's amazing. Don't use it in the studio under monoblocs...why use an f1.4 lens at f11? Seriously...get out there on the street with this and be amazed. Or go shoot some walls and boast on a forum how great it is. Or pop it on a shelf and admire the Carl Zeiss craftsmanship.

honestly? Nature? Studio? gimme break. Low light portraiture is what this lens is built for, nothing else. In that genre it will excel.

What exactly is it that makes you an expert for the use of this lens?

Yeah...look me up numpty. Don't attack who you don't understand.

23
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Zeiss Otus 1.4/85: The New World-Class Lens
« on: September 08, 2014, 06:33:06 AM »
Don't you just hate the moronic marketing blurb that goes with lenses these days? What a load of B/S!
Why can't they just say...hey! it's got amazing optitics, you REALLY need to try this puppy. It aint a real f1.4...but most f1.4 lenses aren't either. It's big and heavy and it's manual focus which makes it crap for sport and nature. But use it for available light portraiture and it's amazing. Don't use it in the studio under monoblocs...why use an f1.4 lens at f11? Seriously...get out there on the street with this and be amazed. Or go shoot some walls and boast on a forum how great it is. Or pop it on a shelf and admire the Carl Zeiss craftsmanship.

honestly? Nature? Studio? gimme break. Low light portraiture is what this lens is built for, nothing else. In that genre it will excel.

24
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: August 29, 2014, 05:39:27 AM »
Yes Sir, the D810 is has an better image quality and dynamic range than the 5DIII. But, as you can read in many postings on this forum, an optical system is more than just the picture sensor. The whole system has to work perfectly together to help you to get an - technically seen - good picture.

In my family, you can find the D810, D800 (both my husband), 5DIII (my son), 6D &7 D (myself), and A7r (my daughter).
And each camera has its benefits. My daughter needs a light camera with an good image quality (like my husband does - but he owns several Nikon lenses). My son and I prefer to shoot birds, planes and animals, so we stayed with Canon).
The 5DIII is an all-in-one package. The image quality is not as good as the Sony´s and Nikon´s, but its autofocus system is superior. The D810 has an superior image quality, bit the autofocus system lacks of speed, if you shoot moving objects.

I think, each camera has its own field of application. Sometime you can not directly compare them betweeen.

I it true, that Canon should get better in resolution and dynamic range, but Nikon should hurry up to get an fast autofocus system. (This is my opinion).

By the way: My husband, who stayed at the soccer WM told me, that there were several modified cameras "in the field". With bulky housings, others with an odd combination of cameras and lenses or leneses that were not printed with their specifications). So you can be sure Canon is working on succesors of the 1Dx and 5DIII.

From my experience of handling Nikon and the newer Canon lenses...is that Canon's lenses are several generations ahead of Nikon. Nikon may make the finest resolving SLR on the planet, but their lenses are not able to match or exceed their sensor tech. Where as with Canon, their lenses are far out resolving their sensors.

25
Lenses / Re: Sigma 14-24mm OS lens at Photokina?
« on: August 28, 2014, 07:31:40 AM »
To be honest, this lens doesn't really do a lot for me. My current 16-35 f2.8 II L is 2mm less wide at the wide end but offers a more useful range (24-35mm) at the long end. So for the sake of 2mm at the wide end, I am sacrificing a very useful range at the long end. Plus it's not an f2.8 so I'm failing to see the point with this lens.

26
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 27, 2014, 08:09:38 AM »
For me, a 7DII will offer a number of useful advantages to my existing 5DII cameras. A higher frame rate and a longer reach. I'm hoping that these will not be at the expense of the high iso ability of the 5DIII and great per pixel sharpness and clarity I see from that same camera. The 7DII is a newer generation to the 5DIII, so I think we should be seeing advances in those areas. If not....I'll pass and save for a 1DXII :D

Shooting at base ISO and being able to process a file without having to watch awful blotches or noise would be nice


A couple of questions come to mind; do you actually go looking for noise ? I mean getting a group like-minded friends round and having a noise hunt ? Or the one who can create the most noise gets a coconut ?

Secondly have you used a 70D ? ( disclaimer here - I haven't but I'm hearing very good reports.......)

I'm not interested in a 70D. I had a 7D for a number of years and it was good, but noise was bad over 400 iso and I didn't care for the image quality I saw from it either.

27
Lenses / Re: EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS versus EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II
« on: August 27, 2014, 04:59:16 AM »
The mkII is slightly better in ever respect. It's sharper at 200mm f2.8 than the mkI, it's AF is quicker, it's IS unit is better and quieter, it's more robust. The list goes on.....it's better with teleconverters.

I was never that impressed with the results from the mkI wide open at 200mm. but a great lens all the same.

28
Lenses / Re: 400 f/2.8L II IS: Took the plunge...
« on: August 27, 2014, 04:57:03 AM »
One word for 400mm f2.8 IS II = "SUPER". AF is FAST. Truely designed for sports.

It works very well with 1.4x TC III, still 95% compared to bare. IQ drops quite a bit with 2x TC III at wide open in Ai servo only(still good in One shot mode). Sharpness improve when step down to f7-8 in Ai servo.

 See photos here with 1DX + 400mm f2.8 IS II + 2x TC III: http://dylannguyen.smugmug.com/Sports/Surfing#!/

Congrats ;)

My mkI 400 f2.8 LIS behaves pretty much the same...but I've noticed that it's AF inaccuracy which shows softness with my 2x converter and not the lens resolving capability. If I focus using live view...I get amazing sharpness from it.


100% crop from this image:




29
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 27, 2014, 04:52:46 AM »
For me, a 7DII will offer a number of useful advantages to my existing 5DII cameras. A higher frame rate and a longer reach. I'm hoping that these will not be at the expense of the high iso ability of the 5DIII and great per pixel sharpness and clarity I see from that same camera. The 7DII is a newer generation to the 5DIII, so I think we should be seeing advances in those areas. If not....I'll pass and save for a 1DXII :D

30
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 11-24 f/2.8L Coming [CR1]
« on: August 18, 2014, 05:31:57 AM »
Dear Friends.
Sorry, I do not want to spend $ 2800 US Dollars for this  new Great/ Super Sharp , Canon EF 11-24 L 2.8, Because I already have  Good Rokinon 12 MM F/ 2.0, <snip>

1. We're not offended by your choice of lenses, you don't need to apologize.

2. It seems you have a crop camera, so it's expected you would be uninterested in an expensive FF UWA zoom.

Thanks, Dear Friend Mr. Antono Refa.

You're welcome, dear buddy.

Well, I have Both FF and Crop Frame Canon Cameras

Then, as you probably know, there are hardly any rectilinear lenses wider than 16mm. If you're not willing to spend $2,800 on one of those few, that's your choice, no need to say you're sorry.

[I wouldn't spend $2,800 on this lens, if released, but I will wait patiently for a price drop.]

THANKSSS, Dear friend Mr.
I am lower level in Technical Know How of Photography , The Stupid question is "  there are hardly any rectilinear lenses wider than 16mm. "= What is  rectilinear Lens ? = The Distortion at the edges of the photos ?
I am fast learner, and Want to learn the new thing in every days.
Have a great Sunday, Sir.
Surapon

Rectilinear = a wide angle lens which is not a fish eye. They aim to render straight lines perfectly straight, even at the edge of the frame. If you were to fill the frame with a flat subject (eg a test chart) it would be capable of taking a distortion free image of it if lined up perfectly.

Rectilinear lenses do suffer from other forms of distortion which fisheyes (especially stereographic fisheyes) are less susceptible to - any subject which is three dimensional really. Take a group photo for example - people near the edges of the frame are stretched. Anything in the corners looks even more extreme. Even photos of innocent stuff like grass filing the bottom half of the frame and sky in the top - the details in the grass blades will take on the characteristic stretch into the corners, as will any clouds.

The wider the rectilinear lens, the more pronounced this effect will be. In certain scenarios it can be something to be embraced (although not group shots!)

Yes you are correct, a fully rectilinear corrected lens is one where straight lines stay straight in the frame. Two good examples of this are the 14L and Sigma 12-24 HSM (mkI). Circles become more egg shaped as the approach the corners of the frame. All wide lenses show distortion somewhere, either lines or circles.

Most rectilinear wide lenses are corrected to some degree but not fully. This is to allow a compromise and versatility. A fully corrected lens distorts circles (faces) so a design compromises is employed to keep straight lines fairly straight (a slight curve is usually not too noticeable and quite acceptable) but keeps the circles fairly circular (unless you shoot up close). The 16-35IIL is a great example of this. Most lens designers assume the user will correct in Lightroom / Photoshop if they need a more extreme correction. I find the look I get out of the 16-35IIL looks quite natural and is kind on the eye. A 14L, TS-e 17L or Siggi 12-24 tend to look very angular and isn't how the human eye sees the scene.

Where as fish-eye lenses are the complete opposite. Circles stay circular but straight lines curve as they approach the edges of the frame.

This is why I have more than one wide lens in my collection and why I am REALLY looking forwards to this new lens from Canon. It could be a game changer.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 49