January 27, 2015, 05:55:07 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] 5 6 ... 50
46
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.

47
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:




48
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

49
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.

50
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon 5D Mark III Pain Smearing
« on: August 18, 2014, 05:07:23 AM »
HI

I wonder if anyone has experienced this problem.   I have a 5D mk III and it's about 2 years old.  recently I was in holiday in Vancouver and the weather was warm but not too hot; however the white paint on the Canon logo at the front of the camera has started to run and smudge over the front of the camera.   It doesn't affect the camera operation but it looks cheap and nasty.

The camera is going back to Canon next week, however i am curious if anyone else has had this problem.

Thanks

I have two 5DIII's and a single 5DII, all bought a year apart. I've used them quite heavily in a professional capacity, shooting a lot of weddings and I've not had this issue. But it wouldn't surprise me if Canon had a rogue batch. Stuff on the production line some times goes out of spec due to suppliers supplying out of spec paint.

51
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 11-24 f/2.8L Coming [CR1]
« on: August 09, 2014, 07:44:58 PM »
I hope this lens isn't rumour/vapour ware...but if it's true and lets face it a 14-24mm f2.8 isn't that much wider than current 16-35mm f2.8 and sacrifices the long end, a very useful 35mm...then it really needs to offer something more. I was hoping for a 12-24mm, but I'd gladly take an 11mm at the wide end!
I used to have a Sigma 12-24mm f5.6 (ok read f11-f16 due to vignetting) but the angle of view on a full frame camera was amazing and a lot of fun.
I can't wait...but happy to as long as Canon get this lens optically right!

52
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Review: Zeiss 135mm f/2 APO Sonnar T*
« on: July 26, 2014, 03:33:34 PM »
The test shot at f2 on the Canon is clearly slightly back focused and therefore not a fair example. It makes the Canon look softer than it really is.

53
Lenses / Re: What Lenses are missing from Canon's range
« on: July 17, 2014, 09:01:47 AM »
Need to have: 85/1.4 (but no one else mentioned it, so I suppose Canon has little market for it... :(
Want to have: 135/1.8-2 IS (that will essentially lock my 70-200 II to non-travel use)
Would be nice to have: 12orwhatever-24/2.8

I am not sure any of these will come out this year though... :(

If canon releases a 135 f1.8 LIS, I would get one and swap out my 70-200 f2.8 LIS II for an f4. I would use the prime for the dark stuff and the f4 for the bright stuff. I wouldn't need to lug the big 2.8 about anymore.

54
Lenses / Re: What Lenses are missing from Canon's range
« on: July 17, 2014, 08:59:18 AM »
One more vote for the 14-24 f/2.8 and the 135 f1.8 IS

I would rather a 12-24mm f2.8 and a 135 f1.8 LIS. A 14-24mm is only 2mm wider than a 16-35 and looses a major focal point at the long end.

55
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II [CR1]
« on: July 14, 2014, 05:29:26 AM »
We all know why the new lens will have a rotating zoom ring / extending barrel (aka 70-300L) instead of the current push pull: Video....
You can't fit a pull focus unit on a 15mm rail system where a lens can extend so much with the focus ring on the extending barrel. Where as, you can with the other design style.
There's another advantage too, the curent design pushes the centre of balance way forwards and the tripod collar is right at the back of this lens towards the rear mount. Hopefully the newer design will address this.

56
I think it depends on your needs. If you do portraits or weddings, you might need a fast 2.8 lens. If you do landscapes, travel or hiking/outdoor photography, the light-weight F4 lens would be a better choice for me.

I have a F2.8 and often wish I had instead purchased the F4.

Yep, I had the f4 version for a while and I've had the f2.8 version for some time too. So for a while I had both. I bought the f4 for travelling and in that context, it was perfect. It was also far easier to use for close up work too, eg rocks, details and larger flowers. In this context it was better and sharper than the f2.8 and a lot easier to handle on a tripod. If I was going to buy again, I'd probably get the 70-300L instead. but to be honest, there isn't any losers here, all three lenses are top tier and we really are splitting hairs between them. There has never been so much top end choice as we have available to us these days.

57
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II [CR1]
« on: July 13, 2014, 02:26:12 PM »
Wow....the unicorn rides again....it's gotta be released at SOME point...I just worry I'll be too old by then!

58
Lenses / Re: Sigma 50mm Art 1.4 Focusing problems
« on: July 11, 2014, 11:23:27 AM »
A short update:

I got my 50A back from the shop, and lo and behold, the inconsistency was gone. Sigma representative said they adjusted the lens to a standard body, and then returned it. Now the lens was back focusing either when approached from INF or MFD, which is OK from my books as I've tools to correct that. So Sigma dock it is, and 20 mins of adjustments later, I was ready for real life testing.

In the 300 photos I took last evening, I didn't see focus errors, and got a very good keeper ratio. The lens is now working, and actually seems to be sharp enough that I actually need to decrease camera sharpening preset for JPEGs.

EDIT: I'll have to say that this lens rocks! The background blur stopped down is a definite improvement over Canon's 50/1.4!

Yep, it's great idea of Sigma's...make an expensive device to get customers to do their work for them.
You pay Sigma to spend you time correcting their sloppy manufacturing errors. Maybe Ford should make cars which only drive properly after you buy their laptop software to interface with it....

59
Lenses / Re: Waiting for the 35 1.4L II
« on: July 11, 2014, 10:56:03 AM »
I think I'm slightly mis-representing my position on this lens...the 35L is a great lens. It's faithfully provided great service for me over the years. The new one will need to provide this and more to replace my existing lens, which has proved itself many times.

60
I have owned both and I wouldn't choose between them based on IQ.  I would make your decision on the following:

Is the big difference in size, weight, and price worth it for:
- 1 extra stop of light (do you shoot sports/wildlife in low light?)
- shallower DOF (both have great bokeh, but f/2.8 is better for subject isolation - though f/4 at 150-200mm provides plenty shallow DOF for most purposes including portraits)
- somewhat tougher (all metal vs. excellent engineering plastic) build quality
- a tripod ring in the box (though the f/4 IS + way overpriced Canon ring is still much cheaper than the f/2.8 IS II)
-AF with the 2xIII extender on all bodies

For me, it is, but if I traveled much at all or didn't need the low light speed of f/2.8, I'd go back to the f/4 IS.

What Mackguyver said....spot on with my findings too!
Just to add, I think any difference between lenses (f2.8 vs f4) is more likely to be copy variation than any measurable statistic. In real world use they are optically and pertty much mechanically equal, except for the lesser build on the f4. 

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 50