September 17, 2014, 03:39:27 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 - awinphoto

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 133
16
animoto.com... does it all for you

17
Lenses / Re: 100mm 2.8 vs 85mm 1.8
« on: August 08, 2014, 06:04:40 PM »
No reason to get the 85 1.8 unless you want more background blur. Difference between 100L and 85 1.8 is nominal. You need to go 85L or 135L to see a real difference over the 100L in terms of background blur. 100L destroys the 85 1.8 in sharpness and color. I would take the 100L over the 85 1.8 every day of the week. 85L isn't overpriced, simply expensive. If I could only have one lens forever it would be the 85L, and it wouldn't even be that hard of a decision to make. My 2nd choice would be the 100L, as it so happens. Food for thought!

That's what i'm looking for... more near subject background blur... but slightly wider than 100L. 

18
Lenses / Re: 100mm 2.8 vs 85mm 1.8
« on: August 08, 2014, 06:03:45 PM »
Thanks for all your feedback...  When i compared the 1.8 to it's big boy brother, the 85 1.2, while it is an impressive piece of glass, almost every review comparing the two came back unaminous...  the 1.2 is stupidly overpriced, it is slower AF than the 1.8, and not as sharp as the 1.8, especially as wide apertures.  They all loved the 1.2 WHEN it was able to get a sharp image at 1.2, but they typically had many missed shots getting to that 1 keeper.  To me as a working photographer, i cant wait and hope i nail focus when i fire, i need to know, as from what most reviews gave me, the 1.8 was that lens.  I tried all the 50's... the macro, the 1.4, the 1.2, and the 1.2 has the same mis-focus issues at 1.2 that i kept reading about in the 85 1.2.  The 50 1.4 was nice, and I owned that lens, but it was noisy, and really on the slow end...  When it was good, it was good, but it was nothing to write home about.  The macro was good 10 years ago but long in the tooth today.  The 70-200 i have is nice... i plan later in the year to upgrade it to it's IS counterpart...  While nice F4 to 1.8 is quite different and in my studio at least, i'm making due with every inch i got and so moving back extra feet for the 150-200 range really isn't appealing anymore unless i'm outdoors.  Then I would totally use that lens.  Lighting, i've already got studio strobes, backgrounds, stands (although i should upgrade to c-stands in the near future)...  I dont know... everything, within the current gear offerings out there seems to be pointing to the 85 1.8.  Then again, i am open to suggestions on tammy or sigma's if anyone else has any suggestions for what i'm looking at.  Within my studio, shooting a full body posed/standing shot requires me being at opposite corners of my studio so  a slightly wider MM would be welcome... fast aperture... reliable and consistent...


Given so many people are trying to help you here, why do you want to alienate them by dissing a lens that you have only read about, and many people here love?

Within one day and two pages of post your opinion changed from "while I would love to get the 85 1.2, that's just not in our cards and budget at this moment" to "stupidly overpriced... not as sharp... missed shots". I have tried the 85L and while the AF is slow (not as slow as I was led to believe) it is very accurate. In any case, you are not considering it, why spend time criticizing it (and the 50L while you're at it)?

Since you are open to considering third party lenses I have heard good things about the Sigma. However, if I was in your shoes and prepared to wait, I would wait for the 85mm Art.

i'm not... i'm just giving my thought process and seeing what options are... he didn't recommend the 1.8 but said it would be better to save up for the 1.2...  i was just justifying why i didn't think the 1.2 would be a good choice as far as value and quality... thats all.  From what i've seen the 1.2, when it does get a great in focus shot, it is really hard to beat... but getting to that shot, for a working photographer on a budget, just doesn't seem worth it, dontcha think?

You're absolutely right, so just saying "cost vs benefit for you doesn't favor the 85/1.2" should be enough. You brought it some highly dubious comparisons as 'unanimous reviews'.
In fact, if you're spending that kind of money a 70-200L will serve you far better, and in a studio environment, the non-IS f/2.8 might give you the versatility and wider FoV you are looking for, at a much lower price. Have you considered that?

I have considered that, but from most of my shooting, that lens lends itself more for an outdoor lens.  It could be a mental block, but when i'm indoors, it just isn't the lens i naturally grab... while that is a great lens, i fall in that category (for this lens groupings) on which is more beneficial for me...  the F4 and IS, or 2.8 and no IS and not quite as sharp at the f4 is... and once again, the 2.8 IS II is out of budget, while that one I will admit has lived up to all it's hype.  Also the 70-300 is another interesting lens but we also lose another stop but gain another 100mm.  But for most my clients, i shoot in studio 90% of the time, so an indoor lens (and preferably easy on the arms hand holding) is preferred.  Ideally i would like to get this lens within the next month or two... But as with the original premise of my thread, i have the 100mm 2.8L, i want something a tad wider and faster (or will give me softer backgrounds/bokeh) that i can shoot in a studio setting.  Most my research up to this point led to the 85 1.8, if anyone had any photos comparing the two's image quality and bokeh, i would love to see them so see the difference, if any. 

19
Lenses / Re: 100mm 2.8 vs 85mm 1.8
« on: August 08, 2014, 05:17:41 PM »
Thanks for all your feedback...  When i compared the 1.8 to it's big boy brother, the 85 1.2, while it is an impressive piece of glass, almost every review comparing the two came back unaminous...  the 1.2 is stupidly overpriced, it is slower AF than the 1.8, and not as sharp as the 1.8, especially as wide apertures.  They all loved the 1.2 WHEN it was able to get a sharp image at 1.2, but they typically had many missed shots getting to that 1 keeper.  To me as a working photographer, i cant wait and hope i nail focus when i fire, i need to know, as from what most reviews gave me, the 1.8 was that lens.  I tried all the 50's... the macro, the 1.4, the 1.2, and the 1.2 has the same mis-focus issues at 1.2 that i kept reading about in the 85 1.2.  The 50 1.4 was nice, and I owned that lens, but it was noisy, and really on the slow end...  When it was good, it was good, but it was nothing to write home about.  The macro was good 10 years ago but long in the tooth today.  The 70-200 i have is nice... i plan later in the year to upgrade it to it's IS counterpart...  While nice F4 to 1.8 is quite different and in my studio at least, i'm making due with every inch i got and so moving back extra feet for the 150-200 range really isn't appealing anymore unless i'm outdoors.  Then I would totally use that lens.  Lighting, i've already got studio strobes, backgrounds, stands (although i should upgrade to c-stands in the near future)...  I dont know... everything, within the current gear offerings out there seems to be pointing to the 85 1.8.  Then again, i am open to suggestions on tammy or sigma's if anyone else has any suggestions for what i'm looking at.  Within my studio, shooting a full body posed/standing shot requires me being at opposite corners of my studio so  a slightly wider MM would be welcome... fast aperture... reliable and consistent...


Given so many people are trying to help you here, why do you want to alienate them by dissing a lens that you have only read about, and many people here love?

Within one day and two pages of post your opinion changed from "while I would love to get the 85 1.2, that's just not in our cards and budget at this moment" to "stupidly overpriced... not as sharp... missed shots". I have tried the 85L and while the AF is slow (not as slow as I was led to believe) it is very accurate. In any case, you are not considering it, why spend time criticizing it (and the 50L while you're at it)?

Since you are open to considering third party lenses I have heard good things about the Sigma. However, if I was in your shoes and prepared to wait, I would wait for the 85mm Art.

i'm not... i'm just giving my thought process and seeing what options are... he didn't recommend the 1.8 but said it would be better to save up for the 1.2...  i was just justifying why i didn't think the 1.2 would be a good choice as far as value and quality... thats all.  From what i've seen the 1.2, when it does get a great in focus shot, it is really hard to beat... but getting to that shot, for a working photographer on a budget, just doesn't seem worth it, dontcha think?

20
Lenses / Re: 100mm 2.8 vs 85mm 1.8
« on: August 08, 2014, 04:52:35 PM »
Thanks for all your feedback...  When i compared the 1.8 to it's big boy brother, the 85 1.2, while it is an impressive piece of glass, almost every review comparing the two came back unaminous...  the 1.2 is stupidly overpriced, it is slower AF than the 1.8, and not as sharp as the 1.8, especially as wide apertures.  They all loved the 1.2 WHEN it was able to get a sharp image at 1.2, but they typically had many missed shots getting to that 1 keeper.  To me as a working photographer, i cant wait and hope i nail focus when i fire, i need to know, as from what most reviews gave me, the 1.8 was that lens.  I tried all the 50's... the macro, the 1.4, the 1.2, and the 1.2 has the same mis-focus issues at 1.2 that i kept reading about in the 85 1.2.  The 50 1.4 was nice, and I owned that lens, but it was noisy, and really on the slow end...  When it was good, it was good, but it was nothing to write home about.  The macro was good 10 years ago but long in the tooth today.  The 70-200 i have is nice... i plan later in the year to upgrade it to it's IS counterpart...  While nice F4 to 1.8 is quite different and in my studio at least, i'm making due with every inch i got and so moving back extra feet for the 150-200 range really isn't appealing anymore unless i'm outdoors.  Then I would totally use that lens.  Lighting, i've already got studio strobes, backgrounds, stands (although i should upgrade to c-stands in the near future)...  I dont know... everything, within the current gear offerings out there seems to be pointing to the 85 1.8.  Then again, i am open to suggestions on tammy or sigma's if anyone else has any suggestions for what i'm looking at.  Within my studio, shooting a full body posed/standing shot requires me being at opposite corners of my studio so  a slightly wider MM would be welcome... fast aperture... reliable and consistent... 

21
Lenses / Re: 100mm 2.8 vs 85mm 1.8
« on: August 07, 2014, 10:45:05 PM »
Thanks for all your responses. The 100mm 2.8 is great, can use it for many things, but if I need to do a 3/4 or full length shot, I'm using every square inch of my studio which makes things a little challenge, so the looser feel, in that situation would be welcome. I don't intend to depart from my 100, but add to it. Does anyone off any bokeh comparisons? Thanks for all your insights

22
Lenses / Re: 100mm 2.8 vs 85mm 1.8
« on: August 07, 2014, 07:03:17 PM »
2.8 L

23
Lenses / 100mm 2.8 vs 85mm 1.8
« on: August 07, 2014, 06:05:20 PM »
Okay guys... i'm about to pull the trigger on a new lens for my portrait work, the Canon 85 1.8.  Cheap, excellent sharpness, fast...  And then my boss (wife) asks me... what can this lens do that our 100 2.8 CANT do.  I've done a lot of self research and i'm sold.  While I would love to get the 85 1.2, that's just not in our cards and budget at this moment.  I often shoot in tight places and to be able to blur the background just a smidge more (less photoshop work for me) is very attractive as to reduce our downtime, plus it will give us more wiggle room with framing not being AS tight.  Now here is where I need your help guys... those who have both lenses, had both lenses, or similar lenses, what i'm looking for is kind of a side by side portrait showing the 85 at 1.8-2 and the 100 at 2.8...  a nearer background 2-3 feet is ideal for this purpose... help me sell this lens to my wife...  Yeah yeah i know the common answer will be to rent one and let her see, but to be honest, the nearest place i can rent a lens is a few hours away and to have one shipped out, well lets just say i'm hoping you guys can help first...  Ok... Ready... Go! 

24
Photography Technique / Re: Help: lightning photography?
« on: July 18, 2014, 09:09:19 AM »
Lastly, heed the advice from my photographer grandpa after i sent him pics of lightnings...  "lighting seeks out photographers in the middle of storms".... so be safe and be careful. 

25
I have this pelican and love it... The latches on this is slightly redesigned so they aren't as "knucklebusting" as in prior models, although still not as arthritis friendly as the storm cases...  Love it, used it in almost all conditions and it still takes a licking and keeps on ticking.  And bonus with this case it's just large enough that flight attendants kinda get nervous when the see it, so you may get some offers to put it in the captains closet (although doesn't help if you have intentions on taking pictures during the flight.) 

26
EOS Bodies / Re: Eos7D mk2, How disappointed will you be if . . .?
« on: July 07, 2014, 11:37:32 AM »
it has the same sensor as the Eos70D but with just more bells & whistles?

I have a sneaky feeling that maybe its going to be the same image quality as the 70D just more robust, full frame viewfinder, gazillion frames per second, wifi, gps and class leading video...So just how disappointed will you be if that is the case?

Neither surprised nor disappointed.  It seems pretty likely, to me.  If there's a significant IQ boost, I might be tempted to get one as a backup body...but the kind of IQ boost I'm talking about likely defies the laws of physics, so I'm not holding my breath. 

Really? You think this is the end of the line for IQ? Sure, some sizes inside the sensors might be reaching the limits set by physics, but most problems are a question of engineering.  I don't have a way to prove my claim, but I bet you if you look back in 10 years, you will agree with me that the IQ now and the IQ then will not be comparable.

If i've said it once, i've said it a hundred times, in film, the 35mm topped out at 8x10 for image quality...  yeah you could print bigger but you were always sacrificing quality and or grain by going 11x14 or 16x20...  now we have the 5d3 and the like that can print almost a 16x20 out of camera with little to no interpolation of the pixels.  We have gone leaps and bounds than the film era, but like, neuro, we are really reaching it's max potential... Now with the improvement of technology and processing, I can see similar qualities or maintaining the quality, but even bigger picture/file/pixel counts... and that in itself is no easy feat...  but to have the assumption that you can keep getting bigger and better sensors that are really size dependent and restricted, I dont see that happening too much more without major sacrifices.  Lastly, with technology getting better, slowly but surely i hope and can see medium format being the route many photographers will go in the future (like in the days of film) when optimum IQ and print size was ideal. 

27
Photography Technique / Re: Shallow DOF vs lighting
« on: June 26, 2014, 01:36:29 PM »
You know, sitting in our hospital room watching my newborn daughter struggle to live it really helps to put in perspective life and choices and finances as I can see a large chunk of my disposable income going towards medical expenses to my daughter born with defects. If you know photoshop it is incredibly easy to blur backgrounds with any novice understanding of layers, masks, and blur. Lenses are great, but let's be frank, you cannot fix bad lighting. You can try to remedy it but you cannot redirect light. You cannot soften raccoon lighting. And if you have sepia able income to say buy both, we have a donation page to help with medical expenses.

28
Portrait / Re: A few wedding portraits!
« on: June 19, 2014, 11:17:28 AM »
Nice photos jones, just a little critique is if at all possible on the couples photos, reverse the angle to the guy is squared up to the camera and the bride is angled...  It'll make her look skinnier and him look more masculine and stronger...  Right now it makes her look larger and him smaller...  Other than that, good job. 

29
Just had a quick play with DPP 4.0

Two major snags for me.

1. Cropping - You have to reset the aspect ratio for each image.

2. Paste recipe - not possible to paste the recipe to all the images.

I hope there is a way around these, but I cannot see it at the moment.

Hey rob, in the overall screen where you see all your images, you can right click on the changed image, copy recipe, and select whichever images you want and paste...  As far as croping, it defaults to free aspect ratio, so if you wanted to batch all your imagess as an 8x10, i can see that being a pain, but personally i'd keep that as a post project. 

30
downloaded yesterday from HK site. Nice new GUI and more sliders to play with. Still it is a very rudimental software, born at least 5/7 years old. The real big plus vs lightroom and similar is optimization of canon lenses

WHen compared to ver.3 I notice a much faster loading of the high resolution image, BUT, when playing with sliders, you have to wait AT LEAST 2/3 seconds to see the effect applied to the image (5D3 RAW files). Maybe this is only a realease candidate?

I have a fast machine (win7 3930k ssd lots of memory etc.) so this thing is a bit weird. Anyone experiencing the same?


Same here. (win 8.1, AMD FX 9590 (8-core), SSD, Radeon R9 200)

When used with my 5d3 files on my latest gen Mac, the sliders were pretty instantaneous... There was maybe a second to half a second delay rendering high res images, which was a big improvement... my lag time 2-3 seconds was switching from crop mode to other modes, or from dust removal mode to other modes... 

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 133