Messages

76

Lenses / Re: Are Lens Hoods Universal?

« on: October 26, 2012, 09:21:58 AM »

Glad to be of service

Note that I am not saying nobody should ever put a filter on his lens in any case. There is lots of cases you cases where you need filters for effects or protection (extreme weather, or simply by the sea against salt spray and sand abrasion). Plus it allows to clean the actual front lens less often.
I'm just saying if you have a very expensive lens with exceptional IQ, and need / want a filter, IMO you should afford nothing but the best. It's just I prefer to get the most of my lens by not putting any filter unless it's really required. If you're careful when cleaning the front element, the coating will outlast the mechanics of the lens.

In case you feel the need to filter your lens for protection, B+W is not the only brand. Spending 120$ on filter for a 350$ (don't know how exactly the price of your lens) doesn't make too much sense.
Other brands are decent, maybe you could try the Hoya HD Digital Protector Filter (neutral), they have great glass and coating, plus the have the thin filter mount that is mandatory with wide angles; 77mm should be around 50$.

It's up to you whether you want/need filter protection, and depending on the value of your lens, and how much you are ready to spend for it...

If you are picky about colour, I would still advise that you make the white paper test to check for neutrality....

BTW are you happy with the Tamron 17-35mm? From what I've read, it's a very good performer.

77

Software & Accessories / Re: Need great Photo editing monitor

« on: October 25, 2012, 10:58:35 AM »

Dells are junk. Avoid them at all costs.

I am also curious as why you would say this.
I'm another satisfied Ultrasharp user.

Would not call them junk, they are good value IPS panel, if you do not want to spend a fortune on a super pro monitor, then why not ?

I work both a Dell 2709W (PVA) and a NEC  NEC PA271W (IPS). The most obvious difference is the resolution (1920 vs 2560); yes the electronics and colour fidelity are better on the NEC, but I got the DELL for 500 Euro while the NEC is 1000 Euro, so for the price, it's very decent. Though the finer pitch on the NEC shows more appealing images, the 16/9 format is clearly a step back from the 16/10 of the DELL.

If you have space on your desk, and are on a budget, the DELL 30 inches might be an option. If you want absolute professional quality, then go for a NEC spectraView 30 inches or the Quato Intelli Proof 300 excellence.

IMO, 16/9 format is not a good ratio for photography, hence I am advising 30 inches screens for a more comfortable 16/10. My next screen will be for sure a 30 inches.

78

EOS Bodies / Re: Humidity

« on: October 25, 2012, 04:39:29 AM »

What the heck is a 5DC camera??? To my knowledge there is only a 5D, 5D Mark II and a 5D Mark III.
People seem to mention it all the time. Are we making up imaginary cameras now?

It's the way people call the EOS 5D (Mk1). I think it stands for "Classic".

79

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EF Lens Speculation [CR1]

« on: October 24, 2012, 11:13:21 AM »

Sorry about the 14-28mm, I clearly lacked ambition here...

You're right a 12-24mm sounds more appealing.

80

Lenses / Re: 85mm f1.2L II and 40mm f2.8 focus by wire

« on: October 24, 2012, 09:29:08 AM »

Many thanks for the explanation

81

Software & Accessories / Re: Need great Photo editing monitor

« on: October 24, 2012, 09:25:55 AM »

Not sure, but I think it's because the SpectraVision allows for hardware calibration, and the included software is designed for their own calibration tool (eye one). Problem with the Eye One Display 2, is that they have a tendency to die rather quickly. I had two in 5 years, both had the same calibration issue after 2.5 years, and I am not the only one who had the problem.

Since then I switched to a DTP94 calibration device.

Anyway you cannot go wrong with NEC, but I could recommend Eizo and Quato as well

82

Lenses / Re: Are Lens Hoods Universal?

« on: October 24, 2012, 09:10:33 AM »

1- Well it's a kind of compromise, but if you take a zoom like the 24-105 the hood needs to be designed to avoid vignetting with shortest focal, but the trade off is, the shading will be poor with longer ones. Just have a look how the hood for the 135mm f2L looks like, it's the opposite of a wide angle hood.

2- If it fits snuggly, it's a kind of positive, since you won't lose the hood in action. Check if the hood leaves marks on the Tamron's bayonet, it's up to you to feel to what extend some damage could be made to the lens, but I wouldn't be too worried, as you say, if the glove fits....

3- No I never use protecting filters, but this is my personal choice. Of course for shooting in salt spray near the sea or with heavy rain you would add protection to the lens. IMO, a hood is enough for protection of the front lens, considering you are a bit careful. It all depends on your style of shooting, if you carry your camera all day long around your neck, and so on.

In any case, if you want to use a filter for protection, then you should use excellent ones, UV or neutral type. B&W is the only brand I can recommend without hesitation, though there are other.

Problem is when you buy high quality glass, it's a bit unfair to add an average filter. Most know problems are :

- improper surfacing of the filter, where the two sides are not perfectly parallel
- surface coating that will seldom match the quality of the coating of your lens
- possibility of colour shift with some filters (the common pink skylight), but even some UV filters are not so neutral, you should put the filter on a piece of white paper, to check for any colour shift.

I've had dozen of lenses for 25 years, never used a protective filter (but always a hood) and never had a problem. I am careful, but if you think the risk of damaging the front lens is too high, then a filter might add some peace of mind. Please just invest in a GOOD one.

83

Lenses / Re: 85mm f1.2L II and 40mm f2.8 focus by wire

« on: October 24, 2012, 08:42:14 AM »

Thanks Neuro for your fast reply, do you confirm both 85mm 1.2L (I & II) use the focus by wire system ?
What about the new 24 and 28 IS ?

84

Lenses / Re: Are Lens Hoods Universal?

« on: October 24, 2012, 08:24:49 AM »

I can't believe the number of people I see walking around with their hoods reversed.  It's for storage, people!

+1, add a good "no brand" pinkish skylight and you have a winning combination

85

Lenses / 85mm f1.2L II and 40mm f2.8 focus by wire

« on: October 24, 2012, 08:22:25 AM »

Hello, just a simple question, about the focus by wire. If I got it right, it means that you can only manual focus the lens when the camera is powered and metering, right ?

So it means that as soon as the metering goes off, you can't focus manually any more until you half press the shutter again?

Do you know any other lens than the 85mm 1.2L (II) and the 40mm f2.8, who share the same focus by wire mode ?

I was about to buy the 40mm but this is an absolute NO GO for me, since I use manual focusing a lot. Any information would help....

86

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EF Lens Speculation [CR1]

« on: October 24, 2012, 07:44:10 AM »

If it's about a wish list, then here you are :

17mm f2.8 USM
24mm f2 IS USM
35mm f2 IS USM
45mm f2.8 TS-E II L
90mm f2.8 TS-E II L
14-28mm f2.8 USM L (x2 range sounds better)

plus they should redesign some very old lenses with poor IQ and / or old design:

20mmf2.8
28mmf1.8
50mm f2.5 Macro

IMO the wide angle range needs a serious upgrade

One is allowed to dream.....

87

Lenses / Re: Are Lens Hoods Universal?

« on: October 24, 2012, 06:35:54 AM »

My opinion about your questions :

1- Universal lens hood do exist, but the are most of the time dedicated to standard or tele lenses, since wide angles, due to their angle of view require hoods calculated for each lens. These universal hoods are generally screw type, so you can use them easily with a 50mm or tele lens, but with wide angles, the risk of vignetting is much too important, adding a filter is just impossible without strong vignetting.

Hoods for trans-standard zoom are not very efficient in general since they must be calculated for the shortest focal to avoid vignetting, hence the poor performance at longer focal setting. One exception I know is the 24-70mm f2.8 L (Model 1), where the lens is extending inside the hood with zooming, a clever system for shading since you have the best coverage for every focal length.

Wide angle hoods performance is all relative, since they must by definition be wide and short, that is in contradiction with efficient shading. As I am mainly working with a tripod, I tend not to trust the hood for perfect shading. Even with the longer ones, I use a piece of cardboard to shade the lens further, in order to limit flare as much as possible.

2- Fact that the Canon hood is fitting on the Tamron is either luck or the sign that Tamron copied the Canon bayonet type mount. Problem is every brand has its own bayonet style for the hood, so finding a different brand than fits your lens is try and error. On the other hand, now you know Canon hoods fit mechanically your lens, you have some wider choice, considering you can find a lot of 3rd party hoods for Canon for cheap (just have a look on eBay).

3-About the availability of dedicated hoods, I would tend to think that in the past lots of people have underestimated the usefulness of hoods, and that hoods were mainly accessories for advanced photographers. It is still common to see people with decent lenses with no hood and a cheap Skylight filter on the front lens. My guess is that some people see them as useless, bulky and expensive.

They are actually expensive, because this is the kind of accessories where brands make a LOT of money (in Europe, Canon ET-73 for the 100mm macro is sold around 40 Euro, costing probably 1 or 2 Euro out of the factory), as you are likely to loose or break it, this is a good source of money.

IMO a hood and NO filter is the best option to preserve IQ and protect your lens, since the hood acts as a bumper and can save your filter thread and limit fingerprints in the same time.

Since you shoot cropped, the EW-83H could be the solution, but still I would advise to try it before you buy it.

88

EOS Bodies / Re: Are there 39mp & 50mp+ Test Bodies in the Wild? [CR1]

« on: October 23, 2012, 07:16:44 AM »

IF two sensors (39 and 50 Mpx) are out there, it could be they are planning release two cameras, one 39Mpx in a 5D type body (5Ds ?) that would be a competition for the D800, and later a 50Mpx camera in a 1D type body (1Dxs ?) to counter a future D4x(s).

This way everyone would be happy.

However I'd like to add my two cents about high res. cameras, and the fact that a lot of people seem to dismiss them on the pretext no one needs them, and 20Mpx are good enough for everything.

I can understand people are happy with their cameras and 18Mpx suit their needs, but some folks have other requirements. It's like if you would have said 20 years ago no one needs 4x5 or 8x10 cameras, 35mm is good enough for everyone. People who need high resolution sensors usually don't make 1000 pictures per day, it's about studio work, or architecture, or industrial photo, where quality is more important than quantity. When you work in a studio, you can spend hours on a setting before you even press the shutter, then all you need is a few frames, but with as much quality as you can deliver.

Nobody shoots wildlife or sports with a 4x5 camera, that doesn't mean 4x5 cameras were (are) useless for other styles of photography.

89

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: SOFT BOXES - BRACKETS - STANDS - MUST BUY! (say it 3 times)

« on: October 15, 2012, 04:57:14 AM »

I've gotten Photflex and Chimera softboxes.... I wont ever get another Photoflex though.  They use a PVC interior coating that deteriorates.  My very old Chimera banks are still going strong.... Photoflex... has yellowed a bit, so I restrict them to monochrome use.

+1 on the chimera softbox, not cheap but it will outlast almost anything else; studio stands, Manfrotto is IMO the best value, works well and relatively cheap, Matthews is very nice as well and better finished, but IMO a bit expensive (at least here in Europe).

Don't forget that in the lighting accessories department, you can built on your own a lot of things with cheap materials, styrofoam, white nylon fabrics, aluminium foil are your best friends.... Though a good softbox an important minimum equipment.

90

Lenses / Re: Canon fd lenses

« on: October 12, 2012, 01:57:53 PM »

I still use from times to times my Canon New F-1, most FD lenses were excellent.

I own the following and can only recommend them :

24mm f2
35mm f2
50mm f1.4
85mm f1.8
135mm f2

The L glass was also excellent, but they go for around 600$ a piece.

Super wide I would consider the 17mm f4 rather than the 20mm f2.8.
The 24mm f2 was slightly better than both the 1.4 and the 2.8.
28mm I would take the f2 but the 2.8 is decent and extremely cheap.
35mm f2 is good, can't tell about the 2.8.
The 50mm was probably the best 1.4 of all brands (except probably Leica). IMO the 1.2 L is not  worth 10x the price, even when it is slightly better than the 1.4.
The 85mm 1.2 was superior to the 1.8 but sells for 3 to 4 times the price.
100mm f2 is a killer, but the 2.8 is no slouch at all.
135mm f2 is the best but prone to flare, the 2.8 is excellent as well
The 200mm f2.8 was just average.
if you need a 300, then try to find the f4 / L, since CA was really a problem with the non L

Hope this helps