August 27, 2014, 07:08:12 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 - Vossie

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 21
After a long period of thinking, I pulled the trigger and ordered a TVC-33S with BH55 PCLR head. I also ordered a nodal slide and macro rail.

This will be a big upgrade from my heavy and old alumunium Gitzo g2222> I was so fed up with the creep in the head.

Canon EF Prime Lenses / Re: Canon EF 135mm f/2L USM
« on: February 04, 2014, 04:42:55 PM »
Canon EF 135mm f/2L USM   :)

Wow, from something totally boring like a fence, you managed to create something visually appealing. Great job!

Lenses / Re: 24-70/2.8 Canon or Tamron: Which did you choose and why?
« on: February 02, 2014, 05:29:30 AM »
I am so much on the fence between the Canon 24-70/2.8L II and the Tamron 24-70/2.8 VC. Would love to hear why you chose one over the other and if you are still happy with your decision. I am very aware of the physical differences between the two and the various test reports out there, but I am more interested in "how they feel and taste", if you know what I mean ... Comments?

I'm probably on the other side of the fence from most people here, as for me I'm not on a budget. I just chose the best lenses that are available.

I started out with the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 II, this lens had been so hyped up that I was one of the first to line up to buy it. After all such an expensive lens had to be good.

It's worth mentioning that the 24-70mm f/2.8 II is the only apochromatic normal zoom lens made for full frame cameras. Apochromatic lenses are usually reserved for lenses you've heard a friend of a friend try at a show. They tend to cost $5,000+ and are made of pure moon rock's - I've heard. I hate color fringing and it's my least favorite image quality facet and so I jumped on the 24-70mm f/2.8 II like a kid in a candy store.

The 24-70mm II makes bad photos.

The problem with this lens is the bokeh, contrast and color. They're terrible. When they designed the lens, they messed up the correction for spherical aberration. This causes the bokeh to melt into it's surroundings and areas that are slightly out of focus to be mushy. You can notice a visible lack of contrast and color comparisons between this lenses bokeh and any other lens in this range.

Canon 24-70mm II:

24-70mm Tamron:

24-105mm Canon

Notice the mushiness?

I have never seen a lens make scenes look so bleached and ugly.

If you look at sample photos you can see this same effect.

Images from this lens look flat.

The 24-70mm mk I f/2.8 from Canon was worse as it has weird bokeh and the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8 isn't much better (though it's the best out of the 3), but the Tamron 24-70mm VC really has this look that pops. It has more pop than the Canon 24-105mm, which is a lens that has a lot of pop.

The Tamron 24-70mm VC just has better color contrast and pop than any other normal zoom on the planet. Images from it simply look better.

Images from the Canon BORE me. They look pathetically lame and make me want to throw up. I'm a pro photo editor (I edited for Harper's Bazaar before I ever touched a DSLR) and I can manipulate color and contrast and character and texture extremely well so I can fix the flatness issue, but again the flatness is only in the slightly out of the focus to very out of focus areas. That means that to fix it you need to adjust these areas independently. The Tamron does not have this problem and so delivers good images without spot editing.

In the end it was easier to fix the Tamron's color fringing over the Canon's poor rendering of everything more than slightly out of focus, so I went with the Tamron.

If you have any doubts in what I'm saying take a look at this image:

Here we have a dog. Notice how his fur is perfectly contrasty and has nice sharp edges. Now notice the grass. Notice the dark areas of the grass. They are grey. The Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 II is a bad lens that makes bad photos. You should not buy it.

I bought the Tamron as a backup lens to use in emergency low light situations that required f/2.8 with VC and to stay in the bag 99% of the time and the Canon as my pride and joy. The Canon actually took such unusually bad photos that I had to stop, wait a second and think to myself "what in the world is wrong with this lens that is supposed to be amazing?". I wasn't even prepared to think that the Canon 24-70mm II took bad photos but they were so bad, I couldn't avoid noticing the problem, despite already making up my mind that I liked it. And the Tamron schooled it so badly that I actually preferred it after I had used a label maker to label it "For emergency low light use only".

Hope that helps, from somebody who's chose between the two regardless of price.

To my eye the bokeh in these 3 pictures looks best in the 24-105, followed by the canon 24-70 and the tamron last. Very strange patterns in the highlights. I cannot compare the tamron 24-70, but I do own both other lenses; all I can say is that the contrast and color in the canon 24-70 are way more attractive compared to the 24-105. The images just have more "pop". I cannot share your conclusion that the 24-70 ii is a bad lens. I believe it is a great lens.

Imagine going back in time to the late 1800's / early 1900's.  Few people traveled widely.  Literacy wasn't universal.  How would you describe a car to someone who hasn't seen one?  An aircraft?  The pyramids?  The Statue of Liberty?  A pineapple?  A rhinoceros?  And then along comes photography and the ability to publish images in newspapers and magazines of all the amazing things in the world.  Wow!  What an eye opener it must have been. 

The term "a picture's worth a thousand words" started to evolve around 1900.  Interestingly, a quick search suggests that the first noted usage of the exact phrase was in the title of a 1918 advertisement for "The San Antonio Light's Pictorial Magazine of the War".  As with all wars, I suspect that the returning servicemen struggled to describe the horrors of trench warfare.  How can you adequately describe that?  And many just wanted to forget.  Photographs could help loved ones understand more.

I agree with helpful, above.  These days, the question shouldn't be "who's words?", but simply, which photographs are worth a thousand words?  In the early days days, photography was important.  But now, the world is saturated with photographs.  Our challenge as photographers is to take photos that people care enough about that they will take the time to look closely at the photo, appreciate the uniqueness/beauty/importance of the image, and have a better life because of it.  I know I want to take photos that are worth a thousand words.

 +1 well said

Lenses / Re: 24-70/2.8 Canon or Tamron: Which did you choose and why?
« on: February 01, 2014, 01:28:35 PM »
I chose the Canon; hardly considered the Tamron after comparing on-line reviews (before that the 24-105 used to be my walkaround lens). No regrets; sharpness is so mch better that the 24-105.

Animal Kingdom / Re: Show your Bird Portraits
« on: January 26, 2014, 03:43:27 PM »
Wow Mick, these are truly great!

Where did you shoot these and how did you manage to get so close? When I try to photograph a bird of prey, they always fly away before I am even within a few 100 meters.

Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 50 f/1.2L
« on: January 15, 2014, 08:47:57 PM »
the first picture i post on this forum, i just registered, i own a 50L, true it is expensive, true it s not the sharpness but models don t like sharpness . it s good to have a lens not that sharp than the others to create differents pictures.

lina par telemaq76, sur Flickr

Great shot! Welcome to CR.

Lenses / Re: New 35mm f2 IS - Potential mount issue?
« on: January 14, 2014, 09:49:48 PM »
I have the same experience of the 40mm being tighter than other lenses. I thought is was just perception given the small size and weight of that lens.

Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 50 f/1.2L
« on: January 01, 2014, 09:20:04 AM »
Wow Clarte, does images are superb.

The first one just breaths seduction.

This is a great lens and easily as sharp and well behaved as the 35L and 85LII, both of which I have.

I always get tack sharp results with this lens - the reason I think is because I am a pixel peeper and I blame my gear rather than my technique. Consequently I have this lens perfectly calibrated, and know its strengths and weaknesses.

This lens has 1 major flaw - which is that it is extremely soft <2m away or so. I think that's why it scores so badly in some tests than others.

I am an extreme pixel peeper, but honestly, a competently captured photograph using the 24II,35L,50L or 85LII are all virtually the same sharpness wide open.

Great lens.

I also disagree about f/1.2 being thin DOF - it's not that thin - I take group photos at f/1.2 as per below:

Examples all wide open at f/1.2:



Software & Accessories / Re: Macro gear suggestions for 5DIII?
« on: December 24, 2013, 04:15:54 PM »
Thanks Neuro. Indeed it is a pitty that the tripod collar is not included with the 100L (and also that the Canon original is very steeply priced; I am planning to get a 3rd party one).

Software & Accessories / Re: Macro gear suggestions for 5DIII?
« on: December 24, 2013, 11:47:41 AM »
Neuro, how well does the rrs focus rail hold up with your Frankenstein?

I just got the 100L yesterday and am now looking into getting two Winmberley F2's for my 600 and 550. Alll to be used on a 5D3. With the 2 larger flashguns it will approach the weight of your setup. With all the weight, will the rrs rail still work smoothly? Do you connect the Wimberley's to your lens plate? (Rrs or wimberley?) Is it also possible to connect the F2's to the bottom of the rrs rail (so that they do not move during focus stacking)? In that way considerably less weight needs to be moved by the rail.

Thanks, Vossie.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: bad senzor on 5D mark III
« on: December 21, 2013, 12:02:41 PM »
Difficult to understand what your issue is without seeing some examples. Can you post of of your pics exhibiting the issue?

Lenses / Re: New lens, Big White, if I can only get one. Which One???
« on: December 15, 2013, 07:45:11 AM »
You already have the 70-200 f2.8 and 300 f2.8, which can be combined with extenders very well; the 300 f2.8 with a 1.4x will yield you a hand-holdable 420 f4 with still very good IQ; the 400 2.8 will slightly better in the IQ and AF departments (plus it's a sop faster ofcourse), but not with an order of magnitude and at the expense of hand holdability.

The 200-400 will do well for your sports shooting due to its flexibility. But it will not open new focal length ranges that you do not already have covered. Have you though about a 500 f4 or 600 f4?

The 135L is a great lens. The 100L is too. That will be my present to myself  ;D

Remember that when going to macro, you also need a lighting solution which adds to the costs. I plan to get a Wimberley shapeshifter bracket to use with the 2 flashes I have. With some mini softboxes that will give smooth lighting without having to invest in the pricey macro twin lights.

Portrait / Re: My new street photography project: People of a Kind
« on: December 03, 2013, 03:14:00 PM »
Great pics !

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 21