November 22, 2014, 06:57:25 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 - bdunbar79

Pages: 1 ... 98 99 [100] 101 102 ... 174
1486
1D Mark IV works with everything at f/8 as far as I know.

1487
Lenses / Re: Canon 50 F1.4 VS 50 F1.2L Lenses
« on: August 26, 2012, 03:08:12 AM »
50 f/1.2L is sharper from f/1.2 to about f/2.0.  From f/2.8 and beyond, the 50 f/1.4 lens is sharper.  By f/8 it's noticeably sharper in your photos.  The 50 f/1.4 focuses faster.  I own both and am selling the 50L and keeping the 1.4.  Then again, I'm getting a 24-70L II as well.

The 50L wider than 2.8 is amazing, but if you're up close to your subject DOF becomes a technique issue.  It is better constructed as well.  Overall, it's the most disappointing L lens I own.  It just doesn't do better than even the nifty fifty narrower than f/4 or so.

The only reason you'd buy it is if you need to shoot a lot of f/1.2 to f/2.  I don't anymore, so I'm selling.  If you shoot at f/1.8 let's say, it is truly amazing and the bokeh approaches that of the 85 f/1.2L II.

1488
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Your Ultimate Gear (wish)list
« on: August 26, 2012, 02:43:07 AM »
We could always dream of a 600-1200mm f/4.5-5.6L zoom lens, that's push-pull type  8).

1489
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 1D X Structural Weakness
« on: August 26, 2012, 02:41:01 AM »
Happened Friday night, and I wasn't too concerned, since I somehow only noticed the scratches, not the crack at the time.  My heart dropped when I saw it in the morning  :'(

At least it appears the crack is in a separate piece from the main chassis, so hopefully it's fixable without resorting to black RTV.

Oh, the 24-70 didn't fair too well either... filter ring hit the cement (no filter).  No glass shattered, but now it's a 30-70mm that won't focus to infinity.

So you've invented a new Canon lens, that can't be used for landscape photography?  :)

Sorry, couldn't pass that up.

1490
Software & Accessories / Re: Adobe After Effects
« on: August 26, 2012, 02:37:38 AM »
Awesome!  Thanks for sharing the link!

1491
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Your Ultimate Gear (wish)list
« on: August 26, 2012, 02:26:46 AM »
Own Canon Inc.. 8)

Access to any and all Canon cameras and lenses at any time, with people doing all of my post-processing :) :)

1492
Lenses / Re: 70-200mm f/2.8 took a bad fall... Any advice?
« on: August 26, 2012, 02:16:19 AM »
Oh they'll repair it.  You'll have to decide if it's worth the cost or not.  If it's not, then yeah, time from the Mark II :) :)  Could be a blessing in disguise.

1493
Who cares what the sharpest aperture is, really?  Do you change aperture because of sharpness?  Sharpness of what?  I use aperture to control my DOF or flash exposure.  If my lens is sharpest at f/4, I don't care because how does that have any real useful impact on your photography? 

Second reason I don't care is because just because my lens is sharpest at f/4, doesn't mean it's NOT sharp at other apertures.  So again, I don't care. 

1494
I bought two lenses and I prefer to take most of my shots near or on the mythical sweetspot in regards to aperture.  With the presumption of sufficient light, for my 50mm f/1.4 I try to stay between 2.8 and 4.0.  For my 24-105mm f/4 I make an effort to approach f/8, but that isn't always an option.

So that raises the aforementioned question.  What aperture range is the 100mm and the 70-200 the sharpest?  And don't hesitate to tell me that I was wrong about the 50 and 24-105... if indeed I'm way off.

Thanks a bunch.

Pretty much all of my lenses are sharpest around f/8.  That doesn't mean that lenses aren't sharp at other apertures.  That's just where they are sharpest.

you must have a bunch of very weird copies then

Cool.

1495
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 1DX IQ
« on: August 26, 2012, 12:45:21 AM »
I'll post one more.  This is a 100% crop from across the field, at ISO 5000.  The 'grainy-ness" isn't noise likely, it's probably b/c I'm running out of resolution.  In this case, the 5D 3 has performed better.

1496
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 1DX IQ
« on: August 26, 2012, 12:36:57 AM »
Here's one under the lights, no color adjustment.  Obviously we'll apply some NR and then resize in PS, I just wanted to get it on here as fast as possible.

1497
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 1DX IQ
« on: August 26, 2012, 12:02:56 AM »
This is werid Bosman.  I'm noticing when the 1DX is in auto ISO, and it goes to 12,800 or even higher, it blows the highlights.  It doesn't do that up until that point though.  In fact, up to that point, it's just the opposite, as it looks like it's slightly underexposing.  Interesting.

1498
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 1DX IQ
« on: August 25, 2012, 11:57:50 PM »
so 1dx win 5dm3 fail with colors? hard to believe anything look right with stadium lighting. Nice to know that $7g's does some things better.

Nope nope nope.  Not to when the lights came on yet  :P  I'm assuming that won't be quite as easy  :D

1499
Lenses / Re: How much for a used Canon 200mm f/2.0L IS?
« on: August 25, 2012, 11:22:00 PM »
I have seen them on Fred Miranda occasionally used for 4.5k U$D.

Does anyone know if the 5D3 AI Servo fix for this lens extends past the one year warranty period? Is it a service advisory like the light leak fix that can be done at any time regardless of warranty status?

I think anytime Jamesy.

1500
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 1D X Structural Weakness
« on: August 25, 2012, 11:20:58 PM »
You woulda heard me scream like Cameron on Ferris Buehler's Day Off.

Pages: 1 ... 98 99 [100] 101 102 ... 174