April 16, 2014, 04:36:48 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 - bdunbar79

Pages: 1 ... 122 123 [124] 125 126 ... 162
1846
Lenses / Re: Question...To UV or not to UV...that IS the question!
« on: July 18, 2012, 11:55:53 PM »
My opinion is go ahead and leave them on.  If you wanted you could take it off before you shot, then put it back on.  I've never had a problem with it. 

1847
Lenses / Re: Question...To UV or not to UV...that IS the question!
« on: July 18, 2012, 11:44:07 PM »
Well, it is another piece of glass between the sensor and the photographed scene.  However, if you get a good one it will not distort the image.  B+W UV filters I guarantee you will not affect your image whatsoever.  A thin piece of glass is transparent, so why would it noticeably affect your image if it were truly clear and even, like B+W filters are.  So my answer is "No" if you have a high quality filter.

That aside, why would UV light hurt your lens?  The glass is already protected, at least in L series lenses.  The coating actually will prevent UV light from entering your lens.  The lens hood does block some light out, so yeah, the hood helps.  I think it isn't an issue.  The only reason I use filters is to protect my lens from other things that can break it. 

In the summer I shoot with high quality UV filters on and I don't notice a negative impact at all.  There's more glass in an IS stabilized lens afterall with no degradation of IQ.

1848
Lenses / Re: Wide Canon L choice: 14L II 2.8 or 16-35 II 2.8
« on: July 18, 2012, 08:26:42 PM »
I could actually go for a 14-24L.  That would go in my kit for sure.

1849
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 1D Multiple Exposures
« on: July 18, 2012, 08:25:28 PM »
Hey, you got your camera!! Congratulations!  What were the exposures on those photos?  Thanks.

1850
EOS Bodies / Re: Should/can Canon keep making its own sensors?
« on: July 18, 2012, 07:30:42 PM »
I would just like to say, that regarding the posts of D800 vs. 5D Mark III in this thread, I printed 3 posters out tonight on my Canon printer with images taken with a 5D Mark III and they looked absolutely fabulous, and sharp down to the last detail.  What would 36mp gain me?  That's all  ::).

1851
EOS Bodies / Re: Should/can Canon keep making its own sensors?
« on: July 18, 2012, 07:28:56 PM »
I wonder what you did back in the 2001-2002 era when these sensors and cameras were unheard of.  Photography I suppose was just all crap?

They moaned that the D60 was not much of an improvement over the D30 and that the 1Ds was too expensive

And that the 1V was crap because it wasn't digital?   :P

1852
Lenses / Re: Wide Canon L choice: 14L II 2.8 or 16-35 II 2.8
« on: July 18, 2012, 07:27:43 PM »
The 14L is a awesome prime but the 16-35 II is a better all purpose wide.

It's a shame canon hasn't made the 14-24L by now. It would render these previous two obsolete.

If your really serious on shooting wide, the new zeiss 15mm 2.8 is the best thing I've ever seen. Even better than the 14-24 Nikon but with a 3000$ price tag. If you want to go ultra-wide, why compromise?

+1.  However, for an amateur, I'd go 17-40L if it's casual landscape photography.  If you need it for other purposes, get the 16-35L.  There is no reason to spend so much on a prime (the 14L) if you are an amateur, unless you have a deep pocket.  However, I use the 16-35L for landscape because I also shoot low light indoor with it.  If I didn't shoot low-light indoor, I'd have the 17-40L.  Just my opinion.

Isn't the 16-35 alittle sharper than the 17-40?

Wide open sure.  But stopped down they get very close.  For a long-term investment, sure the 16-35L II is the best buy.  It will do the landscape AND the low-light stuff.  The price is double the 17-40L I believe.  I bought the 16-35L II because I knew I'd keep it for both. 

1853
Lenses / Re: Help Choosing My Next Lens? :)
« on: July 18, 2012, 01:47:32 PM »
Agreed!  The 50L is certainly not in the class of the prime trinity.

1854
Because DxOMark rated them basically the same.
If you believe, like I do, that DxOMark either can't fully decode the CR2 file and are probably just Nikon marketing shllls, then you can actually believe your own eyes.
Which according to a post I read today is a dangerous thing.

Even simpler.  Digic IV vs. Digic V.  Different.  :)

1855
Lenses / Re: Wide Canon L choice: 14L II 2.8 or 16-35 II 2.8
« on: July 18, 2012, 01:02:01 PM »
The 14L is a awesome prime but the 16-35 II is a better all purpose wide.

It's a shame canon hasn't made the 14-24L by now. It would render these previous two obsolete.

If your really serious on shooting wide, the new zeiss 15mm 2.8 is the best thing I've ever seen. Even better than the 14-24 Nikon but with a 3000$ price tag. If you want to go ultra-wide, why compromise?

+1.  However, for an amateur, I'd go 17-40L if it's casual landscape photography.  If you need it for other purposes, get the 16-35L.  There is no reason to spend so much on a prime (the 14L) if you are an amateur, unless you have a deep pocket.  However, I use the 16-35L for landscape because I also shoot low light indoor with it.  If I didn't shoot low-light indoor, I'd have the 17-40L.  Just my opinion.

1856
Lenses / Re: New Canon 50mm Coming? [CR1]
« on: July 18, 2012, 12:57:53 PM »
unless the new 50 1.4 have similar/better IQ, bokeh than the L. I dont see why should i buy this instead of the L


Exactly.  It has very similar IQ.  I'm not saying it's not a great lens, it's just not $1100 better than the 1.4.  The 1.4 is sharper stopped down.  I"m not one to bank on reviews, as I have all 3 50mm lenses, but read this review:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-50mm-f-1.2-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

I guess Bryan and I think alike?  If you want to spend $1499 on a lens that doesn't perform better at f/2.8 and narrower than a lens that costs $369, it's your money.  I happen to use the lens f/1.2 to 2 and it looks great, so that's why I have it.  But my photos at low ISO outdoors are actually better and sharper with the 1.4.

Bottom line is that no other lens is like this, 35mm f/1.4L is better at all apertures than the 35 f/2, and the 85 f/1.2L is better at all apertures than the 1.8.  The 50L is not that compared to the 1.4.

1857
Lenses / Re: New Canon 50mm Coming? [CR1]
« on: July 18, 2012, 09:08:22 AM »
"If you want great images from f/1.2 to f/2.8, the 50L is the only lens that will do it.  But narrower, there are actually better lenses."

This is simply not true. For the money, at f/1.4 the 50mm Sigma out performs the Canon 50L. ...and think of all of the money you have ...to put toward another lens!

Sorry, I was only talking CANON lenses.

1858
Lenses / Re: New Canon 50mm Coming? [CR1]
« on: July 18, 2012, 12:08:39 AM »
I'd rather pay $2k for a mk2 version of the 1.2L that doesn't focus shift and isn't soft wide open, than $850 for a mk2 1.4

What are you comparing the 1.2L to in order to call it soft at f1.2?  There is a post above this that mentions the focus shift.

+1.

Never seen the famous focus shift and is sharp at 1.2.

RLPhoto,

This is where people have it WRONG.  The 50L's top quality is that it IS SHARP wide open, the problem is that the 1.4 surpasses it's sharpness stopped down.  It is sharp wide open.  I'm in agreement with you on this one.

1859
Lenses / Re: New Canon 50mm Coming? [CR1]
« on: July 18, 2012, 12:06:04 AM »
There's nothing magical about it........


........If you want great images from f/1.2 to f/2.8, the 50L is the only lens that will do it.

Daniel, as much as I respect you as a person and a photographer (and I do) that photo proves nothing.  The 50 f/1.4 for all we know could have taken the exact same photo.  If I shoot out in daylight at low ISO on a 1Ds3 or 5D3, my photos from the two lenses are exactly the same.  There is no $1100 difference.  I'll agree with you that the 50L lens is sharper 1.2 to 2, but beyond that it isn't.  Low to mid ISO the 1.4 lens performs just as well, which is why everyone is questionning the price.  Most pros that I know prefer the 24-70L zoom lens over any of Canon's 50's.  I personally like 50mm, so I own all 3, but I'll be the first to admit the 50L was way overpriced.  I will probably keep it because I like the build quality.

1860
Lenses / Re: New Canon 50mm Coming? [CR1]
« on: July 17, 2012, 10:46:44 PM »
Not from me.  I have the 50 f/1.2L and will probably sell it.  It's not worth the extra money and outdoors at low ISO the 50 f/1.4 color rendition is actually slightly better, especially on my 1Ds 3.  There's nothing magical about it particularly, and side-by-side images, even wide, aren't any different to me.  Another point, stopped down narrower than f/4, both the 1.4 and 1.8 lens are sharper, which matters to me.  I've been told I'm wrong on this point yet I see it in my images, and Bryan Carnathan's charts show what I get.  The 50 f/1.2L is a specialty lens from f/1.2 to f/2.8.  After that, the 1.4 matches it or does slightly better, and this is well documented in all reviews of the lenses.

If you want great images from f/1.2 to f/2.8, the 50L is the only lens that will do it.  But narrower, there are actually better lenses.

Pages: 1 ... 122 123 [124] 125 126 ... 162