September 30, 2014, 12:17:06 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 ... 152 153 [154] 155 156 ... 173
2296
Viggo, you triggered the comparison I wanted to make.  No sane person would argue that the 50L lens is not better in bokeh and color rendition than the 50 f/1.4.  Afterall, I have the 50L and even stopped down, the colors are very good.  Having said that though, let's look at SHARPNESS ONLY.  And let's look at 3 focal lengths.  For the 35L, it is sharper at f/8 than the 35 f/2.  Okay, so the 35L is a better overall lens.  Now, let's look at the 85L.  The 85L is sharper than the 85 f/1.8 at f/8.  Again, the 85L is a better lens overall.  That leaves the 50L.  The 50L is NOT sharper than the 50 f/1.4 at f/8, in fact, the 1.4 is sharper.  See Bryan Carnathan's Tools/Tests if you don't believe me.  This is why the 50L leaves a lot to be desired.  For maximum sharpness across all apertures, I have to have two 50mm prime lenses, in effect, and that is not so for the 35 and 85mm focal lengths.  Would I get rid of my 50L?  No.  I like it wider than f/2.2.  It's a very, very good night lens too for street shots.  I like the saturation too.  But again, my comparison was center sharpness, which does matter too.

If I were shooting weddings, I would NOT purchase this lens just because I was shooting weddings.  Shoot your shots with the 50L, 50 1.4, load 'em onto your computer and compare.  You'll see no difference at all in IQ at f/2.8 and narrower, which is where I spend all of my time even in wedding photography.  So what would be the point in spending $1499 vs. $369?  If you want the awesome bokeh effects for elsewhere outside of weddings, then yes it is worth it.

2297
Go cheap and get the nifty 50 (50 f/1.8 II).  It's so cheap it won't strap you and stopped down it's razor sharp.  The 50 f/1.4 is better, and more expensive, but still cheap ($360ish).  When I first bought my 5D Mark II a few years ago I had the 24-105L kit lens and picked up a quick nifty fifty.  I didn't regret it.  Of course as my photography expanded, my lens selection got significantly more expensive.  But here you have nothing to lose.  Purchasing the 50L you are doing a serious investment.  You can get many other primes that are very sharp stopped down for that price.  If you  need 50mm wider than f/2, the 50L makes sense.  But if you're shooting above f/2.8, any of the primes at 50 f/1.4 or f/1.8, 85 f/1.8, 100 f/2 are great.  My recommendation is to not go expensive first.  Of course, there's always the new 40mm pancake lens.

2298
I plan on testing my 5D Mark III tonight downtown doing night macro shots.  Yes, I know I'm insane, but at least it'll give us concrete shadow perfomance noise and/or cleanup post-processing. 

2299
EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Mark III Tips, Tricks & Settings
« on: June 25, 2012, 08:13:59 PM »
Yeah

setting the DoF preview button to toggle AI servo is super sweet

Keep in camera noise reduction low or off
make sure lighlight tone priority is off,
turn off all in camera corrections

You forgot that if you do that, make sure to shoot in RAW  ;D

2300
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 100-400 f/4-5.6L IS [CR2]
« on: June 25, 2012, 08:09:30 PM »
I don't get the hype about this lens.  There is already a 70-300L out, which does have 100mm less, but you can get that with a 1.4x TC for cheaper than this 100-400 is supposed to be.

For every f/2.8 70-200 II owner, this 100-400 lens is just pretty useless. 

First, you're blowing away 100mm worth of f/2.8 super high IQ goodness
Then, if you need the reach, just add a TC and you got it with probably similar IQ.

What any 70-200 II owner needs is a 200-400 f/4 and not this rubbish.

If you dont have a tele lens at all, 100-400mm gets you covered nicely in once package, but if you have a 70-200, it's kinda useless.

Uh, no. My 70-200 2.8 II is way too short for wildlife, and the 2.8 is unnecessary the majority of the time outside. The 1.2 TC doesn't add much, and the 2X has other issues as mentioned (there is no free lunch). I keep the 2.8 for indoor events and people photography mostly which is where it shines.

A 100-400 would be the lens I grab as a complement to my nature hikes and photography. A 1.2 will give me 480 - almost 500 which is very usable for birds (especially on a crop body). Plus I can zoom out for some usable landscape photos.

Each has a best application I find the 70-200 doesn't work well as a wildlife lens but a 100-400 would be a perfect complement to my 16-35.

I was hiking around Mohican State Park with my 100-400L lens all day, then had to swing back into Mansfield for a basketball game, where I used the 70-200L lens.  So yes, I agree with your usages too, there is simultaneous value.

2301
i think the OP wanted to see images indicating example of what all the drama is about relaing to DxO numbers

since this thread has hit 7 pages and no images have come forth it kind of proves what a non event the whole issue is :D

 8)

2302
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 100-400 f/4-5.6L IS [CR2]
« on: June 25, 2012, 07:51:53 PM »
I don't get the hype about this lens.  There is already a 70-300L out, which does have 100mm less, but you can get that with a 1.4x TC for cheaper than this 100-400 is supposed to be.

For every f/2.8 70-200 II owner, this 100-400 lens is just pretty useless. 

First, you're blowing away 100mm worth of f/2.8 super high IQ goodness
Then, if you need the reach, just add a TC and you got it with probably similar IQ.

What any 70-200 II owner needs is a 200-400 f/4 and not this rubbish.

If you dont have a tele lens at all, 100-400mm gets you covered nicely in once package, but if you have a 70-200, it's kinda useless.

I own both the 70-200L and the 100-400L.  Of course I'm not worried what you think because I know what I'm doing and you clearly do NOT.

2303
I guess I still can't grasp what this thread is about.  Do you mean that the 5D Mark III's DR is worse than the D800, relatively speaking, OR, that in general, the DR with the 5D Mark III is bad?

2304
Lenses / Re: Prime VS Zooms.
« on: June 25, 2012, 12:07:03 AM »
Not all primes are better than zooms.  For instance, the 24-70L zoom is actually slightly sharper than the, yes, the member of the holy trinity, 35L prime, when stopped down.  I've seen it myself and Bryan Carnathan noticed it as well.  It depends on how high quality the zoom lens is.  No sane person would say the 85 f/1.8 is sharper than the 70-200L II IS zoom lens at 85mm, at f/8.  There are a lot of factors.  Personally, for sports, I NEED the flexibility of the zooms.  A missed shot is worse than a slightly less saturated shot, for example.

2305
EOS Bodies / Re: How would you upgrade?
« on: June 24, 2012, 11:53:23 PM »
This is an easy one.  If you can afford to, buy the 5D Mark III and keep the 40D as backup.  You'll have a great FF and a good 1.6x crop sensor camera.  If I were purchasing new and had the glass I needed, I'd probably buy a 5D Mk III and a 60D backup body, if my budget was $4300-$4500.  But since you ALREADY HAVE the 40D, keep it and get a 5D Mk III.

2306
EOS Bodies / Re: 1D X Unboxing
« on: June 24, 2012, 09:45:11 PM »
Either that or gag gift somebody.  Get their address and know if they pre-ordered a 1D X and send them a fake box stuffed with styrofoam pellets.  Now that would be classic.

2307
I have not gotten good AF stability with my 50L.  It is frustrating, because I've shot sports with the 85 f/1.2L II and a 1D4 and still had a great keeper rate.  I don't understand this lens.  It has problems that both the 35L and 85L don't have. 

2308
EOS Bodies / Re: 1D X Unboxing
« on: June 24, 2012, 11:50:22 AM »
I think the only way to make it better, is to actually videotape the UPS guy getting out of the truck with the package, you signing for it, taking it in and opening it up.  Of course when mine arrives, I'd probably be so happy that that actually won't be a joke  ;D

2309
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon EOS-1D X Hitting Retailers
« on: June 24, 2012, 11:47:05 AM »
If the 1D X is so clean at such high ISO's, I wonder if more people will be able to shoot let's say, night football games with the 300 f/4L vs. the 300 f/2.8L.  Now I know the latter will focus faster in lower light, but it really makes you wonder now, if the more expensive lenses like in my example wouldn't necessarily be needed.  If you are submitting photos to the AP, the subtle differences in IQ would be irrelevent.  Just a thought I had, because I was shooting evening track and field with the 300 f/4L with a 1D4 and I was having no trouble focusing very quickly.  However, the ISO performance required a bit more cleanup than I like :)

2310
Pricewatch Deals / Re: Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 STM in Stock at B&H
« on: June 24, 2012, 11:28:58 AM »
$199 = £229 UK

Can't be bothered working out the difference after tax, too depressing

I bought one as I felt it was worth it. In the UK you pay the UK price and that is the price that I judged it on.

I suspect this will be a classic lens, especially on a 1.6 crop

On our 1D4's, we get 52 mm :)  8)

Pages: 1 ... 152 153 [154] 155 156 ... 173