Messages

121

EOS Bodies / Re: Big Megapixels Coming Soon? [CR1]

« on: August 05, 2012, 01:46:37 PM »

I smell Nikon fanboys 

That's got to be the kinkiest fetish I've ever heard. Your mother would be ashamed.

On a separate note, yesterday as I glanced up at the sky I was sure I could see a dead pixel. Should've taken a picture to prove it...

122

EOS Bodies / Re: No DXO results on 1DX until at least September...?

« on: August 03, 2012, 02:11:49 PM »

Hey, what's wrong with pissed aussie rowers?
(although technically, I gave up rowing at the end of highschool, a few months before I started uni and started drinking instead, so I was never both at once...)

One of my uni mates is in the Quad Sculls in a few hours, hope they kick your UK butts...

Kick our butts? Ha! Just watched Oz get thrashed in the cycling  Good efforts by Oz and the Kiwis too. We may have a bit of a financial crisis on our hands but we still have time to keep the colonials in their place! 

(You know all the above is said in jest - we love the Aussies and their funny NZ friends)

123

Portrait / Re: We, The Photographers......Self Portaits..a Who's Who on CR

« on: July 30, 2012, 02:28:07 PM »

Trying to position your head to ensure a focus point is covering your eye is an exercise in patience.

40D and Tamron 90mm f2.8.

124

Sports / Re: 2012 London Olympics

« on: July 27, 2012, 01:39:21 PM »

Narcolepsy:- Ah, of course, DO lenses! Never occurred to me. Well played sir.

Paul:- Sheesh, you're just one giant walking opinion, aren't you? Still, that's just my opinion  . You do realise that the wrong opinion on this site can have you drummed out of the regiment y'know. Mind you, I quite agree that the very action of taking pics can remove you from the event. Q: "How was it?" A: "No idea, I didn't see it but I got 586 shots!"

Shall we take bets on Boris making a pig's ear of the opening ceremony?

Anyway, as you were, carry on.

125

Sports / Re: 2012 London Olympics

« on: July 27, 2012, 07:41:25 AM »

Considering spectators aren't being allowed to use camera gear longer than 300mm and not everyone can be trackside, I think it'll be quite tricky to get top-notch shots.

CR guy should offer a prize to the first non-pro to post a series of 14fps images from a 1D X taken from the cheap seats!

126

Lenses / Re: Keep 70-200 f4 IS or go for f2.8 IS II?

« on: July 26, 2012, 02:40:14 PM »

Well it's been interesting reading all the comments and today was judgement day. I finally got to try the f2.8 against the f4 and whilst it wasn't ideal conditions (indoors under fluorescent lighting with some daylight from the side) I could at least take "like for like" shots. I won't post images since there are plenty sites showing comparisons made under more scientific conditions.

My (admittedly limited) findings:

1. The f2.8 is much more substantial in size/weight than the f4. The f4 is quite dinky in comparison!  As I often use the 70-200mm as an "always in the hand rather than on a strap walk-about" lens I'm conscious of the fact the added weight would be an issue after a while. Hand cramp is a cruel mistress. (Cue comments about the best strap to use.)

2. Focusing with the f2.8 was maybe a bit quicker but not definitive. We're talking tiny fractions of a second here and my perception - you want to believe a newer, more expensive lens will focus quicker.

3. Sharpness (top requirement in my view) - yes I've pixel-peeped (not a crime, yet) and I'd say the f4 is a tiny bit sharper at like-for-like apertures. I think if you saw two images side by side you'd be hard pushed to say which lens took which shot. Yes both are a bit soft wide open but once you get to f5.6 and smaller they are both excellent. Sure you can use micro adjustment but I didn't have all day to play.

4. Colour - both allow you to take colour images  No obvious fringing horrors. Both were good enough for me (I'm going through the obligatory convert-everything-to-black-and-white phase).

5. IS on the f2.8 is much quieter than the f4. Shhhh!

6. The f4 has more vignetting (duh!) but nothing that would ruin any shot. The miracles of modern software can cure many ailments.

So I reckon the f2.8 at twice the price and twice the weight is not necessarily twice the lens. However if I couldn't live without that wider aperture I wouldn't shed a tear as I parted with the money. The f2.8 is very good but not essential to me. Your mileage may vary. Contents may settle in transit. Offer void in Utah.

At least now I can put that money aside for the 42mp 1D XMF due in Feb 2013 (oops, did anyone see a cat getting out of a bag?).

If you feel strongly that I've missed a point or my opinions are complete poop, I reserve the right to ignore you!

127

Lenses / Re: Keep 70-200 f4 IS or go for f2.8 IS II?

« on: July 25, 2012, 05:11:40 AM »

All,

Many thanks for the opinions. I should be able to briefly try the f2.8 II in a day or so. I won't be able to do much more than a rudimentary comparrison with the f4 but it's better than nothing.

K-amps: I might have had CJ and ARC gear but I didn't have to lug it around with me all day! Hmmm, 130 f2.8 primes in one? Now you're talking!

Stay tuned....

Guy.

128

Lenses / Re: Keep 70-200 f4 IS or go for f2.8 IS II?

« on: July 23, 2012, 03:54:04 PM »

I was in the same boat as you. Without using both, the F4 made a compelling case, almost half the price, lighter and insanely sharp. However I watched very nice pictures taken and they were the 2.8 mk.ii often. So I got one.

It is simply an Amazing lens…. Heck, it is almost magical.

The f2.8 is fluid , soft and dreamy (and sharp) while the F4 is clinical and analytical and cold. Yes these are adjectives used for Audio, but they fit perfectly here. I can take many lenses and shoot portraits, but the ones people pick out as their favs is the F2.8 mk.ii. There is no lens that gets me the “Ooohs” and “Ahhhs” like the f2.8 does. (Granted I have not used the 135 f2 yet)

There is a quality of the f2.8 mk.ii that cannot be quantified, it is just amazingly beautiful, creamy…. Dreamy.

K-amps,

Aha, one man's "clinical and analytical and cold" is another man's truthful uncoloured accuracy. To stick with the audio analogy, tubes or transistors?? There is much to be said for both (I'd maybe guess your "K" stands for Krell - if so, do I win a coconut?).

You may have tripped yourself up; "soft and dreamy (and sharp)". Hmmm, a bit like a red-hot ice cube? 

I certainly can't justify having both (this from the man who once had Audio Research and Conrad Johnson pre-amps at the same time just so I could have butterscotch or peppermint as the mood took me).

Of course all this still hinges on a colleague wanting to buy my f4. If not, it's all a bit moot.

Oh when will this nightmare end? 

129

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Upgrading 40d

« on: July 23, 2012, 01:56:07 PM »

Also had a 40D (actually sold it today!) and wanted to go FF for quite some time purely for the reduced depth of field with sub-f2.8 portraits and the increase in image quality with larger pixels/sensor.

Looked at the 1D X spec when it was first announced and thought that's the only camera I'll ever need then along came the 5D3. Yes it is a bit overpriced at present but I got the 5D3 and don't regret it. It is such a large leap ahead of the 40D in every way. I'm not a professional but I could afford it and you only live once - might as well enjoy your hobby!

I've used a 7D and seen many shots from it but was not impressed by the image quality - seemed rather inconsistent with far too many rather soft images. I'm sure many will disagree with me but I think they've tried to squeeze too many pixels onto that size of sensor (cue uproar from defenders of the 7D).

I think the question comes down to "do you need the abilities of a FF camera or the added reach of an ASP-C?".

Hope that helps,

Guy.

130

Lenses / Re: Keep 70-200 f4 IS or go for f2.8 IS II?

« on: July 23, 2012, 01:31:34 PM »

IIIHobbs,

Sage words indeed however I don't feel I need another lens in that particular range. My Sigma 85mm f1.4 takes care of all the bokeh a man needs plus I can walk closer to my subject if required. 

I also have the option of the 24-105mm too; not fast by any stretch but it offers a useful range.

My reasoning behind the potential change to the f2.8 was the (likely) improvement in IQ (not that the f4 is lacking in this area) coupled with the benefit of the 5D3's focus accuracy with wider aperture lenses.

I'm sure your suggestion will give others an often overlooked lens to consider.

Guy.

131

Lenses / Re: Sigma 85 1.4 + 5D Mark III ?? Photos and comments?

« on: July 22, 2012, 05:54:26 AM »

Whilst I don't have any experience with the 18-135mm I would say the Sigma build quality is probably 95% that of an L, certainly it is much better than any non-L lens I've seen. The only issue may be that it isn't weather sealed but this isn't a problem for me.

Plenty great reviews on the net for the Sigma.

132

Lenses / Re: Sigma 85 1.4 + 5D Mark III ?? Photos and comments?

« on: July 21, 2012, 12:23:50 PM »

Joseph,

I use a 5D3 and the Sigma - a fantastic combination.

The Sigma build quality is very good and I don't have any problems with focus issues - just make sure you use the smaller, more accurate focus points with the 5D3. Results are crisp, clear and punchy.

You won't regret getting one.

Guy.

133

Lenses / Re: Keep 70-200 f4 IS or go for f2.8 IS II?

« on: July 21, 2012, 12:17:12 PM »

I may have the wrong 2.8.  The 70-200 f/2.8L IS II is sharper than the 70-200 f/4L IS.  There are other versions of the lenses and I've lost track of which ones we're doing here, but the ones I mentioned, the 2.8 is far superior.

well maybe when you do shots of testcharts.. i doubt you can show me real life pictures where the difference is visible.

Now that the sun has come out for the first time this summer I better take advantage of it and go shoot some stuff. Ah, not even f2.8 can rescue a Scottish summer....

the main advantage of the f4 is weight.

i shoot landscapes with my 70-200 f4 most of the time (means hiking and travelling)
i rarely ever want to use the 70-200 lens at something faster then f5.6.

when i want to do portraits or something with a narrow DOF i use my fast prime lenses (85mm f1.2 or 135 f2).

70-200 f4 + 85mm f1.2 = 1785g in my kata backpack
70-200 f2.8 II + 85mm f1.2 = 2515g in my kata backpack

that´s why i have the 70-200mm f4 and not the f2.8.
it´s lightweight and fits my needs... your mileage may vary.

the 70-200 f2.8 II is sure a fantastic allrounder.
and the corner sharpness is impressive.

Gothmoth,

Pretty similar position to you but use the Sigma 85 f1.4 for portraits. Looks like I might keep the f4.

Guy.

134

Lenses / Re: Keep 70-200 f4 IS or go for f2.8 IS II?

« on: July 21, 2012, 12:14:31 PM »

Since there are pretty much equal numbers saying keep the f4/no, no get the f2.8 II, I'll have to flip a coin.

So now the question is: what coin should I flip and how many times do I flip it to get a statistically valid result?

I used to use pennies, but once I switched to nickels I haven't looked back.  Sure, they weigh a lot more, but you can do more with them and the quality difference is amazing.  Plus once I started using quarters, I hardly notice the weight difference.  Compare for yourself:

http://www.coinflipinfo.com/Reviews/Penny

http://www.coinflipinfo.com/Reviews/Nickel

Hey Cali, those sites are fantastic! Things are much clearer now but I only have access to UK currency though I do think I've got a US quarter somewhere.

There must be a site out there that converts flipped US coins to UK sterling....

Found it!

http//www.Flippin'marvellousUStoUKconversions.com/toomuchtimeonyourhands

Oh thank you internet!

135

Lenses / Re: Keep 70-200 f4 IS or go for f2.8 IS II?

« on: July 21, 2012, 05:35:32 AM »

All,

Many thanks for all the replies. It just underlines what a terrific resource this forum is - post a query in the evening and next morning there are 3 pages of opinions! Plus nobody resorted to name calling!

Since there are pretty much equal numbers saying keep the f4/no, no get the f2.8 II, I'll have to flip a coin.

So now the question is: what coin should I flip and how many times do I flip it to get a statistically valid result?

Now that the sun has come out for the first time this summer I better take advantage of it and go shoot some stuff. Ah, not even f2.8 can rescue a Scottish summer....