February 28, 2015, 12:36:41 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 - caMARYnon

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 6
Lenses / Re: 24 f2.8 IS or 28 f2.8 IS ???
« on: December 12, 2013, 05:14:58 AM »
I had almost the same dilemma but finally: I got the 35 f2 IS for street, I sold the 40 (the colours are not excellent IMO, "only" 2.8 and no IS), I put first on my buying list the 24 IS and I am waiting for a new 50 in Canon's line.

Lenses / Re: When to use a 35mm and 50mm on full frame...
« on: November 01, 2013, 06:05:44 AM »
When you bring the 35, you often end up with "s..., I should have brought the 85". With the 50, you often end up with "s..., I should have brought the 24" or "s..., I should have brought the 100". That is 1 s... for the 35 and 2 s... for the 50. So if I only carry one prime, I use the 35  ;)

Technical Support / Re: 35mm f/2 IS USM AF noise
« on: October 24, 2013, 11:42:50 AM »
Because of your problem I compared the sound of all the lenses in my kit and definitely the 35 f2 IS has the loudest sound ... but IMO this is not a dangerous one, just a strong sliding.
I think the best solution is to go to nearest shop, try their copy and compare the sound.

Technical Support / Re: 35mm f/2 IS USM AF noise
« on: October 24, 2013, 03:11:49 AM »
I can hear too some audible internal sliding when focusing with AF but not so loud to make me worried about it.

Lenses / Re: 40mm f2.8 STM - Lens Hood?
« on: August 08, 2013, 12:33:57 PM »

Putting a hood on 40mm pancake?

You guys are taking the beauty out of this baby :-\

Lenses / Re: AFMA - Is is really necessary?
« on: June 19, 2013, 01:25:19 PM »
I used Dot-Tune (fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1187247/0) with excellent results. It's easy to set and it's free.

Lenses / Re: 24-70 f/4L IS vs 24-105L
« on: June 13, 2013, 01:51:58 AM »
However, for 24-70/4 money you could buy a 24-105 and a 100 (non L) macro.

Video & Movie / Re: Underwater Macro Video - Canon 5d Mark II
« on: June 03, 2013, 02:30:37 PM »
Amazing colourful world. Excellent work. Some superb hunting scenes. I really liked it.

Lenses / Re: If you could only have three lenses...
« on: June 03, 2013, 07:32:00 AM »
24-105 + 100macro (L or not) + 70-200 IS (f2.8 II best or f4 excellent)


Have there been firmware updates for Canon lenses that are loaded through the camera?

yes, for 40mm pancake

SO, hey hey gearheads, I can't think of a better place to ask this question.  As most of you know, I shoot mostly weddings and portraits.  One of the little things I'd like to improve on are ring shots.  It's not that I don't like the shots that I am getting, but, I'd love to get in a little closer and the only lens I have that allows for really close focusing is the 16-35, which while it can get close, even at 35mm it's not as tight and DOF with that is not to my liking.  I enjoy using the 50, 85 and 70-200 for that, but with the minimum focusing distance it requires a big crop to get the desired shot.

SO that leads to options.  And I am not sure which way to go, and given the very limited use I'm seeking to fill, not sure I want to spend a ton of $$$. 


100 2.8
100L 2.8
180L 3.5

or, I could go with an extension tube ---what are your thoughts on extension tubes?  They are a fairly cheap fix which would get me in a bit closer, and I'd be able to use those on all my longer lenses. 

Another option is the http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/87494-REG/Canon_2822A001_58mm_500D_Close_up_Lens.html

That one in particular is would fit my 85 1.8 --- its the cheapest option by far, but, again I have to wonder if that's enough.  Do I need the versatility of the extension tube?  Or, should I bag all of those ideas and snag one of the above mentioned lenses (I see the 180 macro used all the time on B&H...and I have heard that the 100L is also good for portraits...but, with a 85 1.8 and the 70-200, would I really use a 100 macro for portraits???????)

Again, it's not like I plan on diving into the insect world (yeah, of course once I can I probably will, but thats not the main idea here).  Pretty much just wanting a way to get tighter shots of wedding rings, and looking to do so without  spending an arm and a leg (I'd much rather snag a 135L than a macro lens..)

On the other end of things...I am considering a 2x teleconverter too.  I have heard much more about those though...

Here is my macro experience:

2 years ago I wanted 100 non L macro but in that moment here wasn't available so I bought 100L.  I used 100L for about 8 month and after that I sold it because I thought (and I think) the L is too expensive for my needs and the IS is useless for me - in macro I always use flash. I bought and tried close-up filters (not 500D or 250D but kenko AC +3), 25mm extension tube and all combinations of extube-kenko-teleconverter 1.4x mounted on 70-200. The best results was from extube + 40 pancake + kenko or only extube+40 pancake.
2 month ago I bought 100 non L and I think this is the best and the final solution for my macro needs and all the money I spend on extube and filters are lost.

Lenses / Re: 40mm f/2.8 Wow what a lens
« on: March 27, 2013, 03:41:04 PM »
I believe it's a nice lens as well, for the price, however, I think it's a bit lacking in contrast on my 5d m3.
agreed, usually set contrast +1 or +2 and color sat +1 in DPP.

Lenses / Re: 40mm f/2.8 Wow what a lens
« on: March 27, 2013, 01:04:58 PM »
I am very happy with it's macro capability. With a 25mm kenko extension tube and a +3 AC Kenko close-up filter you could achieve about 0,95x - very very close to 1,00x of my 100mm macro - with excellent sharpness and details. The only bad thing is minimum working distance = about 4cm - 1,5 inches.

EOS Bodies / Re: 600D vs 100D
« on: March 21, 2013, 03:00:59 PM »
I think this is a good response to the mirrorless competition.  It's not much bigger than the EOS-M and it retains full functionality of a Rebel including phase-detection AF.  Stick a EF 40mm pancake, and you have a small walk-around or street camera or use it as a backup to a larger camera.  It won't take up much space in the camera bag. 

I think this is true evolution of the Rebel line, not the T5i.  It retains the physical controls that we are used to and are more efficient than menus.  Canon is probably using this to gage how well the public will accept the smaller form factor for future Rebels.  Now the Rebel is positioned better to compete with future micro 4/3rds systems.  Why design another line of lenses (EF, EF-S, EF-M)?  Play to Canon's strength:  its breadth and depth of EF lenses.
I have the same opinion

Interesting Graphic

It is interesting -- thanks for posting.  Add an EVF and some dials to the EOS-M and the length and width are similar.  The depth is bit larger to accomodate the mirror box, but then you also get a useable grip and phase detect AF.  Definitely wouldn't mind having one as a backup camera -- wouldn't take up much space in the camera bag.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 6