Messages

76

Lenses / Re: Considering the 70-200 f4 is for my next lens

« on: September 03, 2012, 01:40:07 AM »

I have been shooting all weekend with this lens and wish indoors I had the 2.8 but you still have to introduce flash or push you ISo to achieve reasonable shutter speeds. I am wondering if the extra stop is worth $1,000 more and double the weight for indoor shots or should I save that for the upcoming 24-70 ii release which is a much more used focal range for me? I do hate only f4 but 2.8 is not that much faster when under tungsten lighting. Yeah the bokeh seems nicer but I just have a hard time with the weight of that lens. How do you over come it?

Don't forget ab and back exercises. That thing can seriously hurt your spine if you sling it on your neck the whole day.

But seriously, only you can decide if what you'll get from the 2.8 is worth an extra grand. Probably yes if you're shooting professionally. Or if you have the money for it, does it really matter if it's worth it? Otherwise there's no need to get it, it's not as if it will make a night and day difference to your photos.

77

Lenses / Re: 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II not fitting securely to 5DMKIII body???

« on: September 01, 2012, 07:49:23 PM »

Rotational play shouldn't be a concern, it's a given due to manufacturing tolerances. Play along the sensor plane is what you should be watching out for, because it's that which will affect the AF and IQ.

78

Lenses / Re: 85mm f/1.2 ii or 135mm f/2

« on: September 01, 2012, 11:26:48 AM »

I've watched Joe McNally (who is worth more than his salt) shoot portraits not just 7 meters away but even further.

Yup, I've seen him do it too. I'm sure Anne Leibovitz or Greg Heisler also have shot from that far out as well. But I don't think their lens of choice when shooting portraits is a 135 or a 200.

79

Lenses / Re: 85mm f/1.2 ii or 135mm f/2

« on: September 01, 2012, 06:14:58 AM »

Maybe this is true for a limited, indoor space. But it all depends on the distance from subject. We are not all working with the same conditions or shooting styles.

And I think we can probably agree that the look of a 200mm f/2 @ 7 meters isn't the same as an 85mm f/2 @ 2 meters.

A photographer worth his salt wouldn't normally shoot portraits 7 meters out.

80

Lenses / Re: 85mm f/1.2 ii or 135mm f/2

« on: September 01, 2012, 03:16:50 AM »

It's not as if we're comparing L vs. non-L lenses. You can't go wrong with either lens, they're both excellent. The answer to your question boils down to what it's primary purpose will be and what your budget is.

If it's primarily for portraits, go for the 85L. DOF and focal length take precedence over minor quibbles such as the AF speed, it's not as if your subject is constantly moving.

Otherwise get the 135L. Too long for portraits though, but costs way less money and IQ is out of this world. Honestly, who would actually say that its F2 bokeh is crap compared to the 85L's F1.2?

81

Lenses / Re: Canon 50 F1.4 VS 50 F1.2L Lenses

« on: September 01, 2012, 02:55:58 AM »

I'm about actually to upgrade to the 50L I have the 1.4 and used to have the 1.8 each lens is better and what it comes down to are you a professional or a hobbyist. Being that I am a professional I need to have the best in order to get those shots at 1.2 if its near dark and can't use flash and still get that sharp picture. If you are a hobbyist and and just having fun I'd go with the Sigma 50 1.4 (For Full Frame) or the 30mm 1.4 (For cropped sensored)

I use the 30 1.4 on my 7D when I travel and love the lens, it comes back with some pretty amazing shots even at 1.4 but I don't count on that lens for the money shots. Especially the ones that you only get one picture of....

Have you actually tried using the 50L at 1.2? I wouldn't exactly call it sharp, plus the DOF is razor thin. I wouldn't actually use a 50L at 1.2 to get 'money shots', especially when its near dark and I can't use flash on a 7D. On that kind of conditions using f/1.2 with the 7D's AF your keeper rate will be extremely low.

82

Lenses / Re: Considering the 70-200 f4 is for my next lens

« on: August 31, 2012, 03:06:03 AM »

Thanks for the replies.

I purchased the 70-200 f4 is. $1100 seemed like a good price. It's new and I know I can sell it later if need be for minimal loss. I think it complements my 24-105. Now that I have the telephoto covered. I am going for the 24-70 II year end or early next. Either way thanks for all the advice. I looked and held the 70-200 2.8 and it just is too heavy for the extra stop. Also the cost is soo much. I think this will let me see if I feel limited by the aperature and if so then I will sell it and go for the 70-200. At least then I will know I need it. I looked at the 200 2.8mm and 135l but for me I need zoom since my family makes me have to react fast and it's too hard to change lenses of focus on moving around. I think this will be a good start. If Canon releases the infamous 14-24 or 35l II then maybe that will be my next lens. I also will probably end up with the eos m and use my lenses on that for when I need to travel light. That makes the lens I purchased that much more useful vs the 2.8 counterpart. Anyway thanks everyone.

Congratulations on the purchase. Nothing can beat primes, but they do have their specific place and for a lot of us the versatility of an L zoom outweighs the IQ advantage of a fast prime.

Good point on the 70-200 2.8 IS II. It's better on all aspects, if you don't mind lugging the extra weight. Thing is, the 70-200mm f4 is so good already (it's even better than the 70-200 2.8 Mk I) that you wouldn't actually know there's a better zoom unless you've actually used the 2.8 II. So no regrets, enjoy and be confident that you've made the right decision.

83

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Upgrade from 10d to 60d or 7d

« on: August 27, 2012, 07:33:24 PM »

Unless video is a big deal for you, I wouldn't even consider the 60D. It's either the 50D or the 7D.

84

Landscape / Re: ND Filters - Solid or Graduated

« on: August 27, 2012, 03:02:07 AM »

Not strictly true, I bought the Big Stopper and a hard graduated set together with a holder and 82 mm wide angle adapter this week, I contacted Lee themselves and they pointed to their dealers in the EU, it was paid for on Monday, shipped on Tuesday and arrived on Thursday across the EU.

From which retailer did you get yours?

85

Lenses / Re: 50mm lens. I Need advice!!

« on: August 23, 2012, 09:02:22 PM »

It needed MFA of 19 before I sent it and my 5d III to Sigma. Got it back and it needed MFA of 7.

Is this a common issue with the Sigma 50mm 1.4? I have one on my 5D3 on +20 and I reckon still needs +2 more to be acceptable.

86

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D MkIII - AFMA due consistent backfocusing

« on: August 20, 2012, 08:37:07 PM »

There's an 'adjust all lens by the same amount' option - is this this in addition to the individual lens adjustment? i.e., does a +5 here and a +20 on the individual lens equate to a +25 adjustment? Or does any adjustment here override the individual lens adjustment?

87

EOS Bodies - For Stills / 5D MkIII - AFMA due consistent backfocusing

« on: August 20, 2012, 12:10:34 AM »

Just wondering if any of you have experienced consistent back/front focusing with your bodies? I know that's what AFMA is for, but all my lenses have a plus (+) adjustment on my 5D3, e.g., my Sigma 50mm 1.4 and my Canon 16-35mm II 2.8 both have +20 dialled in.

Should I bring the body to the service center for a check?

88

Lenses / Re: Any updates on the 24-70 2.8 II lens?

« on: August 15, 2012, 09:03:28 PM »

If they change it to have IS, I don't care if we need to wait another year for it.

24-70 II for over 2 grand with no IS is a joke imo.

The IQ will decide if it makes up for not having IS. Surely there is a level of IQ that people would give up IS for.

89

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: IQ difference of FF vs APS-C?

« on: June 20, 2012, 10:26:08 PM »

So is the IQ difference more on color/contrast/DOF than (low-ISO) noise/sharpness?

90

EOS Bodies - For Stills / IQ difference of FF vs APS-C?

« on: June 20, 2012, 08:28:00 PM »

Hi all, I'm a long-time 7D user contemplating on upgrading to a 5D MkIII. It's known that FF users aren't happy with the 7D's IQ, but how big really is the difference? Is the difference in image quality similar to the IQ difference between a compact (e.g. G12) and an cropped body DSLR (e.g. 7D)? Or am I just expecting too much?