March 01, 2015, 12:00:52 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 - SwampYankee

Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 ... 12
Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 50mm f/1.4
« on: September 12, 2013, 08:53:03 PM »
The 50 1.8 II is the superior and more reliable lens.

I would hazard a guess that you are in a minority with that position.  The 50 F/1.8 is sharp and a stellar value, but it lacks virtually everything else.

As much maligned as the 50 F/1.4 is, the 50 F/1.8 has greater issues.  Pentagonal bokeh, cheap build and a comically slow (and noisy!) focusing plague this lens.

It's a great starter lens in getting use to primes, using larger apertures, etc. but unless you are shooting non-moving objects at stopped down apertures, I'd choose the F/1.4 ten times out of ten over the F/1.8.

- A

But the 1.4 breaks more often the the 1.8 and yet you say the build quality is better?  bang the 1.4 on the nose and it breaks.  fragile as is this better build quality?  I've had 3 1.4's they all broke.  i have an old metal mount 1.8 for 25 years...never broke.  yet you say the 1.4 has better build?  what does that mean?

Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 50mm f/1.4
« on: September 12, 2013, 01:26:08 PM »
"While the outer shell of the 50mm 1.4 is clearly stronger than the 50mm 1.8"  Pure B.S!  The internet is full of cases of people and videos repairing their Canon 50mm 1.4.  A moderately sharp bump to the front usually breaks the auto-focusing.  It is a notoriously fragile lens.  Boken is better than the 1.8 bit after 5.6 the 1.8 is noticeably sharper than the 1.4.  So, the 1.4 is more fragile than the 1.8, less sharp than the 1.8 and smaller apertures and costs 3x as much.  It's the least desirable of the Canon 50mm lenses.   I have a 25 year old metal mount 1.8 that could beat the pants off of the 1.4 and you can pick one up for 100 bucks.  The difference between 1.4 and 1.8 with a camera with a modern sensor is meaningless, both are really, really fast.  both are really really sharp.  Certainly not worth a triple price premium .  This review sounds like someone trying to justify a recent purchase that they have clearly over paid for

Lenses / Re: Advice sought on Cropped Frame Wide Lens
« on: August 29, 2013, 07:58:09 AM »
On a crop frame Canon you really need to consider the Tokina AT-X 116 PRO DX.  11-16 mm, sharper and faster than anything Canon offers in this range.  Built like a tank, great optics and fast.  I loved mine so much that when I moved to full frame I immediately upgraded the lens to the FF version.

Lenses / Re: 50/50 for 50?
« on: August 25, 2013, 02:14:04 PM »
The 1.4 supposedly has better build quality but breaks more often and is not as sharp. 

At the middle aperture values, maybe. At f/2 or wider, though, the f/1.4 is far superior in both sharpness and bokeh quality.

Thats about right, not a vast difference.  They are close and after f4 they go back and forth depending and if you are looking at center or edge.  Either one is likely to be the sharpest lens in your bag.  you would be hard pressed to pick out the difference except for the bokeh, which is better on the 1.4.  Both are sharper than the 1.2L.  I was going to upgrade to the 1.4 but the old 1.8 has the metal mount like the 1.4.  The 1.8 feels flimsy but can take a hit.  I know of 2 photographers who bumped into stuff with their 1.4 and it stripped the nylon gears or something in the IS so I'd sit tight with the 1.8.  With todays sensor you can shoot in pretty low light so the difference between the 1.2, 1.4 and 1.8 is slight.  I'd sit tight.  I suspect, without a shred of evidence, that they will offer something new in 50mm range.  Probably an IS f2.  If it was super, super sharp I might be tempted but with Canons current pricing I can thing of better things to do with the $700 bucks it will cost.  The really good news is, not matter what 50mm you have in your bag, it;s the sharpest lens you own

Lenses / Re: 50/50 for 50?
« on: August 25, 2013, 09:39:21 AM »
50 1.8 II is a sharp, lens.  Spending more doesn't make sense considering the options. the 1.2L is fast, but much bigger, much heavier and really expensive.  The 1.4 supposedly has better build quality but breaks more often and is not as sharp.  Whats troubling you about the 1.8? only thing I think could be improved is the bokeh is a bit less than stellar due to the 5 blade design.  Heck, I'm on a 20+ plus year old 50 1.8 and I have not yet found a reason to upgrade

PowerShot / Re: Canon PowerShot G16 Announced
« on: August 22, 2013, 12:15:33 PM »
Anybody else find the small sensor size uncompelling enough and the price close enough to a good micro 4/3 to just sit this out and figure I can get a better small walk around camera?  I have an S-95 for my backup and in my work bag and I see no reason to upgrade.  At this price point I am half way to a Sony NEX-6 and lens.

Software & Accessories / Re: Best bag for hiking with a camera?
« on: August 16, 2013, 01:28:16 PM »
Easy Question.  I just finished 3 days of hiking around the Shawangunk Mountains with essentially the same set up.  The best camera bag for you is any one that holds a Fujifilm x100s.  I'll keep my Canon but these hikes have sealed the deal.  the 5DIII is just too much camera to haul around on long hikes scrambling up and down rock slides.  I found myself not going to places I wanted to because the gear was too heavy.  If you want to go on longer hikes you are much better off bringing a smaller (but still excellent) camera and more water.  save weight, go further, haul less gear.

Lenses / Re: Lens flare.... I want it! :)
« on: August 01, 2013, 08:25:00 AM »
The Tokina AT-X 16-28mm F2.8 Pro FX flares only when exposed to light, then it flares like crazy! :)
A seriously great lens with a serious flare problem.  BTW if you like lens flare see any J.J. Abrams movie.  I think he shoots them all with the Tokina

Software & Accessories / Re: Macro gear suggestions for 5DIII?
« on: July 25, 2013, 02:21:24 PM »
or this? 5DIII, 100mm 2.8L monopod

Software & Accessories / Re: Macro gear suggestions for 5DIII?
« on: July 25, 2013, 02:19:07 PM »
I have a 5DIII and the 100mm 2.8L.  The image stabilization doesn't really work that well for real macro work.  WOnderfull as a medium, low light telephoto, but not great for macro.  I have a flash rig, but the the thing that works best is a simple monopod.  I picked up the canon one for 30 bucks.  Easy to carry, not nearly as cumbersome as a tripod and allows you to get really close to bugs and flowers with minimal fuss.  I usually go with a f9 or f11, apature priority and let the camera choose the ISO.  How's this?

Lenses / Re: 50 F1.4 durabilty question
« on: July 10, 2013, 08:26:26 AM »
This won't work with all drops but I have some simple advise that may save some.  When you drop something, stick your foot out to break the fall.  Practice this with all things.  Many times this will break the fall enough to prevent damage.  This will work when you drop something while you are standing (changing lenses) but obviously will not help with something that falls off the camera.  I've save a number of lenses this way.  The downside, reflex.  Once I opened the freeze and a frozen chicken slid out.  I put out my food to break the fall.  Good for the chicken....not so good for my foot :-)

Lighting / Re: On Camera Flash: Direct or Bounce, candid.
« on: June 20, 2013, 10:59:48 AM »
If I am anywhere near a wall I turn it backwards so it generally hits the spot where the wall meets the ceiling.  you pick up some odd color casts but as I shoot in RAW it's fairly easy to correct.  Only downside is the eyes don't pick up any catch lights so you might just want to aim it straight up and make sure and stick your hand right behind the light as a reflector instead of the little white plastic thing.  You get more fill and it's a touch warmer than the white thing

Software & Accessories / Re: Adobe Releases Lightroom 5
« on: June 10, 2013, 08:40:22 PM »
Just downloaded the upgrade.  Best feature so far?  Hit the F key and get true full screen.  It's now that easy.

Lenses / Re: 70-200L f/4 IS vs 70-200L f/4
« on: June 05, 2013, 08:53:06 AM »
I have had the same 70-200L f4 non IS for years and never found a reason to upgrade.  I did upgrade to a 5DIII and if it's possible the lens looks sharper on the FF.  It's a great, sharp lens. you could get a faster lens, you could get an IS lens but you will pay significantly for the upgrade and you really don't get much optically.  If the money is burning a hole in your pocket why not look at the 400L 5.6?  With a crop camera you have some real telephoto fire power.  Probably won't be able to hand hold that one though

EOS-M / Re: EF-M 11-22mm f/4-5.6 IS STM Announcement Soon? [CR2]
« on: June 03, 2013, 01:20:28 PM »
Is Canon even aware of some of the great sharp fast lenses around for Micro Four Thirds?  This lens is really slow.  Canon just does't seem up to the challenge.  This camera is a bad investment.  It will be gone in a year or two. With the presumed death of compact cameras Canon will start to lose revenue.  a business plan of doubling the price of all of their new cameras lenses does not seem to be a good long term plan

Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 ... 12