Messages

301

Lenses / Re: wide angle lens

« on: September 06, 2011, 06:25:51 PM »

Which one can capture the most of the area without getting any significant distortions (fisheye type)?


Try Sigma 12-24 mk2.  It's not particularly fast, though.  But 12 mm is crazy wide.

If you want speed there's Canon 24/1.4

Which one is the best?  There's no answer to that.  Canon 16-35/2.8 is a good compromise between wideness, speed, focal length range, and image quality.

302

EOS Bodies / Re: Having Multiple Camera Systems

« on: September 06, 2011, 05:22:54 PM »

I agree with cornershot.

How about: 600D
17-55/2.8 IS
85/1.8 or 100/2

I've shot weddings, family gatherings, and gone traveling for months on end with a similar setup.  It's very versatile and will net you great image quality.  I'd add 55-250/4-5.6 IS for general outdoor telephoto shooting.

If the 17-55/2.8 IS is too big and heavy then consider Tamron 17-50/2.8 non-VC.  Deadly sharp, small, under-the-radar lens that delivers again and again.

303

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Lens Mug - Giveaway

« on: August 30, 2011, 09:05:37 PM »

I'd like to see a built-in espresso maker.

To fill that lens mug, of course!

304

Lenses / Re: Lens for a big sun in the pictures

« on: August 21, 2011, 11:24:26 AM »

Actually, the moon and the sun are two subjects that are great for mirror lenses.  They don't move very fast (manual focus, live-view), they're bright, and you won't see any bad bokeh.

As for 300/4, sure, that would be nice.  But it's an expensive lens, and you won't need aperture; you'll be stopping down!  So 70-300/4-5.6 gets you the same thing.  That said, you could mount a 1.4x TC on a 300/4.

That may be true, but not for $119.00 price, and 500-800 mm focal range. When you go in to some really large focal lengths, size and amount of heavy glass simply makes physically impossible to build classic telescopes.

This is a shot taken with the basic Meade ETX125 mirror lens which is 1900mm and f15, taken of the flimsy tracking mechanism and mounted on old and pretty heavy Benbo tripod. The moon do not fit in the frame so this is composite of two shots, at manual exposure of 1/500s, some adjustments for sharpness and noise reduction.

Nice photo.

I'm not saying that mirror lenses are the best tool for photographing the moon.
I'm saying that the moon is one of the best subjects for a mirror lens.

Here's some stuff on mirror lenses:
http://mirrorlens.blogspot.com/

305

Lenses / Re: Lens for a big sun in the pictures

« on: August 20, 2011, 11:42:03 PM »

Actually, the moon and the sun are two subjects that are great for mirror lenses.  They don't move very fast (manual focus, live-view), they're bright, and you won't see any bad bokeh.

As for 300/4, sure, that would be nice.  But it's an expensive lens, and you won't need aperture; you'll be stopping down!  So 70-300/4-5.6 gets you the same thing.  That said, you could mount a 1.4x TC on a 300/4.

306

Lenses / Re: Samyang 24 f/1.4 is coming

« on: August 17, 2011, 11:05:44 AM »

I wonder when Samyang is going to produce a fast fifty.

307

Lenses / Re: Why not EF-s "L" lenses?

« on: August 02, 2011, 05:11:56 PM »

Forget about Sigma.  Nikkor 35/1.8 DX with AF-S autofocus is the competition that Canon will answer to.  The Nikkor is a really nice lens.  Hopefully Canon will match it, and hopefully they'll do it sooner rather than later.

308

Lenses / Re: why????

« on: July 25, 2011, 04:03:53 PM »

I agree with you, Unfocused, that APSC isn't going away.  It's the new 35 mm.  Quality is good enough for most folks including myself.

I'm generally a defender of Canon, but I am really having some doubts about their lens division. I'm just not sure it shares the same vision as the rest of the SLR unit. Seriously, look at the lenses they've chosen to introduce over the past few years: updates of massive supertelephotos that fill a tiny niche market, a nice quality 70-300 mm L zoom that the jury is still out on whether there is any market for it; a specialty fisheye zoom that also fits a narrow niche audience and which they can't even seem to bring to market anyway.

In the meantime the SLR division brought out the 7D and 60D, two higher-end APS-C bodies, and aside from the 15-85 mm zoom, there have been no corresponding lenses released.

Imagine the sales jump they'd have if they introduced an EF-S 100-400mm f4? Lighter, faster and about the same price as the current full frame 100-400. Sports and wildlife photographers would be lining up to buy that lens and 7D combination. (Now before all the nitpickers start picking away, this is only an example of the creative options that the lens division could be following if they were to get with the EF-S program like their SLR brethren have gotten with the crop sensor program.)

I have to wonder if the lens division needs more forward-thinking management.

Well they did put out a few consumer zooms like 18-135 and 18-200.  Yawn.  The 60/2.8 macro is pretty nice though.  Goes to show that Canon aren't opposed in principle to EF-S primes.

Still sorely missing is a cheapo 30/1.8  Hello, paging Canon?  Must counter Nikon on this??

17-55/2.8 IS is a nice lens but it's hideously overpriced.  It should be around 700 bucks.  I'm thinking about selling mine.

Now that Tokina and Sigma have discontinued their 55-135/2.8 and 55-150/2.8 respectively (OS version on the way supposedly) there's a gaping hole out there for a quality 55-something portrait zoom lens.  IMO an EF-S 55-135/2.8 IS is sorely needed.  And this lens shouldn't cost more than 1200 bucks.

FWIW, 100-400/4 would have a 100 mm front element regardless of its imaging circle.  Huge size+price jump.  Sigma's new 120-300/2.8 OS has more than a few folks salivating though.  Now there's a sports+nature lens.

309

Lenses / Re: Using EF-S lens on FF body???

« on: July 25, 2011, 11:42:14 AM »

What's the attraction of using EF-S lenses on FF bodies ?

There is no focal length gain

I think the point is being able to shoot short focal lengths, dual use of gear for those who have both FX and DX gear, and also just messing around for fun.

I've mounted my Tokina 10-17 fisheye on my A2E body and looked through the viewfinder.  If I zoom just right I can get 180 deg diagonal coverage, i.e. no real need for me to buy a FF fisheye.  Now, my A2E doesn't have 100% viewfinder coverage so I will need to extrapolate a bit to get the exact corner-to-corner coverage.  At 10 mm I can get close to circular fisheye coverage (top and bottom are cropped a little).

I should divulge that I haven't run any film through my camera with this lens mounted.

310

Lenses / Re: Quick question RE: 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6

« on: July 17, 2011, 01:44:27 PM »

It's called zoom creep.  Some lenses are prone to it.  Annoying when you have the camera around your neck.

Some lenses come with a zoom lock attached so that this doesn't happen, but the zoom lock typically only works at the shortest focal length.

If you're taking a shot at a high angle - e.g. time exposure of stars, shooting macro downward on a tripod, etc. - you can tape the zoom in place with a piece of gaffer tape.

311

EOS Bodies / Re: Biased Reviewing & the consequences.

« on: July 15, 2011, 02:08:02 PM »

The D7000 is arguably the best crop camera on the market today, sensor wise.  It should be receiving glowing reviews.  It's an awesome camera.  I wonder what those folks who were disappointed with this camera were expecting.

312

Lenses / Re: Lens recommendations for t2i crop sensor

« on: July 12, 2011, 12:44:40 PM »

I've had focus issues with my 17-55/2.8 IS as well.  On my 7D it required a large amount of adjustment (+18).  Strangely, on my 400D this lens focuses perfectly.

Koolman: one more budget-friendly option is Tamron 17-50/2.8 non-VR.  It's about 400 bucks.  I own this lens and I like it a lot.  It's easily my most used lens.  Deadly sharp.  But there's no stabilization of course.  The lens works great for indoor shooting with or without flash.On a drebel the Tamron is better weighted, while on a 7D the heavier Canon 17-55/2.8 IS is more balanced.

I also hear good things about Sigma 17-50/2.8 OS.  It's a little cheaper than the Canon.  I haven't used this lens myself.

Another option is a fast prime like Sigma 30/1.4.  I own this lens too.  It's got superb bokeh, easily matching or surpassing lenses like Canon 85/1.8 or Tamron 90/2.8 macro.  It's sharp in the center but the borders are weak, even when stopped down, so really it's useful for selective-focus shots only.  Somehow I don't end up using this lens very much.  I suppose it all boils down to personal shooting style.

313

Lenses / Re: New lens or body?

« on: July 06, 2011, 07:45:46 PM »

Time to upgrade from the kit lens.  Your camera body is just fine.

Mt. Spokane's suggestions of 17-55/2.8 IS or 15-85/3.5-5.6 IS are good ones.  I have the 17-55 and it's a very good lens.

If you're into landscape, maybe start thinking about an ultrawide.  Canon 10-22, Tokina 11-16/2.8, Sigma 8-16, or similar.  I have a Sigma 10-20 that I'm very happy with.

As for the long end, things can get pretty expensive pretty quickly.  You have 70-300.  Your idea of 70-200/2.8 with extenders is not bad, but a lot of folks gravitate to 100-400/4.5-5.6 L IS.  It's a very convenient lens and it delivers in the quality dept.  I have a 200/2.8 and extenders, but I don't recommend this setup to others - no zoom, no IS.

I'd skip the 24-70/2.8 L.  This lens is only really worth it for full-frame shooting IMO.

I've been shooting for about 4 years ...  I like doing it a lot so that's all that really matters.
Yes indeed that's all that matters!

314

EOS Bodies / Re: Which Canon 60D Kit Lens? (Plus 550D)

« on: July 06, 2011, 02:39:24 PM »

Hunt around a little and you may find a 60D + 15-85 kit combo.

Here's one in my city, Calgary Canada.  I know it doesn't help you being over in the UK, but you may find something locally.
https://www.thecamerastore.com/products/kits/canon/canon-eos-60d-15-85mm-f35-56-usm

315

EOS Bodies / Re: End of the APS-H sized CMOS?

« on: June 29, 2011, 03:12:16 PM »

What if:

Canon were to start making FF sensors with two pixel densities: one very dense (perhaps 32 or 36 mpix) for those 3-4 fps 5D and 1Ds series cameras, and a lower density (maybe 24 or 18) mpix sensor for a 1D series camera.

The lower pixel density FF sensor would give unprecedented high-iso performance and allow huge fps.  It'd be great for sports, journalism, things like that.  It'd be great for video too!

Question then is of cost.  Right now APS-H sensors are only put into 1D cameras.  Would it be cheaper for Canon to produce two formats only?  Would a low-density FF sensor cost significantly more than a APS-H sensor with similar pixel count?

Cost of a sensor is relative to the size, pixel count is not important.  Canon has a good white paper explaining this. 

http://www.scribd.com/doc/38542576/Canon-Cmos-Wp

Production costs for a full-frame sensor can exceed twenty times the costs for an APS-C sensor. Only 20 full-frame sensors will fit on an 8-inch (200 mm) silicon wafer, and yield is comparatively low because the sensor's large area makes it very vulnerable to contaminants—20 evenly distributed defects could theoretically ruin an entire wafer. Additionally, the full-frame sensor requires three separate exposures during the photolithography stage, tripling the number of masks and exposure processes.[

True.  But there has to be some savings in mass production?


Right now they can make a 5D2 for less than a 1D4.  Yes I know there's a huge difference in build.  But it goes to show that sensors aren't the only thing determining camera cost.


Another thought: Maybe Canon can't beat Nikon in the high-iso department unless they increase the size of the sensor?