October 25, 2014, 06:16:02 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 - AJ

Pages: 1 ... 20 21 [22] 23 24 ... 28
316
Lenses / Re: EF 35 f/1.4L II & EF 24-70 f/2.8L II on January 3, 2012? [CR2]
« on: December 10, 2011, 08:24:34 PM »
A key reason for f/2.8 is being able to shoot selective focus and blur background.  Can't do that with IS or high iso.

As for the current 24-70, it seems that there's plenty of room for improvement.  Have a look at the photozone review.  Klaus hates the field curvature thing.
http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/528-canon2470f28ff


317
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS Rebel T4i [CR2]
« on: December 06, 2011, 01:13:22 PM »
Wouldn't it be ironic if the 700D had 24 mpix and the 7D2 had 12 mpix.

Higher-end cam: fewer mpix, less noise, better colors.

318
Lenses / Re: 70-200 f/2.8 II or f/4 vs. 200/2.8 prime
« on: December 05, 2011, 12:25:54 AM »
I own a 200/2.8 and 1.4x and 2x converters.

The lens by itself is very sharp.  With 1.4x it's still quite good.  Stopping down to f/5.6 helps.  I haven't had much luck with the 2x TC.

In all it's a setup capable of producing good or great photos, but without zoom or stabilization it's not user friendly.  A 100-400L IS would definitely be a lot easier to work with.

319
Tamron 17-50/2.8.       Small, sharp, under-the-radar.
Tamron 90/2.8.            Sharp, superb bokeh, just a great lens.
Sigma 10-20/4-5.6       Sharp, really nice ultrawide.
Tokina 10-17                Zoomable fisheye.  Yes it's a cool lens.  Really crisp photos but the purple fringing drives me nuts at times.
Tokina 50-135/2.8        Nice portrait lens.  I don't use it that much though.

320
United States / Re: Prime for 7D?
« on: December 02, 2011, 11:33:30 AM »
I'm with neuranatomist.  17-55/2.8 IS is the way to go.

I've gotten great shots inside museums with my 400D + T17-50/2.8.  A stabilized lens would give you an extra 3 stops.

Another option would be 15-85 IS.  Great travel lens.

321
EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Mark III Information [CR1]
« on: November 30, 2011, 03:44:25 PM »
After painfully wading thru this, I think I can sum it up for those of you who start at the end:

Anyone who wants more megapixels than "me" is an idiot and doesn't understand picture quality.
Anyone who wants fewer MP than "me" doesn't do real photography.
Ansel Adams still rocks.

I didn't wade through all of it.

I'm skeptical of an 18 mpix sensor for 5D3.  Why would Canon put its new flagship 1Dx sensor in a lower class body right away?  Doesn't make sense to me.  I'm still thinking 36 Mpix.  Canon will respond to Nikon in this regard.

FWIW, the diffraction thing.  36 mpix is the same pixel density as 14 mpix on crop.  So from my experience with 18 mpix and 10 mpix crop sensors: you're good at f/6.3, okay at f/8.  At f/11 you start to see degradation and f/16 is for smaller prints only.

People have fretted about the diffraction thing every time a new crop sensor has come out.  IMHO 36 FF (and 14 mpix crop) is just about optimal, and beyond that, you start to get into diminishing returns.


322
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Rebel 1000D Lost at Sea
« on: November 28, 2011, 12:36:39 AM »
I heard the photos were great, but the colors were a little oversaturated.

323
EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Mark III - which lens will Canon put into the kit?
« on: November 24, 2011, 01:02:35 PM »
I vote 24-104/4L IS mk2

324
My prediction for noise improvement of 5D3 over 5D2, on a pixel-by-pixel basis: there will be none.

1Dx will be the high iso cam.  5D3 will be the high mpix cam.

325
Lenses / Re: prime vs. zoom
« on: November 21, 2011, 01:02:13 PM »
I'd get a stabilized standard zoom (e.g. 18-135 or 15-85) plus a prime (e.g. 50/1.4), then save up for a long lens.

A standard zoom will make your rig much more versatile.  If bought as a kit with the camera body, the incremental cost makes it very good value.

55-250 could be a good stop-gap long lens until you're able to afford (and know what you want) for a faster long lens.

Have fun

326
Lenses / Re: Your Go To Portrait Lens?
« on: November 20, 2011, 03:27:10 PM »
I like my Tokina 50-135/2.8 and Canon 85/1.8


327
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: APS-C Image Quality (7d vs nex7)
« on: November 17, 2011, 11:57:21 AM »
The Sony NEX photo looks oversharpened.

Something's wrong with the 7D photo.  My 7D gives me much sharper results at 100%

328
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 100-400 f/4-5.6L IS "Soonish" [CR2]
« on: November 16, 2011, 10:39:24 AM »
The size of the front element is not what determines the f-stop.

It pretty much does for telephoto lenses.  e.g. the 200/2.8 has a 72 mm front element.

For normal and wide lenses the front element is not what decides f-stop.  This critical lens element is towards the rear.

If this lens is indeed a 100-400/4-5.6 with a 82 mm front element then the extra front element size may ease vignetting at the short end.   I doubt it would do much for the long end.

329
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 100-400 f/4-5.6L IS "Soonish" [CR2]
« on: November 14, 2011, 11:24:07 AM »
The 70-200/2.8 IS mk2 managed to improve performance without increasing front element size.  Ditto for 300/2.8 and 400/2.8.  I don't see why they'd have to do it with a 100-400.  FWIW, comparison with ultrawides isn't valid, optical design is very different.  As such there must be another reason for the increased size.

In theory, a 82 mm front element would allow 500 mm at f/6.3.

A 100-500/4-6.3 would be pretty exciting, and worth the high price tag if it performs at the long end.
And yes it would autofocus even at f/6.3


330
Canon General / Re: Filters: Cokin P Series "Equivalent" quandary
« on: November 02, 2011, 06:02:11 PM »
crop

Pages: 1 ... 20 21 [22] 23 24 ... 28