March 01, 2015, 06:26:49 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 - skitron

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 35
Lenses / Re: Anyone own the Canon EF 200mm f/2.8 L II?
« on: January 09, 2015, 10:45:38 AM »
I've owned it concurrently with the 70-200 IS2, sold the 200 L II. Optically, they are about the same...pixel peeping comparisons would sway me one direction or the other depending on the shot, they are that close.

I miss the light weight, small size, black color, low cost of ownership. I don't miss the lack of IS and lack of zoom. It's definitely a trade off between these two choices. After lugging around the 70-200 and considering how much $ I have tied up in it, I almost wish I kept the 200 and sold the IS2 instead. They are that close. But for the time being, I'll keep enjoying the IS and zoom...and the upper body workout from lugging around the IS2...

If the IS2 is out of the picture for you, the 200 L II is a superb lens IMO if that's the length you want. Very fast AF, and IQ is in the top 3 Canon "bang for buck" category IMO. And yes, if you practice good holding and shutter button technique it is quite manageable shooting handheld. And of course a monopod is also an option that is still light weight an compact should you need it. And ditto the excellent results using it with a 1.4 TC III.

This was a test shot with no ambient light except for a low window light that hit the tree on the left, otherwise just the full moon for illumination. Distortion corrected with PTLens.

Lenses / Re: Any ideas on getting good focus when shooting thru glass pane?
« on: December 27, 2014, 06:35:03 PM »
The glass may be squeaky clean, but it's not optical glass and is likely not very flat on either surface.  If a MF shot doesn't look good either, then that's your issue.  Using telephoto magnifies the problem.

Apparently this is the problem at my house. Closer I get to the glass, worse the problem manifests. I tried MF, IS-off, then did an "angle shot" of a flat textured surface I often do in order to spot check AFMA, and noticed the center zone was blurred, but it gets progressively blurrier forward or backward, meaning it is in as much focus as it is going to get shooting thru the pane... LOL, guess I'll have to research if I can get replacement panes for a few places that will do better...

Reviews / Re: Rokinon 14mm f/2.8 Wide Angle Review
« on: December 27, 2014, 06:24:02 PM »
Just bought this lens used (v2) and it is everything Dustin said...very pleased once I read this thread and saw info on the focus scale thing that agreed with what I found in mine. I also saw extremeinstability's review and shots and it sold me on this lens for nightscapes. Thanks to both of you for your info.

I'll add a couple of things to the thread not already mentioned:

1) The "PTLens" distortion correction app has a good profile for this lens, and is a good option for those not using Photoshop or another tool with correction that will work for this lens. PTLens runs as a PS plugin, a stand alone app, or as an external editor for LR or Capture One. I zoomed 400% and pixel peeped the before and after, and the after is very clean IMO.

2) Seems there are a number of new AF confirm chips coming out of China that are programmable and work with 5D3, will be trying one soon on this lens, will post results if anyone interested...

Lenses / Any ideas on getting good focus when shooting thru glass pane?
« on: December 23, 2014, 04:27:44 PM »
Wife tried shooting XTi with 70-200 IS2 + 1.4 TC3 through glass pane for birds at feeders. The focus confirms, but results are horrible. I put the lens setup on my 5D3 and get the same horrible results.

When shooting the same distance without glass pane in the path, focus is dead on for both cameras. The glass pane is squeaky clean.

Any ideas? I'd guess trying a polarizer but I don't have one the correct size...

Canon EF Zoom Lenses / Re: Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM
« on: November 26, 2014, 12:06:28 AM »
Cat picture...ISO 800, f/4.5, 1/1000s, 200mm...and some ducks...ISO 200, f/4.5, 1/60s, 200mm...Houston Zoo...Capture One Pro 8

Forgot to add...the weird bokeh in the cat pic is due to the fact it was shot thru a chain link fence...

Canon General / Re: Does Canon really deserve this?
« on: November 22, 2014, 11:42:27 PM »
My guess is that Canon has probably been dragging their feet on announcing higher pixel count bodies until they got a number of lens updates done. Doesn't make much sense to put out a hirez body only to offer older lenses that mask any benefits. Of course DR is another story, but for me, I rarely shoot at base ISO anyway.

Canon EF Zoom Lenses / Re: Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM
« on: November 22, 2014, 10:28:15 PM »
Cat picture...ISO 800, f/4.5, 1/1000s, 200mm...and some ducks...ISO 200, f/4.5, 1/60s, 200mm...Houston Zoo...Capture One Pro 8

Lenses / Re: 70-200 2.8 II or 100 2.8L and 135 2 and 200 2.8
« on: October 30, 2014, 10:17:28 PM »
Went thru similar choice...still have the 70-200 f2.8 is2, 100L. The 200L 2.8 was virtually identical iq, but black, small, light, inexpensive. But zoom won out in the end, though I really dislike the size/weight of the 70-200, but for me I need the 2.8 for low light... If low light is not an issue, hard to beat a 24- 105 and 70- 200 f4 pair.

Lenses / Re: Sigma 50mm Art on Canon 50D Focus issues
« on: June 03, 2014, 10:48:18 PM »
I had a 50d and 5d2 at the same time and was able to compare focus accuracy and was able to test and repeat results showing my 50d had a much larger in focus zone than the 5d2. This meant I had not so good percentages of in focus shots with my 50d using fast primes while the same lens did fine on my 5d2 and now 5d3. I liked the 50d except for that fact. It was fine with smaller apertures.

Lenses / Re: Seeking quick advice
« on: May 22, 2014, 03:40:49 PM »
One question I'd ask is do you really want/need a fast prime for portrait? I'm not a portrait shooter but have read (mainly here)  how pro portrait shooters are often stopping down to get enough dof to keep the model's features all in reasonable focus. In that situation the 24-105 and the 70-200 may both be worth consideration for that application.

Lenses / Re: Review: Sigma 50mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art Lens
« on: May 14, 2014, 07:28:21 PM »
But I will take a stab at it and say this is done by Canon, a small disturbance in the firmware that handles AF communication. Would be VERY interesting to try my lens mount converted to a Sigma camera.

I rather doubt it is Canon firmware since it would be a pain to write code to make it drift after a period of time. Now making it have random misses all the time is a different story, that would be easy to code. Who only knows if Canon would bother with such a thing....

Lenses / Re: Thinking about the Sigma 1.4 Art
« on: May 13, 2014, 10:49:09 PM »
I tend to agree the fast 50 probably isn't so needed if you have a 24-70  mk2.

IMO, shallow dof is nice at times but I often find myself stopping down quite a bit to get more dof.  Even considering  a m43  just for the increased dof... Obviously the dof question depends on what you shoot, tastes, etc. But I don't know that the art 50 is going to be all that different than the 24-70 mk2 at 50mm and same stop for anything other than pixel peeping. So m thinking shallower dof is the main reason to get an art 50 if you have a 24-70 mk2.

As for extenders, I like the 1.4x 3 with the 70-200 is2. That gets you to 280mm at f/4 with very little loss in iq. I suppose another option  for more length is maybe an aps-c, which is 1.6x for calculating. With the 280mm from above, aps-c would get you to 448mm. So may be an option if you want to do 2 bodies.

Lenses / Re: Review: Sigma 50mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art Lens
« on: May 13, 2014, 05:26:07 PM »
It might be time to give the Sigma bodies a serious look if they work well with their current glass. Anyone know of any credible reviews of their current bodies?

I read a review Michael Reichmann's (Luminous Landscape) review of the DP2M (which uses the Foveon X3 sensor) that raved about it.  Was it credible?  Well, he listed one of the cons as "poor image quality above ISO 400."  I find it hard to rave about a camera with ISO performance similar to some of the earliest CMOS sensors, but if all you do is shoot at ISO 100, maybe you can consider a Sigma body.

I'm all for just using something that works. That said, I actually deleted my post after reading some reviews on B&H, apparently while you were replying... High ISO is very important to me, so the Sigma body is a non starter. Plus some complained about af...

Lenses / Re: Review: Sigma 50mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art Lens
« on: May 13, 2014, 04:27:32 PM »
wow i cant believe the near hysteria this caused

Yeah, well we're all either fanbois with no objectivity or Canon-bashers with no objectivity, right?  ::)

Two reviews have noted AF issues with the lens, other reviews have not (though many reviews don't actually test AF performance).  Maybe Roger Cicala will get a large batch and provide some solid evidence one way or the other.

heres hoping roger can get a batch and test. his batch testing seems to provide the most objective and comprehensive analysis of lenses available. also if there are issues I hope they can be sorted with the sigma dock and the issues aren't random and all over the place like the old 50 was (well for me anyway) its odd that my wifes 5Dmk3 seems to have no problem with this lens and is providing amazing images wide open with remarkable AF consistency where as for me it was all over the place...

That is odd that it would be so different on identical bodies.

My dg did the roulette thing until I sent it to Sigma, has been decent,but not perfect since though. LOL, maybe the art has to be returned to them as well before it works?

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 35