Messages

61

Lenses / Re: 100mm 2.8L Macro IS as a portrait lens

« on: February 01, 2013, 11:12:47 PM »

That is too easy, and I promise I didn't cheat.

The top one is from further away.

Dead wrong.

I'll reveal more after others have had a chance to opine. 

I suppose I should ask folks to explain their reasons since they have a 50/50 chance in guessing, LOL. 

A hint is that if you measure the batteries in shot 1, they are the same size as in shot 2. Same with the spacings.

62

Lenses / Re: 100mm 2.8L Macro IS as a portrait lens

« on: February 01, 2013, 10:57:44 PM »

I just gotta laugh at all of this "proper perspective" stuff...especially all of this stuff about how there are miles of difference between what a 100 does to somebody's face vs a 135.

One shot below is with a 50 and cropped and the other with a 200 and cropped. Which is which (without looking at the EXIF)? The batteries are in a straight line, equally space, and about a 45 degree angle from the focal plane. Nothing was changed between shots. I FX'd them so you can't cheat by going off other possible clues since the question is about only perspective and compression.

That said, I do recognize that there is value in playing games with perspctive and framing (i.e. with focal length) to get a more commercial result. But my point is if you think there is this massive difference between a 100 and a 135 then I sure hope you dont shoot head/shoulders and full bust with the same lens... Or for that matter a kid and adult with the same lens...

63

Lenses / Re: 100mm 2.8L Macro IS as a portrait lens

« on: February 01, 2013, 05:42:44 PM »

All other arguments aside, I've soured on the 100L for the reason that the "soft focus" issue cannot be repaired by Canon. I sent mine in with a short explanation how to test it. $208.93 later it is exactly the same as before. And  Canon USA says they need my 5D3 body in order to fix it despite me telling them I tried another 100L on my 5D3 and it does not have the issue and I also tried the bad 100L on another body and it still has the issue... 

And Canon refuses to refund for a "repair" job that did nothing.

The sad part is, the lens is 14 months old, I've now spent another $208.93 and it stil has issues. Meanwhile my 16 month old Sigma 50 had issues, I sent it in and they fixed for free and it actually works correctly now.

The trick with Canon service dissatisfaction is to send it back, they won't give you your money back but there is a 6 month warranty on the repair, if it still behaves badly then send it back, say the repair is unsatisfactory. Don't stop at the second or third person you talk to either. Both my 16-35 and 24-70 have been in three times, it is hassle and costs postage one way, but it does get sorted in the end, well mine always have been.

I'm just going to contest the charge on my card. I'm not wasting any more time on it and I'm darn sure not sending those idiots my 5D3 body.

64

Lenses / Re: 100mm 2.8L Macro IS as a portrait lens

« on: February 01, 2013, 05:23:32 PM »

All other arguments aside, I've soured on the 100L for the reason that the "soft focus" issue cannot be repaired by Canon. I sent mine in with a short explanation how to test it. $208.93 later it is exactly the same as before. And  Canon USA says they need my 5D3 body in order to fix it despite me telling them I tried another 100L on my 5D3 and it does not have the issue and I also tried the bad 100L on another body and it still has the issue... 

And Canon refuses to refund for a "repair" job that did nothing.

The sad part is, the lens is 14 months old, I've now spent another $208.93 and it stil has the same issue. Meanwhile my 14 month old Sigma 50 had issues, I sent it in, they fixed for free and it actually works correctly now.

65

Lenses / Re: 70-200 IS2 + Canon 1.4x teleconverter question

« on: January 29, 2013, 08:01:21 PM »

Just received the Canon 1.4x TC3 and been trying it with the 70-200 IS2 and have to agree, the combo is very good thru out the zoom range. Pretty amazing just how little the IQ degrades...as in probably not detectable in most blind A/B's of pictures of actual subject matter.

It's the same thing with the 200L f/2.8. Having this kind of IQ @280 f/4 in such a compact, light weight, black package warrants keeping the 200L even though I have the 70-200. Especially if I add a crop body and something this small shoots at 448 equivalent.

Glad I sprung for the Canon piece, nice build, guaranteed compatibility, registers the combo for AFMA. Had some B&H bucks from buying the 70-200 so between that and the current rebate, scored this for $335. 

Thanks again for fielding my questions and what to expect from it.

66

Lenses / Re: Which 50mm (with AF) is best from f/1.4 - f/2.0?

« on: January 29, 2013, 09:05:06 AM »

50 L ... and it always turns into a pissing contest it seems!

You can basically get both the Sigma 35 plus the 50 1.4 lens of your choice for the price of the 50L.

And given the technical warts of the 50L that come with the good, I guess a lot of opinions end up getting expressed?

67

Lenses / Re: Which 50mm (with AF) is best from f/1.4 - f/2.0?

« on: January 28, 2013, 09:28:45 PM »

I actually JUST had the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 delivered today.  I already own the Canon 50mm f/1.4, but just never fell in love with it.  I'm going to take some test shots on my 5Dm3 when I get home, and I'll post them here if anyone's interested.  But there's been a slew of comparisons.  I'm actually more curious to see how a new copy of the Sigma compares, as I've heard the newer copies of the 50mm fair better from an AF perspective.

If your body has it, I'd set AFMA for about a four foot subject distance @f/1.4. Then shoot something at about 40 feet @f/1.4. If it's way OOF at 40 feet, knowing what I know now about the issue, I'd say just send it to Sigma USA as long as you like what you see at 4 feet. They now have a very good fix for this issue in my experience and if you like what you see at 4 feet its probably a copy worth keeping imo. 

Sure it stinks to send in a new lens and many people rail on Sigma about this, and I suppose rightfully so, but its not like Canon doesn't have issues with their 100L and apparently a bunch of them have worse focus issues than the Sigma 50...I know mine does. If you have an affected 100L it is purely a lottery each and every shot whether you get this weird softness that looks kinda like motion blur but not really the same. I know. I just spent $200 to have mine fixed because unlike Sigma's 3 year warranty, Canon only has 1 year. Still waiting to get it back from Canon to see if the $200 actually fixed this lightly used 14 mo old 100L that I paid extra to buy from an authorized dealer ... /rant off

68

Speedlites, Printers, Accessories / Re: Nissin Di866 markII and HSS

« on: January 28, 2013, 07:22:11 PM »

What is the AF assist like on this flash? Is it just a red "spot" light or a grid of some sort? Will it illuminate wide enough for 5D3 outer points?

69

Lenses / Re: Can You Beat it?

« on: January 27, 2013, 10:56:11 PM »

Horsie one isn't great, just to show you the sharpness and bokeh the lens is capable of.

Dang I LOVE speedway. So did red make the pass inside blue? Looks like he has him set up perfectly in that shot...

70

Lenses / Re: Can You Beat it?

« on: January 27, 2013, 10:42:16 PM »

Saw a version I of this lens for 350$ with the built in hood. Didn't buy it. 

LOL, I know you're not a fan of this lens but you could have easily made $200-$300 flipping it. 

71

Lenses / Re: Can You Beat it?

« on: January 27, 2013, 10:37:43 PM »

EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM @ just under $800?

I don't own any L glass.  For this price it looks like a good first L lens for my FF camera.

What do you think?

If you can hang with a fixed 200 length and 200 is what you want then it's exceptional bang for the buck imo. I like mine enough to keep it despite the recent arrival of a 70-200 IS2.

A number of people would recommend the 135 instead, and theres volumes of shots posted showing its a fantastic lens, but it is a different animal and it depends on how much reach you want to in order to decide between them. On FF you're looking at 2.7x magnification (compared to 50mm) vs 4x magnification with the 200 if that helps.

If you're going to buy and then figure out what and how to shoot it, the 135 is imo the better bet. If you know you want the reach of the 200, you will not be disappointed in the least.

72

Lenses / Re: 100mm 2.8L Macro IS as a portrait lens

« on: January 27, 2013, 07:58:08 PM »

Edit 2: I don't know why this particular image is causing issues for you to understand. The 135L is mearly compressing the dogs nose to make it seem closer to the eyes. Thats where the 135L also shines better than the 100L, 35% more compression.

Maybe I missed it elsewhere but the reason I asked for the EXIF is because nowhere is it stated what lens was used. At least not until your edit.

And as for compression, that was not my question. My question had to do with proportions. How was the nose made to look inordinately large compared to the eyes? Not that that is a bad thing, it actually adds to the shot since most people will interpret that as the dog being closer to the viewers face. I did not however think a 135 would do that much of a peep-hole effect...especially now that I see you did it with a crop body...that makes it a 216 equivalent.

73

Lenses / Re: Which 50mm (with AF) is best from f/1.4 - f/2.0?

« on: January 27, 2013, 03:17:25 PM »

FWIW, I have the Sigma, it had the focus issues, I sent it in, its fixed now. On a 5D3 works as expected at all distances.

Here's a 100% crop at f/1.4 of RAW with moderate sharpening in post -> jpg, and maybe it helps you decide if its sharp enough for you or you need to look elsewhere. The left eye of the picture is dead center of the shot so represents the best it is going to be across the frame.

EDIT - below is 100% crop about 2/3 the way towards the left edge @f/2.8. If somebody wants to see a crop of the extreme edge at f/1.4 I'll do one and post it.

EDIT 2 - LOL, I suppose I'll venture into the dangerous and comment subjectively... Based on what I've seen posted elsewhere, the Canon 1.4 renders differently than the Sigma which renders differently than the 50L. Personally, I like what I'm seeing in the 50L shots quite a bit and actually that is when stopped down a bit. But so far, its not enough more so to buy one. Not just yet anyway...

Another edit...the crops are actually truncations of a 100% magnification that are rendered as jpg in a way to retain the same feature size as presented in the full 100% magnification. So purely as a crop they are more like 200% but rendered so that the feature sizes represent 100% magnification @350dpi. Meaning what you see below without opening the shot in a viewer has the same feature sizes as if I posted the non-truncated 100% magnification and you opened it in a viewer and viewed that full screen.

74

Lenses / Re: 100mm 2.8L Macro IS as a portrait lens

« on: January 27, 2013, 10:02:23 AM »

If you look at the snout between the eyes and the nose, you'll see that it's not in sharp focus. That tells you where the focal plane lies.

Either the shot was taken with a lens with movements or the eyes and the tip of the nose are parallel to the film sensor plane.

Now, imagine either the dog tilting his nose down or the photographer standing above him (or some combination of the two), enough to shoot the photo not straight on from the front, but from the top of the head.

Cheers,

b&

I know the anatomy of such a dog and I understand shooting where both the nose and the eyes are in the focal plane, but it still doesn't add up to such a skewed "peep-hole" perspective to me. And given the dog's anatomy seems to require a much more substantial angle from top to get both eyes and nose in focus. But whatever...sometimes I inquire to discover how to do and others I inquire how to avoid.

75

Lenses / Re: 100mm 2.8L Macro IS as a portrait lens

« on: January 27, 2013, 09:30:40 AM »

BUT, can you definitively give the focal length and aperture of RLPhotos' three images?

Assuming little or no cropping, I'm guessing the dog was shot with a 85@4.0 or something along those lines, maybe shorter. The ratio of very large nose to tiny eyes means it was a relatively short lens to get that perspective. The apeture had to be smaller to create enough DOF to keep the nose and eyes both in focus since the dog has a long snout. It will be interesting to see what the actual setup was.

Nope all these images are shot @ f/2. The trick is proper technique to get what you want in focus.
If you can't tell between f/2.8 and f/2, bah you might as well shoot f/4 lenses because you won't be able to tell the difference either.

Then by all means educate us. Tell us how you were able to so distort the face of the dog and make such a massive nose and such small eyes so close together and yet maintain that DOF. We people you can't tell the difference and don't know proper technique want to know how to create these beady eyes and a huge nose peering thru a fog of blurred fur! 

It's called a higher angle in which you tilt the camera down slight to move the plane of focus just enough to get both eyes in focus @ f/2.

Geez, do you guys actually go out and shoot? Its feels like I'm talking to some test chart shooter here.

That doesn't explain the distorted perspective of the huge nose and small close together eyes. To my knowlege, only a relatively short lens and close subject distance creates this "peep hole" type of perspective.

On such a dog, the nose to eyes distance is prabably 6 inches. So I for one would like to know which focal length and subject distance can create the DOF needed to keep both eyes and nose relatively in focus while at the same time skewing the proportions of the dogs face that way.

OK, so now we know you are a democrat.

But I still don't know how you distorted the dogs face proprtions that way and yet kept both his eyes and his nose in relative focus. Hey, I'm just an average snap-shooting hack with more gear than I need, but always willing to learn something new. Maybe just provide the EXIF like everybody else does? That way you won't be troubled with all these questions. If doing that to a dog is your trade secret and you don't want to share the recipe, I suppose I understand.