August 23, 2014, 11:37:58 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 - ecka

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 41
1
Lenses / Re: A New Pancake Lens? [CR1]
« on: Today at 10:42:24 AM »
The 44mm flange distance makes a non retrofocus (ie pancake) 24mm EF or EF-S lens unlikely.

Really? 'Pancake' does not have to preclude 'retrofocus'.





http://www.voigtlaender.de/cms/voigtlaender/voigtlaender_cms.nsf/id/pa_fdih8vxb7z.html

Well, proportionally, FD 50mm f/0.95 is a pancake too :D


2
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Samyang Teases New Lenses
« on: August 22, 2014, 05:07:45 PM »
I'm not sure, 50mm is kind of a standard do-it-all prime, and I would like it to have AF :). My 40mm pancake with some extension tubes can do macro as well. The 1:2 mag. would require a tube too, but its working distance is unusable for hunting insects. The AF 50/2 Macro would be great though, I would trade my 40 for that.


EDIT: I know some people have like 8 different 50(ish)mm lenses in their bags for whatever reason :). I'm not that guy.

For some an F/2 50mm that can do good but not fully macro is a multi use lens, I own the Zeiss partly because it allowed to me replace a standard 50mm AND a stanardish macro. Price there though is probably an issue for a lot of people, I managed to get the Zeiss fairly cheap used but no way would I pay full wack for it.

And by cheap you mean $1000 (give or take) ? :)
I'm sure that Makro-Planar 50/2 is a nice lens (and possibly a dream lens for videography :) ), but, like you, I really can't justify buying $1300 manual focus lens, which won't even be my primary tool for macro. Zeiss Makro-Planar 100/2 is $600 more and still needs a tube for 1:1 macro. I doubt that anything can beat my Sigma 150/2.8 at the moment.

3
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Samyang Teases New Lenses
« on: August 21, 2014, 06:53:19 PM »
Quote
That's because they are VDSLR lenses and therefore made so you can pull the aperture as well as the focus.

I don't speak about the aperture-ring, of course they have one. I just speak about composing the picture at the full open aperture, but the aperture is closing automatically on taking the shot. This is controlled electronically with a chip in the lens.

And they're not all VDSLR-Lenses, mostly exist two variants... for exaple one for still cameras (35mm f1.4) and the video one (35mm t1.5)

Actually Samyang did update their 35/1.4 with electronic aperture (the Canon AE version). Let's hope that all the new lenses will come with AE by default.

4
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Samyang Teases New Lenses
« on: August 21, 2014, 04:59:37 PM »
What Samyang should really do is designing a nice MACRO LENS or two (like 100mm and 200mm). Good manual focus ring works beautifully for macro photography and there is little need for AF, if at all.

Maybe the 50mm will be a semi macro as well? Zeiss's 50mm and 100mm f/2 2:1 macros don't really have much competision besides the Tamron 60mm f/2.

I'm not sure, 50mm is kind of a standard do-it-all prime, and I would like it to have AF :). My 40mm pancake with some extension tubes can do macro as well. The 1:2 mag. would require a tube too, but its working distance is unusable for hunting insects. The AF 50/2 Macro would be great though, I would trade my 40 for that.


EDIT: I know some people have like 8 different 50(ish)mm lenses in their bags for whatever reason :). I'm not that guy.

5
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Samyang Teases New Lenses
« on: August 21, 2014, 11:11:16 AM »
What Samyang should really do is designing a nice MACRO LENS or two (like 100mm and 200mm). Good manual focus ring works beautifully for macro photography and there is little need for AF, if at all.

6
Animal Kingdom / Re: Show your Bird Portraits
« on: August 17, 2014, 02:32:26 AM »

IMG_0513 by ecka84, on Flickr

7
Lenses / Re: Help deciding on going full frame
« on: August 16, 2014, 03:22:31 PM »
Have both!  I have the 6D and 7D.  Each has its strong points.  However, I tend to shoot wide more than tele, and FF gives me that.  You can always crop narrower but never wider!

You can stitch ;).

8
Lenses / Re: Help deciding on going full frame
« on: August 16, 2014, 11:26:16 AM »
Thanks for your replies so far.  To answer one question - yes I shoot in raw and process in Lightroom.  My ideal solution would be a 24-105 mkii with equivalent sharpness to the other recent releases from Canon, but it doesn't seem likely this is going to be released.  Purchasing the 6D with 24-105 plus the 16-35 f4 will cost in the vicinity of $4000 aus, which I am prepared to pay to get the quality if the 24-105 on FF will deliver significantly sharper images than the 18-135 STM on crop.  However if this isn't the case then I can probably do a 7d mkii body and keep the rest of my kit for around $1500 aus (guessing at the price here). 
I accept the 24-104 won't be in quite the same league as the other 2 L zooms, but will it be significantly better than what I have now?

Well, sometimes my 500D with 18-55IS produced perfectly nice and sharp images and 7D wasn't that much different. Now 6D is just delivering it most of the time (instead of sometimes) even with non-L lenses. 40mm pancake is my walkabout.
There are no L EF-S lenses or even good+fast+cheap(affordable) primes (my weapon of choice) and I wouldn't be surprised if 7D'II cost more than 6D, so FF is a win-win for me.

9
Lenses / Re: Help deciding on going full frame
« on: August 16, 2014, 06:08:16 AM »
So my current issues are:
1)  I want a general improvement in the sharpness of my pics as I tend to like having them printed reasonably large and I think the current EFS lenses just won't give me the image quality I would like.

What size are your prints?
Are you shooting RAW and doing some post processing later? If not, then perhaps you should.

Quote
2)  Shooting around dusk with my 18-135 walkabout (even in dark shade sometimes), I am either getting blurred photos due to having to drop the shutter speed to low (even with IS) or bumping the ISO too high and getting unacceptable levels of noise.

Well, there is Sigma 18-35/1.8, but you won't like the focal range :).

Quote
I have been purchasing my recent lenses with a view to eventually going full frame (can't wait to play with the 70-300 - my first L lens)
My thoughts have been to upgrade to a 6D with a 24-105 as a walkabout, use the 70-300L as my long lens, a 16-35 F4 as my wide angle and keep the 50 1.8 and 85 1.8 for portraits and shallow DOF as well as low light.  The 6D will solve my issues with noise and ISO whilst the L series lenses will solve my sharpness problems.

Makes sense.

Quote
I have read about the 6D AF issues, and don't think that will be an issue for me as most of my shots are static and for the odd shot of action I can use the centre point and crop later.

Works for me :).

Quote
The area I want some feedback on is the 24-105.  From all that I have read the newer 24-70 is lots better, but I won't go with that lens as that would give me a similar range on FF to the original 18-55 on crop that I found too limiting initially.  I know that the 24-105 will be shorter than the 18-135 (equivalent approx. 216 mm), but I think I could live with 105, but definitely not 70 on the long end.  I have read plenty of reviews and opinions on the 24-105 to believe that as an L lens it is pretty average and has a lot of distortion at around 24mm. 

So my questions are:
1)  Will the 24-105 provide a significant IQ improvement when used on FF compared to using the 18-135 STM on a crop.  I am not interested in using the 24-105 on a crop camera, so many of the comments I have read which compare using both on a crop camera are not applicable to my scenario as in that case they would only be using the centre of the 24-105 not the full view.

I think that even the old EF 28-135 IS USM on 6D would be better than EF-S 18-135 on a Rebel.

Quote
2)  Should I stick with the 18-135 STM and wait for the 7D mkii which I expect will also have significantly improved noise / ISO and will solve that problem for me, but will then still leave me with the image quality issues from the EFS lens, as I don't see any better quality walkabout lens that will suit me if using a crop sensor.  (The 24-105 would not be wide enough for me on a crop).

So what do you think - 6D, 24-105, 16-35 F4, 70-300L or 7D mkii, EFS 10-22, EFS 18-135 STM, 70-300L.

Wait for Photokina first. 6D Mark II may be coming soon as well :)
6D, 24-105, 16-35 F4, 70-300L would definitely give you more potential.

10
Lenses / Re: Image quality with or without filters
« on: August 15, 2014, 06:09:58 AM »
1. UV filters cause flare.
2. UV filters may cause AF problems.
3. UV filters may cause vignetting on wide angle lenses.
4. Some UV filters may cause slight color tint (haze filters), lower contrast and sharpness.

11
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: A Summary of Sigma Lens Rumors
« on: August 14, 2014, 06:58:01 AM »
My missing Art lens list is:
Sigma 12mm f/2.8 DG ART
Sigma 20mm f/1.8 DG ART
Sigma 24mm f/1.4 DG MACRO (1:3-ish) ART
Sigma 85mm f/1.4 DG ART
Sigma 135mm f/1.8 DG OS ART
Sigma 100-300 f/4 DG OS ART
The Sigma 100-300 f/4 DG OS ART is an interesting option. I have the old one, but it is the worst lens I have and the only one of my lenses I would prefer not to buy. It is capable to give very good results. Sometimes... Look at any birds on my website: www.len-lex.com/gallery.asp - all ware taken with that lens. But sometimes it just keeps failing. E.g. I shoot in good light from tripod with remote release and fine-focusing with liveview, fast shutter, no wind or earthquakes, but the result is damn blurry! Very inconsistent. Maybe it is just a bad copy. Anyway, with current level of Sigma's lenses it is very interesting to see such lens reworked. And OS would be a very useful thing on it. Kinda love and hate story, which probably would be better with the renewed version :)
And if we speak about birding – 100-300 is too short actually. Even with TC x1.4. So the rumored 300-600mm f/? OS Sport would also be interesting. I hope it will be constant f/4. It is not an easy task, but really isn't something impossible for Sigma. What I would be even more interested to see is a refresh of their super-telephoto primes! I do hope one day to get something like 500mm f/4 IS, but Canon's options are insanely expensive. Something IQ-comparable from Sigma for half the price and I'm in! :)

Yes, I remember all the old Σ100-300/4 reviews being very controversial, due to obvious reasons like bad QC and copy variation. Now, the new Σ120-300/2.8 is just crazy good (for a sigma zoom :) ), even with TCs. IMHO, the updated Σ100-300/4 (or 300-600mm) should be really good.

12
Reviews / Re: Tony Northrup - D810 vs. 5D Mk3
« on: August 08, 2014, 02:16:44 PM »
I thought I was a pixel-peeper (sometimes), but this guy ... he's comparing images at 4:1 magnification ???. How is it even called ? pixel-trolling? :)) Everything looks identically awful at 4:1. Other than that, it is a good review ;).

13
Site Information / Re: Critiques
« on: August 06, 2014, 07:47:06 PM »

What doesn't kill you makes you stronger.

 ... or makes you crippled.

14
Canon General / Re: What is your Least Used Piece of Gear?
« on: August 06, 2014, 10:43:17 AM »
I would have said my light meter a few months ago and now I can't stop using it. It's very practical.

But my least use piece of kit is my 40 mm panny. It just sits there in neglect in my camera bag as an object used only when I don't use a 50mm.
There's definitely a common theme of little love for the 40mm.  It's a great lens for the money, but other than stitched panos and serving as a body cap for some, it just doesn't seem to fit in most people's workflow.

And yet its CR image gallery has more pages than some popular Ls :).

15
Site Information / Re: Critiques
« on: August 06, 2014, 09:29:17 AM »
Everyone is welcome to critique, praise or ignore my stuff :). Please, don't be shy.
I don't think we need special critique threads. When in normal threads (showing off threads :) ) some stuff is being ignored, that could only mean two things - people are speechless after seeing it, or it may just be kind of boring (no words needed). However, I think that countless comments like "great!", "nice!", "lovely!", "adorable!", "I like number 7" or "I hate you, your amazing images made me G.A.S" etc. are reeaally unnecessary. IMO, we all learn what we like by watching other people work and by comparing it. Every image is a free lesson of good or bad photography, you decide. I'm sharing images just because I like to participate in evolution of photography.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 41