August 22, 2014, 06:32:24 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 - ecka

Pages: 1 ... 14 15 [16] 17 18 ... 41
226
Let's try to help

DoF ~ focal length * aperture * subject distance

in this "equation",

Focal lenght =
- on FF, just the number you see on the lens/EXIF
- on ASP-C/H, number of the EXIF * 1,6/1,3

thus just changing the sensor changes the focal lenght and by repercussion the DoF.

I can't find a simpler way to put it.

Wrong. The only thing that changes is the field of view. Focal length stays the same.

227
DoF ~ focal length * aperture * subject distance
If you want to shoot the same picture using the same lens with both FF and crop sensor cameras, you need to be closer to the subject with FF camera to get the same framing and that's the only difference.


That is only part of the story, and there are many ways to tell it........


Well, for me it is a very simple thing and I gave a simple answer to the question "Why?". You don't need to write a book to answer a simple question, because that's how people get confused.

228
Lenses / Re: Indoor Lens recommendations?
« on: July 15, 2013, 02:59:54 AM »
You will like the 40mm....I would add that with the STM focus motor, it will serve you well for indoor video too...

How will the STM focus motor help with video, given that the OP has a 60D?

by magic?....my mistake, i thought he wrote 6d

Not even by magic lantern.  ;)

The 6D doesn't AF during video, either. Just the T4i/650D, T5i/700D, and the EOS M. The 70D will have it, too.

Well, 6D has no AF tracking mode for video, but it does AF just fine, using the same slow hunting LiveView CDAF. From what I've seen, only 70D actually does AF tracking during video. T4i/650D, T5i/700D, and the EOS M are just trying to :).

229
DoF ~ focal length * aperture * subject distance
If you want to shoot the same picture using the same lens with both FF and crop sensor cameras, you need to be closer to the subject with FF camera to get the same framing and that's the only difference.

230
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 70d + 70-200 II vs. 5d III
« on: July 13, 2013, 05:28:11 PM »
I think that for a serious job 5D3 + 70-200/2.8L'IS'II'USM is a must, but I would prefer 5D3 + 135L.
5D3 + 24-70VC + 135L should do.

231
6D Sample Images / Re: Anything shot with a 6D
« on: July 13, 2013, 05:32:56 AM »
Ecka - nice spider (what/where is it?) - what lens?

Jack

I'm using Sigma 150mm F2.8 EX APO DG HSM Macro. I'm not familiar with this spider species, but I found it hiding under the leaves of mentha in the garden, waiting for a prey on a reeaally hot summer day (~37°C in shade) in Eastern Europe. I may have used a polarizing filter for this shot, don't remember really.

232
Lenses / Re: Beginner lens
« on: July 12, 2013, 04:39:06 PM »
Some say that the new Sigma 18-35/1.8 is good enough to replace any f/1.8+ prime in that focal range. However, if you want to shoot hand-held videos, then something with image stabilization would make more sense. Maybe EF 35/2 IS USM, but if you are low on budget, then get the pancake.

233
Lenses / Re: 50mm Primes that don't suck wide open?
« on: July 12, 2013, 10:17:59 AM »
F/1.2 - 1.4 - 1.8 are compromises. I wouldn't classify them as suck, I only hold the EF 50mm F/1.0 in that category.


I really wouldn't say the 50/1.0 sucks, but it is a highly specialized use lens.  If you're not sure you need the 1.0, you're definitely better off with the 1.2.  If you're positive you need the 50/1.0, there's an 80% chance you're wrong, and you'd still be better off the the 1.2.

But... if you need to shoot a candle lit dinner in a coal mine, and don't mind (or like/want) the "dreamy" look the 50/1.0 gives, there really is no substitute.


If you need a 50mm F/1, get the leica... Or at least rent one.


If you can afford Leica 50/1, then you can afford all the fast 50s in question here (as a backup or just for fun) :).


Really, I believe don't so but point here is the Leica 50mm doesn't suck.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/LEICA-NOCTILUX-M-50mm-f-1-11821-E60-/121136252503?pt=UK_Lenses_Filters_Lenses&hash=item1c34488657

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Canon-EF-50mm-f-1-0L-f-1-0-L-f-1LLens-Made-in-Japan-Nr-MINT-/181148016924?pt=Camera_Lenses&hash=item2a2d43611c


Leica M autofocus sucks :) and Canon 50/1.0L is just as good optically, if not better.


Lol you said the canon 50mm 1.0 was good optically. That's cute.


"Good" and "as good" have different meanings, you know ... :) , while "as good" and "as bad" are practically the same thing :D.


Lol because you said the EF 50mm f/1 and good in the same sentence. If you've ever rented one, you'd understand.


Nah ... I'm good without it  ;D. I just want Canon to get their $#@% together and make a nice EF 50/2 USM Macro.

234
Lenses / Re: 50mm Primes that don't suck wide open?
« on: July 12, 2013, 02:36:59 AM »
F/1.2 - 1.4 - 1.8 are compromises. I wouldn't classify them as suck, I only hold the EF 50mm F/1.0 in that category.


I really wouldn't say the 50/1.0 sucks, but it is a highly specialized use lens.  If you're not sure you need the 1.0, you're definitely better off with the 1.2.  If you're positive you need the 50/1.0, there's an 80% chance you're wrong, and you'd still be better off the the 1.2.

But... if you need to shoot a candle lit dinner in a coal mine, and don't mind (or like/want) the "dreamy" look the 50/1.0 gives, there really is no substitute.


If you need a 50mm F/1, get the leica... Or at least rent one.


If you can afford Leica 50/1, then you can afford all the fast 50s in question here (as a backup or just for fun) :).


Really, I believe don't so but point here is the Leica 50mm doesn't suck.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/LEICA-NOCTILUX-M-50mm-f-1-11821-E60-/121136252503?pt=UK_Lenses_Filters_Lenses&hash=item1c34488657

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Canon-EF-50mm-f-1-0L-f-1-0-L-f-1LLens-Made-in-Japan-Nr-MINT-/181148016924?pt=Camera_Lenses&hash=item2a2d43611c


Leica M autofocus sucks :) and Canon 50/1.0L is just as good optically, if not better.


Lol you said the canon 50mm 1.0 was good optically. That's cute.


"Good" and "as good" have different meanings, you know ... :) , while "as good" and "as bad" are practically the same thing :D.

235
Lenses / Re: 50mm Primes that don't suck wide open?
« on: July 11, 2013, 06:28:05 PM »
F/1.2 - 1.4 - 1.8 are compromises. I wouldn't classify them as suck, I only hold the EF 50mm F/1.0 in that category.


I really wouldn't say the 50/1.0 sucks, but it is a highly specialized use lens.  If you're not sure you need the 1.0, you're definitely better off with the 1.2.  If you're positive you need the 50/1.0, there's an 80% chance you're wrong, and you'd still be better off the the 1.2.

But... if you need to shoot a candle lit dinner in a coal mine, and don't mind (or like/want) the "dreamy" look the 50/1.0 gives, there really is no substitute.


If you need a 50mm F/1, get the leica... Or at least rent one.


If you can afford Leica 50/1, then you can afford all the fast 50s in question here (as a backup or just for fun) :).


Really, I believe don't so but point here is the Leica 50mm doesn't suck.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/LEICA-NOCTILUX-M-50mm-f-1-11821-E60-/121136252503?pt=UK_Lenses_Filters_Lenses&hash=item1c34488657

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Canon-EF-50mm-f-1-0L-f-1-0-L-f-1LLens-Made-in-Japan-Nr-MINT-/181148016924?pt=Camera_Lenses&hash=item2a2d43611c


Leica M autofocus sucks :) and Canon 50/1.0L is just as good optically, if not better.

236
Lenses / Re: 50mm Primes that don't suck wide open?
« on: July 11, 2013, 05:13:15 PM »
F/1.2 - 1.4 - 1.8 are compromises. I wouldn't classify them as suck, I only hold the EF 50mm F/1.0 in that category.

I really wouldn't say the 50/1.0 sucks, but it is a highly specialized use lens.  If you're not sure you need the 1.0, you're definitely better off with the 1.2.  If you're positive you need the 50/1.0, there's an 80% chance you're wrong, and you'd still be better off the the 1.2.

But... if you need to shoot a candle lit dinner in a coal mine, and don't mind (or like/want) the "dreamy" look the 50/1.0 gives, there really is no substitute.

If you need a 50mm F/1, get the leica... Or at least rent one.

If you can afford Leica 50/1, then you can afford all the fast 50s in question here (as a backup or just for fun) :).

237
Lenses / Re: 50mm Primes that don't suck wide open?
« on: July 11, 2013, 02:50:35 PM »
Just keep what you have until you get the FF. Shoot with the 50 1.8 and see if you like it on the FF. DOF changes when on FF and there is no 1.6 multiplier like crop. So it might change your mind on what you need.

Well, dof of the lens doesn't actually change, just the dof at the equivalent angle of view (as with a 35mm lens on a 1.6 crop sensor).  So he can just put his 50/1.8 on his existing 1.6 crop and get a sense of the dof, which he's probably already familiar with. The 1.4 will have only slightly shallower dof.

FF + 50/1.8 is equivalent to APS-C + 30/1.1
APS-C + 50/1.8 is equivalent to FF + 80/2.8
It's a big difference really

238
Lenses / Re: 50mm Primes that don't suck wide open?
« on: July 11, 2013, 02:16:16 PM »
In preparation for my upgrade to a 5d3 (from a 60D) later this year I'm trying to compile a list of potential prime lenses to get between the 35 and 100mm range. I've already got a 24-105L and will sell my non-L 70-300 to get the L version. Also have a 50mm 1.8 so I'll need to get a 85 1.8 to get my portrait capability back.

Then the question remains: Do I keep the little plastic toy (which never use wider than 2.8 anyways) or just get a pancake (which is actually pretty usable wide open, vignetting aside)? Do I even need a 50? I know the 50mm 1.4 isn't great wide open either and has fragility issues but at least it'll work with the automatic CA corrections in the 5d3 (I shoot RAW+jpeg). The sigma 50 1.4 is...really big for a 50mm prime, has AF quality control issues and won't work with auto CA corrections. Rumor mill has it that the sigma 50 is due for a rebody to the "art" line they've got going now but probably won't get an optics refresh... Oh yeah, the 50mm 1.2 is a no thanks I'll keep the money. Everything 50mm seems to be a compromise and you'd think after so many decades of people using such a prolific "normal" lens the designers would have perfected the formulas by now.

Do I even need a 50?

Well, 40mm in comparison is much closer to 35mm than to 50mm prime and if such angle works for you, then you should consider the new Sigma 35/1.4 ART.
Perhaps, at f/1.4, Sigma 50 is the best prime lens at the moment (at least in sharpness and bokeh quality). Canon's 50L has similar AF problems (focus shift), so (IMHO) it is not a much better solution.

239
Lenses / Re: Indoor Lens recommendations?
« on: July 11, 2013, 07:40:33 AM »
I have a 60D. And I have a reasonable set of lenses in my kit for outdoor use where I shoot most of the time.

I'd like to add a lens for indoor use -- things like family & friend gatherings, indoor events (graduations, arts, etc.). I generally end up not being really up close to the subject. And generally don't use a tripod.

One key factor is that I have a tremor in my hand. So far my experience with non image stabilized lens without a tripod has been pretty poor in terms of getting a nice sharp photo.

So for indoor use, I've been considering these options:

- Canon EF 100L 2.8 IS Macro
- Sigma 17-70 2.8-4 DC OC HSM Macro
- Tamron 17-70 24-70 2.8 Di VC USD

I've also thought about the Canon EF-S 17-55 2.8 IS USM, but am afraid it doesn't have sufficient range.

Any thoughts/recommendation about these lenses for this situation? Or other lenses to consider? Or other factors to consider?

Thanks in advance!

IS isn't going to freeze any action, people in motion. You still need a fast enough shutter speed to get a nice and sharp photograph. My advice would be EF 85/1.8 USM, which is a fast focusing, sharp at 1.8, very affordable and overall decent lens for what you want it to do.

240
6D Sample Images / Re: Anything shot with a 6D
« on: July 11, 2013, 05:01:20 AM »

IMG_0875 by ecka84, on Flickr

Pages: 1 ... 14 15 [16] 17 18 ... 41