October 25, 2014, 08:28:57 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 ... 18 19 [20] 21 22 ... 45
286
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.

287
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.

288
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.

289
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.

290
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.

291
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) :).

292
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

293
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.

294
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.

295
6D Sample Images / Re: Anything shot with a 6D
« on: July 11, 2013, 05:01:20 AM »

IMG_0875 by ecka84, on Flickr

296

I can't really see much of an advantage of m4/3s over DSLRs. Smaller, yeah, but still not pocketable, and you still have to change lenses and all that.


All true; there is, however, a vast difference in weight and bulk.  The biggest m43 lens is the Panasonic 100-300mm (200-600mm equiv), and even it weighs only 20oz (compare the closest dslr equivalents, such as the Canon 100-400 or Sigma 50-500); the Panasonic equivalent of a 70-200 2.8, the 35-100 2.8, weighs 13 oz.  Most of the primes seem almost weightless.  Plus, as mentioned elsewhere, they have some technological advantages.   Of course, if you have a smallish DSLR and don't carry around more than a couple of fairly lightweight lenses, or don't carry your equipment around for hours on end, these differences may seem trivial....

Lets do a bit of spread sheeting:
5DmkIII 1kg
17-40 f4L 0.6kg
24-70LII 0.8kg
70-200 f4LIS 0.7kg
= 3,1kg

OM-D 0.4kg
Panasomic G 7-14 0.3kg
Panasomic G 12-35 0.3kg
Panasomic G 35-100 0.3kg
= 1,3kg

Please note that the OM-D have f2.8 over a wider range than the Canon. The OM-D also goes a lot wider (14 vs 17 mm).

First - Why are you putting Panasonic (3rd party) lenses on your OM-D, while asking for Canon OEM equivalent? Sigma 12-24mm is available + Nikkor 14-24mm can be adapted as well.
Second - There are no f/2.8 FF equivalent zoom lenses in M4/3 system. EF 28-300/3.5-5.6L is like M4/3 14-150/1.8-2.8 (which would be near as big, as heavy, as expensive and most likely not as good).

297
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 70D Dual Pixel AF Performance
« on: July 04, 2013, 11:35:03 AM »
Now we wait till they put it into the next EOS M  ;D

299
Only 2 things, really :)
  1. Single cross-type super sensitive AF point + 10 others I never use (I'd prefer 5 or even 3 point all cross-type super sensitive AF system)
  2. Single SD card slot (I'd prefer single CF, over dual SD. Coming from 5D/7D/50D/40D... it's a big downgrade. Let's just hope they'll learn that memory card format switching and mixing is a bad idea).

300
EOS Bodies / Re: Pick between two options for the Canon 7D II
« on: June 28, 2013, 10:10:55 AM »
Wide range ISO, great sensor performance, dual card slots (CF, SD who cares?), FPS - again, who cares? If you're into sports it matters…for the rest of us, it's image quality, not FPS. Until Canon delivers a camera worth ditching my 30D (or 10S film camera for that matter), I'm staying put. CANON, make me proud! Give me something worth trading up for!

If you care about image quality that much, then you shouldn't look at crop sensor cameras.

Pages: 1 ... 18 19 [20] 21 22 ... 45