April 19, 2014, 08:35:33 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 - mrsfotografie

Pages: 1 ... 11 12 [13] 14 15 ... 68
181
500d and a Canon 35-80 with the front element smashed with a hammer to make a macro.....
makes for a brutal but effective close-up kit, I just ran across this lens mod "recommendation" recently.

Yikes! Not the way I like to treat equipment, but I guess it can be very effective if you're on a tight budget.

Here's a few shots taken with a new, but very cheap Ixus 132:

182
Reviews / Re: Review: Tamron SP 90mm f/2.8 1:1 Macro VC USD
« on: January 18, 2014, 04:42:19 PM »
Do you think it's a worthwhile upgrade for those who have the 'old' non-VC version??

I definitely do, particularly since you get not only a slightly sharper macro lens, but also because you get a much more effective modern medium telephoto with a great stabilizer.  The new lens does a lot of things really well and doubles as a great general purpose lens.  I think its worth the upgrade, particularly if you can get a decent price on the used market for your old one.

Thanks, I may consider putting this lens in my upgrade path. I really like that the new version is non-extending. FWIW the image quality from the old macro is fabulous, not so much the looks of the thing...  ::) ;D

I haven't used the old version myself, but your report confirms what pretty much everyone has said.  I'm surprised the new lens hasn't had more buzz, but that may be because it was overpriced (particularly in Europe) on introduction.  It is a very worthy lens, though, and a great choice now that the price is reasonable.

Because I hadn't used my 90mm macro for a while, and because I wanted to reconfirm the focal length and working distance on a full frame body (I'm selling my 7D), I took the lens to the zoo. 90 mm macro still works for me at least for butterflies, even on full frame but an image stabilizer would be very welcome.

I gave my 70-200+1.4 TC a go as well, but without a 1.6 crop factor the maximum magnification isn't quite sufficient for butterflies and such. That makes a good near focusing lens something I require more than before.

Hence, based on your review I'm strongly considering upgrading to the new version - for the convenience of the image stabilizer mostly. I'm sticking with Tamron for macro use, because as I mentioned before I don't do enough macro to justify an 'L' lens.

There's still nothing wrong with the image quality from the old lens, here's a few samples that I took today. Note that it was rather dark and the excellent high iso performance of the 5DMkIII is a real asset:

Those are some very nice photos!  Well done.

Thank you very much! Maybe I should consider doing more 'macro' work ;)

183
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon naming policy
« on: January 18, 2014, 04:35:06 PM »
Canon EOS naming scheme on Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_EOS#Naming_scheme

184
Reviews / Re: Review: Tamron SP 90mm f/2.8 1:1 Macro VC USD
« on: January 18, 2014, 11:55:26 AM »
Do you think it's a worthwhile upgrade for those who have the 'old' non-VC version??

I definitely do, particularly since you get not only a slightly sharper macro lens, but also because you get a much more effective modern medium telephoto with a great stabilizer.  The new lens does a lot of things really well and doubles as a great general purpose lens.  I think its worth the upgrade, particularly if you can get a decent price on the used market for your old one.

Thanks, I may consider putting this lens in my upgrade path. I really like that the new version is non-extending. FWIW the image quality from the old macro is fabulous, not so much the looks of the thing...  ::) ;D

I haven't used the old version myself, but your report confirms what pretty much everyone has said.  I'm surprised the new lens hasn't had more buzz, but that may be because it was overpriced (particularly in Europe) on introduction.  It is a very worthy lens, though, and a great choice now that the price is reasonable.

Because I hadn't used my 90mm macro for a while, and because I wanted to reconfirm the focal length and working distance on a full frame body (I'm selling my 7D), I took the lens to the zoo. 90 mm macro still works for me at least for butterflies, even on full frame but an image stabilizer would be very welcome.

I gave my 70-200+1.4 TC a go as well, but without a 1.6 crop factor the maximum magnification isn't quite sufficient for butterflies and such. That makes a good near focusing lens something I require more than before.

Hence, based on your review I'm strongly considering upgrading to the new version - for the convenience of the image stabilizer mostly. I'm sticking with Tamron for macro use, because as I mentioned before I don't do enough macro to justify an 'L' lens.

There's still nothing wrong with the image quality from the old lens, here's a few samples that I took today. Note that it was rather dark and the excellent high iso performance of the 5DMkIII is a real asset:


185
...like a good steak should be with the great taste of blood...

I hope you don't subsist by feeding on the blood of the living  ;D

:) While I intellectually can understand why we should not eat beef (cruelty, emission of gasses by cattlestocks...), I cannot help it. I am a natural born carnivarous.

Same here, was just wondering if you're afraid of garlic/silver bullets/wooden stakes  ;D

186
Lenses / Re: Canon 135mm or Tamron 24-70mm
« on: January 17, 2014, 08:25:29 AM »
My advice, wait for this new Sig 50mm 1.4 art lens.

+1 great idea!

Yes, I find 24-70 zooms kinda... boring  8)

I love my 24-105 for its versatility, that extra 35 mm really is worth the slower aperture. When I need a wider aperture I prefer to go to a prime instead of a 'compromise' 24-70 f/2.8. That's my take.

187
...like a good steak should be with the great taste of blood...

I hope you don't subsist by feeding on the blood of the living  ;D

188
Lenses / Re: Canon 17-40mm & ND filter
« on: January 17, 2014, 01:14:35 AM »
It's in the lens mount; you can cut the filters to size ;)

Doh. For some reason that gel holder in the back slid right in one ear and out the other. I think because of concerns about the disposable nature of the gels. Out of curiosity, what size does it need to be cut to? I checked the manual for the lens and while it mentions the gel holder, it does not say what size that marked square is. If I can get two or three out of a 3 stop 3" or 4" kodak wratten it may be worth doing that and a variable ND for my other glass that doesn't need the 10 or more stop reduction. At that point I could fashion a small case with separation papers and maybe a pair of plastic tweezers for handling the cut gels to try make them last.

One thing that does appeal to me about trying it this way is that it would open up using my polarizer on the front of the lens without introducing major vignetting.

Has anyone tried using this rear gel slot? Any impact on IQ?

Thanks for the examples Surapon and kkelis.

I've never used the gel holder myself, but I think it's probably easy enough to measure the square (The filter needs to sit inside, and from what I see I think the corners need to be squared off a little). Or else Google it?

189
Lenses / Re: Canon 17-40mm & ND filter
« on: January 16, 2014, 03:39:15 PM »
I was wondering if anyone out there is using a Canon 17-40mm lens with a high (i.e. 10 stop) ND filter. I'm thinking of building a small set of 82mm ND filters (separate, not variable - probably a 4 and a 10 stop to start with) along with step rings so I can use it on all my glass.

I guess the question is two-fold:
Is anyone using strong ND filters with this lens and do you see any vignetting on the 17mm end?
Any ramifications to using an 82mm ND filter and step ring to put it on the 77mm thread of the 17-40 lens?

TIA for any info.

FWIW this lens has a rear 'gel' filter holder so you can use tiny gel filters that cause no vignetting at all :)

Never tried it though myself  :o ;D

Had to get up and look at my 17-40 f/4L and can't find where the gel filter goes. Nothing like my 500 has for filters.

It's in the lens mount; you can cut the filters to size ;)

190
Lenses / Re: Canon 17-40mm & ND filter
« on: January 16, 2014, 02:55:55 PM »
I was wondering if anyone out there is using a Canon 17-40mm lens with a high (i.e. 10 stop) ND filter. I'm thinking of building a small set of 82mm ND filters (separate, not variable - probably a 4 and a 10 stop to start with) along with step rings so I can use it on all my glass.

I guess the question is two-fold:
Is anyone using strong ND filters with this lens and do you see any vignetting on the 17mm end?
Any ramifications to using an 82mm ND filter and step ring to put it on the 77mm thread of the 17-40 lens?

TIA for any info.

FWIW this lens has a rear 'gel' filter holder so you can use tiny gel filters that cause no vignetting at all :)

Never tried it though myself  :o ;D

191
Lenses / Re: 7D user - advice on my best option for a 'go to' lens?
« on: January 16, 2014, 11:25:59 AM »
I think I'm quite lazy about the technical side of things, and like to keep gear as simple as possible.

May I suggest the Sigma 30 mm A  8)

192
Landscape / Re: Post Your Best Landscapes
« on: January 16, 2014, 08:01:47 AM »
Moonrise over hay.
5D3 with Zeiss 15mm

This reminds me of the trip I made in Scotland.

View of Dunnottar Castle, about 3 kilometres (1.9 mi) south of Stonehaven (400D + Tamron 17-50 f/2.8, 4-shot panorama handheld):

I'm looking at that picture and thinking "Where is the castle?"

I actually know where it is but ... yeah.

Well, it's the whole landscape that was of interest for this panorama. You're right it isn't exactly 'a picture of the castle'  ::) ;)

193
Lenses / Re: Canon 135mm or Tamron 24-70mm
« on: January 15, 2014, 12:20:22 PM »
That is true mrsfotografie :)
What are the chances of Sigma bringing out a 24-70 f/2 in the next few months?

Nil, but I'm sure they will come with a 24-70 f/2.8 A. Can't say if it will have OS though...

194
Lenses / Re: Canon 135mm or Tamron 24-70mm
« on: January 15, 2014, 07:03:11 AM »
I would just save up and get the 24-70mk2 and 70-200mk2. Its the best combo for a wedding photographer. Also maybe add the 100L macro. The last 3 years I've been buying cheaper lenses and selling it to upgrade. If only I should just have started with the 24-70mk1 and 70-200mk2. I could have save a lot more and got better shoots. I got both the 24-70mk2 and 70-200mk2. During the holidays having the double dip promotions. Now I'm set. Now saving up for the 300mm 2.8 II

Thank you mackguyver and mrsfotografie (I'll be using it on my 5D MKII)

Sanaraken, as I said the Canon 24-70 is great, but it's not £1000 better, its a stupid amount of money really when you compare it to the Tamron 24-70. Why do you say save when the Tamron is nearly as good as the Canon?

One could even argue the Tamron is actually better in certain conditions, because it has IS and the Canon doesn't ;)

195
EOS Bodies / Re: 1dX dust in viewfinder
« on: January 15, 2014, 04:52:19 AM »
Why don't you just remove the screen, clean it and reinstall it?

Here are instructions on how to remove the screen.

http://www.focusingscreen.com/work/5d3en.htm

According to the feedback from service center particles are in the mirror box, not on the focusing screen.


I guess nothing in life is perfect, now we have to accept that and live with it ;)

Pages: 1 ... 11 12 [13] 14 15 ... 68