October 01, 2014, 04:24:24 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 ... 13 14 [15] 16 17 ... 94
211
Animal Kingdom / Re: Portrait of your "Best friend"
« on: July 17, 2014, 03:28:15 PM »
I took this snapshot a minute ago with my smartphone  ;D

212
Lenses / Re: Sigma 35mm f/1.4 ART questions
« on: July 17, 2014, 01:53:59 AM »
I'm now on my third copy of the Sigma which is the best one out of the three. That being said, it is still nowhere near the performance of the 35L I had with regard to Autofocus accuracy and speed in all scenarios.

The 35L was the most accurately focusing lens I have ever owned. The sigma does decently well in good lighting. Still a tad slower than the Canon and a few more misses than I'd like. In decent lighting, the miss rate goes up a little. In less than desirable lighting, I have trouble getting it to focus on anything whereas the Canon would have had zero issues.

I currently have both the Sigma and the Canon 35/2 IS in the bag, and the Sigma continues to show it's inferiority with regard to AF.

What camera body are you using? I'm thinking this lens may be hit and miss with some bodies. On my 5D2 and 3: no issues.

213
Lenses / Re: Sigma 35mm f/1.4 ART questions
« on: July 16, 2014, 06:03:04 PM »
To sum up, after buying two 35 Art that was absolute cr@p and owned 6 or 7 35 L's I would soo not buy another Sigma, but happy to own a 35 L again, hm, I might just buy one.

If you're looking for one of the best lenses ever made, outside of super tele, the 50 Art is incredible.

Copy variation?

So you got lucky with the 50, not so with the 35's. In much the same way I have a superb 35A and 50 EX.

214
Lenses / Re: What Lenses are missing from Canon's range
« on: July 16, 2014, 02:19:14 PM »
As described in the looking for big whites thread...

The problem with Canon updating the 400mm F5.6 is that currently it pretty much equals sharpness of all the other big white primes and 200-400mm at 400mm F5.6, its much smaller, lighter and 1/10th the price of many. With high ISO capabilities of the new gen of cameras high ISO you can get away with F5.6 its also useful when you need a little more DOF on FF. If they made a new one with weather sealing and IS it would reduce sales of the bigger whites even more. But then again would probably cost 200% more.

Same reason I'm guessing there is no 400mm F4 IS non DO because it would be smaller and lighter than the F2.8 and probably considerably cheaper, again with high ISO is F2.8 needed especially with the weight trade off. Only other reason for the F2.8 is for use with tele converters, that you can have a 800mm F5.6 or a 640 F4.

Grrrrr...  >:( Marketing.

215
Lenses / Re: What Lenses are missing from Canon's range
« on: July 16, 2014, 01:49:46 PM »
...though the older, small 24 & 28mm primes, if I recall correctly, have hideous vignetting which can only be considered "arty" or poor on ff... maybe some faster, small but affordable and ff-usable 16/20/24/28mm primes?

They're not too bad if you stop them down and besides, the vignetting correction works like a charm (5D2 and 3). These lenses are becoming underappreciated I think. Yes they're old and maybe not perfect, but they're tiny! And that's an increasingly rare advantage.

216
Lenses / Re: What Lenses are missing from Canon's range
« on: July 16, 2014, 01:04:02 PM »
400 mm f/4 IS
400 mm f/5.6 IS

I would be seriously interested in either of these if they were to come to market.

Canon already produce the 400mm f4 DO IS lens and it is similarly built to L class. 400mm f5.6L with IS is my dream for travel light.
I miss a light-weight do-it-all zoom like the Nikon 28-300mm VR, it delivers very good IQ and sharpness. I have not tried the new tammy.

I also support the 12-24mm f4L and a low-CA 50mm f1.8-2 IS lens with similar built, IQ and sharpness to the excellent 35mm f2 IS.

Like I said, the (non-DO) 400mm f/4 IS is missing. Diffractive Optics aren't for everyone. You're right of course, the DO is built like an L-lens eventhough it is not branded as an L-lens

217
Lenses / Re: What Lenses are missing from Canon's range
« on: July 16, 2014, 12:32:22 PM »
400 mm f/4 IS
400 mm f/5.6 IS

I would be seriously interested in either of these if they were to come to market.

218
Lenses / Re: Sigma 35mm f/1.4 ART questions
« on: July 16, 2014, 05:16:07 AM »
Another important question for you guys

The AF problem is crucial(I believe), so is it really so predictable? They say  10-20% of pictures are rubbish and only the rest is dead on.

I think I don't wan't a $1000 lens that has such a problem.

I shoot with 6d and I wish to hear some feedback from people like me.

My 35mm Art is amazingly reliable both on my 5D MkII and MkIII, no MFA required and spot-on AF.  ;)

The big problem is that you can just as easily have one that is completely useless. Only way to make sure you get a good one is to buy where you can easily return/exchange it.

That is always a sensible thing to do especially for more expensive equipment.

219
Lenses / Re: Sigma 35mm f/1.4 ART questions
« on: July 16, 2014, 04:28:59 AM »
Another important question for you guys

The AF problem is crucial(I believe), so is it really so predictable? They say  10-20% of pictures are rubbish and only the rest is dead on.

I think I don't wan't a $1000 lens that has such a problem.

I shoot with 6d and I wish to hear some feedback from people like me.

My 35mm Art is amazingly reliable both on my 5D MkII and MkIII, no MFA required and spot-on AF.  ;)

220
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II [CR1]
« on: July 16, 2014, 04:25:19 AM »
To put it into perspective, there is not much difference between the 400/5.6 L at f/5.6 and the Tamron 150-600mm at 400mm f/5.6.

 http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=278&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=929&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=0


There's a lot more more to lenses than can be expressed by MTF charts. Among optical qualities like flare resistance, contrast, color, distortion, and what have you, there's more subjective qualities like handling ergonomics, weight etc.

So having owned the Sigma 150-500, and having sold it in favor for the 100-400 for a number of reasons (most notably ergonomics ie weight and the focus ring being near the body on this long lens), I'm reluctant to invest in another f/* to f/6.3 zoom that at least physically, reminds me so much of the Sigma 150-500.

221
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II [CR1]
« on: July 16, 2014, 01:54:45 AM »
If one compared the Mark II version of the 400/2.8 IS to the 400/5.6 the corners are too close to tell apart at 5.6.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=278&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=741&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=3

At the moment my thinking is that if Canon comes out with a 400mm f/5.8 IS, I would happily trade in my 100-400 for it; I use 400 mm almost exclusively for motorsports, usually at f/8 and upwards to get enough DOF.

I need a lens which works well in back lit situations because at the track where I take my pictures, the light is often from behind and bouncing off the cars and motorcycles. My 100-400 gives a lot of glare at 400 mm in these conditions, causing the image quality to deteriorate.

222
Animal Kingdom / Re: Portrait of your "Best friend"
« on: July 15, 2014, 06:20:18 PM »
Willem is always my favorite subject when I want to try out some gear. These were shot with a Canon FD 200mm f4 S.S.C adapted to a Sony NEX-6. It takes effort to get sharp photo's with a subject as dynamic as my 1 yr old cat  ;D
My aunt's cat, Olive, is 7 months old and hyperactive doesn't even come close to describing her... look at her trying to paw my camera.

Cool!!! Big eyes, claws ready ;)

223
Canon General / Re: What's Would You Keep? [The anti-G.A.S. thread]
« on: July 15, 2014, 06:17:33 PM »

(sorry everyone for going so far off-topic ;) )


Thanks for doing so!
+1 - no big deal - it wasn't a very serious thread to begin with and the Speed Booster is something I find pretty interesting.  Even though the benefits wouldn't be as extreme, It would be cool if they could make one for the EOS-M :)

You're right, Metabones doesn't make one, yet. The poor little EOS-M gets little love from many manufacturers  :(

224
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II [CR1]
« on: July 15, 2014, 05:37:25 PM »
And yes, there is no technical reason why canon could not ewuip the 400/5.6 with IQ as is with a current day 4 stop IS with 3 modes (full, panning, tripod sensing) and sell it at USD 1999,-

Its only freaking "marketing differentiation".

I might jump at this if it's fully usable wide open. Note that it must completely blow away my 100-400 @ 400mm.

Wow, I was a bit surprised for a minute to see that quote attributed to me.
I don't think a 400/5.6 IS will cost $ 1999, unfortunately :(

Sorry that was a messy quote truncation I did there. It should have been:

And yes, there is no technical reason why canon could not ewuip the 400/5.6 with IQ as is with a current day 4 stop IS with 3 modes (full, panning, tripod sensing) and sell it at USD 1999,-

Its only freaking "marketing differentiation".

My apologies  :-[

225
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II [CR1]
« on: July 15, 2014, 11:52:50 AM »
And yes, there is no technical reason why canon could not ewuip the 400/5.6 with IQ as is with a current day 4 stop IS with 3 modes (full, panning, tripod sensing) and sell it at USD 1999,-

Its only freaking "marketing differentiation".

I might jump at this if it's fully usable wide open. Note that it must completely blow away my 100-400 @ 400mm.

Pages: 1 ... 13 14 [15] 16 17 ... 94