August 23, 2014, 11:39:41 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 ... 88
If it's more than 150 on the wide end, then I definitely won't be interested.  If I want a narrow range of focal lengths, I'll get a 400/5.6.  I want a zoom because I need a zoom.

Sony makes a 70-400.

Yep, the 100-400 is an odd range, slotting in with a 24-105 as it's only option. Which is a really old lens and really needs an update. The 24-70 lenses have 70-200 and 70-300 partners.

From a marketing and consumer point of view, it's great to have zooms that leave no gaps in focal length. In practice though this is much less of an issue than one would think. Being able to go down to a 'near normal' focal length like 70 mm on full frame can be very practical in a tele-zoom however. This is an important reason why my 70-200 and 70-300 more often find their way to my lens mount than the 100-400. I really only use the 100-400 when I need the reach, and the flexibility is a bonus. I have actually thought about getting a 400 mm f/4 prime (big white that unfortunately does not exist) or 300 f/2.8 (couple to a 1.4 TC) but cannot justify the cost nor the loss of the zoom flexibility. My interest in the 100-400 is growing rather old however...

If it's more than 150 on the wide end, then I definitely won't be interested.  If I want a narrow range of focal lengths, I'll get a 400/5.6.  I want a zoom because I need a zoom.

Sony makes a 70-400.

The 7D and 100-400 are a natural match so it would make sense to announce these tigether.

Like you mentioned, an xx-400 would be even more versatile :)

check out the EF 1200mm thread. Ebay has it at ~$70,000.00 now.

Yikes!  I would have a hard time spending that much on a car!!!  :o 

$70K on a piece of glass.  No problem getting that approved by the Central Committee.  Not hard at all.   :'(

This is idiotic nonsense, like the prices you see for art, or - postage stamps. Gee...

In the end it's a question of demand vs availability. Do we really need a 1200 mm lens nowadays? I'd say no.

I guess it really depends on how hot your neighbor is and how far her window is from yours.

 ;D ;D ;D

I think everyone is hoping for an EF 100-400 replacement.

+1  ;D

check out the EF 1200mm thread. Ebay has it at ~$70,000.00 now.

Yikes!  I would have a hard time spending that much on a car!!!  :o 

$70K on a piece of glass.  No problem getting that approved by the Central Committee.  Not hard at all.   :'(

This is idiotic nonsense, like the prices you see for art, or - postage stamps. Gee...

In the end it's a question of demand vs availability. Do we really need a 1200 mm lens nowadays? I'd say no.

Ok I just mail ordered the Metabones Speedbooster (Sony Nex body - Canon FD). A new photography adventure in the making?...

Now, the question remains as to why I consistently got a lower keeper rate with the 6D and EF lenses. The reason might be in the fact that the FF camera+lens combo is much heaver and bulkier, and thus more difficult to stabilize while taking hand-held shots.

I love your extensive analysis, and think you have made some valuable observations. However, that heavier and bigger body should aid stability. What you haven't taken into account, scientifically speaking, is the effect that mirror slap will have on the sharpness of the images at the shutter speeds you mentioned. That, and the overall ergonomics (shutter response/sensitivity, button placement, relative length of lenses, camera comfort), may affect your results. Not to say you should re-test. (!!!)

Note that the speed booster advantage of compactness is relative because it is also available for use with EF lenses! However, FD lenses are more compact, lighter and cheaper as you mentioned so therein lies the real advantage - keeping that mirrorless system 'compact' and being able to expand your usable lens collection at a fair price.

Now where's that 35mm FDn? I can't seem to find one (let alone an FD 'L' lens which I don't think is worth it from a size/cost point of view).

Edit: The Speed Booster may be (almost) the perfect sensor protector; change lenses without exposing the sensor! ;)

I know the feeling, but unless you will be getting a commercial/financial return from the investment, it does not make sense.

I did net fifteen bucks the other day from selling a print... So yeah... buy it now.

+1, if a financial return on investment is the point of photography, then my photography is completely pointless.

Shot at f/1.4 with the 50mm EX (matte body finish):

That's a very nice and sharp picture. I always liked what Raymond Loewy did to the styling of International's Farmalls, and you did it justice! Judging by the yellow headlights of this model-A I guess you shot this one in France or at least in Europe?

Thanks Max, you know a great deal more about old tractors than I do. This one caught my eye because it's so asymmetrical which I think is cool. The photo was taken in the Netherlands but the tractor may very well have been imported from France.  The yellow lights are typically French.

I must be going a little nuts... I'm looking at 200-400's, 300/400 f/2.8's... and I'm seeing the price tag... and I thinking... "That's not bad." 

I remember fondly when I spend $100 on a 50mm f/1.8 and I thought that was a lot of money... I'm off to bed... this bug will surely pass before I wake.

I always try to imagine the 1DX or 'great white' value equivalent in other really good and useful camera gear,  so I end up buying lots of other stuff to satisfy my need  ;D I do already own three 'little whites' already though... ::)

Now that the new Sigma 50 Art lens is out, the old DG HSM version has been feeling neglected.  So I'm declaring it to be a cult lens!

It may not be as sharp as the Art lens, but there's just something magical about it's rendering, you know?

I have no complaint about sharpness; my copy is a solid performer! Getting sharp results below f/2.8 takes a little extra TLC, but when I nail focus, the sharpness is there. I love this lens and the way it draws. It shares this property with the Sigma 30mm, although the 50mm can even be considered 'clinical' compared to the 30mm (which I loved but my copy was totally unreliable).

Shot at f/1.4 with the 50mm EX (matte body finish):

Using the Alpha 7 would surely save you the cost of the speedbooster, but that's a system you'd have to commit to, so I understand its a bit too much.

There is also another aspect which I have not seen being commented on with regard to the benefit of the FF lens + Speedbooster combination: handhold-ability. If I use the 135/2 on a full frame camera, normally I should apply the 1/focallength rule for the minimum shutter time (thus 1/135s) in order to prevent image blur when I hand-hold the camera. Adapting the Speedbooster to this lens reduces its effective focal length to 96mm, while at the same time I gain 1 stop of light-gathering capability (f/1.4). This means that I can decrease the ISO setting on my APS-C camera and increase the minimum shutter time to 1/100s (+35%!) and I'll still get sharp images (i.e. free of hand-induced blur that is).
If this is indeed correct, then that's a very interesting advantage! You get nearly the same DoF as with a FF camera body, you can use a lower ISO setting and slower shutter time, and you get all that in a smaller and lighter package...

The main problem with the A7 is that it'll show the flaws in any lens as surely as the full frame Canon camera's which means it is likely to draw me into buying better glass for the mirrorless system (the FD lenses are only so good), or adapting my EF lenses which means I would be back to square one (I might as well use them on a 5D series body!).

If I consider my FD lenses as something to just play around with for interest and creativity (and compacteness!) sake, then the Speed Booster makes sense, at least that's how I look at it.

I'm not sure if your focal length comparison works in the way you say, because after all that 135 mm is reduced from an effective 203mm to 135 in the first place, not 96mm. I agree that you will gain extra light but it depends on the aperture of the lens to begin with and that f/2 is pretty bright to begin with, so you may run into the 'pixel shading' limit, see:

Whatever the way one looks at it, the Speed Booster does give a lot of creative leverage. On a side note: I just rebuilt a Sigma 21-35 f/3.5-4 due to a stuck aperture, but the first test results at 1.5x crop aren't all that exciting. Maybe the Speed Booster will help to increase the MTF, because after all it's a reversed magnifying glass!


I'm considering getting one of these; I assume you mean the Mitakon Canon FD - Sony E-mount Lens Turbo? Is it any good? I have a bunch of consumer level FL and FD(n) primes that I may use with it, and I'm thinking of picking up a Sigma 21-35 zoom.

If you want to get the best image quality possible, I would then advise you to consider the Metabones Speedbooster over the LensTurbo. Of course, the last option is much cheaper but in optical design like in anything else in life there is no such a thing as a free lunch:
I just got myself a FD-to-X speedbooster adapter for my fuji X-T1 and a FD 135/2 is underway. I'll certainly be back in this thread to share my experience, but from what I have already seen from various discussions on mirorrless forums and sites, there is little risk that the results will be disappointing.

Thanks, I have coincidentally found that review a few days ago and I came to the same conclusion. I intend to order the Metabones adapter, also because I want to expand my FD(n) set with a 35mm f/2 when I can find one and from what I've read that lens is a poor combination with the Lens Turbo. The only other alternative tot the Metabones adapter is a Sony Alpha 7 but that's a bridge too far I'm affraid.

Of course everyone can compare specifications between camera's, but honestly for my type of shooting, I'm still totally satisfied with the MkIII which is a really nice feeling   ;D

On the mirrorless end I feel a little unrest though... that a7 looks really tasty (I have the FF bug yes).

You ended our discussion well. It's all about the individual needs.

Give FE 35mm a try if you ever decide on a7. I'm waiting for FE UWA. It feels like forever.

I've got a collection of FD and FL glass, and recently acquired a mint condition FDn 50mm f/1.4 that I would like to use as a walk-around lens. There's an FDn mount Sigma 21-35 f/3.5-4 and 70-210 3.5-4.5 APO on the way too, and that 21-35 is supposedly a pretty good UWA zoom. This is what makes me yearn for a full frame mirrorless! I've considered a Mitakon Lens turbo adapter to use FF lenses on APS-C but I think it will kill the optical quality.

The intention will be not to invest in too much FE glass; just an AF zoom or prime and the rest will be all legacy stuff (although it's also possible to use my current E-mount lenses in a cropped mode). I'm waiting for a good FDn 35mm f/2 to come along, maybe that will help me decide :) Yeah I've got the GAS :p

EOS Bodies / Re: 7D mark 2 crop vs full frame
« on: June 27, 2014, 08:07:22 AM »
It will not be a mark 2 of the original 7D if it wasn't an APS-C sensor.


I personally don't care much about APS-C DSLR's anymore. When I get the chance I will get a full frame mirrorless too (at a budget price), but then, full frame is compatible with my type of photography.

Of course for the birders and such I wish the 7D2 will have an excellent aps-c sensor :)

If you shoot a variety of images, or even just a variety in one nitch, an APS-C  camera is a nice compliment to a FF camera.  Shooting sports I will often use a fisheye and my 400 with extenders in the same shoot.  The difference in the look and reach of the 2 cameras can be nice.  The 5DII + 7D combo because very popular for this reason.

I worked with that combination for a long time, but the image quality of the 7D was disappointing compared to the 5D MkII so in the end that's what caused me to sell the 7D in favor of a 5D MkIII. The Mk II and Mk III work much better together; but I prioritize the MkIII for low light and sports, obviously.

Last weekend I did a motorsports shoot with the 70-200 on the MkIII and my 35mm Sigma on the Mk II. The results were staggeringly good, and the bodies and lenses a seamless match, with matching sharpness and colors.

Cool.  I have always been happy with the colors on my 7D.
IMG_5987 by RexPhoto91, on Flickr

The 7D is a great camera especially when there is sufficient light. However if you shoot at iso 1600 and up, the image quality really lags behind a full frame camera.

Pages: 1 ... 13 14 [15] 16 17 ... 88