September 16, 2014, 09:39:41 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 - mrsfotografie

Pages: 1 ... 13 14 [15] 16 17 ... 93
211
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 1DX dust behind superimposed screen
« on: July 14, 2014, 05:38:48 PM »
So I just got the camera back.

The new pentaprism has some tiny black specks in the pentaprism too. Oh well...much better than before and I can live with this.

It's come back with a slight problem, however. When I try dropping the focusing screen down it sticks. It drops down about 2-4 millimetres and stops. I have the use the screen removal tool to pull it down and then it releases dropping the focusing screen.


Think this is an issue worth sending it back over?


EDIT:

The camera keeps getting dust on the bottom of the focusing screen now. Not a big deal as I just remove the battery, remove the focusing screen and blow it off. While the focusing screen not dropping down freely is a bit annoying, it doesn't particularly bother me. Probably the technician tightened something a bit more than normal. Either way it's not really interfering with the removal of the screen other than just having to use the tool to slightly move the bracket down a bit more before it drops down on its own.

Be careful not to get into a type of vicious circle now - your experience is a learning point for me too, sometimes we just have to let stuff be before we make it any worse. ;)

212
Software & Accessories / Re: To filter or not to filter
« on: July 14, 2014, 05:35:38 PM »
I don't use UV (protection) filters on my 40/2.8 pancake or on my EF-M lenses, but I do on the all the others that take them.

Crap, that technically should change my vote.  I am answer #1 above, but the pancake is an exception. 

- A

Should change mine as well (I voted as close to the actual as I could).  I have the same exceptions as Neuro, plus my TSE 24 (version 1) and my Rokinon 14mm.  Haven't yet figured out filters for those.  And sometimes it's too much work to replace the clear if I am swapping my CPL on and off lenses doing landscape shots.

Ah that's right, I forgot about my Samyang 14mm. No filter possible  :P

213
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II [CR1]
« on: July 14, 2014, 02:18:44 PM »
I am sticking with my non-stabilized 400mm f/5.6L until I can afford an f/4 supertelephoto.. I would not advise beginning birders to start with a non-stablized lens. unless they have lots of patience.
I keep hoping to see an updated version of that lens..

Yes, IS would make all the difference.
not only that, but the improvements in IQ from the series 1 to series 2 big whites are truly astounding. As someone who has been into photography for more than 40 years, I find the quality of the recent lenses astounding. A lot of people fixate on sensors, but the glass is whats makes it all possible.....

To be honest I was checking out prices for the 400 f/5.6 yesterday because I find that now that I shoot full frame only, my 100-400 is fixed at 400mm almost all of the time - so I might as well use a prime. Still the lack of IS is THE show-stopper as war as the 400mm f/5.6 is concerned.

214
Software & Accessories / Re: To filter or not to filter
« on: July 14, 2014, 02:16:02 PM »
I will also remove the filter when shooting sunrise/sunset shots directly into the sun.

What's the advantage of doing that?
It reduces flare quite a bit and generally halves the number of sunspots in the photo.  When the sun is low in the sky (to save your eyes & sensor!) give it a try and you'll see that you get better contrast (i.e. less flare) and fewer sunspots with the filter off of the lens vs. on it.

Thanks mackguyver, I'll keep this in mind, next time I shoot in those conditions ;)

215
Software & Accessories / Re: To filter or not to filter
« on: July 14, 2014, 01:30:27 PM »
I will also remove the filter when shooting sunrise/sunset shots directly into the sun.

What's the advantage of doing that?

I've got protective B+W UV filters on all of my EF mount lenses. For my Sony lenses I have a mix of B+W and Hoya. The FD stuff has UV filters too but can be any brand. The old FL lenses and a few FD zooms I have don't have filters on them.

216
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II [CR1]
« on: July 14, 2014, 12:59:06 PM »
I am sticking with my non-stabilized 400mm f/5.6L until I can afford an f/4 supertelephoto.. I would not advise beginning birders to start with a non-stablized lens. unless they have lots of patience.
I keep hoping to see an updated version of that lens..

Yes, IS would make all the difference.

217
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II [CR1]
« on: July 14, 2014, 05:42:09 AM »
There's another advantage too, the curent design pushes the centre of balance way forwards and the tripod collar is right at the back of this lens towards the rear mount. Hopefully the newer design will address this.

This is what makes the current design such a great motorsports lens IMHO. I agree it's not great for tripod use, but the lens is fantastic to handhold and track objects. The lengthening effect helps to stabilize.


218
Cool, will get the IS 4.

70-300 is not sharp enough at wider end and I don't need 300mm for anything.

OP already choose the 70-200 IS4, so we could actually close this topic.


...to be honest, there isn't any losers here, all three lenses are top tier and we really are splitting hairs between them. There has never been so much top end choice as we have available to us these days.

True, for me it boils down to this:

70-200 f/2.8 IS II: This lens's f/2.8 and prime lens image quality allows me to forego a bunch of primes in these focal lengths. It's also the best event/reportage lens. Comes at a price but is the absolute king and works fabulously with a 1.4 teleconverter..

70-300L: Get this one for versatility and compactness; the ideal travel tele-zoom with stunning image quality. The placement of the focus ring near the camera body makes this a little awkward to use if you like to (fine-tune) focus manually.

70-200 f/4 IS: The excellent 70-200 for people with smaller weight and /or budget tolerance. The only reason not to get this is if you already own one of the two other lenses (which is why I've not owned one of these personally).

219
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: A Summary of Sigma Lens Rumors
« on: July 14, 2014, 04:44:51 AM »
Nice sky in the second one. Now I can't stop thinking about this lens :). Could be GAS infection.

That's the way GAS works, anyway if you think your creativity is enhanced by such a lens, you should go ahead and buy one. I personally think the new price is a bit steep at the moment (€619 in the Netherlands, somehow this lens is getting more and more expensive to buy new) but it's a good lens to pick up second hand if you can find a nice and clean copy.

220
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II [CR1]
« on: July 14, 2014, 04:35:10 AM »
I used and liked my 100-400 but it frustrated me.  Maybe I don't have one of the "good" copies but there have been many times when the image is fabulous.  But, there seem to be many more times when the image is not that good.  My frustration peaked during my trip to Denali last year.  I just could not get the IQ I was searching for and now would like to repeat that trip someday since I got the 300ii.  Here's one of the "better" images I got using the 100-400 at 400 with the 1.4x.  In fairness, these critters were way far away but I think I can do better.

So, do I go for the 100-400ii or not?  We will see how it fares if and when it arrives and at what price.

Are you sure that the lens is to blame? Maybe the light was bleak, and contrast may have been reduced by too much humidity (or dense clouds of moquito's! :P ) in the air. Shooting long range is very susceptible to atmospheric conditions.

221
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II [CR1]
« on: July 13, 2014, 05:10:10 PM »
If the focus ring was at the other end of the push/pull barrel so it didn't get turned accidentally, and if the IS was worth anything, it would be a far more pleasant lens to use.

Have you used the 70-300L?  The design places the focus ring next to the body, the zoom ring further out. That's reversed from other L lenses, and means your hand (well, mine at any rate) reflexively grabs the focus ring when intending to zoom.  A real PITA, and if the new 100-400 has a similar design, it would be unfortunate.

+1 The focus ring should be further out. This is really useful for MF (AF override) adjustments such as when shooting through foliage for instance.

222
Canon EF Prime Lenses / Re: Canon EF 24mm f/2.8
« on: July 13, 2014, 01:41:40 PM »
I conveniently had this in my bag yesterday when I went to a Classic Car Racing event. I thought the 35mm Sigma would do for the paddock pictures, but needed more 'drama'. I had the tiny 24mm in my bag so I swapped out lenses and gave it a test-spin.

Samples attached (that VW Golf happens to be my Mk I GTI). All photo's 24mm f/2.8 + 5D Mk II.

223
I have one technical question for those of you, who understand those things well.

Full frame format is 36 x 24 mm large. But we know that larger sensor gives better image quality. (here I speak about physical size and not about number of MP)

So, what is the reason that manufacturers don't make DSLRs with a slightly bigger sensor? I don't think that they should be as big as medium format, but something in between let say. Is an obstacle for that in lenses? Should be lenses entirely redesigned, if they want put in a larger sensor?

Thanks for making me smarter ;)

The well known company with the red dot makes such a camera:

http://us.leica-camera.com/Photography/S-System/Leica-S

It is medium format too so bring lots and lots of $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.

224
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 (1st gen., metal mount)
« on: July 11, 2014, 06:34:01 PM »


If you can, spend some time comparing the 2 lenses.  I wouldn't be too quick to dispose of the /1.4 version, it's a decent lens and actually has a bit of personality at times.  I can't count how many different 50mm lenses I
have, they're all a little different, but very similar.
+1
Lenses seem to have a lot of variation, find one you like and stick with it.

On the contrary, I like to have access to different lenses with different character to suit the mood ;)


But ... do you keep one that you don't like?  I keep the ones I like and will use, not just because they are different.  Thats what I was trying to say.

Of course you're right, I also get rid of lenses that I don't like. The ones that stay have to make me feel good in some way. I've sold lenses that were actually quite good but that somehow didn't suit and/or bored me.

225
Canon General / Re: What's Would You Keep? [The anti-G.A.S. thread]
« on: July 11, 2014, 05:53:29 PM »
As you say, old MF lenses provide a cheap, engaging adventure, often with superb results too.

I like the way you put it, and it's so true. I picked up a Sigma FDn 70-210mm 3.5-4.5 APO the other day that gives stunning results on my NEX, both with a Metabones Speed Booster and without. It's strange to say, and unexpected for a Sigma, but optically that lens is in 'L' territory. Maybe that's why it (deservedly) carries a red stripe.

Thanks for the tip!  So far my dabbling in old MF lenses has been limited to primes, so that might be fun to try.

If you can find one it's worth a try.  See attached samples. The first is with the Speed Booster, the second without and both are at ~ 210mm and f/5.6. The first photo has a little bit of motion blur due to the relatively slow shutter speed of 1/200, the second is sharper (1/400).

A nice feature of this lens is that it has a screw-in hood that, combined with the one-touch operation and the fact that the lens gets longer as you zoom in, allows you to stabilize the lens very well by holding it (and zooming/focusing) by the lens hood. This is opposite to the way the Canon FD 70-210 f/4 operates because with that lens your hand moves towards the camera as the focal length increases, something I really dislike.

The Sigma 70-210 APO really is an apochromatic lens because there's virtually no color shift or CA to be found. These photo's are uncorrected raws processed in Lightroom.

And third, this is the specific lens I'm talking about.

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


Pages: 1 ... 13 14 [15] 16 17 ... 93