July 24, 2014, 08:37:49 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 ... 15 16 [17] 18 19 ... 81
241
Photography Technique / Re: Shoot from the rearend of the subjects.
« on: February 22, 2014, 04:10:42 AM »
More from (old) Delhi, shot from the back of a rickshaw. I had the iso's cranked to get shutterspeeds fast enough to deal with the jolting ride - and my 5DMkII Servo AF was working overtime.

These samples were shot 'from the rear' but the whole series can be found here (warning, contains shots from the front of the subjects):

http://www.mrsfotografie.nl/reizen/india-2012/india-01b/

242
Photography Technique / Re: Shoot from the rearend of the subjects.
« on: February 22, 2014, 04:00:33 AM »
I took this picture on a recent trip to India. I did not bring my 5D3, went only with the X100s.
This was such a peaceful scenery, I'm glad I had a camera with me.

Same place I think. Jama Masjid (Mosque), Delhi. The haze was awful when I visited. 5DMkII + 24-105L.

243
Lenses / Re: Affected with GAS, Gear Acquisition Syndrome
« on: February 22, 2014, 03:17:59 AM »
I need help! Spring is in the air and I am coming down with GAS, I am spending to much time looking at lens reviews....how can I rid myself of this affliction?..? ;) ;)

Looking at the gear in your signature I think there's plenty of room for some indulgence. Enjoy!

don't fight it, it only gets easier

pretty soon you'll accumulate enough red rings and white lenses to mask purchases from the wife as you continue to struggle with GAS.

LOL  ;D

It gets worse when you decide you need a second camera system. For me that's the NEX but I've managed to keep GAS in that system down to some very affordable vintage lenses - and I limit myself to FD mount lenses too. As for the Canon system: a 5DMkIII, a 100 f/2.8 L IS USM and a 70-300L within two months, now that's big GAS :o  :o :-\

244

Hands-on video from CP+ here:

Sigma 50mm F1.4 DG HSM | ART

- A


Thanks for posting, the lens looks good but a little big too! Still, it's quite yummie :)

"A flower shaped hood is unnecessary on a prime lens" Who is he kidding.

245
I can't believe no one mentioned using EOS Utility - you can do it entirely from your PC.

Errhh... I was the second to reply and there it is: ;)

You can update the firmware using EOS utility. See attached manual. Good luck.
Oops - that's what I get for trying to read the forum on my phone :o.  Your advice is always excellent, of course, unlike my eyes ;)

No worries! I wouldn't say my advice is always at the same level though, as I'm only human :)

246
Lenses / Re: f2.8 16-35mmL vs. f4 17-40mmL
« on: February 21, 2014, 11:10:04 AM »
To the op: Try using the search field and feel free to browse through some the other 100 dedicated 17-40L vs 16-35L threads :-p

+1  (Actually, there are only 81, but who is counting?)   :)

Who really cares about that, it's too much fun just to discuss and get the newest insights :)

247
Lenses / Re: f2.8 16-35mmL vs. f4 17-40mmL
« on: February 21, 2014, 08:28:43 AM »
My advice is to skip both lenses and adapt a Nikon 14-24mm. Both Canon offerings are incredibly horrible.
::) ... there we go ... OP is specifically asking for advice on 16-35 f/2.8 L II vs 17-4 f/4 L, and your advice is to jump ship to another camera manufacturer ... how intelligent ::)

And to say these Canon lenses are 'horrible' is a gross overstatement of any optical shortcomings they may have.  ::)

248
Lenses / Re: f2.8 16-35mmL vs. f4 17-40mmL
« on: February 21, 2014, 06:37:49 AM »
Hey all,

Was looking for some insight on the aforementioned (in the subject) wide angle lenses.  I shoot on a 5D Mark III, and am wondering if the f2.8 16-35mm is considerably sharper on the edges compared to the f4 17-40mm.  I would be using the lens for primarily outdoor landscape use, but definitely would be used diversely.  Any comparison of the two is appreciated.

Cheers!
Welcome to CR.
At one point, I owned both lenses at the same time and sold the 17-40 f/4 in favor of 16-35 f/2.8 L II ... both are very capable lenses, but if money is not an issue, then get the 16-35 f/2.8 L II ... 1mm difference between 16mm and 17mm may not seem like a lot but there is a noticeble difference. I am sucker for "Sun star" effect and the 16-35 f/2.8 L II produces far superior "sun star" effect then the 17-40.
If you can try renting both the lenses and try this:
Point your camera at the sun and shoot with a small aperture, (e.g. f/16 or f/22). The diaphragm blades in the lens will create a star effect ... and you will see how pleasingly the 16-35 f/2.8 L II can create a sun start as opposed to the 17-40 f/4 (which to me looks lame in comparison) ... the same thing applies to street lights as well. Also note that at f/4 the 16-35 f/2.8 L II is sharper in the edges then the 17-40 f/4
Here is an image showing the "sun star" effect with the 16-35 f/2.8 L II lens.

Interesting, but that image you show canot possibly be shot with either of these lenses because they both do have seven blade apertures that produce 14 point starbursts. Your image shows 18 points, pointing to a nine blade aperture. Nine blade apertures don't exist in wide angle Canon EF zoom lenses so the lens used in this image is third party as well, or it was the new 24-70.
Oops ... my apologies... looks like I messed up while uploading the image, thanks for pointing it out ... I meant to load this one, made with the 16-35 f/2.8 L II, in December 2013
Image made with Canon 5D MK III + 16-35 f/2.8 L II, f/16, ISO 100, 1/800s

No problem there :) I bet you used your 24-70 Tamron for that image, am I correct? ;)

249
Lenses / Re: f2.8 16-35mmL vs. f4 17-40mmL
« on: February 21, 2014, 01:18:36 AM »
Hey all,

Was looking for some insight on the aforementioned (in the subject) wide angle lenses.  I shoot on a 5D Mark III, and am wondering if the f2.8 16-35mm is considerably sharper on the edges compared to the f4 17-40mm.  I would be using the lens for primarily outdoor landscape use, but definitely would be used diversely.  Any comparison of the two is appreciated.

Cheers!
Welcome to CR.
At one point, I owned both lenses at the same time and sold the 17-40 f/4 in favor of 16-35 f/2.8 L II ... both are very capable lenses, but if money is not an issue, then get the 16-35 f/2.8 L II ... 1mm difference between 16mm and 17mm may not seem like a lot but there is a noticeble difference. I am sucker for "Sun star" effect and the 16-35 f/2.8 L II produces far superior "sun star" effect then the 17-40.
If you can try renting both the lenses and try this:
Point your camera at the sun and shoot with a small aperture, (e.g. f/16 or f/22). The diaphragm blades in the lens will create a star effect ... and you will see how pleasingly the 16-35 f/2.8 L II can create a sun start as opposed to the 17-40 f/4 (which to me looks lame in comparison) ... the same thing applies to street lights as well. Also note that at f/4 the 16-35 f/2.8 L II is sharper in the edges then the 17-40 f/4
Here is an image showing the "sun star" effect with the 16-35 f/2.8 L II lens.

Interesting, but that image you show canot possibly be shot with either of these lenses because they both do have seven blade apertures that produce 14 point starbursts. Your image shows 18 points, pointing to a nine blade aperture. Nine blade apertures don't exist in wide angle Canon EF zoom lenses so the lens used in this image is third party as well, or it was the new 24-70.

250
I can't believe no one mentioned using EOS Utility - you can do it entirely from your PC.

Errhh... I was the second to reply and there it is: ;)

You can update the firmware using EOS utility. See attached manual. Good luck.

251
Lenses / Re: f2.8 16-35mmL vs. f4 17-40mmL
« on: February 20, 2014, 01:54:02 PM »
I use my 17-40 mostly on holidays; its portability is excellent and it's great on full frame. When a wide aperture is needed I prefer primes over 2.8 zooms, save the 70-200 of course.

252
Can you imagine? "Sorry the image isn't very good but the lens is so light!"

You must be talking about the new Nikon 58mm - LOL


That is one remarkable combination of sky-high price and unimpressive performance.


Have you read the lenstip review of the Nikon?  Ouch!

http://www.lenstip.com/2080-news-Nikon_Nikkor_AF-S_58_mm_f_1.4G_-_lens_review.html


It may be light but it's quite bulky nevertheless. Yuck

253
Sigma 50 1.4 815 grams official weight. My 24-105 Sigma is heavy as well but worth every gram.

We're getting to the point that equipment size and weight is increasing so much that practicality is at stake. More bulk means less space remains in the bag for other lenses. It's good to limit the stuff you carry but can be good to have a little extra space for contingency lenses. This is why I keep the old 35 f/2 and 50 f/1.8 which sacrifice a little in image quality but are very compact which is great especially for travel. note that I always limit myself to the minimum I think I will need, and my lowepro minitrekker AW is the measure for the maximum volume I want to carry.

254
Animal Kingdom / Re: Let's Get it On
« on: February 17, 2014, 02:55:42 PM »
Happy Lions  8)

255
EOS-M / Re: Is the canon eos-m a dead end system?
« on: February 17, 2014, 12:41:24 AM »
I found this PDF from the G1 engineering group an interesting read. Among other things, they make a passing comparison between the G1, a fixed zoom compact and mirrorless:

Quote
Comparing the G1 X Mark II to an
SLR or mirrorless camera


The PowerShot G1 X Mark II is a compact digital camera with a fixed integrated lens. This means that many aspects of performance can be optimised for this lens. Sharpness, distortion, lens zooming position, sensor can all be optimised for the integrated lens. This kind of optimisation is not found in cameras with interchangeable lenses, especially those with lenses of f/2.0 or larger.


It seems that Canon's view remains that they already have a small camera form factor, and they're out to prove that it's a better system than mirrorless. Elsewhere they also dismiss the recent retro design trend. The overall tone and perspective in the paper is quite conservative, as in Canon knows best where to focus its efforts.


Technically the image quality can be made 'better' using in-camera software correction given enough optical sharpness etc, but I still think an interchangeable lens camera allows for more creativity and is more 'fun' as well especially if you consider the ability to use some old and interesting lenses via an adapter. There are a lot of photographers who like the characteristics of these old lenses despite them not being 'perfect' (imperfection often adds character). But of course, carrying an extra set of lenses quickly diminishes the compactness of the whole setup.

Pages: 1 ... 15 16 [17] 18 19 ... 81