April 23, 2014, 04:07:48 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 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 68
46
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 :)

47
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.  ::)

48
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? ;)

49
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.

50
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.

51
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.

52
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

53
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.

54
Animal Kingdom / Re: Let's Get it On
« on: February 17, 2014, 02:55:42 PM »
Happy Lions  8)

55
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.

56
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Oh neat, a Nikon 300f2 (1981)
« on: February 17, 2014, 12:34:50 AM »
Nikon hasn't designed anything faster than f/1.4 in decades.  Even the much-hyped 58/1.4G was not the Noct-Nikkor 58/1.2 that Nikon fans were dreaming of.  It's rather ironic, considering how some of these old designs (Canon FL/FD 55/1.2, Yashica ML 55/1.2, Canon EF 50/1.0L, the Noct-Nikkor, and Minolta Rokkor PG 58/1.2) still perform admirably well and are coveted by today's photographers for their "look."

Please correct me if I'm wrong but I believe I've read somewhere that the Nikon lens mount is too 'tight' (rear element cannot be large enough) for a 50 or 85mm brighter than f/1.4. Although that may be based on double Gauss designs, I think with retrofocus it should be possible to go brighter.

57
EOS-M / Re: Is the canon eos-m a dead end system?
« on: February 16, 2014, 02:32:57 PM »
Hi all,

Firstly let me just say - I don't mean to offend any Eos-m users by putting this post.
I am still keen is getting a smaller unit as an alternative to my 5dmk3 and I believe this is the Eos-m system.
However, with Canon releasing a new G1 camera and only releasing the Eos-M 2 in Japan and some parts of Asia, have they abandoned the Eos-m system? Should I wait later this year instead of getting the original Eos-m?

Thanks all,

Hmmm, well if you consider there aren't many third party lenses available, notably from Sigma - that at least means that outside from Canon there is not too much support for the system. The leader in APS-C mirrorless is Sony, I think.

58
Lenses / Re: lenses cut in half @ dpreview
« on: February 16, 2014, 04:31:44 AM »
Certainly interesting, you can see the amount of engineering detail that goes into these lenses and why good optics aren't exactly cheap.

59
I've had carpal tunnel surgery on both hands last year, and had to sell my 1D MK IV because of the pain holding it.  This year, I suddenly have tendonitis.  It likely comes from zillions of hours spent using a mouse to edit photos.   I've ordered a ergonomic mouse, I have 2500 photos that I can't edit because of the pain.
Sorry to hear that. Hope you feel better now ... what about using a Wacom tablet, does that help? as opposed to a ergonomic mouse? ... I ask, coz I haven't used a Wacom pen/tablet yet, but plan on getting sometime soon.

Years ago I switched to using a tablet for this reason It's a great help. Now with my new 5DMkIII I got a Wacom Intuos Pro tablet as part of a Canon promotion, and that tablet also supports touch, so I hab even use handgestures now.

It's also good to learn to use the mouse with your other hand. When I was a CAD engineer I used both hands: A Wacom tablet on the right and a mouse on the left.

60
Technical Support / Re: How to use cf and sd cards Mark5d3
« on: February 15, 2014, 11:08:58 AM »
I've tried all the configurations and have settled to shooting only CF in the past 6 months. I own a grundle of cards and always have at least 2 with me so I have yet to run out of space. I have had a poor relationship with SD cards,too fragile for me and I dislike the slider switch. All RAW except for the occasional b&w jpeg shoot for kicks.I used to hate forgetting to switch the card slot after removing the CF when I shot dual slots, using only the CF solves that.

These are the sort of issues I want to know about before I will invest in an SD card. So how about the following scenarios?

Let's say I have a 4GB CF and a 32 GB SD. While shooting I fill the CF and remove it. Will the camera then continue on the SD card only?

And let's say I remove the CF and replace it with a fresh 4GB card, will the camera then continue recording on the SD where it left off?

Thanks

It will do what you tell it to do. Write to one. Write to both, Write to one then the other. And all these configurations in all manners of file formats. And yes, if you remove a card it will automatically write to the remaining card regardless of previous configuration.

And even when the camera is "off".  If you leave the card door open and replace the cf card it will stay on the previous setting.  However as soon as you close the door it will switch to the SD card.

I reported this issue to Canon and it was fixed in the 1dx but not in the 5diii.

I just use the usb to download now and leave the cards innthe camera.  Lots of reports of bent cf pins so i reduce that risk by just leaving thm in the slot.

Thanks for your comments. I think I'll just go and play around with it a little to get a feel for it ;)

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 68