October 01, 2014, 04:29:52 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 ... 37 38 [39] 40 41 ... 94
571
Canon AE-1 Program, 50 and 28mm lenses.

572
Reviews / Re: Review: Tamron SP 90mm f/2.8 1:1 Macro VC USD
« on: January 19, 2014, 12:18:56 PM »
Ok, I put my Tamron 90mm F/2.8 Di Macro up for sale today....

573
Lenses / Re: 7D user - advice on my best option for a 'go to' lens?
« on: January 19, 2014, 08:59:30 AM »
Thanks all for the informative responses. I think I'm ready to scratch the idea of the 24-105 (17-55 wins here by something like 15 to 2).

I'll definitely get the 50mm 1.4, because I've loved using my 1.8. If I aim for a really limited set up, does the 17-55 2.8 complement the 50mm 1.4? I'd definitely be open to alternatives, like the 15-85, if it gives my photography more scope?

I think I basically want one of these set ups:

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Lens
Canon EF 50mm - f/1.4 USM Lens
Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0 L USM Lens?

OR

Canon EF-S 15-85 mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM Lens
Canon EF 50mm - f/1.4 USM Lens
Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0 L USM Lens?

How do either of those sound for me? Anything missing?

Thanks a lot people

What's blatantly missing is IS in your 70-200, I'm not going to sum up all of the plusses, but I would seriously consider the IS model if I were you, also because it is optically superior to the non-IS model.

574
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon naming policy
« on: January 19, 2014, 05:27:54 AM »
You're bound to run into confusion when you have (a) too many cameras simultaneously on the market, (b) when you release cameras too rapidly. The EOS 100D came out in 2013 ... it's an "entry-level" camera, so the EOS 150D should be here this year, as well as the 750D ... what happens in 2017 (the new 300D) and 2019 (the new 100D or 1000D or 000D)? Plus, eventually the 5D and the 1D series will reach Mark L and even more eventually Mark C level. But before then, there'll be the Mark XXXVIII and, fitting for the 1D series, the Mark XL.

You forgot about the 100D/SL1. What will happen to  the x0D line after the 80D and 90D?

After the 950D the rebels will likely go back to 300 and after the 90D the xxD line will likely go back to 10 but they might not be "D".  Although I am curious as to what the 100D / SL1 will become. Maybe 110D?

Well at one point it becomes useless to add the 'D' to designate 'digital'. Better drop it and use an 'F" for film or something like that  ;D

575
500d and a Canon 35-80 with the front element smashed with a hammer to make a macro.....
makes for a brutal but effective close-up kit, I just ran across this lens mod "recommendation" recently.

Yikes! Not the way I like to treat equipment, but I guess it can be very effective if you're on a tight budget.

Here's a few shots taken with a new, but very cheap Ixus 132:

576
Reviews / Re: Review: Tamron SP 90mm f/2.8 1:1 Macro VC USD
« on: January 18, 2014, 04:42:19 PM »
Do you think it's a worthwhile upgrade for those who have the 'old' non-VC version??

I definitely do, particularly since you get not only a slightly sharper macro lens, but also because you get a much more effective modern medium telephoto with a great stabilizer.  The new lens does a lot of things really well and doubles as a great general purpose lens.  I think its worth the upgrade, particularly if you can get a decent price on the used market for your old one.

Thanks, I may consider putting this lens in my upgrade path. I really like that the new version is non-extending. FWIW the image quality from the old macro is fabulous, not so much the looks of the thing...  ::) ;D

I haven't used the old version myself, but your report confirms what pretty much everyone has said.  I'm surprised the new lens hasn't had more buzz, but that may be because it was overpriced (particularly in Europe) on introduction.  It is a very worthy lens, though, and a great choice now that the price is reasonable.

Because I hadn't used my 90mm macro for a while, and because I wanted to reconfirm the focal length and working distance on a full frame body (I'm selling my 7D), I took the lens to the zoo. 90 mm macro still works for me at least for butterflies, even on full frame but an image stabilizer would be very welcome.

I gave my 70-200+1.4 TC a go as well, but without a 1.6 crop factor the maximum magnification isn't quite sufficient for butterflies and such. That makes a good near focusing lens something I require more than before.

Hence, based on your review I'm strongly considering upgrading to the new version - for the convenience of the image stabilizer mostly. I'm sticking with Tamron for macro use, because as I mentioned before I don't do enough macro to justify an 'L' lens.

There's still nothing wrong with the image quality from the old lens, here's a few samples that I took today. Note that it was rather dark and the excellent high iso performance of the 5DMkIII is a real asset:

Those are some very nice photos!  Well done.

Thank you very much! Maybe I should consider doing more 'macro' work ;)

577
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon naming policy
« on: January 18, 2014, 04:35:06 PM »
Canon EOS naming scheme on Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_EOS#Naming_scheme

578
Reviews / Re: Review: Tamron SP 90mm f/2.8 1:1 Macro VC USD
« on: January 18, 2014, 11:55:26 AM »
Do you think it's a worthwhile upgrade for those who have the 'old' non-VC version??

I definitely do, particularly since you get not only a slightly sharper macro lens, but also because you get a much more effective modern medium telephoto with a great stabilizer.  The new lens does a lot of things really well and doubles as a great general purpose lens.  I think its worth the upgrade, particularly if you can get a decent price on the used market for your old one.

Thanks, I may consider putting this lens in my upgrade path. I really like that the new version is non-extending. FWIW the image quality from the old macro is fabulous, not so much the looks of the thing...  ::) ;D

I haven't used the old version myself, but your report confirms what pretty much everyone has said.  I'm surprised the new lens hasn't had more buzz, but that may be because it was overpriced (particularly in Europe) on introduction.  It is a very worthy lens, though, and a great choice now that the price is reasonable.

Because I hadn't used my 90mm macro for a while, and because I wanted to reconfirm the focal length and working distance on a full frame body (I'm selling my 7D), I took the lens to the zoo. 90 mm macro still works for me at least for butterflies, even on full frame but an image stabilizer would be very welcome.

I gave my 70-200+1.4 TC a go as well, but without a 1.6 crop factor the maximum magnification isn't quite sufficient for butterflies and such. That makes a good near focusing lens something I require more than before.

Hence, based on your review I'm strongly considering upgrading to the new version - for the convenience of the image stabilizer mostly. I'm sticking with Tamron for macro use, because as I mentioned before I don't do enough macro to justify an 'L' lens.

There's still nothing wrong with the image quality from the old lens, here's a few samples that I took today. Note that it was rather dark and the excellent high iso performance of the 5DMkIII is a real asset:


579
...like a good steak should be with the great taste of blood...

I hope you don't subsist by feeding on the blood of the living  ;D

:) While I intellectually can understand why we should not eat beef (cruelty, emission of gasses by cattlestocks...), I cannot help it. I am a natural born carnivarous.

Same here, was just wondering if you're afraid of garlic/silver bullets/wooden stakes  ;D

580
Lenses / Re: Canon 135mm or Tamron 24-70mm
« on: January 17, 2014, 08:25:29 AM »
My advice, wait for this new Sig 50mm 1.4 art lens.

+1 great idea!

Yes, I find 24-70 zooms kinda... boring  8)

I love my 24-105 for its versatility, that extra 35 mm really is worth the slower aperture. When I need a wider aperture I prefer to go to a prime instead of a 'compromise' 24-70 f/2.8. That's my take.

581
...like a good steak should be with the great taste of blood...

I hope you don't subsist by feeding on the blood of the living  ;D

582
Lenses / Re: Canon 17-40mm & ND filter
« on: January 17, 2014, 01:14:35 AM »
It's in the lens mount; you can cut the filters to size ;)

Doh. For some reason that gel holder in the back slid right in one ear and out the other. I think because of concerns about the disposable nature of the gels. Out of curiosity, what size does it need to be cut to? I checked the manual for the lens and while it mentions the gel holder, it does not say what size that marked square is. If I can get two or three out of a 3 stop 3" or 4" kodak wratten it may be worth doing that and a variable ND for my other glass that doesn't need the 10 or more stop reduction. At that point I could fashion a small case with separation papers and maybe a pair of plastic tweezers for handling the cut gels to try make them last.

One thing that does appeal to me about trying it this way is that it would open up using my polarizer on the front of the lens without introducing major vignetting.

Has anyone tried using this rear gel slot? Any impact on IQ?

Thanks for the examples Surapon and kkelis.

I've never used the gel holder myself, but I think it's probably easy enough to measure the square (The filter needs to sit inside, and from what I see I think the corners need to be squared off a little). Or else Google it?

583
Lenses / Re: Canon 17-40mm & ND filter
« on: January 16, 2014, 03:39:15 PM »
I was wondering if anyone out there is using a Canon 17-40mm lens with a high (i.e. 10 stop) ND filter. I'm thinking of building a small set of 82mm ND filters (separate, not variable - probably a 4 and a 10 stop to start with) along with step rings so I can use it on all my glass.

I guess the question is two-fold:
Is anyone using strong ND filters with this lens and do you see any vignetting on the 17mm end?
Any ramifications to using an 82mm ND filter and step ring to put it on the 77mm thread of the 17-40 lens?

TIA for any info.

FWIW this lens has a rear 'gel' filter holder so you can use tiny gel filters that cause no vignetting at all :)

Never tried it though myself  :o ;D

Had to get up and look at my 17-40 f/4L and can't find where the gel filter goes. Nothing like my 500 has for filters.

It's in the lens mount; you can cut the filters to size ;)

584
Lenses / Re: Canon 17-40mm & ND filter
« on: January 16, 2014, 02:55:55 PM »
I was wondering if anyone out there is using a Canon 17-40mm lens with a high (i.e. 10 stop) ND filter. I'm thinking of building a small set of 82mm ND filters (separate, not variable - probably a 4 and a 10 stop to start with) along with step rings so I can use it on all my glass.

I guess the question is two-fold:
Is anyone using strong ND filters with this lens and do you see any vignetting on the 17mm end?
Any ramifications to using an 82mm ND filter and step ring to put it on the 77mm thread of the 17-40 lens?

TIA for any info.

FWIW this lens has a rear 'gel' filter holder so you can use tiny gel filters that cause no vignetting at all :)

Never tried it though myself  :o ;D

585
Lenses / Re: 7D user - advice on my best option for a 'go to' lens?
« on: January 16, 2014, 11:25:59 AM »
I think I'm quite lazy about the technical side of things, and like to keep gear as simple as possible.

May I suggest the Sigma 30 mm A  8)

Pages: 1 ... 37 38 [39] 40 41 ... 94