October 01, 2014, 02:55:58 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 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 94
61
Landscape / Re: Post Your Best Landscapes
« on: August 31, 2014, 03:04:23 PM »
Not sure this is a landscape, but it's a massive panorama anyway (this is downsized to 1080 pixels height). Enjoy :)

62
Lenses / Re: A New Pancake Lens? [CR1]
« on: August 31, 2014, 05:15:18 AM »
with the 20 set f8 hard stop infinity and everything from 2m to infinity is in focus anyway its a wicked point and shoot when used like this.

I have a 12mm Samyang that I use on my Sony, and I've not quite figured out what is the 'ideal' setting for that lens. I use focus peaking but found that OOF areas with high contrast are still shown as being in focus. Wide angle MF can be really challenging, and I think I need more practice to build the necessary confidence.

63
Lenses / Re: New Lens Information for Photokina
« on: August 30, 2014, 02:38:16 PM »
Wow, good catch.
Upvote for you!
For folks who don't know, in Windows a right click on image, and "Search Google for this image" is about as easy as can be.


One question, when did I ever say the 400 DO wasn't sharp or took TC's well? Because it reads to me like he is calling people that say those things idiots, and his images prove they are.

Nope, you said "horrible bokeh".  There are several pictures in that post (and elsewhere on the internet) showing the bokeh of the lens.  It is not, in any way, "horrible".

What he doesn't show you is stuff like this that demonstrates what DO do to bokeh and how they handle specular highlights, you might have noticed not one of Mr Morris' images has any specular highlights, did you wonder why? No, of course you didn't, you are too obtuse to do that.

No, its probably because it isn't actually a problem in real world shooting situations and you are blowing it way out of proportion.  Bryan from The Digital Picture had this to say about it:

"The Canon EF 400mm f/4 DO IS USM Lens has been criticized for its poor specular highlight bokeh (OOF blur quality), but I have seldom encountered this problem. Specular highlights can have a target-appearance at worst - concentric circles instead of a smooth blur. I can't say I like the bokeh of this lens more than Canon's other 400mm Lenses, but the 400mm focal length combined with a relatively wide aperture can very nicely separate a subject from its background."

If you are happy to pay $6,500 for a lens that does that then I suspect you are the idiot, after buying them for that much many owners are happy to sell them for $3,500 to get rid of them, maybe they are the idiots.

One thing I will agree with you on is that I think the lens is too expensive and a new version isn't likely to be cheaper.  It would be stellar if it was priced at about 2/3 or 1/2 of the 300 f2.8 IS II.  One of the promises of DO technology is that it is easier to eliminate chromatic aberration (a huge problem with traditional optical designs lens manufacturers have struggled with for decades that, curiously, doesn't completely invalidate the entire technology...) so fluorite lens elements aren't needed for high end telephotos which should make them cheaper to manufacture but, well, Canon. *shrug*

One last thing - that photo you posted is pretty disingenuous.  Were you just not going to mention that it was taken with the very different 70-300 f4-5.6 DO?  Just going to allow that to be inferred by people who didn't bother to do a reverse GIS? The 70-300 DO exhibits far more problems than the 400 f4 DO and is reviewed a lot more harshly for a number of reasons related to its IQ.  If you've got a sample that demonstrates the absolutely horrendous disaster that is the 400 f4  DO, I'm all eyes, but make sure its the 400 f4 DO and not that other lens.

Thanks, for killing another internet lie.

And no thanks for making me want the 400 DO even more  >:(

 ;)

64
Lenses / Re: Your favorite older EF lens
« on: August 29, 2014, 01:42:41 PM »
50mm f/1.8 MkI. Hands down  8)

My old 24mm f/2.8 would be a very close second.  I would say I "mistakenly" sold it if you ask me today.  I should have kept it.  But I sold it when I had, variously, the 17-40 L, 24-105 L, and 24-70 L.  I wish I had it today as a small, lightweight complement to the 40mm pancake for my "running" kit that I carry while running and covering ultramarathons.  Sometimes I need something wider, and the 17-40 is just too much lens to carry when I'm running for hours around 50 or 100 mile running routes trying to get the shots.

I recently bought a 24mm f/2.8 with the original hood. It's a totally cool little wide angle. Makes you wonder why all these lenses are so large nowadays.

65
Lenses / Re: New Lens Information for Photokina
« on: August 29, 2014, 01:28:37 PM »
Wow! a new 400/4 with ISII and improved optics surely.

Light in weight so tough competition for the heavier 500/4 and the possibility of a good 560/5.6 - probably much better than the 300/2.8 with 2xTc.

Yes this would be totally cool!  8)

66
Lenses / Re: A New Pancake Lens? [CR1]
« on: August 29, 2014, 11:37:16 AM »
According to Digicam https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fdigicame-info.com%2F2014%2F08%2Fef-s24mm-f28-stmef24-105mm-f35.html&edit-text=, it is an EF-S not EF lens

Quote
24mm F2.8 is a lens that rumor is flowing well recently, but it seems to be EF-S lens instead of EF apparently. The rumor, it is said that this lens become a pancake, but it is where you want to pay attention how to be degree smaller and lighter.

(via CW)

Good link, thank you!

I must say that 24mm for crop is odd.  24mm is a common FF focal length, but not a common Canon crop focal length.  An EF-S 22mm (like with the EF-M) version would give a 35.2mm focal length that would make more sense. 

But an EF-S offering makes sense as this is the only mount that doesn't have a pancake option right now.  It's a pity it won't be EF, though, as I am a 5D3 shooter and would love a wide pancake option with autofocusing.

- A

24*1.6=38.4 mm. This is very near 40mm, which is a nice standard focal length for a 'standard' prime. Case in point:


67
Photography Technique / Re: Is RAW worth it?
« on: August 29, 2014, 11:34:17 AM »
RAW is worth it as long as it doesn't make you lazy.

Too many people use RAW as an excuse to be sloppy with lighting and lazy with "automatic" exposure.

These folk must love spending time on a computer fixing their mistakes then. Sounds like a nightmare to me.

Less time in post means more time chilling out in front of the telly with a beer in my hand.

+1 I would love it if I were able to nail every photo every time, the time spent in post is not my favorite part of photography.

68
Lenses / Re: New Lens Information for Photokina
« on: August 29, 2014, 09:09:29 AM »
Who the heck would want a FF lens that only goes to f/5.6 at 105mm? 

For years I've been saying American businesses are under a curse of stupidity.  The Japanese might be under the same spell.  What a waste of marketing and manufacturing time.

PATHETIC if this rumor proves true.

Ok, now come the slavish apologist RemarkS.

Consumer demand tells a different story; price is an important factor meaning the glass is slow - which is fine for most people anyway. Check out all the Canon EF f/x-5.6 consumer zooms from the film era:

http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/lens/ef/standard_zoom.html

69
Lenses / Re: New Lens Information for Photokina
« on: August 29, 2014, 09:05:51 AM »
400 4.0 DO IS II might be interesting, but I guess I won't like the price.

+1 I would love to have such a lens and it would be absolutely fantastic if it works well with a 1.4 TC. It would very likely be beyond my reach though, cost wise. Especially if it quickly earns a good reputation and it doesn't devalue as much as the current model.

70
Photography Technique / Re: Is RAW worth it?
« on: August 29, 2014, 09:02:05 AM »
Raw files are like diving boards, pretty flexible and can take being jumped on in post.

A jpg is like standing on a glass ceiling, it's holding you up when you don't try to jump on it too hard. It'll break apart when you do.

Nice analogy ;)

71
Lenses / Re: A New Pancake Lens? [CR1]
« on: August 27, 2014, 11:43:32 AM »
My 6D is a mirrorless killer with the 40STM!  Mirrorless killer as long as we aren't including the A7 series! 

Really?

72
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Samyang Teases New Lenses
« on: August 27, 2014, 10:14:02 AM »
There is no such thing as a "macro" if its below 1:1 ;)   Shame on Zeiss.

1:1 ratio is a subjective value. You get more magnification with 1:1 macro on crop, than with 1:1 macro on FF.
Something like A7R (36mp sensor) allows you to crop a lot and get the same magnification of a 16mp crop sensor. So, technically, 1:2 macro on 20mp crop provides similar magnification to 1:1 macro on 12mp FF.

1:1 has nothing to do with megapixels; it is entirely governed by optics and means the physical size of the projected image equals that of the subject, ie a 1cm tall object results in a 1cm tall projected image.

Due to the cropping factor of an aps-c sensor though, you are effectively blowing up the projected image. So this means that for a crop factor of 1.5, a 50 mm lens will become 75 mm equivalent, and at 1:2 magnification becomes 3/4 magnification.

73
Lenses / Re: A New Pancake Lens? [CR1]
« on: August 26, 2014, 02:05:31 AM »
Mostly, just compare a 60D w 35mm f/2 IS vs an SL1 with 40mm f/2.8. It's a BIG difference in size: http://camerasize.com/compact/#100.368,448.345,ha,t

Thanks, I bookmarked that site, very handy!

Yeah, I've used that site a few times.  It makes we want mirrorless less and it makes me want smaller lenses more.   :D

- A

Actually, I don't like my lenses to become too short (pancakes) because it deducts from good handling. A lens that has a little more length to it allows me to stabilize my camera with my left hand. This is one reason why I sold my 40mm Voightlander. The minimum size of lens I like to use on my 5D's is the 35mm f/2 and 50 mm f/1.8 MkI.

74
EOS-M / Re: Finally a 50mm for EOS-M...
« on: August 25, 2014, 03:37:10 PM »
Confirmed for EOS-M mount.  http://www.cinema5d.com/samyang-50mm-t15-announced/

It is not really a compact 50mm.  The EF-M version would be the same as buying the EF version and using Canon's adapter.  The lens was designed for full frame sensors and flange distances.  The weight of the EF and EF-M versions are the same and the EF-M version is 26mm longer than the EF version (basically has a built-in EF-M adapter).  Lenses sized for the M are less than half the weight and much shorter.

That's right. They have more such lenses with a built in adapter. I would then rather buy them in EF mount and use a separate adapter to make them fit the mirrorless so they have better cross-platform compatibility and quite possibly better hold their resale value too.

75
Lenses / Re: A New Pancake Lens? [CR1]
« on: August 25, 2014, 12:56:53 PM »
Mostly, just compare a 60D w 35mm f/2 IS vs an SL1 with 40mm f/2.8. It's a BIG difference in size: http://camerasize.com/compact/#100.368,448.345,ha,t

Thanks, I bookmarked that site, very handy!

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 94