February 28, 2015, 02:16:27 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 - extremeinstability

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 10
Lenses / Re: Best lens for capturing the Milky Way?
« on: May 08, 2013, 07:47:23 PM »

She uses many of Canon's UWA and WA lenses including the 24 1.4L to photography the night sky.
Granted, she has access to high quality gear via CPS but she recommends stopping this lens down to 2.8 or even 5.6 to reduce coma. 

Just what one wants to have to do with the expensive as hell 24L they just bought, stop it down to F2.8 or gasp F5.6.  Must be cool to be restricted by being tied to Canon when giving recommendations. 

Stopping way down for say Milky Way shots isn't using the limitations knowledge of the gear to their advantage.    It's using just Canon gear to their disadvantage. 

Thanks.  Yeah haven't tried the tracking thing yet but it could be fun for sky only shots of the Milky Way then stack that into some shot later. The 'oomph' from F1.4 and such high ISO ability now is almost making it so you won't even have to.  But for sure could get even more crazy views of the Milky Way that way. 

The Samyang 24 is better than I had thought it would be.  Granted I haven't really even used it except for that night stuff. 

The Samyang 14 distortion isn't much of an issue with the profile to fix it.  I have some day corner sharpness, vignetting and distortion before and after fix on that one here:  http://www.extremeinstability.com/topic-14-21-50-lenses.htm


I did this last spring with a rented 5D III and Canon 14L.  Did it last fall with a 5D II and Canon 24L.  Now just did it again with a 6D and Samyang 24(as well as the Samyang 14 and Zeiss 21). 

The 6D is simply a beast with high ISOs and the night sky.  Even more of one than the 5D III was, easily trumping it.  12,800 was not a problem at all.  Quite amazing actually.  10,000 felt like one was starting to push it for the 5D III.  The same feeling probably comes in around 20,000 ISO or so on the 6D.

The Samyang 24 F1.4 was a load better for this than the coma abusive Canon 24L II.  Plenty fine using it at F1.4 for this.  Paired on the 6D it is pretty insane what can be had. 

The Samyang 14 also a lot better for this than the Canon 14L II. 

All images on here just one exposure, so no tracking stuff obviously.  http://www.extremeinstability.com/2013-5-4.htm 

I made a second page with full size crop examples for some 6D high ISO ideas as well as the coma of the 4 lenses.  I could probably add something if something was wanted.  It's clearly not a direct comparison as I never shot with that in mind and had the gear at completely different times.  It is what it is and I'm sure enough to give some an idea what to expect that might help.  http://www.extremeinstability.com/2013-5-4b.htm

Software & Accessories / Re: Alternatives to Adobe Software
« on: May 07, 2013, 08:33:06 PM »
Thank god CS6 has the ability it has.  They should have tried screwing everyone a while ago.

Lenses / Re: Best lens for capturing the Milky Way?
« on: April 28, 2013, 11:57:07 PM »
It's not Canon.  Probably Samyang or their other brands.  Canon is king coma both the 14L II and especially the 24L II.  I used both for that....

http://www.extremeinstability.com/2012-9-22.htm  24L II

http://www.extremeinstability.com/2012-3-30.htm  14L  II

They both have make you barf wings off points of light.  It extends so far in on full frame too.  It really has a way of killing the use for star photography. 

1.4 vs 2.8 is so huge though obviously.  So with that in mind, I'd think the Samyang 24 F1.4 would be damn tempting to give a whirl.  Wider than 24 would be nice though as it actually is limiting on Milky Way even vertical shooting.  But of course bye bye F1.4-F2.8

I now have the Zeiss 21 and Samyang 14, neither of which I've done this with yet.  Samyang 14 has some hefty vignetting wide open that may not help much.  Least it doesn't wing/coma like Canon.  I'm actually planning to take it to the Badlands for that soon on a 6D.  But really, as you can see from the F1.4 24L stuff there is potential for craziness with high ISOs.  If only 1/3 of the frame wasn't winged the hell out.  So in the end I'd say taking a 14 Samyang and 24 would be a great idea.  The 14 Rokinon version was down to what, $300 or so? 


Least the Samyang 24 will have noticeably less wingage than the Canon.  Too bad it's not the same prices as their 14 lol. 

Lenses / Re: Canon 24-105 F/4L
« on: March 30, 2013, 10:23:48 AM »
Just added the 6D and 24-105 2 days ago and first shot with it yesterday.  I keep trying to talk myself into selling the lens but I can't come up with a better alternative.  I'll have the 21 Zeiss on the 6D and this lens will be on the 5D II at the same time(figure it'd be best to run two bodies for the rare times a tornado is passing close by and no time to switch lenses lol).  The wide shot will be happy with the Zeiss, like a lot happy as it is amazing.  I'm having a fit in my head if I need the zoom or not for the second body and not just a 50 or 85 prime.  The thing is, at 50mm the 24-105 at F4 is dam similar to a Sigma 50 at F4.  But yeah not at F2  ::) .  The good thing is 24mm is clearly its weak end but by quite a lot.  Need to see just where that gets better between there and 50mm.  35-90mm might be really damn "happy" with that lens and that would be great.

I'm a little shocked just how bad the color fringing is though.  Sure it can easily be removed but it sure isn't helping things.  Vignetting wouldn't be as annoying if it wasn't such a sharp change and was spread out a bit more.  For sure that would be a very damn fine lens on a crop body.  And even full it seems pretty darn happy inside 24mm and to a lesser degree also inside 105mm.  Edges are a billion times better than the 17-40 ever was anyway so there's that lol. 

I've gotten rather picky over the last few years(even when I already know it doesn't matter for the image and old original rebel kit lens images will still be selling over everything else, making the point all the more lol).  Anyway, as anal as I've gotten, even on full frame the 24-105 is trying its ass off to get me to keep it and use it.  24-70 F4 sounds like its weakness is in the middle.  Screw that then.  24-70 F2.8 I may as well just go 50mm since there will be a 21mm on another body anyway. 

I hope you got a good deal on it.  It was $2330 or something like that from Amazon, which if one then wants to sell the 24-105 anyway, for like $800, then the body was only $1500.  I think Canon's rebate deal ends today on things. 

Canon General / Re: Think I need a 12 step program
« on: March 29, 2013, 09:41:28 PM »
My name is Mike, I'm a camoholic. 

Last fall added the 5D II, 14 Samyang, 50 Sigma and 21 Zeiss.  Lately had a buying bug real bad and convinced myself I need to run two bodies at once.  So yesterday a 6D with 24-105 arrived.  Now I'm trying to refrain from selling the 24-105 and snatching up the 85L.  I'd finally feel rather complete after all that and having the 100-400 already as well.  Yeah right I'd feel complete. 

Sad thing is I've hardly shot a thing since all that.  If severe weather season would hurry the heck up I could probably save myself from giving into the buying bug.  Like some sort of "fix" when waiting on being able to shoot what you shoot.

Reviews / Re: Review - EF 24 f/1.4L II
« on: March 22, 2013, 06:02:36 PM »
I'm looking to rent a lens for a backpacking trip this summer in the Sierras and was looking at the Zeiss ZE 21mm f/2.8 would you go with the Zeiss 21 or Canon 24. Manual focus isn't an issue.

I had the 24 first on a 5D II but quickly wound up swapping it out for the 21 Zeiss.  I'd hoped to use the fastness of the 24 for night sky stuff but the coma is so extreme it rendered it useless for that and needed stopped to at least F2.8 anyway.  The Zeiss is dope. 

Lenses / Re: Help Me Build My Lens Stable!
« on: February 17, 2013, 11:04:50 PM »
I just made a similar jump and wound up with these and a couple in there I didn't keep...  http://www.extremeinstability.com/topic-14-21-50-lenses.htm

24L for astro I'd probably rethink that one.  Stars will have huge ol wings on full frame well in from corners and even stopped down some. 

Lenses / Re: Which 50mm (with AF) is best from f/1.4 - f/2.0?
« on: January 27, 2013, 12:49:30 PM »
Sounds like you largely already know the ups and downs.  This may or may not be worth looking at for others.  I did a quick few comparisons with the Canon 1.4 1.8 and Sigma 1.4 here:  http://www.extremeinstability.com/topic-14-21-50-lenses.htm

Mine is just my site name obviously, http://www.extremeinstability.com/ ...which I named it back in 1999 or 2000.  Needed a storm chasing related term for the site and saw that mention on a national weather service page talking about the setup for a first chase of mine.  CAPE is convective available potential energy and pretty much 1000 j/kg and under is low and I guess I always took extreme instability as being 5000 j/kg and above.  It's stuck since then, though I often regret the choice as I don't feel I've chased "extreme" enough to warrant extreme being in the name.  That and well extreme instability has never proved to end up that impressive storm-wise usually.  Usually means more of a cap in place and weaker shear periods.  Kinda stuck with the name now though.  And lordy are there few url naming options now.   

This should be highly dependent on subject detail or lack of.  I shoot a lot of clouds or fog or just something with a lot of sky and well even the base ISO can wind up annoying.  Where as if I shot something with a bunch of detail the ISO could go far far higher before there's an annoying aspect to it.  Doesn't take long with a digital camera to see what sucks and what doesn't for each type of scene though. 

Thanks for the heads up Cayenne.  I'll have to look into that this year.  I've always filed myself online but planned to go to a tax account this year and will bring that up.

Wild guess between now and April I sell either my Zeiss 21 or Canon 100-400L to help pay my taxes.  One of these years I'll learn to pay the quarterly estimates(like it matters).  God I love 15% self employment tax, sigh.  But yeah yay for all the deductions being self employed.  If I was getting money a Samyang TS 24 might be in order when it is out.  Gas money instead would probably serve more use however.

Canon General / Re: Total File Size - All Your Images and Keep or Delete
« on: January 02, 2013, 04:03:46 PM »
That's a good point on corrupted images.  I've always sorta wondered what the best route is to keep backups with that possibility in mind.  I've feared something gets corrupted and then when I back up, I write over in all the back up locations using a corrupted file.  Suppose the key would be when backing up, doing it once in each location and not writing over the first ones.  Not so simple to have several places when we are talking 5TB obviously!  But even for my whittled down 36 gigs I'm wondering the best safest route to prevent that corrupted issue.  I guess if you browse through them all in like Bridge as you are deleting down you could see if anything had gotten corrupted on the main harddrive.  Course that might have to include purging bridge cache and letting it make new previews.  Just this being brought up again now makes me want to only add to the back up drives each year and not re-write over the older years.  Because it would be pretty damn annoying to get a corrupted file on the main pc, then screw up all the backup locations by simply re-writing with a bad file. 

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 10