March 01, 2015, 06:28:01 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 - extremeinstability

Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 10
Drinking heavily after going off the deep end wishing canon would send my damn 5D II back to me(sent Nov 1). 

Wish they'd shoot in RAW, remove just the color noise and then post jpgs of that. 

Lenses / Re: Advice 5d3, wide angle
« on: November 16, 2012, 05:50:50 PM »
So after a few hours with the 17-40, the vignetting is the most I have ever seen in a lens!!!
The Zeiss 21mm Distagon is one lens that many lust after and was one of my considerations before deciding on the 24mm L, simply because I wanted the wider aperture for the Northern Lights.

I went with the 24L first for night stuff but soon realized the coma on stars is sooooo bad it needs F2.8 anyway.  For anything with light sources at night, it just felt really pointless being a fast lens that needed well stopped down.  Quickly thought, well heck I should have gotten the Zeiss after all. If Canon would ever ship my 5D II back to me I'd see how the Zeiss performs in that regard.  I still want a fast fast lens for auroras and other night ops.  Just not sure what it will be.  Seems one of the Samyang F1.4s had leaps and bounds better coma characteristics.  That stuff is just so damn nasty on the 24L and so far in from the corners too.  Least the good aurora displays don't overly need uber fast and F2.8 or so will be great. But yeah, F1.4 to freeze structure better would be nice. If only it wouldn't result in curving lines for stars in the corners from the huge coma.  Almost looks like star trails over really short shutters. 

Lenses / Re: Advice 5d3, wide angle
« on: November 15, 2012, 05:44:13 PM »
Some folks like the 17-40
Would someone please enlighten me: Why are there so contradicting opinions on the 17-40L vs 16-35L? For all other lenses folks usually seem to be able to agree on what's "better", though "is it worth it" usually is more controversial.

There is one easy example.  Yes vignetting can be corrected easily enough, but on higher dynamic range scenes it won't be as much fun opening up really really dark shadows(till Canon gets Sony class shadow lack of noise sensors I guess). 

I never had a problem with my 17-40 on a crop other than F4 was kinda annoying. Then I got the 10-22 and never used the 17-40 basically.  Then I got a 5D II and sold my 10-22.  So back out came the 17-40, where I soon hated it now on full frame.  F7.1 would be the max of getting rid of vignetting, as in no improvement past that anyway, but it was still there a good bit.  Need it more open like F4 and well it was just stupid.   I soon found myself iso'ing up the 5D II just because I was stopped down so much.  I wished I had enough money to get the 16-35 II just over that issue alone.  My copy of the 17-40 on a full frame had utter crap corners, which I have heard is more common than not(many may never have much important out there or notice I guess).  The 10-22 was about impossible to get flares off of.  17-40 shooting at night with street lights and voila flares for each light source. 

I've never owned the 16-35 but have seen it's flare is at least worse and doesn't sound like corners are that great.  Least its vignetting full frame is in a whole nother class.  On my 17-40, where you see the heavier vignetting on the above link, you could count on about an equivalent sharpness drop off.  It was damn nice in the middle and at least a good ways out though.  Even stopped down, if I had stuff in the corners that needed to be sharp, well it was disturbingly soft. 

My thought always was, if I'm going to invest the cash to go full frame, I'm going to have to invest the cash to get a lens that truly makes it worth it.  I constantly kept thinking, I was better off with my 10-22 on a crop than my 17-40 on full.  I had to stop down to help the extreme vignetting to get it to where the 10-22 starts, resulting in more iso noise anyway.  Then I added in having flare issues I never had with the 10-22.  And again, least on my 17-40 that seemed great in the center, the corners were pathetic, fine on the 10-22.  It just felt stupid to have made the "jump". 

So I went back to crops as I needed money then and certainly didn't have the ability to spend more for the 16-35.  Since then I've made the full frame jump again for the second time and this time I went with the Zeiss 21 for my go to wide angle.  Really with these wide angle zooms, you aren't getting that much focal change.  A great prime like the 21 Zeiss instead made more sense.  I had the option this time around to get the 16-35 and it just didn't sound so appealing. 

Here's one to consider on corners as well, Zeiss at F2.8 to the 16-35 stopped down to F5.6 even.  Says something about the corners of even the higher priced(than 17-40) 16-35.  Weird just how bad the corner vertical lines look.

It seems to me if corners don't matter, have at either zoom.  If F4 and vignetting don't matter may as well go 17-40.

Canon EF-S and EF-M Lenses / Re: Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM
« on: November 15, 2012, 11:10:12 AM »
I think this Lens has to be my next buy! extremeinstability what body are you using?

Thanks.  Well it was on the rebels I've had(95% of my stuff has been via rebels).  Recently switched back to 5D II and just sold it/the 10-22.  Had two so far and both were great. 

fwiw it's good enough for nat geo.  That was shot with the 10-22 on a T2i.  For some reason I always thought maybe some would find that interesting, perhaps more for the rebel aspect(even if it's silly since just the sensor is the most important part for such stuff).    Not sure why if Time is taking Iphone shots I guess.  Course then there have been some other bigger uses from an original 6mp rebel and its really really really bad kit lens.  When looking back at some stuff I feel pretty stupid fretting too much over small lens issues, yet here I am still always doing it anyway. 

Lenses / Re: Advice 5d3, wide angle
« on: November 13, 2012, 07:21:12 PM »
Zeiss 21 F2.8 could be another thought.  I went that route then snatched up a 14mm Samyang for the times I need even wider. 

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Rokinon 14mm f/2.8
« on: November 13, 2012, 07:01:16 PM »
My samyang 14 isn't chipped.

5D MK III Sample Images / Re: Moonbow!
« on: October 31, 2012, 10:52:01 AM »
This on today...

Given the same clouds/ice crystals one could have all that with the moon, a shot I'm kinda dying to get lol. 

If you get some ground fog at night with a low moon look for these too...  Lunar fogbow. 

I think a Lunar or Moonbow is more of just a rainbow from moonlight, which I've still not gotten and is really hard in some regions.  Martin McKenna has gotten a lot of them now.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Rokinon 14mm f/2.8
« on: October 31, 2012, 10:42:14 AM »

Can you please get a picture of the night sky with the lens fully open and see how the stars show at the corners? If the lens has coma (which even Canon L lenses have fully open) they will look like ... seagulls!

I can but I have to be motivated enough to drag it out after dark lol.  I should have tested it for that before when I was testing all the other lenses.  I think I can chalk that up to not counting on this to be much of a night sky lens due to all the light fall off/vignetting.  I suspect there's enough vignetting at f2.8 with this lens that it will be hard to get bad coma issues with stars.  But now I am curious what the distortion would do to a star trail lol.  Anyway, I just kinda doubt the issue will be coma on a night sky with it F2.8 and as much vignetting as there is there(it's more than the 14L II...which also has winged stars/coma I guess).  I have to send my 5D II in to fix the mount to sensor plane issue, which might happen today, so it'd likely be after that returns. 

EOS Bodies / Re: Sell T4i for 5d ii?
« on: October 26, 2012, 06:24:21 PM »
The T4i sensor isn't much newer than the 5D II if that makes it easier.  T2i, T3i, T4i, 7D, 60D all have the same sensor as far as I know.  I just made the switch from T2i(again, had 5D II in the past).  The noise is just so much kinder on some low detail scenes. 

Lenses / Re: Your technique for switching lenses in the field?
« on: October 26, 2012, 06:20:19 PM »
Body facing up with lens on it set down on something.  First push button and losen that lens without pulling it off yet.  Hold other lens next to it facing up, remove end cap from bottom.  Then fast swap and hold the one you took off the same way it came off with the open end down.  Then put that end cap on that one.  If you always do it that way and fast enough it's hard to get anything in there. 

Lenses / Re: 50 mm Can't make up my mind!
« on: October 25, 2012, 05:25:40 PM »
I got the canon 50 F1.4 recently for a 5D II.  The corner softness and lack of contrast was rather huge towards the more wide open end.  I upgraded to the sigma 50 F1.4.  It blew the doors off the Canon more wide open.  Upon stopping down though the Canon passes it in sharpness.  In the end I'm not sure that difference more wide open was worth it.  I'd been happy with the 50 F1.8 if it had a real focus ring on it, sigh.  I never use auto-focus in that range so clueless there.

Look at the 3 image comparison down a bit.  I didn't believe that till I went through both lenses.  The Canon 1.4 I had was at least that much worse than the Sigma I now have in that more wide open range.  Some white pvc tubes for venting on top of the house show white "shadows" about the same width as them...the contrast open is so bad. But again, stop down F4 they are probably even and by F5.6 the canon is passing the Sigma in sharpness.  So depend on what you want it for.

I guess when I was testing things I did do a couple autofocus tries that at least one of which was way off on the Sigma in bright daylight. 

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Rokinon 14mm f/2.8
« on: October 25, 2012, 10:01:18 AM »
Number 2 first, I found one I believe in here:  In the profile downloader area.  There was just one for the lens.  In the profile list I think it was listed as canon and not samyang/rokinon/etc.  Works great to remove the crazy distortion.   There so much resolution everything is still highly sharp after the correction. 

I haven't tried the Milky Way yet as the real good parts aren't high up now.  I wonder how well it will work as there is a lot of vignetting and light loss at F2.8.  May not matter given the brighter parts of the Milky Way get put in the middle.  It just has a way of not feeling like F2.8 I guess. 

Edge to edge is pretty sharp at F2.8 infinity.  It doesn't seem you even gain much more sharpness by stopping down than from where it starts at.  But I haven't used this lens all that much yet.  And my new/used 5D II also has a flange to sensor plane difference that needs fixed, but even on that it's good to go. 

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Tripod - Help
« on: October 24, 2012, 06:47:29 PM »
When I was looking into a new tripod, there was a tripod thread on a storm chaser forum I'd visit.  I noted a lot in there were recommending those same Slik legs.  FWIW.  I should have went that route. 

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Tripod - Help
« on: October 24, 2012, 06:10:22 PM »
Have you asked them to fix or replace it?  There are often secret warranties that are not advertised.  It could have been a bad batch or run.  I do not use Gittos, but many have been happy.

No, I'm generally pretty lazy on things I guess.  Found the two halves of the inside clip thing, got it back together and since I had electrical tape in my car I just taped the hell out of it.  Every once in awhile I'll find myself cussing at the missing height now.  Always gotten by on the real cheap $50 deals and found it humorous this was happening after spending 6x as much.  Thinking, well least the legs always stayed together on all those real cheap ones. 

Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 10