Messages

46

Canon General / Re: Announcements Coming Tonight

« on: March 21, 2013, 10:42:28 AM »

This body looks like a great deal for the price. The problem is that it doesn't have a solid go-to lens in the standard 35-50mm equivalent range for an APS-C sensor. A solid 24mm or 35mm f/2 for under $500 would make this a lot more competitive with the M4/3 offerings coming out. But Canon doesn't have one. This is where dedicated lenses make sense. This is why Fuji's X100s has a dedicated prime. I'd rather have one great non-removable 35mm equivalent lens... than a choice of 2nd rate lenses or over-priced and/or oversized lenses. And rocking a huge lens on an SL1 defeats the purpose of getting a small camera in the first place.

Quite so.  If you want a small camera and can put up with an electronic viewfinder (or none at all), micro 4/3 makes more sense with their range of superb small fast primes and very good zooms (e.g. to my surprise/dismay/delight, the Olympus 45 f1.8 - which weighs all of 4 oz - on my Olympus OMD makes sharper images than the Canon equivalent (85mm f/1. on my 6D; the Olympus 75 f/1.8 is better still).   

47

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS Rebel T5i Leaks

« on: March 20, 2013, 10:58:08 AM »

Because there's only so much that people can tolerate a sensor that wasn't the best out there some years ago already. Lack of innovation about well known limits is what strikes and disappoints. Lack of additional feature to make up for an old sensor plus high price is what many consider to be just too much.

Who are these people who can't tolerate it?  Sure, there's much eye-rolling on this forum (mine included), but I doubt that picky enthusiasts who care enough about this sort of thing to spend time every day reading camera forums are the target customers for Rebels, which seem to have been selling in high quantities over the years regardless of their relative inferiority; they obviously have an appeal, however mystifying that may be to high-end enthusiasts.

For my part, I'm quite happy with my 5DII and 6D (which I prefer to the D600 despite its theoretical inferiority).  When I want something smaller and lighter, I'll be skipping over APS-C altogether (Im selling my back-up Rebel) and using the Olympus OMD that UPS should be delivering today; the combination of its mere 16MP sensor and astonishingly good little M43 lenses takes remarkably good photos for very little weight and bulk. 

48

Lenses / Re: How's the 70-300L?

« on: March 16, 2013, 03:57:16 PM »

The statement that the 70-300L isn't so good in low light may be true when the lens is attached to some bodies, but in my experience it works superbly when attached to a 6D (the same is likely true of other FF bodies); focus is fast and accurate, and the results look excellent even when the camera is hand held thanks to the first rate IS (provided your subject isn't moving around, at least).  I would (and did) buy it instead of the 300mm f/4.   

49

Lenses / Re: best NON L long lens

« on: March 15, 2013, 02:13:35 PM »

im looking for a cheapish bird/garden lens   but cannot afford a nice L lens.

prime or zoom, doesnt bother me, probably 300mm+ on a full frame.

does any body know a good model from any manufacturer , of course its not gonna be the best optically, probably noisy, slow autofocus, bearing all that in mind, whats the best of the worst out there?

thanks for any recommendations

There are fairly inexpensive lenses that don't go beyond 300mm, esp. the 70-300 non-L IS.  It's not quite as good as the 70-300L, but if you get a good copy you might be pleasantly surprised.  I'm not sure what you mean by "cheapish", but the Sigma 50-500 OS does a very good job - not exactly prime lens sharp at 500mm, but better than I expected (heavy, though...).

If you want to zoom as far as 600mm fairly inexpensively you might want to consider taking advantage of the crop factor on a micro 4/3 camera; last weekend I rented such a camera, along with a few lenses, including a Panasonic 100-300 (200-600 equiv.) lens with IS.  I was very pleasantly surprised by the results and compared to my Canon L zooms and Sigma 50-500 it seems to weigh nothing at all....  If that seems at all interesting, take a look here:

http://lindsaydobsonphotography.com/pets/panasonic-35-100-f2-8-and-100-300-f4-5-6-olympus-omd/

50

Lenses / Re: Do you use lens correction profiles when processing raw files or not with LR4

« on: March 15, 2013, 01:57:35 PM »

I always use it, though I sometimes partially (or completely) undo the vignette "correction" (I never undo the distortion corrections); of course, sometimes the corrections make almost no visible difference. 

51

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Which camera brand you actively use, other than Canon?

« on: March 14, 2013, 03:19:03 PM »

Except for my iphone, which I never use for photos (don't like how they look), I'm presently all-Canon.  But I was curious about all the enthusiasm shown for the Olympus OMD EM5, so I rented one last weekend along with a few lenses and was instantly impressed, both by the camera and the lenses; I'm about to order one....

52

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Made the Jump

« on: March 01, 2013, 05:37:51 PM »

cheers Menace....just got to get out there more than I did with the old camera

I bet you will find that happens -- your new camera is just much more enjoyable to use than your old one.  As for suggesting that a ff camera might be a bit over the top for someone who isn't a professional, why should they have all the fun?

53

Lenses / Re: Cheap Canon 300mm or 400mm do I Choose?

« on: March 01, 2013, 10:55:45 AM »

The Sigma 50-500mm is very soft at long focal lengths - see the tests in the-digital-picture.com.

As far as I can tell, they haven't reviewed the 50-500 OS.  The lens that shows up their comparison tool is the predecessor of the 50-500 OS; and they may not have had a good copy.  The one I rented from lensrentals pleasantly surprised me.  Roger Cicala's blurb on their site reads:

After playing around with it for an afternoon, I’m totally impressed (obviously on limited data but totally impressed nonetheless). It is as sharp as the original 50-500, which is sharp indeed. The OS is spectacular and really does appear to be 4 stops worth. We have some nice 500mm images shot at 1/125 second. Autofocus speed is adequate to the task and accuracy has been good, up until the items discussed below [don't know what he means by that - there's nothing below!]. My summary: once again Sigma has designed a spectacular lens, and while the price isn’t cheap, it’s a good value for what you get.

54

Lenses / Re: Cheap Canon 300mm or 400mm do I Choose?

« on: March 01, 2013, 08:13:08 AM »

Does it have to be a prime?  The 300 f/4 is a very good lens, but it's barely distinguishable, if at all, from the 70-300L, which has better IS, is superbly built and, is obviously more versatile.  I would also consider the Sigma 50-500 OS, which is about as sharp as the 100-400L but has smoother bokeh and better stabilization.  Ideally you could do what I did and rent first (after renting the 300 f/4, 100-400 L and Sigma, I bought the Sigma and the 70-300 L; you might, of course, decide otherwise).

55

Lenses / Re: EOS 6D with Kit, either Canon 24-105 F4 L or Tamron 28-300mm Di VC Macro

« on: February 27, 2013, 11:23:02 AM »

Are you considering these lenses as a good all-purpose carry-around-all-day-so-you-don't-have-to-change-lenses lens, or as your only lens, period?  Either way, I would be inclined to suggest you buy the 6D with the 24-105L as part of a kit, since that way the lens becomes quite a bargain (or, if you end up not wanting it, sell it and then the camera becomes a bargain).  If it is to be your only lens, it would be a shame to move up to a FF camera and attach an inferior lens to it (though it may still make better pictures than it would on a crop sensor camera, and you would get far better results in low light).  It would also be a shame to move up to a FF camera and not view the results on a big monitor or as fairly large prints, in which case you will see the difference (if you're not going to view your photos in such a way, why bother moving up to FF?).

I understand the appeal of such lenses, and they're one reason why I was interested in a Nikon D600 - Nikon has a 28-300 lens whose size and price are more manageable than Canon's, and it is by repute better than the Tamron.  I rented a D600 + 28-300 and compared the results with photos taken with 6D + 70-300L.  If you don't look very closely, the photos (on a 30" monitor) look much the same (I suspect that wouldn't be true with the Tamron, but I'm just guessing). Look more closely and it's quite obvious that the 70-300L is better; if the Nikon lens had been cheaper and if I had liked the D600 more I might have bought them anyway, but it isn't and I didn't.  Is the convenience/quality trade-off worth it?  Beats me.  Why not buy the 6D + 24-105 kit, then rent the Tamron and see what you think?  If you can't see a difference that matters to you, sell the 24-105 and buy the Tamron.  If you can, try the 70-300 L....

56

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: 35mm 1.4

« on: February 26, 2013, 10:56:07 AM »

I am currently missing a large aperture lens. I am really looking for one for portraits And wedding/event environments. I looked at the sigma compared to the canon and it is way better based of the digital picture ISO 12800. Also there is the 35mm f2 is that looks pretty amazing but I first want to know if there is a huge difference between 1.4 And 2 at 35mm. If not that huge the is on the f2 would be amazing for video for me.
I have wanted a 50mm for a while but am just waiting because I would like to see a new one. The 50mm 1.2 and 1.4 is so close in quality but I would like to buy a sealed lens that isn't one I am going to want to upgrade Down the road.

Is a 35mm tight enough that the background stays blurred? Or would waiting for a upgraded 50 be better?

It depends how much blur you want; you can get fantastic blur from the Sigma at 1.4, where it's surprisingly sharp, but to maximize it you have to get close enough to risk distortion on your subject (not to mention making him/her uncomfortable by having a lens so close) - if your camera is FF, that is.  Both it and the Canon IS provide great blur at f/2 also - it's just not quite as smeared out.  They're both superb lenses, but one huge advantage that the Sigma has over the Canon (and, as far as I can tell, most other fast primes wider than c. 100mm) is that it has negligible coma; the Canon IS has rather a lot (similar, if lenstip and Rockwell are right, to the 35L and 35 f/2 non-IS, neither of which I've used).  Of course, if it doesn't bother you, or you don't take photos in situations where it's likely to show, it hardly matters, but I returned the Canon for that reason.

57

EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 70d speclist

« on: February 26, 2013, 10:42:15 AM »

What is interesting is the D7100, which is looking like a very impressive camera for the price.   The new 7D mark II (based on the current rumors) looks like it'll trash it, but at twice the price.   So I would guess that Canon will want to make the 70D a reasonable competitor to the D7100 at that price/feature level - which would bring it up a fair bit from the current 60D.   However given what happened with the 6D's spec sheet vs. the D600, anything is possible.

The D5200 has Nikon's first recent non-Sony (24MP) sensor, and some of the reviews I've read complain of banding in shadow noise starting around ISO 3200.  I hope the D7100's sensor, which is different still, will be free of that particular problem....

58

Lenses / Re: 50mm 1.2 / 85mm 1.2 VS Zeiss 50mm1.4 / Zeiss 85mm 1.4? Which should I buy...

« on: February 25, 2013, 11:37:58 AM »

Hi everyone,

New user here in need of some expert opinions before I spend BIG on primes....

I'm looking to purchase a very wide aperture lens...my current widest lens is the 100mm 2.8 IS L Macro lens.

I want something that will be great for ultimate bokeh and street photography. I had a look at all these lenses today but cant decide which one is best without really getting to use any...I cant rent where I am either.

The Canon 85mm 1.2 is nuts...but the Zeiss lenses, especially the 85mm 1.4 is just beautiful. I have never had a manual only lens so Im worried I wont be happy using it.

Can anyone fill me in? I'm looking for the sharpest lens with the best most bokeh...is there a difference between the 50mm 1.2L and the 85mm 1.2L?

Thanks for your help everyone.

Does the fact that you mention these lenses mean that you've considered and excluded the 135L and Sigma 85 1.4?  If not, I would strongly recommend you consider them, especially since they cost much less than the lenses you've mentioned.  They're both sharp (esp. the 135) wide open, mechanically excellent (the 135L is extremely fast-focusing), and create superb bokeh (the 135 is famous for it).  If you do a suitable internet search you'll find bokeh (and other) comparisons between the 85mm L and the Sigma; the results may surprise you.  (And bear in mind that (1) it's easier to get smoother bokeh with a longer focal length; for one thing, you don't have to get so close to the subject; and (2) as someone else has mentioned, you're not likely to be doing street photography at 1.2, except perhaps in the middle of the night....)

59

Lens Gallery / Re: Canon EF 70-300 f/4-5.6L IS USM

« on: February 25, 2013, 10:08:32 AM »

All of those pictures looks nice, but this lens (from 200mm till 300) produces not very sharp images and the contrast is very low. No concerns from 70 to 200mm.
I have the 70-200L II, but sometimes I use the 70-300 when I do not want to carry a heavy equipment with me or when I am traveling to an insecure country.

Are you talking about the non-L version maybe? That I could agree with

Or it could just be sample variation.  I started with the non-L and must have been lucky enough to get an unusually good one because it was sharper at 300mm than the first L I bought (and promptly returned).  The second L I tried is sharper than both, throughout the range, and is one of my favorite lenses (for one thing, it's such a pleasure to use thanks to its superb build, ultrafast responsiveness and unfailing accuracy of focus, even in very low light).

60

Lenses / Re: Help Me Build My Lens Stable!

« on: February 23, 2013, 06:51:35 PM »

The only lens on your list that I would question is the 70-200 2.8, not because it isn't a great lens but because you already have a great 70-200 lens.  In good light the only real advantage the 2.8 has is in background blurring, and even there you may think the difference is minor.  If you want to freeze action in low light the 2.8 has an obvious advantage, and you can use lower ISOs - on the other hand, you will surely be pleasantly surprised at how well high ISO photos come out on a 6D/5DIII (6D perhaps slightly better than 5DIII in that regard).  Depending on what you would use such a lens for, you might conclude that all that extra weight and expense would be better directed elsewhere, such as a longer lens....