January 30, 2015, 12:09:33 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 - TexPhoto

Pages: 1 ... 34 35 [36] 37 38 ... 70
526
Lenses / Re: 100mm macro L on a 7d
« on: December 11, 2012, 03:17:18 PM »
It's a great macro lens, but it is very long for portraits, (except maybe headshots) and seems like a really bad choice to be your only lens.

Having L Glass is a nice, but the wrong L lens will not make for the right photo.  I'd keep the gear you have over trading those lenses for a 100mm L Macro.  If you read to much here, you will begin to think photography is all about the gear.  it's not. It's about the photos.

Do you sell Microstock at iStockPhoto or similar?  If not, why not?  Takes a bit to start earning, but the money in your pocket will buy more gear, and get you closer to a bag full of L glass.

527
Lenses / Re: Canon 50mm 1.8iii... L... Real or fake?
« on: December 11, 2012, 11:19:44 AM »
The red ring is auto pinstriping tape if I am not mistaken. And I should know.


IMG_7437 by RexPhoto91, on Flickr

I did the above to tweak my friends a little who complained that I only shot L-glass.  When we had a "let's shoot 50mm" day, I showed up with the above and one guy started shouting something about GD Fing... an something about his Mom or my mom, i was not sure.  Anyway, I brought the tape and did up L-lens for anyone who wanted one.  $4 for 10 meters, so pretty cheap.  (and about 30 sec vs. painting)  The tape is from an auto paint and body shop.

528
Lenses / Re: Zoom vs Primes?
« on: December 11, 2012, 09:18:59 AM »
zoom...  gives u flexibility.... 
I won't be having a tripod with me.  I think I might just go with the canon 24-105 since it has IS.
And get 2 primes.
Which other primes do you guys recommend?
35mm sounds yummy bokehlious to me, maybe a 135 also?

The 24-105mm f4 IS is a wonderful lens, and I highly recommend it.  You can often buy them new on eBay for  a little < $800 as people buy the Canon kits and sell off the lens.

The 35mm f1.4 prime is a great lens, as is the 135mm.  Why not pick one, buy it with the zoom, and start to feel if you are a prime or zoom person.  (Or a lenshog / lensaholic) like me....

529
Lenses / Re: Anything Like a Sigma 120-300 2.8 on the Horizon?
« on: December 11, 2012, 09:07:07 AM »
One thing about the Sigma is it's known own to not reach 300mm, I've seen estimates that it maxes out as 270, or even 260mm.  Here is one review worth reading: http://www.naturescapes.net/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?t=52847

If that's true, how much better is it that owning a Canon 70-200 f2.8 II?  Pretty much the king of this focal length? And significantly cheaper!  In fact you can pick up a 1.4X converter and be out at 280 when you need the reach, (at f4 of course) and still be cheaper than the Sigma!


530
Black & White / Re: Abandoned House
« on: December 11, 2012, 12:52:57 AM »
Cool.  i think the power lines add to it.  Make them show a little more if you can.

531
Lenses / Re: Zoom vs Primes?
« on: December 10, 2012, 11:06:44 PM »
As jon says, hard to say without knowing what you are doing.

Also, the choice of zoom or prime(s) is largely one of personal preference, for almost any type of photography.

The 24-70 II is an awesome lens, but hardly a budget match to your 5dII (not that there is anything wrong with that.)

532
6D is a wonderful step up in image quality for anyone shooting crop.

6D +7D is an awsome camera set that will give you options on which camera to shoot for the right subject/goal.  So if you have a 7D and can add a 6D by all means do.

5DIII is most of the 6D and 7D combo and is the better choice if you don't already have the 7D.

533
Lenses / Re: History Lesson: Canon FDn 1200 f/5.6L 1.4x Lens Images
« on: December 10, 2012, 07:51:38 AM »
Awesome.  Like a stopped clock, every so often am right!  One of the threads about the 200-400 has a video of the extender swapping in and out, so you can get a better idea of it's size.

And MS.T  owns a 1200mm?  Double Awesome!.  Party at MS.T's house!


534
Lenses / Re: History Lesson: Canon FDn 1200 f/5.6L 1.4x Lens Images
« on: December 09, 2012, 05:38:10 PM »
Doing some Google searching I found that another company (rhymes with Flycon) has/had a similar lens.  The explanation of why the lens was made is interesting.

http://www.nikon.com/about/feelnikon/recollections/r16_e/index.htm

535
Lenses / Re: History Lesson: Canon FDn 1200 f/5.6L 1.4x Lens Images
« on: December 09, 2012, 01:47:34 PM »
Awesome!  Hope that did not come across as criticism.  Just me really wanting to see what this lens can do.  Really appreciate the info and pictures found so far.

I wonder about he use of this lens for sports.  I know shooting from the end zone at a football game, my 400mm f2.8 seems to be pretty long.  I do alternate between a FF and 7D, and used to own a 1D4.  I will sometimes drop in my 1.4X or 2X, but rarely get any keepers.  Of course i can go up in the top row of stands with the teleconverters, and they d better up there.  And there is always the "headshot" of the coach or key player from across the field...

The Sigma 200-500 f2.8 seems to suffer from the same malady.  It's easy to find photos of it.  Not easy to find pictures taken with it, except corny "review" pictures.

536
Lenses / Re: History Lesson: Canon FDn 1200 f/5.6L 1.4x Lens Images
« on: December 09, 2012, 09:29:03 AM »
It's interesting the size of the bulge on the teleconverter, looking at that I can see how the converter could easily be moved out of the way. Anyone know how it works internally on the new 200-400? That's quite small by comparison but I thought being at the rear the teleconverter elements would have to be about the same for any focal length.

Uh, what? The 200-400 has a similar bulge, and it apparently drew the ire of Canon's testers, according to a previous post here.

I think he means the bulge on the 200-400 is significantly smaller, and it is.  If you picture a whole 1.4X converter swapping in and out, you would need a big bulge.  But of course most of a normal 1.4X is just the lens tube, the structure that holds the camera and larger lens.  The actual glass elements are way smeller.

But how about this? I don't want to see pictures of this lens.  I want to see pictures taken with this lens!  And good photos.  Not pictures of NY city buildings taken from across the river.  Show me some of those sports pics this lens was supposedly used for.  NASA rockets going up? Let me see.  Spy photos?  Sure, why not.


537
Lenses / Re: APS-C lens mm are correct
« on: December 07, 2012, 07:24:29 PM »
And while we are at it: compression is also not a feature of the lens, but of the distance. It is actually included in Neuro's I mean THE definition of perspective.
If you are father away, faces look flatter, no matter what lens you use.

Yes!  You don't even need a lens.  This effect can be seen with your eyes.  Close one eye and put the other an inch from someones nose.  (Maybe make sure this is  a friend).  Wow huge nose, fisheye perspective! 

538
Lenses / Re: APS-C lens mm are correct
« on: December 06, 2012, 03:09:29 PM »
Noses are generally big in wide angle portraits, Because the camera is so much closer to the subject, not because of the use of a wide angle lens.  A headshot with an 85mm looks right, and a 28mm headshot looks wrong because you would not/could not take these photos at the same distance.

539
Lenses / Re: 300MM lens advice
« on: December 06, 2012, 11:00:46 AM »
The Sigma 120-300 has always intrigued me, and I am a big fan of Sigma.  But... the 2 new versions so close together in recent years is a little scary.  Also, I think the best reason to own a sigma lens is price, and that lens new at least is not that great on price.

Maybe rent it? Anyway, when Sigma was what I could afford, I loved it.  With many red rings in my current collection, I am not as intrigued.

I have a 300mm f4 IS in my collection and love it.  It is the baby brother to my 400mm 2.8 IS, and is so much lighter and smaller, it really makes sence in my collection.  Quality is great, and it does great with a 1.4X III, and when Canon updates the 5D3, it will do well with the 2X. I highly recommend it.

540
Lenses / Re: APS-C lens mm are correct
« on: December 06, 2012, 08:27:37 AM »
Focal length is an intrinsic property of the lens, regardless of the sensor at the image plane.


Yes, and that's why people who use the 50mm prime on their APS-C bodies and think they a using the traditional 85mm lens are mistaken.  What that have is a cropped 50mm image, not the more compressed image from a 85mm lens.  Also, an ef 35mm lens is not a standard 50mm lens on a crop.  It's a 56mm view with a 35mm lens' perspective.

The thing is, a 50mm image cropped down to the perspective of an 85mm lens will have the same perspective and compresion as the same image taken with an 85mm lens.  DOF will even be the same assuming they were taken at the same aperture.  And this applies for an image cropped in photoshop, or an image cropped via a smaller than FF sensor, or printed and cropped with scissors.

In the sample images I provided above, the 800mm photo is the same perspective and compresion of that part of the photo in the 50mm photo.  It has to be unless you move the camera.



Pages: 1 ... 34 35 [36] 37 38 ... 70