July 30, 2014, 04:39:54 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 - Etienne

Pages: 1 ... 12 13 [14] 15 16 ... 38
196
Lenses / Re: Bought 24-70 f/2.8 II -Soft, owners, please advice
« on: August 27, 2013, 03:19:18 PM »
Hey there,

so I went on and bought a new 24-70 f/ 2.8 II. The strange thing in China (where I currently live) is that they don't let you test the lens before you buy it - nowhere. So anyway, I picked one finally after searching the whole day for a good price - and to be quite honest, I am very disappointed.

Here are two crops, 100%, everything is on neutral, no sharpening.
First one is AF-Live mode where I zoomed in on the 24 using 10x magnification. Second shot is using the normal way.
Lightning is not so good, but since on a tripod and with remote control I don't see any problem using slow shutter speeds.
I used AV mode - strange thing is that life-view gives me a different meter reading.

Any advice from 24-70 owners will be highly appreciated.

PS: I am shooting with a 5D3, newest firmware.

Using live-view, 1/4 f/2.8 ISO50 24mm

lifeview1

Using normal focusing, 0.3 f/2.8 ISO50 24mm

lifeview2

Both pictures are shot in jpeg, L mode. I usually don't shoot RAW so thats why I keep testing like this.
I don't see any differences in those two pictures except the exposure, which means that AFMA can't help me - Do I have a "bad copy" or can I fix this somehow?


What is your focal distance? This lens is known to fall apart at close focus distance

197
EOS-M / Re: Mount EF, EF-S or L lens on EOS-M --- Your thought???
« on: August 26, 2013, 12:03:53 AM »
I like the M for casual shooting. It's good to have an APS-C camera with an f/2.0 lens in your pocket for $299.

But it is still too slow sometimes. Focus is a little slow, and the camera itself is sluggish. For example it takes about 3 seconds before you can shoot again even when you change from AE to M mode. Getting out of menu to shoot again is also slow. There's no C1-C3, so you can't save any setup conditions. The movie mode also is not separated, so picture profile in photo mode is the same in movie, just like all other settings.

I could go on, but for me the camera is just a good point and shoot that's awkward and slow and is small enough to carry for an emergency back-up.

I hope Canon doesnt give up on it. They should produce a really compelling EOS-M II, but the first version is worth about the $299 fire sale price, and it won't replace my 5DIII on anything but late night pub crawls.

BTW ... I bought a genuine Canon EF adapter on eBay for $89, so it takes all of my other lenses, but I typically just use it with the 22mm f/2.0

198
PowerShot / Re: Canon PowerShot G16 Announced
« on: August 22, 2013, 03:26:15 PM »
No articulating LCD--feckin' edjits! I'm keep my G11 until Canon wakes up.

Where's the fully-articulated tilt-screen??????????????????

On the G1 X. 

1/1.7" sensor? What gives? It is 2013. Have they not bothered to strip down a Sony RX100 to learn how to do this properly (I'm not even a Canon-hater, all my DSLR stuff is Canon).

Also the G1 X, with the 1.5" sensor.

Canon is just providing depth in the G series.  The G1 X has the screen and the bigger sensor, but it is slower, larger, and more expensive.  If you want a smaller and faster, and a little cheaper, you get the G16.  There isn't anything wrong with this, although I think that Canon has somewhat orphaned the G1 X.  The G2 X will probably get the wifi treatment, maybe GPS, and hopefully the new sensor-AF -- but who knows when.  And it will probably still have a slower lens than the smaller G's, based on my understanding of the lens optics.

If the G2X has APS-C sensor from the 70D, a 15mm wide lens (24mm FF Equiv), and a fully articulated touch screen, I'll be there. Otherwise I'm waiting on a EOS-M II or something new from Sony.

199
While I love the idea of a 24mm, I wish they would put out an updated 50/85mm art series lens first. I absolutely love my Sigma 35mm, a lens I was predisposed to hate (I don't like owning non-canon lenses, mainly due loss of value), but I was so blown away by the 35mm I would jump on a new 50mm the instant it was available. The currnent Canon lineup at 50mm is abysmal at best, so I am sure a Sigma 50mm would be every bit as popular as the 35mm. While I would like to buy an art series 85mm, I'm happy enough with my Canon 85mm 1.8 that I would not likely upgrade to it.

The 85 1.8 is a good value, but it's delicate. Mine took I minor hit and wouldn't auto-focus again. I'm hoping someone comes out with an 85 f/1.4 IS .

200
Lenses / Re: Can 24-70/2.8 II replace 35/1.4?
« on: August 17, 2013, 12:56:01 PM »
Don't want to sell my primes even when they are covered by my zooms.
I love my 35L and 135L, they have their place when light is getting tricky or I want to have that 1.4/2.0- look.
My 2 cents.

I agree... I have 16-35 2.8 II, 70-200 2.8 IS II, and 24-105 f/4 zooms, and I have the 28 2.8 IS, but I keep wanting bigger aperture. My only large aperture now is the 50 1.4. My 85 1.8 was damaged, and I tried a 24 1.4 several years ago but it didn't focus reliably on my 5DII. Now with the 5DIII I'm going to give the 24 1.4 another try, and I'd like a 50 1.4 IS and an 85 1.4 IS.

Large aperture primes provide opportunities for unique shots that are not possible on the zooms.

201
Lenses / Re: Can 24-70/2.8 II replace 35/1.4?
« on: August 16, 2013, 08:35:54 PM »
Close focus, something I really like at wide angles, is apparently a problem for the 24-70 2.8 II.
But close focus is a strength of the 24 and 28 2.8 IS lenses, and probably also with the wide 1.4's
You are right, close focus on the 24-70mmL is poor at best.  Its awful.  Fortunately, my 100L is good for close focus.  My 24-105 which I've kept is also good at close focusing.
There is never a perfect lens.

How close can you go at 24 mm on the 24-70?
It's mostly in the wide that I need to focus close

The MFD of the 24-70 2.8 ii is 380 mm; at 24mm even a bit longer.
The MFD of the 24 1.4 ii is 210 mm

So close to a 2x difference

MFD is not the whole story. My understanding is that IQ at MFD is awful, so to get good IQ you have to have a subject some distance further than the MFD.

I wonder how far away the subject needs to be in order to get that excellent IQ the 24-70 2.8 II can deliver?

202
Lenses / Re: Can 24-70/2.8 II replace 35/1.4?
« on: August 16, 2013, 04:40:23 PM »
Close focus, something I really like at wide angles, is apparently a problem for the 24-70 2.8 II.
But close focus is a strength of the 24 and 28 2.8 IS lenses, and probably also with the wide 1.4's
You are right, close focus on the 24-70mmL is poor at best.  Its awful.  Fortunately, my 100L is good for close focus.  My 24-105 which I've kept is also good at close focusing.
There is never a perfect lens.

How close can you go at 24 mm on the 24-70?
It's mostly in the wide that I need to focus close

203
Lenses / Re: Can 24-70/2.8 II replace 35/1.4?
« on: August 16, 2013, 04:38:26 PM »
Close focus, something I really like at wide angles, is apparently a problem for the 24-70 2.8 II.
But close focus is a strength of the 24 and 28 2.8 IS lenses, and probably also with the wide 1.4's

I also read that before I bought it, it worried me. Haven't even thought about it until you mentioned it. I shoot up close but a non-issue for me. Try the 50 L up close  ::)

I don't use my 50 (1.4) up close, but I really like the perspective of a close subject in a broad environment on 24mm.  I may get the 24-70 2.8 II one day, but I am more interested in a 24 1.4 right now  :)

204
Lenses / Re: Can 24-70/2.8 II replace 35/1.4?
« on: August 16, 2013, 12:06:25 PM »
Close focus, something I really like at wide angles, is apparently a problem for the 24-70 2.8 II.
But close focus is a strength of the 24 and 28 2.8 IS lenses, and probably also with the wide 1.4's

205
Lenses / Re: Canon 40mm or High-End Compact?
« on: August 16, 2013, 12:02:11 PM »
I had this issue when thinking about the Sigma 35mm 1.4 or a compact.
In the end I went for a Fuji X100s. Second hand.

It's a great camera fixed 35mm. It means I have a great compact. I've no regrets.
I have the 40mm lens amnd it's great but I don't use it much.
I happen to like the 50mm 1.4 .
It's maybe not as sharp but I like the image and the possibilities at 1.4
You won't go to far wrong either way.

I have the forty, but I prefer the 50 1.4 as well. The 50 at f/2.8 is very sharp. The forty doesn't go wider than 2.8. That's two big + for the 50.

BTW ... the 50 1.4 and a 28 2.8 IS (or the 24) make a very nice compact versatile package on a 5DIII

206
What is an ART lens?  It's not an easy term to do a search for.

It's just what Sigma calls their new line of high end lenses

207
I hope it closes to f/22 . Why do they stop at 16?
Small and light is good too.

208
Lenses / Re: What lenses would you bring for this travel-trip?
« on: August 13, 2013, 05:34:29 PM »
I would take my 5DIII, 16-35, and 50 1.4
That's it. Keep it simple and light and you'll be more relaxed.

In your case, I would suggest :  5DIII, 16-35, and 100L macro
That kit will not slow you down and give you plenty of good shots. Although I'd be severely tempted to tuck the 35 1.4 in the bag

209
Pricewatch Deals / Re: Canon EOS 5D Mark III Body $2545
« on: August 13, 2013, 04:43:03 PM »
Holy crap!
btw ... what's the best deal anyone has seen on a 1DX?

210
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon 2x and 1.4x mk3 extenders
« on: August 13, 2013, 03:21:03 PM »
Here's an extension tube combo I've used to good effect:

5DIII - 2X converter - 12mm extension tube - 50mm f/1.4   

This combo creates a pretty decent macro lens
Tip: focus the 50mm close before attaching to the extension tube
Set aperture at least f/8 to f/16

BTW - works well with the EOS-M+adapter as well... gains 1.6x crop factor

Pages: 1 ... 12 13 [14] 15 16 ... 38