September 30, 2014, 10:33:45 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 - AudioGlenn

Pages: 1 ... 18 19 [20] 21 22 ... 24
286
Lenses / Re: IQ of 24-105 and 700-300 lenses
« on: October 21, 2012, 08:08:11 PM »
I like my 24-105, even on a crop.  It's not as good (sharp) as my 70-200 but hands down, my most versatile lens.  I too like using it with bounce flash and get decent results.  I'm mostly shooting wide open at f/4, too.  If I go to a venue that I don't know and I'm only bringing one lens, I bring the 24-105.  Generally though, I know what I'm doing and where I'm going so I bring the 35L, and 70-200 OR 10-22 depending on what I'm planning on shooting.  The 24-105 is perfect for walking around during the day but f/4 just isn't fast enough for me in low light. 

287
Lenses / Re: 70-200 f2.8L USM or 70-200 f2.8L IS USM II
« on: October 21, 2012, 06:51:08 PM »
Here's one more vote for the 2.8 IS II.  You're in deep enough as it is.  Why sell yourself short now and long for what you already know is out there and is better?  I purchased mine new off of eBay a few weeks ago and couldn't be happier with it.  It made me realize how much i don't really like my 24-105 and 10-22 (as far as sharpness).  They're still useful lenses but I try to shoot with my 70-200 now whenever I can...despite it's weight.  Next move for me is a full frame camera.  I don't think I can justify spending $3k on a body so I'm hoping the 6D reviews go well. 

288
Here's me playing with low key lighting

289
5D MK III Sample Images / Re: 5d Mk III - outdoor night time sports
« on: October 21, 2012, 12:31:07 PM »
@nonac - I really like your second shot, with the QB throwing the ball, avoiding the tackler with the faceless crowds and coaching staff in the background. What's interesting is that @ 1/500s was still too slow to freeze the movement in his fingers (of his throwing arm), yet everything else looks perfect. Ken Rockwell always says that 1/1000s is the minimum shutter speed for freezing action, however that would require an even higher ISO, but from what I've seen and read of the 5D3 is that it can produce clean shots up to and including ISO 12,800. Great shots.

I actually like the motion blur on the quarterback's hand.  Look cool.  I have to admit though, I noticed the copyright before I actually looked at the picture.

290
Get the 18-135mm kit, and since you like portraits, get either the 50/1.4 or the 85/1.8, after using the 18-135 for a while to determine which focal length works best for your style.

+1

291
Canon General / Re: Would you rather . . .
« on: October 21, 2012, 04:24:14 AM »
For me I'll take the option of thousands of good images that i can look back and enjoy rather than one lucky shot during my entire shooting life - I'd be really depressed if all my images were mediocre

My 2 cents
Oh yes! Agree!  I'd rather be me than a one hit wonder... Anybody remember the Oneders? No? The movie That thing you do? I would not want to be that (them - whatever)... I believe I am fine as me (I think...) ;)

+1

and yes, i love that movie!

292
Animal Kingdom / Re: Puppy Love
« on: October 21, 2012, 04:21:22 AM »
cute

293
Lenses / Re: Help me decide; keep my 35L or get a 50L?
« on: October 20, 2012, 02:15:34 PM »
i vote for the 35L

294
Lenses / Re: 100mm f/2.8L IS vs 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II for Macro
« on: October 20, 2012, 12:40:54 AM »
For the first test, I was using it handheld but for the last measurements I took, I mounted the 70-200 using the tripod ring and it was much easier (lens on tripod, not camera).  Getting an estimate on my focusing distance really helped out and I will FOR SURE be using the tripod for macro shots when using the 70-200.  I'll try testing out the 40/2.8 as well.  That sounds like fun!

Anyways enough off trackness. One other hint. With the 70-200, you can actually use the zoom ring to focus. With extension tubes the focus range is so limited it's much easier to at least get your course focus this way. Then you can do fine adjustment with the focus ring.

Thanks for the tip.  I actually found that out yesterday during my tests.  Yes, it's a very convenient way to focus.

295
Lenses / Re: 100mm f/2.8L IS vs 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II for Macro
« on: October 19, 2012, 03:19:18 PM »
I am trying to decide on which lens to get next.  I want to play with Macro but I like the versatility of the 70-200.

My question is: wouldn't a 70-200mm at 200mm, even with a minimum focus distance of 4 ft., get me a closer look than a 100mm at a min. focus distance of 1 ft.?  Will the picture be sharper with the 100mm Macro? I don't know the math to calculate and I don't have the lenses on hand to test it out.

I'm leaning towards the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II.  From what I've read, images are very sharp through this lens.  They both have IS, they are both f/2.8 apertures.  I can use the 70-200 for portraits...i guess I can use the 100mm for portrait work as well.  But it seems the macro lens is a specialty lens.  Eventually, I'd like to own both but would the 70-200mm get me by on macro work at all?  (I hope this is not a stupid question!)

Yes, I've heard about the 180mm f/3.5L and I would be open to considering this lens.  I have a 24-105 so I'm also concerned about adding some variety to the focal lengths I already own.  I've got the wide end covered but am seriously lacking on the telephoto side.  It seems the 100mm macro would only be used for macro.

Any insight from experienced users would be great.  BTW, I'm shooting on a 60D.  I will eventually purchase a 5D mkiii and keep the 60D as a 2nd body.

Happy shooting to you all =).  I look forward to reading your replies.

Why not get the 100mm 2.8 Non-L, which is already super sharp, and the 70-200 II. If you like the macro alot, you can sell it for the L version.

I thought about it but I think I wanna go for the L.  I'll just save up a little longer.  I'm gonna make the 70-200 + tubes work for me for now.

296
Lenses / Re: 100mm f/2.8L IS vs 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II for Macro
« on: October 19, 2012, 03:07:36 PM »
Audio,

I looked this up in the Canon 70-200L f2.8 II manual and on page 13, it lists these values for the Canon 12mm II and 25mm II extension tubes maximal magnifications:
12mm tube: @70mm=.23X  @200mm=.28X
25mm tube: @70mm=.42X  @200mm=.36X

It also gives the MFD and FFD which I didn't include.

Thanks for this.  I'll look it up as well.

297
Lenses / Re: 100mm f/2.8L IS vs 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II for Macro
« on: October 19, 2012, 03:05:17 PM »
Yes!  I'm a mastering engineer =)  I also teach voice and music production privately so I get to work with lots of musicians.  I decided to start helping out my "kids" with their youtube videos so I got into video and DSLRs.  I didn't realize I'd get this deep into it.  It's a useful skill to have in our field AND it's so much fun!!!!  My camera gives me a break from "work".  Since music became my profession 12 years ago, I haven't had a "hobby" to turn to.  Glad to meet someone who I can appreciate both arts with

Ah, you are a "Pro"... I was a hobbyist for about 20-25 years. Designed my own speakers and power amps... hobby got too noisy for the WAF... Photography is quiter and gets the WAF favorable too .   :P

Agreed.  My neighbors don't hate me nearly as much these days!  hahaha  I do a lot of work in my home studio nowadays since I have the client base and I don't feel like working for somebody else!  Photography gets me out of my "cave" for some fresh air. =)

298
Lenses / Re: 100mm f/2.8L IS vs 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II for Macro
« on: October 19, 2012, 02:59:51 PM »
Got my Kenko Extension tubes today.  After some mild testing, I like how they work (and feel/weigh) on the 24-105 more so than the 70-200.  It's just too damn heavy!  I'll try it with a tripod too but DAMN!....  I think for now, this combo (24-105+Kenko tubes) will tide me over.  When I do get the 100mm Macro L, I'll want to buy one of the macro flashes with it as well.  Any recommendations?
@AudioGlenn, I haven't had a chance to put it up yet but I did comparisons between all the lenses I own and a few I'd rented for a wedding a few weeks back. Of them, the 24-105 was the weakest performer. The 70-200 on the other hand was pretty nice. Are you mounting the 70-200 directly to your tripod or are you mounting your camera to the tripod? Macro is definitely one case where using the included tripod mount for the 70-200 is very helpful. Also, of the lenses I tested the 40 2.8 was actually the top performer in my opinion (with the 70-200 50 1.8 and sigma 85 1.4 not far behind)

For the first test, I was using it handheld but for the last measurements I took, I mounted the 70-200 using the tripod ring and it was much easier (lens on tripod, not camera).  Getting an estimate on my focusing distance really helped out and I will FOR SURE be using the tripod for macro shots when using the 70-200.  I'll try testing out the 40/2.8 as well.  That sounds like fun!

299
Lenses / Re: 100mm f/2.8L IS vs 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II for Macro
« on: October 19, 2012, 02:24:25 AM »
Also, according to your math, I should be able to get a 0.8776x magnification on my 24-105mm f/4L @105 if I add the 12mm+20mm+36mm extension tubes to it.  Is that correct?  0.23+(68/105)=.8776

300
Lenses / Re: 100mm f/2.8L IS vs 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II for Macro
« on: October 19, 2012, 02:12:55 AM »
Got both and they are equally awesome for their respective use. Now, for your question, I just tried - as we speak - to put my 65mm of extension tubes on my 70-200II just to see what. No shot taken. So, the min focusing distance becomes about 2' and the IS looks like working just fine. With that stacking of tubes, your magnification at 200mm should become 0.21 + 65/200 = 0.535

This means that objects taken with this stack will appear about half their size in the picture. This is not really macro, but it could be a good start. Extension tubes are quite cheap stuff. No need Canon for that, others can do as good. After all, these are just full of air. So, if your are not yet fully dipped into macro (the day you start, you can't get away anymore), I would consider the 70-200II and add a few tubes to it. You have the best walkabout lens money can buy and 0.535x mag for mid-macro.

Just a word more. The 100L lens is just an tremendous macro lens. I can tell you that the IS still works, though not in full, at close distance. I also stack tubes on it for like 1.5 - 1.6x and the results always blow my socks off. When you are out there shooting through wet foliage of bushes, you're happy to count on weather sealing.

So I did some more testing.  I setup my 70-200 on a tripod and a measuring stick to measure the MFD of a subject at 70mm and at 200mm with and without the Kenko Extension Tubes.  Also, by adding the additional magnification factor based on your math, I came up with these figures:

Attachment          MFD (in in. @70mm)   MFD (in in. @200mm)   Total Magnification @70mm   Total Mag. @200mm
                                                                                                  0.21+(Xmm/70mm)    0.21+(Xmm/200mm)                                                                                                               
(none)                   39"                              37"                               0.21                                      0.21
12mm                   12"                              29"                               0.3814                                  0.27                                                                                                   
20mm                   8" (manual)                 26"                               0.4957                                  0.31                                                                                                 
12+20mm            4.5" (manual)              21.75"                          0.6671                                  0.37                                                                                                         
36mm                  4.25" (manual)            21"                               0.7243                                 0.39                                                                                                       
12+36mm            2.25" (manual)           18.25"                          0.8957                                 0.45                                                                                                                   
20+36mm            1.75"                          17"                               1.01                                     0.49                                                                                                           
12+20+36mm      1" (manual)                15.5"                           1.1814                                 0.55                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           

Did I do something wrong?  From these figures, it looks like I can get more than 1:1 magnification with my 70-200 @70mm.  Or do I only get a 0.21x baseline magnification factor at 200mm?  I initially did this test just to see what distance I should be at for AF to work.  I ended up doing some more math and added those figures to this table.  Can someone please clarify this for me?

Pages: 1 ... 18 19 [20] 21 22 ... 24