August 01, 2014, 03:53:52 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 - Nate

Pages: 1 2 3 [4]
46
Lenses / Re: 17 ts-e vs 24 ts-e
« on: August 22, 2012, 03:02:10 AM »
Yes, this is one solution, but, as with a couple of others like it, it is very expensive. If you want to save some cash, there are a few commercial solutions that are a little cheaper (I think RRS has something like this, out of two separate contraptions), or, for even less, just improvise something from the Matthews grip equipment catalogue which may or may not also require a few extra non-photo-purposed parts to be thrown in as well.

Again, good luck.

Regards,
David

Please can you link me those sites because I didnt exactly find what you said.

Thank you!

47
Lenses / Re: 17 ts-e vs 24 ts-e
« on: August 20, 2012, 10:45:33 AM »
A few things that might be of interest to you.

If you had ever used a view camera, you would know that, shiifting the image was almost always done with the camera back, not the front (as with TSE lenses), because front shifting, even that done in the perfectly parallel way that the TSE operates, in effect, subtly tilts the image plane, so that you must compensate in post if you want to use front shift to stitch two or more images together. Granted, the amount you have to work in post varies and is rarely a huge amount. But, front-shifted images will never stitch properly without some image manipulation. If you use grip equipment to hold the camera and lens in place by grasping the lens, rather than the camera body, then, relative to the image you are shooting, when you shift the TSE lens, you will actually be shifting the body (camera "back"), rather than the lens (camera "front") itself, thereby eliminating the problem and making stitching in post completely idiot-proof. All of this is to say that, if you use the 24mm to stitch two or more images together in place of using the 17mm, you can simulate the 17mm to a degree, but be aware that you may want to buy some exttra grip gear to make that process easier and faster. Furthermore, be aware that, depending on the camera orientation when shifting for stitch, you may reproduce the general angle of view of the 17mm, but not the same format shape. Finally, you can always use the same stitching techniques with the 17mm, so that you could create a still wider angle  image that would still not be reproducable with the 24mm using the same technique. Taking all of this into account, the 17mm is a better choice if you often need a lens wider than 24mm for your work.


Thank you David.

This is what you was revering to?

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3055.0;attach=18537;image

48
Lenses / Re: 17 ts-e vs 24 ts-e
« on: August 20, 2012, 04:30:55 AM »
Ok,
So far
Advantage to 24 tse II:
-Lens hood
-Filters
-Better IQ

Advantage to 17 tse
-17 which I use more often

How bad is the flare of the 17mm?
If you shoot and the sun is 70-90 degrees compared to the lens (barely out of your frame) do I get huge flares?

49
Lenses / Re: 17 ts-e vs 24 ts-e
« on: August 19, 2012, 04:22:36 PM »
If you are shooting at 17mm a lot on your 17-40mm L, that should give you your answer.

Yeah, I know... but I am willing to sacrifice some mm and dont get flares and be able to use filters.

By the way how badly does the 17 have flares?

50
Lenses / 17 ts-e vs 24 ts-e
« on: August 19, 2012, 02:37:01 PM »
Hi all.

I want to buy the 17 or 24 ts-e, and I need some help which one to buy.

My photography besides portraits is landscape city scape architecture. I have a 5D mark III and mostly I use it when I shoot this kind of pictures the 17-40 with a Hoya ND 400 filter and a Hoya MC circular polarizer. And yeah even at f/8 f/11 is way to soft. I would like if it possible a sharpness close to my 70-200 2.8 IS II, thats why I chose this two lenses. Most of my shots are done within 20mm so, I like to shoot wide.

What I thought to buy is the 17mm, and if I need closer I will put a 1.4 TC III and if thats not enough I put it on a 7D.

My concerns are the lack of filters, the lack of hood.

Does anyone own(ed) both and tell me an opinion?

I tried to read everything what I found about tilt shift lenses but I still dont understand the following:
If I buy the 24 and I put my camera on a tripod, and I put let say a tall building in the picture, and it doesent fit in, and I would need a wider lens to cover the building, can I just tilt or shift the lens and take a few shots and than I put them in PS together as I would do with a panorama shot? Will it look exactly as it would have been taken with a 17 tse, or it will have bigger distortion?

Cheers

51
Thank you for the replays and thank you guys for the sampels!

I think I will go then with a 7D.

My last question is.
Which has better IQ the 7D+70-200+1.4 TC III or the 5D3+70-200+2 TC III?
How much faster would be the auto focus for the 7D setup?

52

Nate, I just looked through my shots and you're going to be disappointed as they're all with the MKIV and 300 f/2.8L IS +1.4x or 2X, and my 7D shots are with the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II +1.4X.

I will tell you that you do lose some IQ with the 2X as previously stated, and it does slow down the AF by 75% according to Canon.  I would not recommend it for fast action that will zoom by you, like downhill skiing, slalom or boarder-cross as that would be too aggressive for this combination, however your usage sounds like powder skiing from far away with the subject coming towards you, and not zooming by.  That's why I'm saying that I think it could handle it. 

Do you already own the 70-200mm II?  I would definitely recommend the 7D for a backup crop body for sports.  The 100-400mm is a possibility too, especially @400mm.  Renting both lenses may also be a good idea.  I've seen some great shots of the Blue Angles with the 100-400mm from Air Shows, with a low contrast background and it performs admirably.

The Skiing shots I had were with the 1D-MKIV and bare 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II and I didn't have any problem with the low contrast snow because I was able to focus on their ski jacket.

Sorry Nate, as I know that this is not what you're looking for, but all I found were some test shots with the 7D and 70-200mm II and 2X, below.

All with the 7D:
The 1st image is with the bare 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II @200mm f/9
The 2nd image is with 2X @400mm f/9
The 3rd is with 2X @400mm f/5.6
The 4th is with 2X @400mm f/5.6

Rich

Thanks, I was also interested in IQ and at f/9 the IQ is pretty good. I didn't expect it to be as good.

Yes I own the 70-200 and I dont want to buy another zoom lens for the moment. I live in Hungary where I dont have a big variety of lens renting.

So I think I stick to a 2nd body.
1DIV is out of my budget but 1DIII is the same price as the 7D...Is the 1D that much better?
The only problem is, that I carry most of the things with me. Usually 3 lenses 2 flashes 1 tripod and some accessories. The reason is that usually I always need the lens that I left home...So the only thing that I dont like is that the 1D weights twice as much as the 7D.

53
Also thanks so far for the other replays!

54

Nate, That Sounds Awesome!

The 7D would be a great 2nd body for what you want to do.  It has the reach, and a very good AF system. I've shot some skiers coming at me in the middle of the mountain, so I didn't need the reach that you're talking about, such as shooting form the bottom of the hill or helicopter.  But, one thing that I would add, is that when you're shooting from that far away, the AF system should have time to focus, as opposed to shooting "on the mountain" and having a ski racer busting by a gate.

With a zoom, you will have a greater oppurtunity to shoot the skiers for a longer period of time.  First you'll zoom in all the way and as the skiers approach you, you will zoom out to get more shots as you keep them in your viewfinder longer.

With a long fixed lens, you will have the skier in and out of your FOV fairly quickly, unless of course you're shooting for the purpose of a particular jump or drop-off.

Actually, the 200-400mm +1.4X@560mm would be perfect for this.  However, it's not out yet and I'm sure it will be very expensive.  The other choices I would consider would be the 100-400mm, or the 70-200mm with 2X as you mentioned.  The 70-200mm is better at the shorter end and the 100-400 is better at 400mm.
The AF is probably faster on the 100-400 since it doesn't have the extender. I don't own the 100-400, but I do own the 70-200 II and 2X. Like I mentioned above, if you're that far away from the skiers (bottom of hill or helicopter), then I don't think the slower AF with the 2X will matter.  I will add that IS may help in the helicopter, although I'm not sure, as I've never shot out of a helicopter before.

I probably wouldn't buy the 100-400 just for this if you already own the 70-200+2x (probably better weather-sealed), since they're fairly close enough.  I would consider a 100-400II if that ever comes out.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=687&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=7&API=2&LensComp=113&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=7&APIComp=0

I'll see if I have any 70-200mm II +2X action shots when I get home tonight.

Rich


Thanks! That was informative.
I dont want to spend too much money, thats why I would prefer buying a body with TC not a lens is because I want to have a second body (besides my 5D3) just in case.

Did you shot with the TC in the snow? if yes did it had a hard time focusing in almost 0 contrast?

I am looking forward for your samples.

55
I have the 7D and the 70-200mm Mk2, and a 2x MK111.

I would not normally use those three together. It wont be that fast focusing. In fact shooting bikes on the IoM at the TT I would prefocus and take the shot when the bike got there. For snowboarders I think the 7D and the 70-200 would be good. Its a pretty fast, bright, sharp combination.

I also have a 1Dx and understand the 5D111 is pretty good on auto focus etc. My first choice from your kit for snowboarders would be the 5D with the 70-200 and if you can't get close stick the 2X on as well. I find I can crop much harder on the FF and still get better results than I would with the 7D. Dont think the 7D is poor, but its not the same as the next generation.

Hope this helps.

Can I get a sample with the 7D 70-200 2xTC? I am interested in how bad is the IQ compared to w/o TC

56
:( so it still remains the first option...

Thanks for the information

57

And while you're buying the 7D, pick up a 400 f/5.6 too. Same range as your combination, but fast, very fast AF.


Yes that looks good! I forgot about this option ;D
I might go with 5D3 2x TC and 400mm

I still wait for some samples, however this looks good! :)

58
Hi,

I shoot with a 5D mk III and I need a second body for sports.
Mainly what I need is to shoot powder skiers/snowboarders coming down on the hill, and I shoot them or from the bottom of the mountain or from helicopter.
I know the best results would be with a 600 lens but I dont have it.
I was thinking that maybe the 400mm is not enough (5D3 2x TC III 70-200) so to buy a second used body.

Among crop bodies with one has the best auto focus and pretty good fps?

Any experience with that setup ether sport or wildlife? (50D/7D 2x TC III and 70-200 IS II)
If someone has some samples with that setup, please post them.

Cheers!

Pages: 1 2 3 [4]