November 26, 2014, 01:38:01 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 - AlanF

Pages: 1 ... 10 11 [12] 13 14 ... 76
166
Lenses / Re: your experience of buying very old EF L lenses
« on: July 10, 2014, 07:09:17 AM »
I bought the 70-200 IS f/4 before the 2.8 II came out, and decided that the f/4 was much the better choice. Against the 2.8 II, the decision would have been much more difficult as it is a fabulous lens wide open, even a tad better at f/2.8 than the f/4 is at f/4. But, you have to stop the old f/2.8 down to f/4 to compete with the smaller lens. I recently posted some photos of the Tour de France in http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=21705.0  taken with the f/4 on a 5DIII. The images are tack sharp from corner to corner, seen even with the reduced sizes posted.

167
Lenses / Re: your experience of buying very old EF L lenses
« on: July 09, 2014, 07:21:25 PM »
The f/4 IS is significantly sharper, 4 stops of IS, much lighter and still as solid as a rock.  So, unless you really need f/2.8, don't even think about the old lens.

168
Lenses / Re: Need help deciding on my next lens
« on: July 09, 2014, 05:00:29 PM »
If you are not going to upgrade to a full frame, don't get the 24-105 but get the 15-85, which is designed for crop. It is a very sharp lens and the 15-24mm end is far more useful than the 85-105.

169
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: A Summary of Sigma Lens Rumors
« on: July 09, 2014, 02:42:27 PM »
Surely 300-600/5.6 ie same front lens size as their 120-300.

With very moderate 600/300 ratio it should in theory mean consistent performance across the zoom range.

Best of luck to Sigma if they pull it off and actually make this one.

Unfortunately, the 120-300 weighs 3.39 kg, just over a kilo more than the Canon 300mm f/2.8 II. That is too heavy for me without a tripod or monopod.


...when you add a Canon 2x TC to the 300/2.8II then the weight difference is not very much.

The Canon 300/28 II with 2xTC III weighs 2.675 kg, which is 0.715 kg or 1lb 9 oz lighter than the Sigma 120-300mm, which some of would find to be quite significant held at the end of a camera.

170
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: A Summary of Sigma Lens Rumors
« on: July 09, 2014, 08:32:25 AM »
I was hoping for some primes to compete with Canon's 400/500/600mm primes.  A 300-600 would be interesting, but it likely won't be f/4 throughout; probably something like the Tamron instead as the weight would get too significant.  Ah well; I can still hope for something in the future.

I'm sure they are coming, although I doubt they will deisng a 400mm f2.8.
Their 500mm f4.5 is a well regarded lens and one which seriously do with an update. An IS unit, opening up to f4 and the ability to take teleconverters without Af issues and weather sealed should do the trick.

The current Sigma big primes are over-heavy, over-priced (£4799 for the 500 f/4.5 and £5499 for the 800/5.6) under-perform in MTF and lack IS. To compete with Canon they will have to improve hugely and keep the price really down. When you want the ultimate, a £1000 here or there in £5000-8000 is not usually a deal breaker. I would like an ultra-light very sharp 400, 500 or 600 f/5.6 at a competitive price and leave the f/2.8 and f/4 to Canon.

171
Photography Technique / Re: Tour de France crops
« on: July 09, 2014, 07:13:28 AM »
Yesterday afternoon a stage of the Tour de France started from Cambridge

Someone please explain why the "Tour de France" started in England?


It would appear that France invaded England; undoubtedly much to their surprise, they apparently won.

We'll know for certain when they move the Eiffel Tower to London.

I'd vote for photo 3 - I think the view of the side of the cathedral like building is necessary to make the image look 'correct'.

Thanks everyone for your comments. Number 3 is, by luck, exactly 4x5 in dimension and I will get a 40cmx50cm print made of that one.

ps the British GDP is just about to overtake the French.

172
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: A Summary of Sigma Lens Rumors
« on: July 08, 2014, 05:23:59 PM »
Surely 300-600/5.6 ie same front lens size as their 120-300.

With very moderate 600/300 ratio it should in theory mean consistent performance across the zoom range.

Best of luck to Sigma if they pull it off and actually make this one.

Unfortunately, the 120-300 weighs 3.39 kg, just over a kilo more than the Canon 300mm f/2.8 II. That is too heavy for me without a tripod or monopod.

173
Photography Technique / Re: Tour de France crops
« on: July 08, 2014, 04:39:54 PM »
If you like the uncropped versions, then this one may better as the procession is strung out more and goes diagonally across the frame.

174
Photography Technique / Tour de France crops
« on: July 08, 2014, 10:11:24 AM »
Yesterday afternoon a stage of the Tour de France started from Cambridge, and I wanted a record of the parade coming out in front of my college, the tall Gothic building with the spire. So, I hung out of a 2nd floor window, with my right leg wedged between the wall and an armchair, on which my wife was instructed to sit and not get up. I used the 5DIII with a 70-200mm f/4 L IS at f/8 to increase the DoF and iso640 for a decent shutter speed. All images are reduced to fit.

I would like advice on the composition. Top is the uncropped image. Below a narrow crop to remove the spectators just below me and the wall of the building, and reduce the foreground. However, the Gothic building is rather to the right. Next is a squarer crop, which has some wall and faces, but the Gothic building is exactly 1/3rd way in. I like this version, despite the faces on the right. Bottom, is just to show the yellow and green jersyes as they went past (the 70-200mm is just so sharp).

Advice please on the best crop or left alone, bearing in mind the Gothic building is important?


175
EOS-M / Re: Cheap 400mm advice
« on: July 06, 2014, 07:20:35 AM »
Hey guys I was wondering which would be better for achieving ~ 400mm focal length with the M. I would like to take some occasional pics of the moon. I've done it before and found 400mm to be long enough with a bit of cropping.

You want a LOT more focal length than 400mm to image the moon. I used an 840mm lens (EF 600mm f/4 L II w/ 1.4x TC) to produce this image:

Look Jon, stop playing these amateur games and get real. This is what you need.

Haha! Now THAT...is a MOON LENS! :D And apparently, one hell of a giant EOS as well...  :o

Jon
You explained once that to get really good moon shots you need to pp. So I upped the vibrance, microcontrast and saturation to 100% in DxO PRIME, and then gave 1.9p at 100% in PS to a the SX50 and 300mm+2xTC on 5DIII. It brought out the detail on the latter in particular.

176
EOS-M / Re: Cheap 400mm advice
« on: July 06, 2014, 04:59:45 AM »
Hey guys I was wondering which would be better for achieving ~ 400mm focal length with the M. I would like to take some occasional pics of the moon. I've done it before and found 400mm to be long enough with a bit of cropping.

You want a LOT more focal length than 400mm to image the moon. I used an 840mm lens (EF 600mm f/4 L II w/ 1.4x TC) to produce this image:

Look Jon, stop playing these amateur games and get real. This is what you need.

177
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: London Walkaround
« on: July 03, 2014, 04:48:41 AM »
Take the fast train to Cambridge - only 46-51 minutes from Kings Cross, leaving at 15 minutes to or 15 minutes after the hour throughout the day. You don't need a car here. Your camera gear is just right.

178
Photography Technique / Re: Shoot from the rearend of the subjects.
« on: July 03, 2014, 03:21:18 AM »
I wondered what I could do with this horrible photo, until this thread appeared in the featured list.  The anatomical details of this sunbathing rook weren't apparent until I saw it on the screen. No worse looking than some of the stuff here.


179
Pricewatch Deals / Re: Is that Legit? Canon 24-105 Lens for 681$.
« on: July 02, 2014, 05:50:58 PM »
There is so much bashing of the 24-105. Yesterday, because of all the reports about the sharpness of the Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 I tried one out against my 24-105, with every intention of buying. The 24-105 was sharper than the Tamron. Maybe I have an exceptionally sharp 24-105 or the Tamron was a bad copy.

180
EOS-M / Re: Cheap 400mm advice
« on: July 02, 2014, 06:51:27 AM »
The best cheap way of getting 400mm is the Sigma 400mm f/5.6 apo tele macro. Some work only at f/5.6, others work stopped down. I had a good one which worked at all apertures cost me about £130 on eBay, but I recently sold it for about £375 on eBay, and someone got a really good lens. They are sharper than the 400. You can compare this shot with my previous - it's beaten only by my 600mm combo.

Pages: 1 ... 10 11 [12] 13 14 ... 76