Messages

316

Lenses / Re: Weddings 70-200mm 2.8 is vs 4 is

« on: February 19, 2013, 06:31:44 PM »

For those that have used both, is there a difference in IQ between both the 70-200's at f4? Is the 2.8 sharper stopped down a stop, or are they about equal?

At F4 they are both tack sharp in my hands.

Again the f4 is an acclaimed lens in its own right...what the 2.8II offers is one stop extra light at a higher weight. it comes down to shooting style and portability issues... highly personal depending on photographic needs and tolerance to accommodate weight. If you are a big guy with 10 inch hands, the fact you can easily carry it has no relevance to a petit woman or a smaller person in general.

317

EOS Bodies / Re: 2013 Predictions for Canon EOS Products

« on: February 19, 2013, 06:21:49 PM »

The 3D will have eye-controlled focus and a blink-activated shutter. You heard it here first.   

You joke, but I like the eye controlled focus of my Elan 7e. I don't know if the technology is accurate enough to select and individual AF point in a 61pt grid, but if it's close it would be awesome.

Yes, if not this next cycle, definitely soon after eye-controlled AF will make its appearance in the higher end bodies. Conceptually, it is an old technology for canon, but will need tweaking for the modern AF systems. Very doable.

318

EOS Bodies / Re: 2013 Predictions for Canon EOS Products

« on: February 19, 2013, 06:11:44 PM »

The 3D will have eye-controlled focus and a blink-activated shutter. You heard it here first.   

Will it do windows? Laundry without mixing colors?

319

Lenses / Re: Weddings 70-200mm 2.8 is vs 4 is

« on: February 19, 2013, 05:27:01 PM »

Weight is a definite concern with the 2.8ii and was probably the main reason I chose the f4IS over it. I just couldnt stand carrying that thing around all day. I'm much happier using the lighter zoom and filling in with fast primes when needed.

+1

I think with the 5D3 the low light performance is good enough that f4 will fit the bill just fine.
Also you dont want too shallow a DOF in events and gatherings...and i assume you will have a prime for really shallow work)

70-200L f/4 is a highly regarded zoom in its own right and weighs about half the larger sibling.

While I fully recognize (and own) the f/2.8 II as a high quality zoom, I do not agree that it is called for at every turn just because it is a super duper zoom that also does window and vacuums your floors! There is a cult like following that suggests this zoom as a panacea for everything. If weight is a factor, then by all means stick to the f4 and it is a kick ass zoom.

320

Lenses / Re: lens question for the math geniouses

« on: February 19, 2013, 01:13:52 PM »

The Field of View (FOV) and the Depth of field (DOF) are two independent parameters.

For any given distance from the subject, the lens projects the SAME image on the focal plane, it doesn't care if you have placed a full frame senor, or a APS-C sensor, or a smaller MFT at this focal plane.

The Out of Focus blur (Bokeh) remains the same on all sensors placed at the same plane, because the lens is projecting the same image...it doesn't care or know what is at the capturing end.

But as you go from full frame to APS-C to MFT camera placed at the same distance, you will capture a smaller and smaller sliver of the image the lens projects back. This is the "field" you are capturing or a "crop" of the full image the lens is producing.

So DOF is a function of the 1) aperture of the lens 2) the distance from the subject to the lens 3) and the distance between the background and the subject.

DOF is NOT a function of the size of the senor.

Where people get into all sorts of pretzel contortions comparing DOF on full frames and crops is when they start to move the full frame camera closer to the subject to get the same FOV as the crop camera or vice versa. Now you have changed the DOF, true, because you changed the distance between the subject and camera.

But, you still have the same DOF on both FF and Crop cameras placed at that distance!

But the full frame will capture more of the field from that distance and crop will capture less of the field from that same distance.

321

Lenses / Re: Sigma 35 or 135L??

« on: February 16, 2013, 09:08:16 PM »

I personally find 35mm on full frame to be the most boring focal length. Not really wide, to wide for portraits in my book. And the shallow depth of field look is not that easy to get to unless you go in close - which for people photography is problematic with a wide angle lens (any lens really but let's not get into the physics here).

.....The benefit of the 35 is that you could use it on your 7D as a 50mm substitute which I personally find more useful than real 35mm.

I own both the 35L and the 135L... and will say that blanket statements such as the ones above are rarely accurate.

35mm has its place on full frame...and it is ludicrous to suggest it's primary benefit is as a 50mm on crop bodies!! 35L has been an event and street photography standard for a good reason... it provides that slightly off-keel punch to the shot, includes enough detail when needed in the background that is not totally melted away owing to shallow DOF (you don't always want too shallow a DOF in event photography as you want to convey the existence of the crowd, the movement, and to provide context to the subject). This is not an excercise in how shallow the bokeh can be even though 35L is capable of excellent bokeh.

135L which I recommended also has its place in event photography, though not always associated with events, as it provides distance from the subject(s) not to mention the IQ... which to me includes not only the sharpness but also the compression aspects of the tele.

Look at your shooting style and get lenses that fit your style.

322

Lenses / Re: Sigma 35 or 135L??

« on: February 15, 2013, 02:33:35 PM »

135L

Though it is not always an obvious choice for event shooting, it should be.

The caveat being the 135L requires some space in the venue...if you have that, 135L produces some excellent shots...you always get more interesting candids this way rather than being in your subject's face which shorter focal lengths inevitably require.

Event shooting also has a lot of movement, either the subjects themselves or others in the background or around them... so shoot a lot of frames, the ones that "hit"...are absolutely superb with 135L.

Go in prepared to throw away a lot of frames...but you will be very happy with the keepers.

323

EOS Bodies / Re: What if the rumored 5Dx is actually a 4D?

« on: February 15, 2013, 10:36:38 AM »

IMHO, it makes more sense to build a high megapixel body around the 5D platform, as the 1-series build quality and form factor are overkill for studio work. A lot of the used 1DsIII bodies on ebay have well over 100,000 clicks but look practically new.

seems about right. wise words. for studio use you won't need a brick...

To think that the high MP offering will be housed in a 5D-range body, or 5D-like body, or anywhere within the vicinity of 5D3 price (even double) is a pipe-dream in Technicolor.

It will be a 1 series or "1-series-like".

324

Software & Accessories / Re: Nice Folks at Flickr

« on: February 14, 2013, 06:36:50 PM »

Congrats!!! Loved the post.

325

EOS Bodies / Re: What if the rumored 5Dx is actually a 4D?

« on: February 14, 2013, 06:18:55 PM »

One way of looking at the upcoming Canon product line is to posit that the order in which the flagships were introduced was flipped...

1) 1D mark IV was replaced by 1DX ...a faster lower MP body (yes it happens to be full frame and not APS-H)
2) 1Ds mark III is yet to be truly replaced...though canon earlier claimed that 1DX is that replacement...I think the rumored higher MP body (1DsX?) is the real candidate that is destined to occupy the slot left vaccant by 1Ds Mark III.

The anticipated higher MP body (1DsX?) could likely have ~35-45MP, lower fps, 1DX metering and AF, other 1 series perks, and if you buy into this hypothesis, we can expect the price range to be pegged higher than the current 1DX, at may be $7.5 K to $8.5K, not that far from its original predecessors. They may throw in a few bonuses like GPS and wifi...while pro's were never really dying for such features, they won't say no to it either if offered.

Whatever its final form, this new entry is bound to be a substantive body with an impressive feature list.

326

Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 40 f/2.8 STM

« on: February 14, 2013, 03:37:50 PM »

It is just Shorty Forty...similar to Nifty Fifty...Most reference on the net is just Shorty Forty...no need to infuse a Mc here. It is like some one trying to rebrand the 50mm a "Nifty Von Fifty" or "Nifty Herr Fiftty".

I seriously hope Nifty Von Fifty sticks.

*chuckle* Yes, soon we would have every focal length assigned to some ethnic/cultural combine if we go by the "Shorty McForty in Kilt" wish.

For me, the original "Shorty Forty" works just fine.

327

Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 40 f/2.8 STM

« on: February 13, 2013, 08:19:40 PM »

Long Live the Shorty McForty!

b&

It is just Shorty Forty...similar to Nifty Fifty...Most reference on the net is just Shorty Forty...no need to infuse a Mc here. It is like some one trying to rebrand the 50mm a "Nifty Von Fifty" or "Nifty Herr Fiftty".

There is no linkage to this lens in particular to the celtic naming you are trying to promote other than someone trying hard to make it stick....may be if it were wearing a kilt?

328

Lenses / Re: Is this inconsistency acceptable? Sigma 85 1.4 question.

« on: February 12, 2013, 02:48:14 PM »

are you going to be shooting Architecture or Landscapes with this lens? or do you intend shooting people with the lens? if you do plan on shooting people, will you be placing anything in the composition thats worth looking at in the bottom corner near the edge?

again...i am having trouble understanding the thought process here. this level of criticism under these circumstances seems inane.

for an 85mm 1.4 lens shot wide open, what difference does corner sharpness make? what photographic purpose are you trying to achieve that you feel this lens wont be able to cover?

Please stop feeding this post, I think several satisfactory answers have been given, and the OP seems to know what matters to him...feeding this post will just drag it out more.

As one of the posters said above...

.
Nothing personal, but I see so many of these first posts about some non-Canon product. There's just something fishy about them to me. I no longer take them seriously.

If you have a lens that is not working correctly, send it in for repairs....

329

Lenses / Re: Is this inconsistency acceptable? Sigma 85 1.4 question.

« on: February 12, 2013, 12:53:20 PM »

If its not acceptable to you, thats the only thing that counts!  Return it!

+1
Ultimately, if you have the impression that it is off in one corner or the other, enough of an impression to put it in writing with example pictures, as you have done here, that's what matters...you will always have that view whatever is said here...return it.

330

Lens Gallery / Re: Canon EF 70-300 f/4-5.6L IS USM

« on: February 12, 2013, 12:47:29 PM »

Very sharp...and very plesant shallow DOF in spite of the aperture starting at f/4. The focus in this picture was on the hairs above her eye as I wanted her over-obvious whiskers out of focus...I have no complaints...great zoom.