July 26, 2014, 01:57:25 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 - Act444

Pages: 1 ... 16 17 [18] 19 20 21
256
Last year when I shot a similar event, I used my 60D and the 17-55 2.8 (and 580ex II flash). That was all I needed...

From your setup, seems like the 24-105 and flash should be sufficient. Event photography is not that easy as I found out! Lighting is the most important issue to try to nail down.

257
The difference between 200mm and 300mm seemed rather trivial when I first experimented at the camera store (seriously, it's like the equivalent of taking a small step forward)...but out in the field, it actually CAN make a difference. And the farther away your subject is, of course, the more difference you will notice.

I chose the 70-300L over the 100-400 due to its higher image quality and lighter weight (win-win for me). I assumed I could possibly even crop the 300mm image to approximate 400mm and still get equivalent quality to what I would have gotten with the 100-400 at 400.

But YMMV. I would try both and see. Basically, your choice will be between extra reach (100-400) and lighter weight (70-300). Also, remember the wide end as well. 70 vs 100 is quite a difference if you need to pull back.

Are you shooting 1.6x or full-frame? When maximum reach is needed, it is REALLY nice to have the 1.6x factor that an APS-C camera gives you.

258
Lenses / Re: Seeking lens in the 85-100mm range
« on: May 09, 2012, 02:33:55 PM »
Yeah...I guess I can see how since I've always used a "crop" camera. Have no desire of going FF any time soon since I prefer the extra reach I get with the 1.6x camera, particularly with a telephoto like the 70-300 where 300 gives you pretty good reach in a compact package.

I try to avoid changing lenses "in the field", so I usually determine what it is I wish to shoot, then pick the appropriate lens before I go out. This means I usually pick zoom lenses since it means more flexibility, but fixed focals do have their advantages too, as I'm finding out.

259
Depends...and it has varied over the years :)

Now, I use mostly Av mode to have control over DOF (especially with fast lenses), or when shooting sports, Custom mode (which I configure for manual exposure, auto ISO, AI servo and * to focus). Occasionally I will use Tv mode when using the 70-200 indoors so I can take full advantage of the IS function to handhold slower shutter speeds.

260
Lenses / Re: Seeking lens in the 85-100mm range
« on: May 07, 2012, 11:45:14 PM »
Interesting. Good to know!

Quote
  It did seem that on my t2i the 100 2.0 would once in a while be just a smidgen front- focusing as I sometimes would get a little sharper on large aperture shots using Live View focusing.

I used to have a T2i before I "upgraded" to the 60D which I now love. I think that camera had a serious front-focusing problem- it seemed any fast lens I used/tried with it seemed to be off a bit- very inconsistent as it would front-focus in one shot, be fine the next, then exhibit slight backfocus in the 3rd. Maybe it was just my camera rather than the T2i model, but I find the 60D to be notably better in terms of focus accuracy (not perfect though).

I couldn't tell for sure, but I thought there may have been a SLIGHT back-focus with the 100 2 with the camera I tested it on at the store (also a 60D).

Quote
The 24-105 kit lens that came with the 5D Mk 3, however was off at the long end.  Even with AFMA  applied to that lens, at 100 it has nowhere near the IQ as the two 100 primes.

I have the 24-105 as well, and it definitely appears that the 100L can resolve more detail off buildings than the 24-105L can at 100 (I have not done a side-by-side comparison, but I was amazed at the quality from the former lens). But the 24-105 has been a fine lens for me. Maybe I have a good "copy" (or whatnot), but I have been pleased with it. For me, it is a great walk-around "compromise" lens. Good range, decent reach at 105 (too short for animal photos however), constant f4 aperture beats the 3.5-5.6 you typically get from consumer all-purpose zoom lenses, good IQ that you don't get from the 18-55 kit lens, and most importantly, it has IS. If I know what I'm going to shoot I usually go for a more specific lens, but hard-pressed to find a better all-around than this one.

Quote
The 100 2.0 is faster to focus than the 100 2.8L macro, probably due to the lesser total focus range.  It is also very quiet focusing.    I think you may have hit on a possible explanation for your initial impression of the lens' sharpness - using a pretty high shutter speed (1/250 or more) is what I found I needed to be sure to 'take the shake out' using handheld, which is more than the rule of thumb would say you needed for this lens; ie 1/160th  on a crop sensor camera.

Ah, that makes sense. I went back and looked at the EXIF info from my test shots with that lens. Most were taken at 1/160s (which I would think would be fast enough, but apparently not). For sports I'd likely be going much higher than that anyway. Occasional meet & greets should they come up, though- might have an issue getting a steady image. I suppose flash + high ISO would be needed to compensate.

The 100L does have a switch on it to limit its focus range should you need to use it for general photo shooting (such as a portrait session, perhaps)...tested this out today and the focus is much faster, much more responsive like this. Left on "full", sometimes it can hunt through the entire range and slow down the process dramatically.

Again, thanks for your feedback, greatly appreciated!

261
Lenses / Re: Seeking lens in the 85-100mm range
« on: May 07, 2012, 10:18:26 PM »
Quote
If you are still considering the EF 100 2.0 lens, I have both it and the 100L.   I bought the 100 2.0 a couple years ago as my first baby step up from EF-S lenses to use at the time on my t2i.  I got it for the fast aperture and the good image quality that most of the reviewers noted.  I have been extremely pleased with the image quality of the lens, it is virtually as sharp as the 100 2.8 L Macro and given the bigger aperture can even give you a better bokeh effect in some cases.   I have seen some purple fringing on the edges of a few shots near wide open in high contrast areas but LR or DPP effectively removes that.  One semi-drawback of the 100 2.0 is it's relatively long minimum focus distance (2.8'), but prior to getting the 100L Macro, I found using a set of Kenko extension tubes gave me a pretty good proxy for a macro lens, just no IS.  After getting the 100 L Macro with it's great image stabilization system, I hadn't been using the 100 2.0 as much in mediocre lighting conditions due to my desire to keep the ISO lower on the t2i  to minimize noise.     As you can tell from my handle, I do a lot of flower photography and absent a tripod when in shady light, I didn't have quite steady enough hands to use the 100 2.0 at the stopped down apertures needed to get entire flowers in focus. In good light or with a tripod, however,  I got some great shots with the 100 2.0, both semi-closeups and distant landscape shots.    Now that I have a 5D Mark III, with its much much lower noise at higher ISO's , I find I am using the 2.0 in all lighting.  The full format sensor is also providing even better bokeh on large aperture shots compared to what I got with the crop sensor t2i.

Awesome, thanks for sharing your experience. Interesting to hear you mention that both 100s have similar sharpness levels- that's not what I saw when I tried them out a week ago...then again, the 100 2.0 lacks IS so perhaps that was part of the reason. Do/did you find the focus on the 100 2 relatively accurate/quick?

My primary use of the 100 2.0, like I mentioned, would be sports & fast-paced events where it would be impractical to take the 70-200 2.8 (or I REALLY need the extra stop). The 100L now fills the flower/macro/occasional portrait need. Since I'm using a 60D, 100mm would provide just enough reach provided I'm in the front/second row. I find it a bit long indoors, however. Got a 35mm and a 17-55 for that.

I just received the 100L today (as mentioned above) and tried it out. Seems to work great, although I probably should try again on a slightly calmer/sunnier day. Here's one shot I managed to get:

(EXIF: EOS 60D, 100L Macro, f11, 1/160s, ISO 2000)


262
Lenses / Re: Seeking lens in the 85-100mm range
« on: May 07, 2012, 05:41:45 PM »
My lens showed up today! Took some shots with it- seems to be a great lens but there is certainly a learning curve to macro photography, particularly when it's windy outside!  :o

263
Lenses / Re: Seeking lens in the 85-100mm range
« on: May 05, 2012, 01:47:19 PM »
L-disease. lol. Possibly, but I definitely know better than to simply trust the red ring- it's the shots that come out of it that count the most! (Example: the 17-55 2.8 IS delivers similar quality to my 24-105mm L...and I used to have the 85 1.8 which gave many L zooms a run for their money in terms of sharpness)

I did try the 135L. Great lens. However, price aside, I'm really looking for something more inconspicuous. I don't want something so big/obvious that I may not be able to get into a venue with it, for example. The 100 2 is smaller, lighter, just as fast...not to mention half the price too. I'm normally willing to pay more for image quality, but I think this might be a situation where I have to compromise.

I'd love to hear from someone who does have the 100 2- or perhaps even the 135L to hear impressions.

264
Lenses / Re: Seeking lens in the 85-100mm range
« on: May 05, 2012, 01:24:41 PM »
Had time to play around with the 100L more extensively yesterday, took it out on a shoot. All I can say is wow. This is the lens that turns out I needed, but didn't know about. Have to thank you guys for making me aware of this! I have to say the sharpness is insane too. Definitely up there with 70-200, 35L...

I've ordered my own copy, should be here early next week!

Also looking at the 100 f2 for back-up sports use (70-200 will ALWAYS be first choice, but of course it's not always practical/possible)- has an extra stop, so that could be useful too.

265
Lenses / Re: Canon 70-200 2.8 MkI vs MkII
« on: May 05, 2012, 01:19:23 PM »
I never had the original, but the current one is amazing. Sharp ACROSS THE RANGE unlike your typical zoom lens which tends to have a "sweet spot" and another area where it's not so great.

If your budget allows, it's highly recommended.

266
Lenses / Re: Seeking lens in the 85-100mm range
« on: May 03, 2012, 08:55:48 PM »
Hey all,

So I went back to the camera store today to try the two lenses recommended by folks here- the Sigma 85mm 1.4 and the Canon 100mm macro lens. The Sigma lens feels great; focusing seemed a tad inconsistent but more or less averaged the right distance. Not sure I want to go through the whole 3rd-party focus thing again, though, so I'm going to rule that one out at this point.

The Canon 100mm macro, OTOH, I thought was great. It's a little larger than I'd like, but the macro capability does open up a whole new realm of possibilities (NONE of the lenses I currently have can focus close). It's also weather-sealed, unlike the 85s so at least crud won't get in it so easily (already a long piece of hair(?) from goodness-knows-where found its way behind the rear element of my 35 1.4 after just one outdoor session, grr)...the one drawback I did see of the 100L was that one does have to manage the focus range of the lens (it can be quite slow if left on "full" the whole time) depending on what it's used for, but I do like it. Thanks for letting me know about this one, folks.

As I was walking back from the store, it struck me that I could actually get BOTH 100mm lenses (the macro L and the cheaper f2) and still spend less money than I would on the 85 1.2 alone. The macro 100mm is still too "obvious" of a lens when I don't want to draw attention in general shooting, wish to use in certain venues, etc. The 100 2 is small, fast, yet has decent reach. And the f2 opens up the option for shooting sports in darker environments. For the one I tried, the image quality didn't seem to match the other L primes, but it's a tradeoff that I'm willing to take. I think I'd actually have unique uses for both...something to think about, I guess.

267
Lenses / Re: Seeking lens in the 85-100mm range
« on: May 01, 2012, 11:40:13 PM »
Ah, now that's a thought...I never considered macro lenses because I assumed they were specialty tools. Curious: would such a lens work for the occasional sporting event (stopping fast action) as well? And I SUPPOSE the occasional portrait shot should such an occasion arise?

268
Lenses / Re: Seeking lens in the 85-100mm range
« on: April 30, 2012, 09:37:22 PM »
Thanks, guys. I'll take a look at this one as well. Although- I do have reservations about going 3rd party again after my experience with that Tamron lens mentioned earlier.

Something in TDP's review of the Sigma 85mm had me a little nervous:

Quote
I have been using the Sigma 85mm f/1.4 EX DG HSM Lens a lot over the last few months with a frame count in the thousands. I find this to be a very useful lens - and one I really like to use. When I get an accurately-focused image, I really like the image quality from the Sigma 85mm f/1.4 EX DG HSM Lens - it is really nice. But accurate focusing is this lens' definite weakness - getting accurate focus has been an issue.
 
As of Sigma 85mm f/1.4 EX DG HSM Lens review time, I have purchased (retail) three and returned two of these lenses. The first lens was consistently front focusing. The second lens was focusing so inconsistently that I wished for the first one back. The third lens is focusing very inconsistently, but does seem to average to the correct focus distance. I cut my losses and kept this copy of the lens.

Yet, the other review claimed there were no major focusing issues with the lens. I guess they were using the Nikon version though.


I like the price, though. Half that of the Canon 1.2...

Also, any owners of the 85 1.2, 100 2 or 135 2 that can vouch for their performance?

269
Lenses / Seeking lens in the 85-100mm range
« on: April 30, 2012, 07:27:21 PM »
Hi all,

Currently considering a prime/fixed focal length lens in the 85-100mm range and would appreciate thoughts, impressions, recommendations.

Amateur shooter here (not pro). I have a 60D- I mostly use zoom lenses, the only fixed-FL lens I have is the 35 1.4, which is great (starting to use it a bit more after ignoring it for a while). I used to have the 85 1.8 but traded it in towards a 70-200 2.8 (totally the right decision, love that lens), but now I'm starting to look for a possible alternative when I don't necessarily want to carry around the extra weight and/or gather attention.

Mainly this lens I might use for occasional sporting events (when 70-200 isn't practical due to weight, etc.), taking shots of flowers/foliage, and for shots when I want the background as blurred as possible. I'm not much of a portrait photographer- there are times where I've been asked to take someone's picture, but that is not really what I do (or have experience with).

Lenses I've been looking at:

I was considering buying the 85 1.8 again. Great lens, but from my usage the 70-200 2.8 is just as sharp at 85mm/2.8, and has better focus too. Too much purple fringing at 1.8 in my opinion.

85 1.2- tried it in store today. Amazed at the quality but was taken aback by how slow the focusing is. It's pretty bulky too. But I was wowed at the test photos I took with it- especially the test portrait shot which looked professional with almost no effort on my part...my concern here would be for the times I substitute the 70-200. I feel this lens would struggle to keep up with even moderately-paced action. I did run a quick test (took a burst of shots of someone walking away from camera), seemed ok but hard to tell. Expensive, too, but not completely out of range (better be a solid reason to drop 2K on a specialty lens!)

100 2 - also played around with this in store. Fast focusing, which is great...light weight, which is both good and bad (good being easier on the neck, bad being harder to steady since there is no IS). However, I found myself somewhat displeased with the purple fringing at f2 and the image quality (seemed a bit soft). Still, it is being considered mainly because of its inconspicuousness.

135 2 - tried this out as well. Excellent quality and light weight (same points as above). Quick focusing. However, I feel that because of its longer focal length, its usefulness is somewhat reduced. I can see this being a great substitute for the 70-200 though as far as sports go (mainly shooting in dimmer indoor environments).

Any others? I'd like to stick with Canon lenses if possible (I had a Tamron 17-50- it served my needs for about a year, then I traded it in for the 17-55 2.8 and afterwards, wondered what took me so long to do it). What are your recommendations, experiences, etc.? Any help would be appreciated

270
I always use the hood, even just for the physical protection.

Same here.

Pages: 1 ... 16 17 [18] 19 20 21