November 27, 2014, 07:01:34 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 2 [3] 4 5 ... 23
Lenses / Re: Canon 24-70 f/4L IS disappointing?
« on: July 28, 2014, 10:30:43 AM »
Clearly this forum is not the place to hang out if you're trying to avoid buying more stuff (sigh)

Anyway, yes, I have seen the reviews of the 24-70 f4 and remain confused. I was wondering why so many gave such a high impression of this lens (with the exception of TDP which shows awful performance at 50mm)...I went to my local store to try one out and it confirmed the mediocre performance at 50mm f4 (ok, trying to be nice - it simply sucked at 50). It was very good at 24mm (much better than the 24-105 and close to the 24-70 2.8 II) worse as I zoomed in. At 35 it was just 50 no part of the image was sharp. Center was just barely passable, toward the edges - I thought my 24-105 was meh at 24, but (!!!)...and then it improved again at 70mm but it's still not as good as it was at 24. Macro mode seemed cool but gimmicky at the same time. Performance wise the macro mode seemed to be fairly good (of course, not in the league of the 100L but WAY better than anything in its class).

Basically, with the exception of 24mm f4, this seemed like a step DOWN from the 24-105 which really surprised me given reviews I've read singing its praises. Then, finally I stumble upon some reviews docking it for its performance at 50mm (and threads like this)...I wonder if that was just a bad copy that the store had. Unfortunately it's the only copy they have too...I'd like to try out another one to see if it's any better.

So...sounds like it's normal to see a drop in performance in that lens at 50, but it shouldn't be a dramatic one?

EOS-M / Re: Difficulty attaching lenses to my new EOS-M
« on: July 26, 2014, 06:09:02 PM »
I do notice a little more resistance when mounting M lenses...assumed it was normal. I wouldn't worry about it.

Lenses / Re: Something with 50mm L lens that make it different
« on: July 21, 2014, 07:55:39 PM »
I'd like the chime in with a neutral stance.  I owned the 50L for over a year and also own the nifty fifty and the 50 f/1.4.  Love all 3 of them.  The 50L was brilliant from f/1.2 to f/2.8.  Absolutely brilliant.  After f/2.8 though, it was the worst of the 3 lenses.  In fact, at f/5.6, the 1.4 lens looked much better and was much sharper and if I were shooting stopped down I always went for the 1.4.  Now of course I go for the 24-70 f/2.8L II because I don't shoot wider than f/2.8 anymore.

Right...I was looking for a good 50mm lens, a good all-around 50mm lens. After an experience with Tamron I have decided to now stick to first-party (Canon) lenses, at least with my DSLRs. I'm still looking for that 50mm lens and haven't really found it yet.

I typically go for the best I can afford, and in this case the 50L was in my budget. But I tried it at the store and I just could not get a good shot with it. I had no problems with the 85L so I knew it wasn't the 1.2 that was holding me back, but the lens itself. Very frustrating lens to use...especially between 2.8 and 5.6 where it seemed to back-focus considerably. Then I tried the 1.4...much cheaper, decent where the 50 1.2 struggled...but mediocre below f2 (and I lamented its lack of sealing and fragile handling). Still wasn't convinced.

But after reading this discussion it kinda makes sense now. I consider myself to be more of the "technical" type of photographer - I like my shots sharp and well-exposed, at least that's what I go I tend to pick lenses that make attaining that easier for me (the sharpness part, that is). If the 50 1.2 is indeed designed for more of an artistic flair (and I have seen some great shots from it), at the cost of some sharpness, that's probably why I hated it to begin with. The shots out of it were just a bit too soft for my liking, that's all. So, hopefully there'll be a 50mm 1.8 (or 1.4) IS on the way!

I compare that to the 85 which is sharp even at 1.2 (wow!) Plus its images have "that look" to boot...

Lenses / Re: Something with 50mm L lens that make it different
« on: July 21, 2014, 02:12:38 PM »
Does the 35mm 1.4L have that "special" look that the 50 and 85 L give?

When I had it, it was probably my sharpest lens...and had a very smooth rendering of the background. The difference in a flower shot between that and my 24-105 was night and day. I think it was at that point that I realized that the lens you use really DOES make a difference in the end...

But as much as I liked it, I no longer have it. I just wasn't using it frequently enough...sold it and recently picked up the f2 IS version.

Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 135mm f/2L
« on: July 16, 2014, 11:06:10 AM »
In my view, it's a seriously underrated sports lens. The quick focusing and the fast aperture beg for that type of use. I prefer the 70-200 as it's more flexible, but...

I found that this lens turned out to be perfect for this very poorly lit ice skating show where even 2.8 wasn't fast enough. Sure, my shots were more limited and I needed to do more crop work - but the extra stop made all the difference in IQ, especially with a camera like the 7D. Plus, the images had a look that even the 70-200 couldn't achieve...hard to explain, but this lens just seems to have a signature "look"

EOS-M / Re: The promised pics of the 18-200 Tammy
« on: July 15, 2014, 09:35:58 AM »
For the intended users, the lens is fine, its not a Pro lens, so don't expect $2500 performance.

Still the current (novelty) price tag is steep for a product that will have to compete in a few weeks with the Canon product.

Is a Canon version of the 18-200 on the way??

EOS-M / Re: The promised pics of the 18-200 Tammy
« on: July 14, 2014, 11:14:32 PM »

Purple fringing can be removed in lightroom.

What about DPP? I was never able to figure out how to reduce PF to that degree. (I don't have Lightroom)

TBH, though, PF is so well controlled in the lenses I use/conditions I shoot in that it's rarely if ever a problem...

EOS-M / Re: The promised pics of the 18-200 Tammy
« on: July 14, 2014, 07:24:22 PM »
...also, the purple fringing on the lower right...that's quite a bit.

Thanks for sharing! I've been considering this lens as well and this helps. How does the lens look on the camera?

Pricewatch Deals / Re: Canon EF 16-35 f/4L IS Shipping This Week
« on: June 23, 2014, 08:18:31 PM »
I can understand 17-40 owners wanting to upgrade, but if you've already got the 2.8 version...

I dunno, even if the 4 is slightly better optically it still feels like a side-grade/downgrade to me (mainly the loss of a stop). What I really want is a 2.8 version III to feature these same improvements.

Lenses / Re: EF 16-35 F/4L IS corner samples & comparison
« on: June 22, 2014, 05:38:46 PM »
Thanks for posting. And yes, in my experience the 2.8 really IS that underwhelming in the corners, even at f8.

The new 4 shows significant improvement here at the wide end, but otherwise there really seems to be little to no difference at the other settings based on what I've seen so far.

Trying out DPP 4 in a real-world setting after shooting a signing with my 6D this evening.

I like many of the extra features but there are a few somewhat annoying kinks they still need to work out...and it would be nice to edit crop camera images as well (from my 7D, SL1 and M) instead of being limited to just FF.

EOS-M / Re: Canon EF-M 55-200 f/4.5-6.3 IS STM Gets Official
« on: June 19, 2014, 01:56:18 PM »
Sounds cool but as I already have the 55-250 STM for the SL1, there's little to gain for me here. OTOH, a compact super zoom like an 18-200 would be nice.

This will be something to look into for my M. As long as the lens isn't too big, heavy or cumbersome, and has decent quality at least at the wide end of the range, it should be a good option...

And it's available stateside as well. Even better.

EOS-M / Re: Canon EF-M 55-200 f/4.5-6.3 IS STM Gets Official
« on: June 17, 2014, 07:52:03 PM »
Looks like Canada will get it too so for those in the US that want this lens but don't want to pay crazy Euro/Asian prices, Canadian retailers should stock it for around $420:

EOS Bodies / Re: More EOS 7D Replacement Buzz Going Around [CR2]
« on: June 10, 2014, 08:18:04 PM »
There's one situation where that's not true, though.  Depending on the mix of full-frame and EF-S lenses that you own, some 7D users who decide to upgrade to full-frame might end up selling several of their lenses anyway, not to mention upgrading to lenses with longer focal lengths to make up for the lack of the 1.6x crop factor.
Entirely fair.  Current EF-S mount users choosing between a 6D/5D3 or waiting for a 7D2 absolutely are out there.  But I don't really see that as a Nikon conversion risk.  I see that as a one-time ripping off of the EF-S band-aid that you have to do to migrate to FF regardless of what company's products you use.

I see that less as a "Because I am mad at waiting for Canon" and more of a "Movin' on up (movin' on up) to deeeeluxe apartment in the sky-hiiiiiiigh".   ::)

But yes, you are right.  Leaving crop altogether costs money, well above the cost of the body itself.  This burden varies depending on what you shoot:

  • Best case:  You just have a standard EF-S zoom, like an 18-55 or 18-135 --> You go and get a 'pried-from-a-kit' 24-105L for $750ish or a 28-135 for $475ish.  Ouch, but small change compared to a FF rig. 
    ([Sigh] "Yeah, there's that... But it's worth it.")

  • Slightly painful case:  You have a standard EF-S zoom and an ultrawide --> Same as above, but now you need a 17-40L for $800ish as well.  Painful. But doable. 
    ([Deep breaths] "I can do this...  I'll just get that 17-40L next year.")
  • Really painful case:  You have have a standard EF-S zoom, an ultrawide and a 55-250 and enjoy shooting around 250 on the crop --> Same as above, but now you need a 100-400L as well.  Oof. 
    (The value proposition is starting to take on water rapidly...)

  • You-are-totally-screwed case:  You are a seasoned vet who shoots a 300 or higher prime on your 7D for wildlife or birding.  You have the comically painful choice of settling for the downsides of T/Cs, investing in $10K superteles, or simply not ever making the jump to FF because the glass will bankrupt you for what you shoot.  That's a buckler.
    (Hint to Canon:  You kind of own these people.  The 7D2 could be $4k and these people might still the first in line for pre-orders, b/c $4k is still less than Supertele prices.  Check and mate.) 

Thank goodness I had a succession plan when I bought my third and fourth lenses.  I opted for EF glass long before I made the move to FF and my only headache was doing without a 16-24mm FL option after I migrated (sold the EF-S 10-22 but the 24-70 I owned covered the wide end on FF pretty well).

- A

Or this case: you use a 1.6x with a 70-200 2.8 in low-light venues...there is no real FF equivalent that gives you that kind of reach while remaining fast. At least there isn't one that's really practical...

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 23