March 02, 2015, 06:26:49 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 - EOBeav

Pages: 1 ... 19 20 [21] 22 23 ... 27
Lenses / Re: the look getting dated?
« on: May 30, 2012, 12:01:29 AM »
How much DOF do you want?
50mm f/177 gives hyperfocal at 74cm, that's everything sharp from 37cm to infinity...
('sharp' being a relative term, of course)

No. An aperture that size will not be sharp. Everything will have the same focus, maybe, but it will not be sharp.

Lenses / Re: Recommendation for a small budget?
« on: May 28, 2012, 05:22:59 PM »
But why is this a good combo? Please explain to a novice photographer haha.

Because you've got some different focal lengths covered this way:
  • Wide (10-22mm)
  • Medium range (50mm)
  • closer range (100mm)

And they're all reasonably fast, so you should have some glass to use no matter what situation you're in. Unless, of course, you're planning on going to Yellowstone and shooting grizzlies from 500 yard away, but those lenses are a little out of your $1k budget. :-)

Lenses / Re: 17-40mm and DPP
« on: May 28, 2012, 12:15:15 PM »
Just ordered my 5D mk3 plus 24-105mm and wanting either a 17-40mm or maybe the 16-35mm if my piggybank can stand it. I know the 17-40mm has more CA and distortion but wondered how well images can be cleaned up using the Lens Optimiser part of DPP - any comments?

Thanks for any opinions,


I tend to agree with the comments on here, depending on what you are shooting. For my money, it's outstanding from f/7.1 on down. I shoot mostly landscapes, so I rarely go wider than that with this lens.

Lenses / Re: Most requested lenses for replacement?
« on: May 28, 2012, 12:11:49 PM »
Folks, they're not going to update the 135mm f/2 SF just so that it can compete with the current 135mm f/2 L.

I assume you're talking about the 135 f/2.8SF, an old design with film era relevance which will probably quietly disappear from Canon's inventory sometime soon. I wonder how many they sell per year? It's the venerable 135 f/2L which also hales from last century, April 1996 to be exact which I'm hoping to see upgraded.


I stand corrected: The 135mm "Soft Focus" lens is an f/2.8.  My point is that there were some calls on here to upgrade that lens, and I just don't see it happening. Personally I'd like to see the 135mm f/2 L get upgraded AFTER I buy this current version. A new one will undoubtedly be out of my price range.

Lenses / Re: Most requested lenses for replacement?
« on: May 27, 2012, 10:00:54 PM »
Folks, they're not going to update the 135mm f/2 SF just so that it can compete with the current 135mm f/2 L. Remember, and updated version isn't going to come out at ~$500USD where the current one is. The hypothetical lens would come out more like ~$1000USD, where the 135mm f/2 L currently sits. It's just not gonna happen.

Lenses / Re: Recommendation for landscape lens on 5DMk111.
« on: May 27, 2012, 02:08:36 PM »
If money is no object, and you're shooting with a 5DmkIII, you might want to toss in a 70-200 f/2.8 IS L.  Sometimes in landscape photography you want to zoom in rather than going wider, and this lens would be a great focal range for that purpose.

Lenses / Re: Most requested lenses for replacement?
« on: May 27, 2012, 01:52:31 PM »
#4 - 135mm f/2.0 - aperture, image stabilization (16 year old design, there are plenty of 135mm f/1.8 lenses around, would love to see f/1.8 + IS, like a mini 200mm f/2.0 IS)

It's interesting that you mention this. I was just looking at both 135mm's today online, this one and the f/2 L that is a far more recent design. If they did redesign this one, added IS, maybe a little wider aperture, I wonder if they would need to price it at the level of the current 135mm f/2 L. I'm not sure that they would have two similarly priced primes of the same focal length on the market at the same time. My take is that they'll keep producing the non-L 135mm as long as there is a market for it, then discontinue it altogether. I could be wrong, though.

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 Pancake Coming [CR3]
« on: May 25, 2012, 05:12:26 PM »
So...what I hear you saying is, size matters?

RIGHT, Let us talk about phsical laws. A small sensor will only need a shorter focal length to give the same angle for a bigger sensor.  Micro 3/4 has a mutiplicayion factor of 2.  So the 14 mm Panasonic ancake lens will be equilvalent to a 28mm lens on a full frame.  The 14mm will need a total of 40mm (20mm for the lense, 20mm for the fringe depth). That is a ration of  2.86. Now apply this ration for the 28mm for FF. than it will need 80mm. That is physical Law. Sensor size does not matter???  The bigger the sensor, the bigger the lense for the same viewing angle.

Thr Fringe diatance can be set to anything by the manufacturer to suit the usage. NEX fringe is set so thin for the using of adapter for the OLD range finder lenses,like Leica, Canon etc.  The fringe distance can be set independent of the back focal plane distance.  For mirrorless, the lenses have the luxury of going inside of the body and into the body. Have you look at  the Leica wide angle lenses lately???  As the the rumores 1mm back focal distance lens from Canon, it is going to be huge. In order for it to work, the rear element of the lens MUST cover the whole sensor. What it mean is the lense will ge going inside of the fringe and way into the body. You just cannot make a cmera body with a 1mm fringe distance.

Here comes the phsical law again. the size of the optic is determined by the focal length, speed of the lens and the associated mechanical and electronics part. It got nothing to do wit hthe fringe distance (except for wide angle lens for range finder cameras, that is another story). Just look at the pancake lens from Panasonics. The optics are small, the lens dismeter is large. That is for the mechanical and theelectronis component. It has got nothing to do with the fringe distance.

Any chance they'll kit this with the next Rebel?

Lenses / Re: 70-200 f4L USM - Price Increasing... ??
« on: May 24, 2012, 12:58:08 AM »
I have this lens and I love it. If you check the Canon Price Watch site, you'll see that it took a dip six months or so ago, and looks ready to climb up again.

Lenses / Re: Your dream 50mm f/14
« on: May 23, 2012, 06:32:33 PM »
Also, who'd want a 50mm f14?

Ha, yeah I know, I need to fix the original post.

Yeah, but I actually find I use my 70-200 for a lot of landscape shots. I don't always have a tripod with me, but 1/10th or 1/15th is enough to blur a water falling. Or it might be the difference between shooting the landscape at f/4 or f/8.

I went with the IS version because it was sharper, but I think I've found some use for the IS here and there.

Point taken, but I guess I shoot a little differently than that. I generally shoot my landscapes on my 70-200 between f/11 and f/16, and my flowing water shots with that lens usually run in the .5 to a full second range. I'm not going to get out and say my way is the best way, but hopefully you get what I'm saying.

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 Pancake Coming [CR3]
« on: May 22, 2012, 02:14:21 PM »
It looks to me like it would appeal to a lot of Rebel owners who are ready to graduate from the kit lens but want something a little sexier than a 50mm f/1.8. Just my take.

Any reason you need IS for that 70-200 f/4? I don't have it on mine, and I haven't missed it. Then again, 90% of my images use a tripod.

If you hand hold (event shooter), then the IS is priceless. Especially at the longer focal lengths! Will also help negate (to some degree) the slower apperature by allowing one to use slower shutter speeds.

But...but...If you use IS, then you're going to be able to reduce/eliminate camera-shake blur, but not necessarily motion blur. You might get away with handholding at 1/15 sec., but you're still going to capture any movement within that time.

I recently shot an indoor play with my 70-200mm f/4 (non-IS), and I don't think I would have come out with better images had I utilized IS. Just something else to think about, I guess. I'm coming to realize that there are growing numbers in both IS camps: One swears by it, and the other believes it to be almost gimmicky.

Pages: 1 ... 19 20 [21] 22 23 ... 27