Messages

16

Portrait / Re: The official: Portrait Humor Thread....

« on: May 09, 2013, 09:49:12 AM »

What's wrong with the first picture?  I think it's great whenever you can catch a shot of a baby mid-dream with a smile on his/her face.  Well done.  :-)

The last picture is great... and been around awhile.  I photoshopped a friend's face over the guy and then the same face on the shirt over the dog and redid the text to say "World's Best Mullet" around five years ago.  Yeah, the friend had a mullet.  ;-)

17

Street & City / Re: Bleak city streets on the edge of suburbia....

« on: May 08, 2013, 10:18:57 AM »

The flat colours, overexposure and increase in micro contrast is all part of the plan, as is the design...

good or bad, imo,  and with respect, that's all in the eye of the beholder and I much prefer images that illicit a strong response, good or bad, like yours, than a blanket approval or otherwise...

If that's what you're going for, then they're great images.  :-)

18

Street & City / Re: Bleak city streets on the edge of suburbia....

« on: May 08, 2013, 10:00:03 AM »

Hmmmm... I don't quite understand the point of these photos.  The first and last shots seem to be lacking a clearly defined subject, the colors are extremely muted, and they look overexposed and very flat.  I'm not trying to be harsh, but they're not very good shots.

The only suggestion I can make is perhaps try converting them to black and white and do some selective cropping to see if you can pull some composure out of them.  Mid-day light, in my opinion, makes for better B&W photos than it does color.

I've seen some of your other photos, and they all seem to suffer from similar problems such as poor composition, color, and depth.  If this is the look you're going for, then by all means disregard my comments.  I'm simply hoping to offer some constructive criticism.

But thank you for sharing!

19

Street & City / Re: San Francisco Long Exposure Cityscapes!

« on: May 08, 2013, 09:27:01 AM »

Anyone could have taken those photographs as there is nothing special about them.

I just looked up your profile for more inspirational photos and found this one

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=5334.msg103060#msg103060

I guess difficult for anyone to take this?

Ahahahahaha!

btnphotography, I really enjoyed the photos, thanks for posting!

20

Lenses / Re: Y'all are really good at spotting front or back focus in photos...

« on: May 06, 2013, 03:32:44 PM »

I always focus the AF point on the eye.  I think I was using one of the peripheral AF points.  I was using AI Servo... and there wasn't any motion...

I also have to ask... Why were you using Servo?  Servo is meant for subjects in motion.  In the case of the lion, it's pretty clear she's not going anywhere.  Personally, I only use Servo when shooting a moving subject where I want to rattle off several photos in the hope that at least one of them will turn out.  Servo can be very jumpy, even on a stationary subject.  So it's going to be almost impossible to determine AF front/back focusing when the photos you're analyzing were shot it anything other than single shot AF using only your center AF point.

If you're primarily using Servo and are getting AF inconsistency, switching to single shot AF will solve most of your problems.

21

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 1x-24 ??

« on: May 06, 2013, 10:06:06 AM »

I would love to see this lens released in the next year or so.  But expect it to cost $2,500+.  Though I would gladly pay that... <24mm presents a bit of a hole in my camera bag.  Even with the Sigma 12-24mm... I'd love to have something faster with better corner performance.

22

Lenses / Re: 85 1.2mk3 anytime soon?

« on: May 05, 2013, 12:25:53 PM »

The mk1 was released in 1989 and the mk2 released in 2006.  With the mk2 being only seven years old, and a 17 year span between the mk1 and mk2, I highly doubt there will be an mk3 anytime in the next few years.

But I love my 85mm f/1.2L II.  I'd definitely recommend it if you have the capital to part with. :-)

23

Lenses / Re: Canon Tele lenses vs Nikon tele lenses ( both with converters )

« on: May 02, 2013, 02:42:20 PM »

Two words: Better glass.

Both for the lenses themselves and the teleconverters.

24

Lenses / Re: Canon 85L II AF speed on 5D III???

« on: May 02, 2013, 01:12:30 PM »

Impatience, perhaps?  Though my 85 won't engage manual focus, even after spinning it.  My point was if that's my only complaint, it's a very small one and that the 85 is a wonderful lens.

AFAIK the camera has to be on for the manual focus of the 85L II to engage. In other words, you need to set it to MDF before you turn the camera off.

Right, manual focus works fine when the camera is powered on and the lens is in manual... which was exactly what I had stated in my original post.  My point was that this is the process I have to take to retract the front element before removing the lens and storing it.  I realize you can spin the focus ring to engage MF, but I usually just flip the switch out of force of habit.

25

Lenses / Re: Canon 85L II AF speed on 5D III???

« on: May 02, 2013, 12:12:56 PM »

I accomplish this by ensuring the camera is powered off, then throwing the lens into manual focus and focusing it to MFD, then back to auto focusing, turning the camera off, and detaching the lens (if i'm removing it).  Seems there could be a better way of accomplishing this.

HOWEVER, if that's my only (mechanical) complaint about the lens, then I'd say that's a +1 for purchasing it.

Why do you switch from AF to MF and back?  The 85L has full time manual focus, you just need to spin the focus ring to retract the front element before powering off the camera.

Love my 85L. It does focus faster on my 1D X than on my previous non-1-series bodies.

Impatience, perhaps?  Though my 85 won't engage manual focus, even after spinning it.  My point was if that's my only complaint, it's a very small one and that the 85 is a wonderful lens.

26

Lenses / Re: 100mm 2.8L Macro lens from authorized dealer on ebay for $799

« on: May 01, 2013, 04:32:18 PM »

As long as it's not gray market, I'd say it's a pretty good deal.  I've bought from buydig before (though not through eBay) and had a great experience.  I purchased the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 for a good price.  The first copy had AF issues (like many copies of that lens), so I sent it back.  Their return process was a breeze, and I received my new copy a week after I returned my original.

I'd definitely recommend them if you get a great price.

I had a good experience with them, also with the 50mm 1.4 Sigma. I figured I'd post that because it's the best price I've seen for it, especially given it's USA wty and brand new.

I paid $1,000 for mine a little under two years ago, so I'd say it's a fantastic price.

27

Lenses / Re: 100mm 2.8L Macro lens from authorized dealer on ebay for $799

« on: May 01, 2013, 03:13:10 PM »

As long as it's not gray market, I'd say it's a pretty good deal.  I've bought from buydig before (though not through eBay) and had a great experience.  I purchased the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 for a good price.  The first copy had AF issues (like many copies of that lens), so I sent it back.  Their return process was a breeze, and I received my new copy a week after I returned my original.

I'd definitely recommend them if you get a great price.

28

Lenses / Re: Canon 85L II AF speed on 5D III???

« on: May 01, 2013, 12:12:12 PM »

My only wish is that as part of the power off of the attached camera, it should do a focus retract.  The thing does a sensor cleaning, so why not retract and save me the process??

That's probably my only real gripe too.  I accept the slow AF because it utilizes front focusing, but having to "manually" retract the front element before storing the lens is annoying.  I accomplish this by ensuring the camera is powered off, then throwing the lens into manual focus and focusing it to MFD, then back to auto focusing, turning the camera off, and detaching the lens (if i'm removing it).  Seems there could be a better way of accomplishing this.

HOWEVER, if that's my only (mechanical) complaint about the lens, then I'd say that's a +1 for purchasing it.

29

Lenses / Re: Canon 85L II AF speed on 5D III???

« on: May 01, 2013, 12:08:45 PM »

I own the 85mm f/1.2L II and I can't really complain.  When I bought it, I knew going in that the AF speed would pale compared to the 135mm f/2L, 24-70L (I or II), and the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II, or even my Sigma 50mm f/1.4 (all of which I already owned or rented).

Most of the time, I find the AF speed to be perfectly acceptable.  Though my uses are usually in situations where I can "pre-focus" (focus, then recompose and focus again when my subject moves slightly).  If the lens only has to hunt for focus in a very limited plane (hence why I pre-focus), then I don't notice much of a difference between considerably faster focusing lenses.  But if it has to hunt across the entire focal range, then it's quite slow... definitely the slowest lens in my bag.

But I didn't buy this lens for its AF speed.  :-)

30

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: 135mm f/1.8 DG OS ART Next from Sigma? [CR1]

« on: April 24, 2013, 05:19:06 PM »

Other than the OS (Canon IS), I don't see the sigma being a challenger of any sort.
Who knows, though?

The Canon design is an ancient design with blurry corners and a blurry mid-frame. It's not a top of the line lens. It also has severe issues with purple fringing that's very poorly controlled, and as a long lens , lacking image stabilization means if you're just shooting an event or  you're wasting 1-2 stops of light just to counteract camera shake without making your subject any sharper.

Here's a comparison between the 135mm f/2.0 and a much sharper lens:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=458&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=108&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

f/1.8 also makes a difference is subject isolation, and also reduces noise too.

Everyone was saying that you couldn't improve on the 35mm f/1.4 before and look what happened. The problem is that people assume a "good" lens can't be replaced by something that is earth shatteringly better.

Right because comparing a 7000$ dollar White-tele to a Sub-1000$ lens is a fair comparison. 

Wow really? Ok. Here's a $750 Sigma 105mm Macro lens compared to the $1200 135mm L. That's 2/3rds the price of the Canon 135mm L, it's a cheaper lens that blows the Canon lens out of the water with no hint of blurry corners or a blurry mid frame. And it has Image Stabilization. I think that's more than a fair comparison.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=790&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=108&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

All these incessant arguments about "IQ", when most people here will never approach the limits of the lenses they have!

Before anybody is allowed to post a lens IQ, colour, rendering, etc comment they should be forced to go see the conditions they are tested in. Bench tests are so far removed from real world use now most of this stuff is irrelevant. If you are using AF then that will have a far greater affect on the sharpness of your images than pretty much anything, assuming you are using two or three times the focal length as a shutter speed, you are on a very heavy tripod, working at one optimal aperture etc etc.

If you are not printing above 20" regularly, if you are using AF, if you are not using a tripod, if you are shooting in anything less than good contrasty light, if you are not shooting wide open, or stopped down, forget bench test resolution figures, they mean nothing.

Oh, and if you want a real dose of reality, ask yourself how this lady does most of this work with a 5D MkII and a 50 f1.8! http://tamarlevine.com/

P.S. After the debacle of Sigma's incompatibility issues, and more importantly, their refusal to stand behind their products and re-chip every single affected lens, I for one, will never buy a Sigma lens regardless of price, features or perceived value. I had a good friend who laughed at me when I got my 16-35 and 24-70, he said his six Sigma lenses cost less, I still use mine and they are worth pretty much what I paid for them ten years ago, his stopped working on his digital bodies and were scrap.

 So you're saying that nobody will notice 3.5 stops of noise? Because that's what the addition of image stabilization wil give you when shooting an event. You know those indoor things with very low light where especially with a 135mm you have tons of unessesary shutter speed to compensate for camera shake. I guess everyone should just be shooting at iso 4800 instead of 400, because that's what you're saying doesn't matter. There's no difference after all. Yep. None. /sarcasm

I have to agree with the others about the poor comparison.  At f/2.8, the Canon is sharper in the center, and the corners are much improved.  Bump it up to f/4 and the Canon is vastly superior, while also having the flexibility of an additional stop of light by going down to f/2.  So I'd much rather have the Canon (and as it turns out, I do).

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=790&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=2&LensComp=108&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=3