November 21, 2014, 07:18:50 PM

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 - pierceography

Pages: 1 ... 12 13 [14] 15 16
196
Lenses / Re: what filter for my first "L" Lens
« on: September 28, 2012, 03:33:32 PM »
I'm a big fan of Hoya and B+W.  Just put a B+W UV filter on my new 70-200mm.  I only use them for protection though, as UV filters rarely improve image quality (IMHO).

Other filters, particularly circular polarizers, are not recommended for wide angles.  I wouldn't put a polarizer on anything wider than a 24mm lens.  You get some really odd looking light patterns otherwise.

Hope this helps!

197
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D3 - problem?
« on: September 28, 2012, 10:36:32 AM »
You know what's actually dumb -
1) Not able to figure it out without reading the manual.
2) Coming to online forum to rant about "a problem with 5D3" instead of reading the manual.

^^^^^^ this

lol

Come on, we were all thinking it.  At least someone said it!

198
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sigma 12-24 F4.5-5.6 EX DG ASP HSM II
« on: September 28, 2012, 10:33:51 AM »
Ok, seriously... if you're referring to the distortion mentioned in (http://www.arthurdomagala.com/blog/2011/08/sigma-12-24mm-ii-lens-review/) I would NOT WORRY ABOUT IT.  I've NEVER seen anything close to the distortion documented in that review.  I primarily use this lens for architecture -- like akclimber, abandoned buildings, bridges, city lines, etc -- and the lines stay almost perfectly straight.  There is definitely distortion (elongated lines) on the edges, but the that is typical of ANY UW (even the mighty nikkor).  It would be like complaining that a fisheye doesn't keep straight lines -- Pure baloney!

I'm also with akclimber on this, I typically don't use it for landscape as I don't like how the focal point seems too distant and the overall composure looks like a mess.  Again, you'll get this with any UW as it's a composition thing.

Do I wish it was a f/2.8?  Nope.  Why?  Because aside from the extra 1.5 stops gained, I would never utilize that kind of DoF.  DoF is almost meaningless with an ultra wide.  And knowing that the lens is much sharper once you get to f/8, I never use f/4.5... so why would I use f/2.8?

I also like this lens because it fits very nicely in my lineup.  12-24mm, 24-70mm, 70-200mm.  Though again, like akclimber, I almost always utilize this lens between 12mm and 16mm.  Any longer, and I'll just pop on my 24 since it's a 2.8 and my "go to" lens.

While I don't use the 12-24mm Sigma a lot, I always have it in my bag since there are plenty of occasions where I want to go REAL wide in a confined space.  I do a lot of urban exploring, so it spends 90% of its time on a tripod stopped down to or past f/8.  And given the nature of urban exploring (abandoned buildings, confined spaces, avoiding Detroit muggers) this lens fits that need perfectly.

199
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sigma 70-200 OS
« on: September 27, 2012, 08:08:21 PM »
When researching the two (I eventually went with the Canon), I found Digital Rev's review very helpful:

Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 OS HSM vs Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS II USM

200
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sigma 12-24 F4.5-5.6 EX DG ASP HSM II
« on: September 27, 2012, 08:02:44 PM »
This looks nice, but I'm afraid what would the sharpness be when on FF.
I guess not so good as when on 7D.

This is another interesting review I found http://www.arthurdomagala.com/blog/2011/08/sigma-12-24mm-ii-lens-review/

Some problems with the distorsion, but if Lightroom lens correction did it's job well I woudn't mind.

I read that review before I purchased the 12-24mm mk2, and while it concerned me, I still decided to pull the trigger.  I can honestly say that I have NEVER seen that much barrel distortion.  And it's certainly soft on the sides, but it's easily fixed by stopping down.

I rarely use this lens off a tripod, but when I do I ensure I can handhold at f/8 or smaller.  Otherwise, you get smeary edges.  But when used with these limitations in mind, it's a fantastic lens!

The fact of the matter is that not even canon can engineer a lens to overcome the shortcomings of an ultra wide.  So if you're holding out for a canon zoom wider than 16mm, you'll likely be disappointed.

201
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D3 - problem?
« on: September 27, 2012, 05:42:09 PM »
I like the button.  I primarily work in Av, and while it hasn't happened to me a lot, I've accidentally switched my 7D to M -- which frequently use for long exposures -- when pulling it out of my sling backpack.  This means I've exposed my sensor to entirely too much light at long exposure times and risking damage (yes, I know... call me overly cautious).

I normally use my thumb and middle finger to switch modes, so pressing down with my index finger in the middle is much less of a hassle than accidentally taking a shot in M with the shutter set at 30".  I usually have to shut the camera off and back on since I'd rather not wait the full 30 seconds.  The lock button has never caused me to miss a shot, but the camera being in the wrong mode definitely has.

Just my $0.02.

Now cue the hecklers telling me to better operate my camera.  ;-)

202
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sigma 12-24 F4.5-5.6 EX DG ASP HSM II
« on: September 27, 2012, 05:25:05 PM »
I JUST replied in a thread where I brought up this lens and was asked about its quality.  Here's my response:

I was very impressed with the build quality of the Sigma.  It's the first Sigma I'd ever purchased, and I have to say if the rest of their higher end lenses share similar builds, I'd definitely purchase another.  Focus/zoom rings are smooth, but not loose.  The lens is very sturdy, and zooming is handled semi-internally -- the front element moves slightly, but does not lengthen the lens as it is a unified body.  Overall, I'd say it's pretty darn close to L build quality... as close as I've seen from a third party, anyway.

Image quality is decent.  It's sharp in the center, but a bit softer on the edges.  This doesn't bother me a ton though, as edge softness is expected once you get into the Ultra-Wide realm, and this is mostly minimized once you stop down to f/8+.  Lines remain very straight, with obvious distortion at the edges -- but again, this is typical of any UW.  There's only very slight pincushioning at the center, but I've never felt it noticeable enough (if at all) to bother correcting.  Chromatic aberration is the only thing that gives me pause when pulling this lens out of my bag.  It's more than I'm used to out of my Canon lenses, but this very well could be due to the lack of in-camera lens correction for a non-Canon lens.

As for a filter thread, it kind of has one.  The lens has a built in hood, with an attachment that covers the hood providing filter threads.  However, I noticed some very slight, but tight vignetting even when attached to my 7D, so I haven't even bothered using it while on my 5Dm3.  Also, using a polarizing filter on an UW can get you mixed results...

I'm also including one of my favorite shots with this lens.  Looking up at the Manhattan facing tower of the Brooklyn Bridge last year.  It's a three exposure HDR shot for contrast reasons, but even f/4.5 (wide open) it's still reasonably sharp on the edges.  Oh, and this was on my 7D, so you can only imagine how wide it would be on a FF.  :-)

203
Lenses / Re: Wide Angle Zooms (non Canon)
« on: September 27, 2012, 05:00:22 PM »
How is the build quality of the Sigma 12-24? Also image quality? Does it have filter thread? I also was thinking going for the Sigma or the Tokina's UWA for FF body but was not sure whether their image quality and build quality.

I was very impressed with the build quality of the Sigma.  It's the first Sigma I'd ever purchased, and I have to say if the rest of their higher end lenses share similar builds, I'd definitely purchase another.  Focus/zoom rings are smooth, but not loose.  The lens is very sturdy, and zooming is handled semi-internally -- the front element moves slightly, but does not lengthen the lens as it is a unified body.  Overall, I'd say it's pretty darn close to L build quality... as close as I've seen from a third party, anyway.

Image quality is decent.  It's sharp in the center, but a bit softer on the edges.  This doesn't bother me a ton though, as edge softness is expected once you get into the Ultra-Wide realm, and this is mostly minimized once you stop down to f/8+.  Lines remain very straight, with obvious distortion at the edges -- but again, this is typical of any UW.  There's only very slight pincushioning at the center, but I've never felt it noticeable enough (if at all) to bother correcting.  Chromatic aberration is the only thing that gives me pause when pulling this lens out of my bag.  It's more than I'm used to out of my Canon lenses, but this very well could be due to the lack of in-camera lens correction for a non-Canon lens.

As for a filter thread, it kind of has one.  The lens has a built in hood, with an attachment that covers the hood providing filter threads.  However, I noticed some very slight, but tight vignetting even when attached to my 7D, so I haven't even bothered using it while on my 5Dm3.  Also, using a polarizing filter on an UW can get you mixed results...

I'm also including one of my favorite shots with this lens.  Looking up at the Manhattan facing tower of the Brooklyn Bridge last year.  It's a three exposure HDR shot for contrast reasons, but even f/4.5 (wide open) it's still reasonably sharp on the edges.  Oh, and this was on my 7D, so you can only imagine how wide it would be on a FF.  :-)

204
Lenses / Re: Wide Angle Zooms (non Canon)
« on: September 27, 2012, 03:24:23 PM »
You didn't list it, but the Sigma 12-24mm is a fantastic lens.  I bought it last year knowing that I'd eventually like to upgrade to a FF.  The 12-24mm is 2mm wider than the 10mm lenses you listed, but is compatible with my new 5Dm3 and 7D.  Happy I went with it over the 10-22mm.

OH thanks for reminding me about that lens :D I do plan on getting it. It seems like a really great FF UW. It's pretty darn expensive though. I'll think about it. How wide is 12mm on a FF camera anyways?

12mm.  :-)

The math for the Sigma on a crop sensor would be 12 x 1.6 = 19.2.  So it would be roughly 19mm on any camera < 5D.  I noticed a pretty big difference when I popped it on my 5Dm3 for the first time... REAL happy I decided to spend the extra money on a FF UW than get a crop UW.

As for the additional price, building lenses for larger sensors means more glass, more engineering, more cost.  Hence why all the EF-S lenses in Canon's lineup (except one) are under $800.

Personally, I refused to buy an EF-S lens, even though I had my 7D for almost three years before getting my 5Dm3.  I'm real happy I did, as all my lenses are interchangeable between my two cameras.

205
Lenses / Re: Wide Angle Zooms (non Canon)
« on: September 26, 2012, 09:12:41 PM »
You didn't list it, but the Sigma 12-24mm is a fantastic lens.  I bought it last year knowing that I'd eventually like to upgrade to a FF.  The 12-24mm is 2mm wider than the 10mm lenses you listed, but is compatible with my new 5Dm3 and 7D.  Happy I went with it over the 10-22mm.

206
I have 4 Transcend 600x CF cards, 2- 16gbs and 2- 8gbs. One of the 8gbs was bad. One out of every 10 images or so would be corrupted.

I've had great luck with the other 3 but I'll probably be springing for Sandisk or Lexar next time.

lol.  25% card failure rate isn't exactly what I'd call "great luck".  ;-)

207
1D X Sample Images / Re: Match made in heaven
« on: September 25, 2012, 03:27:41 PM »
+1 on the seagulls shot.  Very nice.

208
I use primarily SanDisk for CF cards, and lexar for SD cards... don't ask me why, Lexar probably had less expensive SD cards at the time.

But what's everyone's opinion on the SanDisk vs. Lexar debate?  I'm obviously pretty indifferent, but if more people have had bad experiences with SanDisk, or vice versa, then the 32gb CF card I'll be buying in the next couple weeks might come from the winner of this discussion.  Especially since my purchase is motivated by a vacation in which I won't be bringing a laptop for transferring photos off my cards -- hence the additional storage.

209
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 3D at 46.1mp Next Month? [CR1]
« on: September 25, 2012, 10:24:24 AM »
Please be sub-4000$.   :-\

lol.  Yeah, let's call it the 5.1D then.  With Canon's pricing strategy, $4,500 is almost a guarantee.  6D -> 5Dm3 -> 3D -> 1DX.  $4,500 fits in there nicely.

Does Canon even make a lens that can resolve 46MP?


** EDIT:  ahem, >$4,500 is a guarantee.  Though I don't think Canon will come within $1,500 of the 1DX, as it clearly wants that body to remain cream of the crop from a pricing standpoint **

210
Lenses / Re: 70-300mm For my 5DM2
« on: September 24, 2012, 05:13:53 PM »
I just sold my 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM to fund my purchase of the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM.  It's a decent lens, but after I acquired my first L lens, it felt really cheap on my 7D and 5Dm3.

Its sharpness is certainly better than the previous lens you had, but won't compare to the L version.  Another thing that always bugged me about the 70-300mm f/4-5.6 was that even though Canon claims it has a USM motor, it doesn't share any of the usual benefits of such a classification.  You can't fine tune the focus manually when AF is enabled (it's not a true ring motor), and the AF motor itself is very noisy and jerky.  The IS is also fairly loud, with noticeable gear noise when IS is locked in.

My $0.02 would be to get the L version of the lens and forego the 24-105mm.  If you do a lot of aviation photography, the 24-105mm would stay in your bag.  Plus, the 70-300mm f/4-5.6 non-L has a 58mm filter thread, not 56.  Not sure if the extra 2mm would impact you or not, but just thought I'd throw it out there.

Pages: 1 ... 12 13 [14] 15 16