September 02, 2014, 10:32:36 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 - pierceography

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 16
31
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.

32
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.

33
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.

34
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.

35
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.  :-)

36
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

37
Lenses / Re: TS-E 17mm or 24mm
« on: April 22, 2013, 02:41:31 PM »
I'm planning on getting a TS lens in the next month or two, and will likely go for the 24mm over the 17.  My reasoning is that on a FF camera, I find the 24mm focal length to be more usable.  While 17mm is pretty wide, it's almost too wide for my tastes.

But it really depends on what you're shooting.  If you're outdoors and have the ability to zoom with your feet (walk), then I would think 24mm would be more usable.  However, if you're doing mostly interior work where space is tight, 17mm would be more ideal.

But as with most things photography, it's entirely based on what (how) you shoot.

38
Oh my...  If it as good as the 35mm 1.4, I could end up replacing all my primes with sigmas. Never in a million years would I imagine that.

HAHA Ramon, your wish came true... chances are, this won't even cost $2700.

Ha, yeah... First thing I thought of when I saw 135mm f/1.8 OS was Ramon.  :-)

39
I just bought my Canon 135mm, so unless the Sigma blows it away, I probably wouldn't immediately upgrade.

I like where Sima is going, but the limited sample size concerns me.  I love my Siggy 35mm, and I really hope they can keep it up.  If Sigma can deliver on another couple lenses, the could really give Canon a run or their money.

Looking forward to seeing what Sima can deliver next.

40
http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/lens/

Thanks

No problem.  Lots of useful information up there.  For instance, the 135mm f/2L being introduced in 1996 is pretty interesting.  For such a great performing lens you'd never think it was 17 years old!

42
EOS Bodies / Re: AF improvements in new bodies
« on: April 18, 2013, 09:48:12 PM »
Wait... so this firmware I bought on the Internet to upgrade my Macbook to 64GB of memory, a 2TB solid state drive, and 4k retina display might not work?!?!  LIES!

;-)

43
EOS Bodies / Re: 21mp Sensor in the 7D Mark II? [CR1]
« on: April 18, 2013, 09:42:53 PM »
18 MP. 21 MP. 24 MP. Even 15 MP.  Frankly, I don't especially care.  If it does a full stop or more better in terms of high ISO noise performance for RAW images vs. the 7D, a 7DII will be interesting to me. If not, no interest.

+1

Better high ISO performance is a must.  Usable ISO at and above 3200 is key... I have the ISO max on my 7D set at 1600.  Anything higher I have to render in B&W to be usable.

Things I don't care about: Megapixels, GPS, Wifi, Touchscreen, FPS, AF (current 7D AF and FPS are fine).

Things I do care about: ISO, price.

Otherwise, my current 7D will remain as my backup camera.

44
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 DC?
« on: April 18, 2013, 09:13:58 AM »
I'm not gonna get too excited for this until we see actual photos and MTF charts.

And it being for crop bodies only is a huge disappointment.  I get that FF lenses are more difficult to engineer, and this is a good start... but I would have loved for this to be a FF lens.

But regardless, kudos to Sigma.  They're clearly stepping their game up of late.

45
Lenses / Re: One lens for vacation
« on: April 17, 2013, 08:06:37 PM »
I'd recommend the 24-70mm f/2.8 II. It covers the range of the 24mm, 35mm, and 50mm and is just as sharp.  For me, the 24-70 range is my focal wheelhouse.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 16