Messages

1171

Lenses / Re: 24mm 1.4L ii vs 35mm 1.4L vs 50mm 1.2L

« on: January 08, 2012, 08:23:20 PM »

The topic of this thread is timely for me.  I rented the 50L this weekend and have taken a few intial shots.  BTW, I own the 35L and the 135L which are great and sharp lenses.  I've also rented the 24L II and was very impressed with the IQ and will get this lens in the spring.

Back to the 50L.  It's rather soft at 1.2.  From f2.0 on, the lens is sharper and the colors are very nice along with the contrast.  I have yet to shoot outdoors.  My intial reaction is not positive and hopefully, my mind will change.  When I evaluated the 85L II, I was blown away.  I'm not getting the same reaction with the 50L.  Any tips, tricks regarding this lens would be appreciated from owners of this lens.

I would have to say that the 135L is the sharpest with the 35L second and the 24L II third.  The 85L II and hopefully, the 50L are in a different category.

My 85L II is super sharp, but my 50mm is no slouch either.  I use the 50mm a lot more, the minimum focusing distance on the 85mm can be somewhat limiting in certain situations.  The 50L is definitely a little more versatile, I usually use the 85 for portrait stuff.

 I would go shoot some outside with the 50L and play with it some more, and maybe try another copy if something looks way off.  I know I've prematurely judged lenses before when I would just pop them on in the office to take some "test shots."  But none of the test shots ever end up being something I would have photographed normally, so I think its better to get out there and try to shoot something "unrehearsed" and see how you like it after that. 

And f/2 is definitely the sweet spot, and be mindful of short hyperfocal distance when shooting at f/1.2. 

1172

EOS Bodies / Re: 5D2 video shooting question

« on: January 08, 2012, 08:15:51 PM »

Hi all,

I recently just got a 5D2 and loved it, upgraded from 50D. I was playing around with video mode and have a question.  When shooting video, does the focusing square or rectangle show up on LCD screen during live view??? Mine doesn't show but I've seen some people on YouTube that has the square or rectangle on LCD when shooting video... Is there an option to turn it on or off??? Or is it something that was removed during the firmware update?? Thanks for the help and loved this site.

Usually hitting the info button to the left of the screen scrolls through different viewing options, should show up after a few presses.  Then use the little star button to zoom in to focus, but be aware you can't do this while the camera is recording.

I would definitely update the firmware asap, it gives you different frame rates and manual controls during video shooting. 

1173

EOS Bodies / Re: New 5D MK2 Owner

« on: January 08, 2012, 01:21:55 PM »

I've been playing around with the camera today and I would like to know if any of you can help or direct me to a tutorial or information with the following.

1) How to set-up Custom Functions?
2) Where is the copyright info on the camera?

The custom function feature is different than the previous two body's I own, so any assistance would be so much appreciated.  Also, fon my T2i has a function to add my copyright info in the camera, I cant seem to locate it on the 5D.

Thanks Guys
Ron

Hey Ron, glad to hear you are enjoying your camera.  To set up a custom function, simply set the camera in any mode (manual, Av, Tv) and set everything to your liking.  If you save settings in aperture priority, your custom function will also be aperture priority.  Once everything is how you ilke it, go to the 7th tab on the menu (has a wrench on it) and select "Camera User Setting"; then select "Register Setting" and then select which dial you want it on (C1,C2,C3). 
Hope that helps!

1174

EOS Bodies / Re: New 5D MK2 Owner

« on: January 07, 2012, 05:06:25 PM »

Boring as it is, I read the manual and aquaint my self with all the settings.  There are good articles on the Canon website as well.

+1...  Actually, +100.  I don't know when people stopped reading manuals, but it was a severe blow to human competency.  When I bought my Mk II I read that thing front to back; yes, including the sections talking about full-auto this and that.  And this was coming from the 5D Classic, so while much of it was familiar, there was still a lot to learn.

If focus is off, you will want to micro adjust.  I just started using the FoCal autofocus micro adjust software, and find it better then doing it with a target.  The autofocus system has a lot of variabiliity, so it keeps taking shots until there are enough to clearly determine the best AFMA setting.

Good to know.  I was looking at buying one of those focusing targets, but if the software seems like a better route I may have to re-evaluate my decision.

+2, I think a lot of people's complaints about the AF on the 5D stem from lack of understanding the settings.  Not that the 5D's AF couldn't use improvement, but some people talk about it like it doesnt even work.  Did they have 1 autofocus point selected or all of them?  If one, which one?  One shot or Servo? 

There are so many different options for different situations, it seems almost certain that some people end up getting the wrong impression of it and immediately blame the camera. 

On a happier note, CONGRATULATIONS!  You got a great camera and I'm sure you'll have a field day with it.  I jumped from the T2i to the 5D, and yeah it was a little intimidating but you'll get the hang of it.  Just go shoot and have a good time. 

And remember, ISO's in multiples of 160 are your friend when shooting video, less noise.  Figured that was worth mentioning since the T2i is in 1/2 stop increments. 

1175

Lenses / Re: 24mm 1.4L ii vs 35mm 1.4L vs 50mm 1.2L

« on: January 06, 2012, 11:07:26 PM »

Also, the 135L is a lot cheaper than the lenses you have, you can find them for like $800-$850 used.  It is definitely super sharp, not quite as sharp as my 85L II though.

1176

Lenses / Re: 24mm 1.4L ii vs 35mm 1.4L vs 50mm 1.2L

« on: January 06, 2012, 06:32:44 PM »

So I was a little discouraged about just buying the 35mm three weeks ago and hearing that the new 35mm ii will be this up and coming CES.  I had nothing to do and decided compare the three primes that I own; 24mm 1.4L ii, 35mm 1.4L, and the 50mm 1.2L.  The test was not very scientific at all but more for my personal curiosity and satisfaction.  I compared the three lenses at 1.4, 2.0, and 2.8. And at 1:1 crop surprisingly the rumors are true, the 35 came out the sharpest every time.  Now i'm tempted to save up and purchase the other lens I have been hearing all about, the 135L f/2.

I agree with your findings, although the 24L II and 50L are no slouches.  I still really want that 24 II, but that Zeiss 21mm is making it tough to decide (things is beautiful and so sharp on the edges). 

I wouldn't be disappointed, the 35mm is an awesome lens and I can't imagine the 35L II being substantially better.  Even if Canon made a near perfect lens they would still keep releasing new versions because they know it will make people that own the v1 feel inferior all of a sudden. 

1177

Lenses / Re: ahhhh!!! i just bought a brand new 35mm 1.4 three weeks ago :(

« on: January 05, 2012, 06:32:15 PM »

Man I wouldn't worry about it too much, out of all the Canon lenses I've had I felt that this one needed an upgrade the LEAST. 

Just remember, when a new version of a lens comes out it's not like the older version becomes a bastard lens that gets thrown away or anything.  It's optics don't become any better or worse.

Phew, what a relief!  I read on another forum that as soon as a MkII comes out, the MkI versions all spontaneously melted down!   

The 35L could use weather-sealing.  Optically, it's very good, although it would probably benefit from the newer coatings designed for digital imaging.  But you're right in that pretty much all of the other L-series primes under 100mm that were updated had one or more issues that needed work, whereas the 35L really doesn't.

Haha, I agree.  I would rather see the 50L get updated first, but I suspect that isn't far off in the horizon.  And hell even the 85L could use faster AF, but then again its damn near perfect optically. 

1178

EOS Bodies / Re: Do you REALLY need a new camera?

« on: January 05, 2012, 05:48:14 PM »

What I really need is a Bugatti Veyron.

Sometimes when I go to pick up a pizza, especially in winter, it's not hot enough when I get it home. If I could go 200 mph, that would solve the problem.

And after the Veyron, I'll need a 1Dx to take a picture of it -- and the steaming hot pizza.

My needs may be different than yours. See manufacturer warranty for details.

A $2,000,000 car and a $1400 camera, seems like a fair comparison to me

1179

Lenses / Re: Buying my first L lens...which one is best for video?

« on: January 05, 2012, 05:36:12 PM »

If you're set on getting a zoom:
7D - 17-55 f/2.8 IS, It's awesome on a crop body and has a super versatile range.
5DII - 24-70mm f/2.8

If you get primes you'll have better low light capability and sharper images with a beautiful bokeh.  But at the same time you have to "walk to zoom" and you don't have the convenience of a zoom.

You could get the Canon 50mm f/1.4 and 85mm f/1.8 for around $350 each used.  Or the Zeiss 50mm f/1.4 ($725) if you get the 5D, it's a great general purpose lens and it's better suited for video.

70-200 - I've had bad experience using the IS on the 70-200 for video, it seems to makes the rolling shutter worse.  As for shooting with the 70-200 handheld, you won't be pleased with the results.  You maybe could get away with it at 70mm but any more zoomed in and you'll need a tripod, slider, or some other type of stabilization. 

Regardless of what you do try getting something that is more wide.... if you end up with 1 telephoto lens it makes it much harder to improvise. 

1180

Lenses / Re: ahhhh!!! i just bought a brand new 35mm 1.4 three weeks ago :(

« on: January 05, 2012, 05:31:42 PM »

How much do you think the 24-70Lii and the 35L ii will start at?  I just bought my 35 for 1329...  Kinda wish i would have waited a tad longer.

Man I wouldn't worry about it too much, out of all the Canon lenses I've had I felt that this one needed an upgrade the LEAST.  I really think this is one of those lenses that is getting updated simply because there isn't a Mark II and the first version has been out a while. 

You got an awesome lens, just enjoy it and don't worry about the Mark II for now.  If a Mark II does come out, try renting it and see what the difference is like.  Then decide whether or not its worth selling your 35L and buying the new, more expensive version. 

Just remember, when a new version of a lens comes out it's not like the older version becomes a bastard lens that gets thrown away or anything.  It's optics don't become any better or worse.  People will still buy it, people will still love it, and people will continue to get great pictures out of it. 

1181

Canon General / Re: Canon 16-35 vs Tamron 17-50

« on: January 05, 2012, 03:40:14 PM »

I have the tamron 17-50 f/2.8 non-VC and I think it's one of the best standard zoom lenses you can get for APS-C

so much so that I think it doesn't make any sense to "upgrade" to canon L options, be it 17-40 or 16-35: depending on the settings, the image will range from very slightly better to actually worse, and price is a lot higher

the only upgrade I would consider is to the 17-55 f/2.8 IS, in case you need the sharpest standard zoom for APS-C and IS too, and are ready to pay for it; I haven't gone that route because again the difference is not huge, the price is steep and I don't need IS that much - and I wouldn't want to spend so much on a lens that won't work on fullframe, to use it on a camera that has no microadjustment

Thanks for the feedback. I actually find the Tammy slightly SHARPER then the 17-55, its lighter, cheaper, and more modern build to my taste. Alas, I understand from all the replies that for me to "upgrade" in a significant way - I need to consider FF or expensive wide primes. The zeiss 21mm 2.8 seems to be a gem - for a fortune!

Oh I didn't see that the 17-55 had already been mentioned.  I played with the Tamron 17-50 and don't recall being super impressed by any aspect of it, although I felt it was a great lens for the price.  Now the 17-55, I remember seeing the first images I took on my computer and being like "holy sh** which lens was that?"  You may want to play with another copy before you rule that one out.
The Zeiss 21mm is a gorgeous lens.....The only reason I haven't gotten the 24L is because I can't make a decision between the two : )

1182

Canon General / Re: Canon 16-35 vs Tamron 17-50

« on: January 05, 2012, 03:36:44 PM »

I have never tried any lens other than Canon L so I can unfortunately not compare the two lenses.

However, I can highly recommend the 16-35L II, I did take a major share of my pictures with it as it is a great walk around lense on a crop body. I would definitely buy it again...

Whats your take on the 24L ?

24L is awesome, most likely going to be my next acquisition.  However, I remember the first time I put the 16-35 on my old T2i, and its a really great range on that lens.  The bokeh is beautifully circular and looks even better on an APS-C sensor.  The 24L is great, but in terms of versatility I think you would be more happy with the 16-35mm.

But I wouldn't rule out the 17-55 f/2.8 IS, it's even more versatile and DAMN sharp.  I love that lens, best non-L zoom I've ever used, and it was sharper than both of the 24-70s that I had. 

1183

EOS Bodies / Re: C 300 is not an alternative to 35mm motion picture film.

« on: January 04, 2012, 06:15:12 PM »

+1

I'm also sick of people on other forums acting like this camera is some sort of godsend from the heavens. It a $3000 XF camcorder with a large sensor. It running a DigivIII for craps sake. This camera is such a up-sell it's not even funny. The worst part is when people constantly support it... everyone should have said "f- you canon, back to the drawing board". Instead it just a bunch of elitist delusional non-sense about how you "only need 4:2:2 8-bit" and "now you can stop using 'cheap looking' DOF in night shots with the high ISO"

It's all a bunch of garbage from wannabe pros who just want big expensive cameras to make themselves feel more important that the 20 year olds with DSLRs that they despise.

The C300 is only a marginal upgrade from a 7D, if that. Not a $15,000 one.

on board 10bit 444 uncompressed for 16k? try 60k, and you got yourself an Arri Alexa.

It doesn't matter what Arri is selling the Alexa for. We should have 10bit 4:4:4 for $15,000 by now. The GH2 is capable of 200mb/s video... that's good enough for 4:2:2 at 10bit. The hacker who worked on the GH2 also said that the hardware to make something like the AF-100 into 4:4:4 10bit is only around $2. It's all smoke and mirrors marketing BS, that is in turn supported by "pros" who don't want the technology to become available to the masses.

Are you basing all this on personal experience or spec sheets?  Have you actually used it yourself?
I don't think that anyone was acting like it was from the heavens, if anything people were disappointed bc it's not 4K (like that is all that matters).  I'm not sure what your definition of "marginal" is, but the 7D's rolling shutter/aliasing/moire can be quite terrible.  If it's only slightly better and 10X the price, then I guess no one will buy it, right?

7D is a great camera for the money, but it doesn't have HD-SDI outs, built-in ND filters, and you can't comfortably shoot over ISO 800, and you have no codec options aside from H.264.  It doesn't have the ergonomics, it doesn't have the adjustability, they are nowhere close in my book.

Remember, this is the Internet where everyone and anyone with a web browser can be an expert in anything and everything with just a little bit of typing and clicking.

Very true, I don't think I've ever seen someone so angry with a camera that they don't have or want. 

1184

EOS Bodies / Re: C 300 is not an alternative to 35mm motion picture film.

« on: January 04, 2012, 03:31:07 PM »

+1

I'm also sick of people on other forums acting like this camera is some sort of godsend from the heavens. It a $3000 XF camcorder with a large sensor. It running a DigivIII for craps sake. This camera is such a up-sell it's not even funny. The worst part is when people constantly support it... everyone should have said "f- you canon, back to the drawing board". Instead it just a bunch of elitist delusional non-sense about how you "only need 4:2:2 8-bit" and "now you can stop using 'cheap looking' DOF in night shots with the high ISO"

It's all a bunch of garbage from wannabe pros who just want big expensive cameras to make themselves feel more important that the 20 year olds with DSLRs that they despise.

The C300 is only a marginal upgrade from a 7D, if that. Not a $15,000 one.

on board 10bit 444 uncompressed for 16k? try 60k, and you got yourself an Arri Alexa.

It doesn't matter what Arri is selling the Alexa for. We should have 10bit 4:4:4 for $15,000 by now. The GH2 is capable of 200mb/s video... that's good enough for 4:2:2 at 10bit. The hacker who worked on the GH2 also said that the hardware to make something like the AF-100 into 4:4:4 10bit is only around $2. It's all smoke and mirrors marketing BS, that is in turn supported by "pros" who don't want the technology to become available to the masses.

Are you basing all this on personal experience or spec sheets?  Have you actually used it yourself?
I don't think that anyone was acting like it was from the heavens, if anything people were disappointed bc it's not 4K (like that is all that matters).  I'm not sure what your definition of "marginal" is, but the 7D's rolling shutter/aliasing/moire can be quite terrible.  If it's only slightly better and 10X the price, then I guess no one will buy it, right?

7D is a great camera for the money, but it doesn't have HD-SDI outs, built-in ND filters, and you can't comfortably shoot over ISO 800, and you have no codec options aside from H.264.  It doesn't have the ergonomics, it doesn't have the adjustability, or the dynamic range, they are nowhere close in my book. 

1185

Lenses / Re: got first L lens from B&H, now what to do with kit lens? and first impressions..

« on: January 04, 2012, 03:21:11 PM »

I'm sitting next to the 70-200mm f/2.8 l is ii box that the UPS people delivered from B&H! First time ordering anything from B&h. bah, is it normal for the box to have punctures? but that would be ups' fault.

upon opening, the box is HUGE!(up to this point i have the canon rebel xsi with the 55-250mm, kit lens and the 50 f/1. I never have seen a lens box that big, but its lighter than i expected. and luckily the lens box didn't get punctured.

First impression of the lens: it is ICE COLD. I don't have the heater on (FL here) but hopefully no condensation forms. Fudge, condensation is appearing on the outside.  its been 30 mins since it was delivered. i think i'll keep it wrapped in plastic and in the bag. i don't know much about lens condensation except that it is bad. but the lens itself is a beauty! can't wait to try it out!

now I am thinking of selling the ef-s 55-250mm IS mk i. but i have no idea how to go about it like pricing, shipping (im thinking of craiglisting it to avoid shipping but that would mean smaller audience) and stuff. Tips?!

Congrats on your first L lens, you picked a good one!  Depending on how big the puncture is, it's possible that UPS was air testing it.  They do it randomly to check for drugs and/or explosives.