August 21, 2014, 12:46:33 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 - Axilrod

Pages: 1 ... 78 79 [80] 81 82 ... 92
1186
Lenses / Re: What is Lens IQ?
« on: January 23, 2012, 11:08:29 AM »
Image quality (IQ) is what you make of it.   :P

Seriously, it's the quality of an image delivered by the lens, and that's affected by several parameters.  Many people equate IQ with sharpness, but it's important to recognize that sharpness is only one characteristic of IQ, and sharpness itself has multiple meanings.  Other characteristics include contrast and color rendition.  There are various distortions and aberrations that affect IQ - geometric distortion, spherical aberration, chromatic aberrations (lateral and axial), vignetting, flare, etc.   

The recording medium also affects IQ - a lens does not function in isolation (although there are ways to test lenses in isolation, those are practically meaningless, since as a lens user, you need a camera to use the lens with).  Higher MP sensors result in an increase in perceived sharpness, but also sometimes magnify the effects of aberrations. 

Post-processing is another factor, involving yet more tradeoffs.  Many of those aberrations listed above can be corrected by software (especially geometric distortion, lateral CA, and vignetting).  However, some of those corrections result in a loss of sharpness in the corrected areas. 

So...I guess what it boils down to is that a lens with great IQ takes pretty pictures.  :P

I'd recommend not getting too hung up on lens sharpness - there are a lot of things you can do to increase the IQ of your images that don't depend directly on the lens.  For example, if you're shooting static subjects, using a tripod helps enormously.  Using a lens hood can increase contrast and color saturation in your images compared to the same lens without a hood.  Etc.

Or, if you prefer, go buy yourself an ISO 12233-type chart that costs more than some L-series lenses, and go nuts...  Heck, it works for me!   ;D

Those charts cost that much?

1187
Lenses / Re: What about a new 50/1.4 ??
« on: January 22, 2012, 11:57:46 PM »
Is there any news about a replacement of the (very) old 50/1.4 ??

There have been rumors of an update, and as many times as they've updated the 50 1.8, it doesn't sound unreasonable.  Also, the 50 1.4 is an incredibly popular lens, I had one before the 50L, and its been the first prime purchase for a lot of  my friends new to DSLRs.

1188

I wonder if the exclusion of f8 is in part to sell big lenses that have come out?

I think it's more that it's easier to lock focus at f/8 vs. f/2.8 (much more shallow depth of field at f/2.8, harder to focus).  I think the reason the previous poster was saying it wasn't for him because an f/5.6 lens with a TC loses a few stops so it would end up having a max aperture of f/8 and he wouldn't be able to use AF.  I could be totally wrong..

1189
Could also mean that Canon might start looking at lower f stops on their lenses. Say f2.8 as a base, not f4 like is the current standard.

Highly unlikely, the larger the aperture the more expensive the lens.  Every lens would need more glass, they would be larger and much more costly.  I mean something like a 600mm or 800mm f/2.8 would be insanely big and would probably require refinancing your house to buy it.  There would be no such thing as a reasonably priced zoom if they were all f/2.8.   

1190
Lenses / Re: What lenses should I get for my 7d? (16 year old)
« on: January 22, 2012, 04:26:24 PM »

Call me cynical, but from everything that has been posted about the used, broken, refurb, and new prices of these lenses, as well as how the OP has described this all....I'm not a betting man, but if I was, my money is on the lenses being stolen.  If it's too good to be true...

You're not cynical, you're just being logical and realistic based on previous experience.  I've purchased almost all my lenses used, I know a good deal when I see one, but none of the deals I've gotten were anywhere close to this (maybe the 14L II for $1100, but that's one lens).  One person having all the lenses this guy is talking about at below 1/2 price is highly unlikely.

1191
Lenses / Re: fill the void -17mm to 24mm
« on: January 22, 2012, 12:21:32 PM »
maybe the Zeiss ZE 21mm f2.8?

That's an awesome one, I'm having a tough time deciding between that and the 24L II.  I really only used my 16-35mm for the wide end and with the 14mm it seems unnecessary, so I guess I'm going to sell it for the Zeiss 21 or 24L

if you thinking indeed about a 24mm -------take  look at the TS-E. I did, and will not look back
Zeiss 21 is a great lens too, according to reviews...and then there is the other TS-E (17mm)

I've actually never played with a TS-E, do you enjoy yours that much?  I always thought they seemed pricey and somewhat limited in terms of functionality.  If you don't tilt and shift it's just a plain 24mm right?

1192
Lenses / Re: I can't believe I bought a $2000 prime.
« on: January 22, 2012, 12:17:09 PM »
It is a big chunk of cash for a glass. But it really does perform. I think dollies and sliders are way too overpriced, but thats just me. Just think of it this way. You can get years of good great photos with this lens and then if you want, you can sell it without much loss. These lenses hold their value quite well.

I agree, I try to look at lens purchases as me "renting" them with a full price deposit on them.  I know that if I ever need to "return" them, it's only a few clicks on Craigslist away.

1193
Lenses / Re: I can't believe I bought a $2000 prime.
« on: January 22, 2012, 12:15:11 PM »
So I just purchased the 85L ii a couple days ago from BH and it came out to a total of $1860.  And while I'm anticipating it's arrival, I'm like... "man, that's really expensive."  Could have bought a Philip Bloom Pocket Dolly, 85 1.8 and a 135L w/ that money.  Theses stupid mind games big companies use against you.... I have an L addiction.

It's an awesome lens, but you mentioning what you could have had instead is making me question my owning one haha.  I haven't actually paid $2k for a prime, although the 14L II and 85L II both retail for around that.

 I don't' think I could ever have brought myself to pay $2000+ for the 14L II, but for $1100 I was all over it.

1194
Lenses / Re: What lenses should I get for my 7d? (16 year old)
« on: January 21, 2012, 03:51:44 PM »

Actually, it's none of the above lol. He knows someone who works at canon. They are also used lenses, not new but in great condition

So you know someone that knows someone that works at Canon?  Your friend could be completely full of crap (most 16 year olds are), just keep that in mind.  The 100L Macro is $843 refurbished from Canon, so that would imply that your friend gets 60% off lenses, which is a pretty extreme discount.  And most businesses put measures in place to avoid people abusing their employee discount, so I'd be careful with that.

When I worked at Apple you could get 25% off 1 notebook and/or 1 desktop once a year.  Then you could also use a friends and family discount of 15%, 3 times per year.  But the crazy part was that they could ask you to prove that you owned it if they suspected you were buying stuff to resell. 

1195
Lenses / Re: What lenses should I get for my 7d? (16 year old)
« on: January 21, 2012, 12:32:27 AM »
I got my 100mmL macro for double that price and I was happy. The 70-200mm f2.8L is a top lens, IQ wise it's awesome (though not as good as the IS version) and the price is decent.

The reviews on the mk1 70-200 f/2.8 IS all say the IQ is worse than the non IS - can you still buy the mk 1 in the US?

The OP said his friend would sell him a 70-200 f/2.8 IS for $750, Willrobb misread it and thought he was talking about the non-IS 70-200 f/2.8, or he saw the price and assumed it had to be.

1196
Don't mean to sound crude, but it sounds like the lens is farting...

1197
Lenses / Re: What lenses should I get for my 7d? (16 year old)
« on: January 21, 2012, 12:02:10 AM »

They all sound like great prices, I think a lot of people here would like to buy from your friend ;)

I got my 100mmL macro for double that price and I was happy. The 70-200mm f2.8L is a top lens, IQ wise it's awesome (though not as good as the IS version) and the price is decent.

He said 70-200 f/2.8 IS, $750 is way more than decent for a lens with an MSRP of $1999

1198
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Why canon?
« on: January 20, 2012, 09:33:21 PM »
I got a Canon Vixia camcorder in December 2009 and thought it was awesome.  But then I was over at my neighbor's (pro photographer)  and he pulled up a random video he had recorded at his last photo shoot.  I think my reaction was "That's the most HD S___ I've ever seen!"  Then I did some research, and ended up getting a T2i/18-55 kit.   

I was told I HAD to get other lenses, so I started looking and these were some of my noob thoughts:
1) I got 18MP yay, that must mean it's better than this guys 1DII since it's only 12mp!
2) Why are there so many 70-200mm and 70-300mm lenses?
3) I already have an 18-55IS, why is the 17-55IS $1000 more?!  For 1mm!?
4) Why is this 85mm cost $1800 more than this other 85mm?  I'm not sure what this f/number means but it's only .6 difference so how much better could it be?

I didn't know jack about photography but knew I had to learn if I wanted to use the thing properly.  Took 20,000 pictures over the following 8 months and decided that DSLRs were something I wanted to stick with.   

I bought a 5DII in November 2010, followed by 11 or 12 different L lenses over the course of 2011, gradually narrowing them down to the ones in my sig.  I've shot a pretty ridiculous amount of video, recorded over 60 bands with 2 5DIIs and a 7D, its pretty crazy how much you can learn in 2 years.  Thanks Canon.

1199
Lenses / Re: 50mm f/1.2L and 85 f/1.8 VS. 50 f/1.4 and 85 1.2L
« on: January 20, 2012, 08:08:18 PM »
[quote author=Axilrod link=topic=2923.msg61397#msg61397  My 85L sits on the shelf a little more than I'd like, but I can't bring myself to get rid of it, it's unbelievably sharp even wide open.  But I use my 50L more than all my other lenses I'd say, it's super versatile and a lot of fun.

I use my 50L a lot, recently I got an 85mm Sigma and I really love it, it has great IQ and bokeh but it doesn't get used as much as any of my other lenses (maybe neck and neck with my 100mm 2.8L macro), which makes me glad I plumper for the Sigma over the 85LII.
[/quote]

I've heard great things about the Sigma as well, no sense spending $1800-$2000 on a lens you're not going to use that much.  For me the 85L is almost a work of art and I know whenever I do use it it's guaranteed to produce some awesome results.

1200
Just read the article again and basically its doing exactly what the C300 is doing for down converting the video from 4K to 1080p.

Thought it sounded familiar but wasn't able to put my finger on it at first.

Its a good sign that the tech is cheap enough to produce by the sounds of it. Lets just hope that it gets here sooner rather than later.

I hope it does.  Someone mentioned that it may be released around the same time as the 5DIII, which would actually be a pretty good idea.  That would keep video people from buying a 5DIII and then realizing they made a mistake when the CDSLR arrives.

Pages: 1 ... 78 79 [80] 81 82 ... 92