March 01, 2015, 06:54:31 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 - BrettS

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5]
Great list and conversation. Thanks for firing it up, Marsu!  :)

Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 50 f/1.2L
« on: January 16, 2013, 06:35:43 PM »
You can obviously not interpret lenstip measurement , lenstip  figures first and  then photozone  .  Read Imagin-Resource test where they thought the lens was faulty. se Turners report.

Let's summarize.  You say 50/1.4 has better resolution.  DigiAngel's bicycle photos above (thank you!) show us the reality.

You say 50/1.4 is sharper overall and you cite the Lenstip tests.  The Lenstip tests show that it depends on the aperture.  For example, if you look at the centers (red), the 50/1.4 is better at f/1.4, and the 50/1.2 is better at f/2, and both lenses are equal at f/2.8, and the 50/1.4 is better at f/4.  This back and forth lead is similar to what was found by LensRentals.  It seems you took most of the blue (edge) dots out of the 50/1.2 chart from Lenstip, but I presume the blue dots mean the same edge point on both charts.   There again, which is better depends on the aperture.

You asked me to look at Imaging Resource but your link is to SLRGear (?), so I clipped SLRGear's blur charts which show the 50/1.2 as distinctly better at f/1.4.  The lower, darker and flatter the blur chart, the better the resolution, and the 50/1.2 lens definitely shows a better blur chart at f/1.4 and f/2; by f/2.8 they are comparable.  SLRGear was disappointed with the 50/1.2 lens based on its price, but they did say (in their "Tanner Report") that "It's blur profile is somewhat better than that of the Canon 50mm f/1.4 wide open".  Looking at the blur charts, there is no question about that.

You link to The Digital Picture (TDP), but their charts show that which is better depends on where you look and which aperture.  For example, at f/1.8, the 50/1.2 shows a better center and mid-frame, but a worse corner.  At f/1.8, I would rather shoot the 50/1.2 lens than the 50/1.4 lens.  TDP's results supports this.

You dismissed the LensRentals test results as "wrong".  Well, just dismissing test results doesn't help your argument about the "myth", especially when their results are similar to those on Lenstip, TDP and SLRGear.

I'll grant you that Photozone's test shows the 50/1.4 as much better than the 50/1.2; that stands out as the anomaly among all of these sources.  Of all the sources you cited, this one supports your point.

you are falling for the myth , like some others
if you can read the different test shows that 50/1,4 has better over all sharpness than 50/1,2
how difficult can it be??????
what is you do not understand????

I've addressed all of the test results, especially in my previous reply to you.  I won't keep repeating myself.  I've tried to keep this discussion factual, discussing the various tests.  You seem intent on condescension and I won't reply to that.


Site Information / Re: Problem with the Canonrumors Website
« on: January 16, 2013, 06:16:58 PM »
Windows 7 x64, IE 9.0.8112.16421 no such problem (ever).

Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 50 f/1.2L
« on: January 14, 2013, 06:39:45 PM »
again- who are talking or discussing  bokeh?.  I are answering about the resolution test-NOTHING ELSE
Why are you people dragging in another parameters?
Shall we also discuss anomalies like  coma, CA, focus shift  or whatever?
Read now the 4 links I have provided and make a own assumption about how good the 50/1,2 are compared to 50/1,4 from Canon

Indeed. I have read and I see the advantages of the 50 f/1.2L. You have stirred me into renting a 50 f/1.2L with a mind to purchasing if I like it's qualities.

50/1.2 are a expensive, overrated lens compare to 50/1,4.

A very absolute statement in conflict with both the reviews, and your opening paragraph (above). Perhaps you should have stated:

"50/1.2 are a expensive, overrated lens compare to a 50/1,4 in terms of resolution test-NOTHING ELSE."

Having read the reviews, I would have to disagree with your absolute statement.

Lenses / Re: Making the most out of a 50 1.2?
« on: January 06, 2013, 12:11:17 PM »
Beautiful lens. I'm very happy with mine.

If I could be so bold as to quote neuro:

Excellent bokeh was a priority for Canon with the 50L. They stated, "With the increasing popularity of digital SLR cameras, calls for large aperture single-focal length lenses with excellent image quality and pleasing bokeh (blur effects) for portraits have increased," (Tech Report, 11/2006).  Spherical aberration results in a loss of sharpness, but completely correcting for spherical aberration results in a harsh, jittery bokeh. In the 50L design, the spherical aberration was left deliberately undercorrected to produce the creamy bokeh for which the lens is known.

Also, this thread is quite interesting.

Pricewatch Deals / Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS in Stock at B&H Photo
« on: January 03, 2013, 06:11:40 PM »
So i'll stick with my old rebel 600D which is best value of money, plus the magic latern which makes this toy camera, a real camera, and when i feel the need to change equipment, i'll sell everything and move to nikon unless canon starts thinking of making products instead of toys.

OK. See ya.

Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 200 f/2L IS
« on: October 09, 2012, 07:25:41 PM »
Loved the review. Thank you!

I loved it! Very humourous.

Blackrapid +1

Speedlites, Printers, Accessories / Re: Canon 10 x 30 IS Binoculars
« on: March 11, 2012, 04:46:31 PM »
I may be a Canon fanboy, but I purchased a pair of Nikon 10x42 Monarch III DCF WP because I just do not see the logic in having to put batteries (!) into my binoculars.

And I have been immensely happy with the Nikons.


Lenses / Re: Will these lenses be suitable for the new MkIII
« on: March 06, 2012, 05:26:41 PM »
@5dmk.iii - Don't sweat it, mate. Even Neuro has tons of negative karma! And he's one of the most helpful and occasionally hilarious people here.

EOS Bodies / Re: Best Buy has 5DII on sale for $2123?!
« on: May 15, 2011, 08:37:38 PM »
Reminds me of the old adage... "if it seems too good to be true..."

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5]