September 14, 2014, 10:33:23 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 - Alrik89

Pages: [1] 2 3 4
1
Lenses / Re: How many years before we see a 50L II
« on: July 28, 2014, 04:22:59 AM »

.................
Look at the lenses that Canon has updated in the past ten years and the age of the predecessor:

24–70 L II: 10 years
16–35 L II: 6 years
70–200 L II: 9 years
70–300 (L as an alternative to non-L): 5 years
300mm IS II: 11 years
400mm IS II: 12 years
500mm IS II: 12 years
600mm IS I: 12 years
24mm IS: 24 years
35mm IS: 22 years


Only those last two replaced lenses that were more than a decade old, and both of those were IS upgrades to previously non-IS lenses.

I am not sure the 16-35 II has been updated .....Is the 16-35 f/4 IS really the update?....

The 16-35mm II is the update of version I.
Whats wrong with you?

2
Lenses / Re: Tamron lenses --> annoying zoom ring
« on: July 18, 2014, 04:01:02 AM »
What I also don't like is the fact that the zoom ring is behaving the opposite compared to canon. For this reason I was frequently missing a shot with my tamron 18-270 as I did zoom in the wrong direction.

That's funny, that is not an issue for me.

3
Lenses / Tamron lenses --> annoying zoom ring
« on: July 18, 2014, 01:51:47 AM »
Hi guys,

i got my hands on some Tamron lenses recently, concrete the 24-70mm, the 70-300mm and the 70-200mm VC. And there is an issue, i want to talk about: the zoom ring. What's bothering me is the fact, that the zoom ring isn't close to the camera, it is switched with the focus ring and sits at the far end of the lens now. So i've got to stretch out my left arm way more to reach the zoom ring. I'm uncomfortable with it, because in my feeling it is much less stable than if i grab the zoom near the camera. Furthermore the focus ring sits so close next to the zoom ring, i nearly turned it too, when i grabed and turned the zoom ring.

I thing, the tamron lenses are totally interesting, but there issues are really bothering me.
What about you? Did you have any concerns about the arrangement of the rings on your tamron lenses, especially when you were coming from the canon counterpart? How did you deal with it? Or was it never disturbing for you?

Thanks for your answers.

4
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: D810!!!
« on: June 26, 2014, 01:48:01 AM »
THIS IS FINALLY THE LONG AWAITED REPLACEMENT FOR MY 1DsMARK2!

Not.

5
The clients give a crap on photographers workflow, only the result matters. If the photogs use an iPhone or a Hasselblad - it doesn't matter, if the result satisfies the client.

Or have one of you ever been hired for the sensor in your camera?

6
The context of this thread is not that "Canon makes the worst sensors", but rather that Canon is getting beat in sensor technology.

I know plenty of great photographers who make great photos with Canon gear. But this has absolutely no bearing on the fact that the Sony sensors, from ISO 100-800 are more advanced than Canon's.

So what? Canon will release some new sensors some day and they will be more advanced than Sonys sensors.
And then will Sony release new sensors.
And then Canon...

I think you got the idea.
Only tech-addicted photographers give a krapp about sensors - their clients don't, except they are tech-addicts as well.

7
Is there a massive difference between f4 and 2.8 considering sharpness?

You shoot stopped down, so why should sharpness at wide-open matter?

I'm asking at f8 for two different lenses? I don't care about sharpness wide open.

It is not easy, to put the question right, isn't it?
And, wow, you already got an answer concerning sharpness with a stopped-down aperture:
I'm totally constructive. Every lens delivers sharp pictures when stopping down, even crappy low-budget lenses. So, there is no significant difference in sharpness between the macro-IS and the macro-NonIS. Therefore it comes down to another crucial point: the image stabilization.

8
Is there a massive difference between f4 and 2.8 considering sharpness?

You shoot stopped down, so why should sharpness at wide-open matter?

9

After all this I'm only further confused. Only thing I know is that I need something that will get me macro and that I need something that will give me compression. It needs to be crazy sharp and as little distortion as possible. And I know that I don't want to buy polarizers million times. so..

My 24-105 and 70-200 2.8 have same filter size
 and 100L macro and 70-200 4 have the same filter size...
Now macro is mostly for studio so... I don't know... in the end I might just go crazy and get 70-200l and 100l macro, and the heck with it. ;D


The sharpest lens in Canon lineup is the EF 180mm f/3.5 L USM macro - distorion-free. Buy a 72 to 77mm stepup-ring.

10
Quote from: skoobey

And please, please don't take wide-open bokeh or sharpness into consideration, I NEVER shoot wide open;D


Considering this, i would stay with the 24-105mm and recommend removing the distortion in post procession - today this is an one-click-action in lightroom e.g.

Do you need IS for macro?
-> Yes! --> 100mm 2.8 IS
-> No! ---> 100mm 2.8 nonIS

You're not constructive. Maybe I should "fix lighting in post" too? :D lol Or maybe, it's all the same when stopped down lol?

I'm totally constructive. Every lens delivers sharp pictures when stopping down, even crappy low-budget lenses. So, there is no significant difference in sharpness between the macro-IS and the macro-NonIS. Therefore it comes down to another crucial point: the image stabilization.

Same issue with the 70-200m: do you like the flexibility of a zoom lens?
-> Yes! --> 70-200mm 2.8 II
-> No! --> Fixed focal length lens like the macro lenses mentioned above.

11

And please, please don't take wide-open bokeh or sharpness into consideration, I NEVER shoot wide open;D


Considering this, i would stay with the 24-105mm and recommend removing the distortion in post procession - today this is an one-click-action in lightroom e.g.

Do you need IS for macro?
-> Yes! --> 100mm 2.8 IS
-> No! ---> 100mm 2.8 nonIS

12
Personally, I'd choose the 70-200 II + 1.4xIII for the better IS and AF with similar IQ.

...you'd have the same amount of reach, you'd be more flexible and have one f-stop more speed.

Impressive...three lies for the price of one! 

I guess you don't realize that while the crop factor applies to aperture, too (in terms of DoF), the lower ISO noise of FF adds more than than the 1.3-stops if you need the deeper DoF, allowing even faster shutter speeds at the same DoF...   

The only thing the OP missed by not getting the 70D was the chance to lose shots from the lesser AF system, slower frame rate, etc.

DoF isn't a concern, not in the initial post of the thread opener, nor in my post - so, what are you talking about?

13
You missed a chance to save money and get a Crop Camera like the 70D instead of the 300mm f4.
Together with the 70-200mm 2.8 II you'd have the same amount of reach, you'd be more flexible and have one f-stop more speed.

14
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Anyone using ISO 50 on 1DX?
« on: October 13, 2013, 06:09:35 AM »
Looking through my motor racing shots at 1/100 - 1/160 Tv (for motion blur) on 1DX, ISO 100, understandably the aperture is frequently >f16. I'm considering trying ISO 50 (ND 105mm filter c$500!). Anyone have any experience of ISO 50 - From what I've read, it's not as noise-free as 100?? Thanks. :-)

You can afford a 1Dx but you can't afford the time to test ISO 50 by yourself?

15
Software & Accessories / Re: What would you do without Photoshop?
« on: October 07, 2013, 06:53:23 AM »
Lightroom has already replaced Photoshop.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4