October 20, 2014, 11:23:19 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 - Radiating

Pages: 1 ... 10 11 [12] 13 14 ... 23
166
Lenses / Re: Have you one of the new 24-70 f4 canon lenses, Is it good
« on: January 31, 2013, 10:18:20 PM »
I am considering getting a 24-70 f4 to replace my 5 year old 24-105 to use on a 5D3. has any one got one and are you pleased with it.

The 24-70mm f/4.0 IS is a hyped up lens and for most purposes peice of junk if you don't need the macro. Many review sites confirm that it has boarderline image quality in the middle of the zoom range. Both the-digital-picture.com and lensrentals confirm that it is very poor in the middle of the zoom range, and that's after testing just under 30 copies. Lens rentals downplays it's performance in the middle of the zoom range, but it's actually worse at 50mm than the 24-105mm is at 24mm, and most people complain about that lens at 24mm. In fact it has the lowest single average score with multiple copies tested and averaged at 50mm than any other pro normal zoom. It's so bad that no matter how much you stop it down at 50mm, it will never be as sharp as the 24-105mm is at 50mm wide open, because it hits the diffraction limit before the IQ becomes anything less than extremely poor.

This lens is so incredibly bad at 50mm, that the old entry level non-pro 28-135mm IS that has very poor reviews is actually much much better at 50mm f/4.5 than this lens is at 50mm f/4.5. Which is a serious acheivement for a pro lens.


I purchased a copy and did an extensive comparison with over 600 shots of a test target and after doing both visual comparison and computer analysis from 24-70mm the 24-70mm f/4 had EQUAL image quality to the 24-105mm, if not slightly worse on average. It was much better at 24mm, much much worse at 50mm and around equal at 70mm. To say the least it went straight back, I don't need a lens that has worse image quality, costs nearly twice as much and has only 2/3rds the zoom range.

I know of at least 3 people that have purchased this lens on hype and returned it. Besides that it's a terrible investment as Canon is sure to drop the price over 30% in the next 6 months as they have done with every new release in the last year. While the 24-105mm has a virtually fixed price.

This lens WILL be better for you if you want macro, need a slightly smaller and lighter lens (very slight) or shoot at 24mm and 70mm more than 40mm,50mm, & 60mm, but again it's twice as much and slated for a huge price drop.

167
Lenses / Re: Please explain the need for f2.8 zooms
« on: January 30, 2013, 10:03:12 PM »
The standard lens requirement for shooting events/weddings seem to be a combination of 24-70/28 and 70-200/2.8, I read both are nailed to a pro's camera 90% of the time (though I have problems doing the maths :-))

A lens with a larger aperture afaik has three advantages: better af on some bodies, better subject isolation/creativity (just one eye in focus) and last not least a "fast" lens is required for "low light" shots.

My question rose when I read the great book "Captured by the Light" by David Ziser who - believe it or not - writes that f4 to f5.6 (for convenience or added safety) is his bread and butter setting for posed candid wedding flash shots, and he used the 5d2 at that time.

Question: So according to this f2.8 is more important for available light and movement shots, but if that was case with the 5d2, I'm confused why still seems to be still valid with the 6d even though it's about 1 stop better ... either f2.8 was borderline in the past, or f2.8 - 1stop = f4 would be sufficient now - or am I missing something here?

Disclaimer: Please forgive slight traces of irony, this ia a real question because I don't entirely understand the issue, it's great people get whatever gear they like for any purpose they want.

The minimum for capturing action on what I've found to be typical indoor light is:

1Ds Mark III/5D Mark II + f/2.8

OR

5D3/6D/1DX + F/4.0

The thing is that f/2.8 on a 5D Mark 3 gives you more flexibility, you aren't at the limit, so you're more comfortable.

The zoom range let's you frame shots better, and bokeh at f/2.8 is right at the boarderline between overpowering and pleasant.


So in the end f/2.8 on a newer full frame body is the optimum setup for getting a wide range of shots. Now shooting a f/2.8 lens at f/4.0 will often deliver sharper images than going with an f/4.0 lens to begin with so there is a disadvantage  to going f/4.0 to begin with, and you have less flexibility (as you don't have the option of f/2.8).

Going to an a prime that's faster than f/2.8 limits you because there is no zoom, you want SOME zoom if however small it is just so you can get framing right.
F/2.8 tends to be a good "all around" range. You have zoom, bokeh, and a comfortable amount of motion stopping without flash.


Personally I have a collection of the following lenses:

24-70mm f/2.8 II
24-105mm f/4.0 IS (for landscapes, still life and other times where IS helps more than f/2.8 because there is no motion to stop and for when I don't want the onion bokeh or focus shift of the 2.8 II)
70-200mm f/2.8 II

Sigma 35mm 1.4
Canon 50mm 1.4
Sigma 85mm 1.4


24mm TS-E + 1.4x TC & 2x TC  (35mm TS-E & 50mm TS-E)


Ideally I'm looking to pick up a Canon 200mm 2.0 too

168
Seriously, nobody needs that many low quality PS cameras that make no changes to image quality at all. Their pro cameras get 2 body releases per year, and their amateur DSLR gets a yearly refresh.

Can anyone explain this? Is it just a to trick consumers into thinking a  largleystagnant technology is improving with more bloated features that do nothing?

Feel free to discuss.

169
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon's Roadmap for 2013 [CR2]
« on: January 28, 2013, 12:00:17 PM »
Surely they wouldn't price it above the 6D?

Of course they would ...

Of course they wouldn't.

The 7DII will be cheaper than the 6D. That's for sure.

There's a reason the 6D is named '6D': to signify that it is positioned above the 7D.
The marketing message here is that a FF camera is a always a step up from a crop camera, regardless of specs.

This message is needed to assert the premium-ness of FF; without it, it's hard to charge a (hefty) premium for FF.

Canons latest strategy has been to markup all new products 30% for the first 7 months. I predict the 7d will go for $2000, msrp, and sell for a minimum advertised price of $1800 at launch. Making it cost $100 less than the 6D

170
Canon General / Re: Why did you choose Canon?
« on: January 27, 2013, 05:03:15 PM »
Prior to 2005 I owned both Nikon & Canon, whichever seemed to do the job, in 2005 I sold my Company & retired, decided to get seriously interested in Photography, looked at which system offered the best all round benefits, Cameras in 2005 seemed much the same Nikon D70s or Canon 5D, but what directed me towards Canon were the Lenses, I didn't feel at the time Nikon had the same range or quality of Lenses, so I went Canon 5D & later to the 1 Series. Although I now have 1Dx, 1DMKIV, 5DMK3 & 5DMK2, I also recently bought the Nikon D800 to replace my 5DMK2 system for my Underwater Photography, seems to work well, crappy write speed of course, but the 36MP has some advantages, but the Menu system seems to have been put together by a Delusional Monkey on Crack Cocain.

Just waiting for Canon's large MP camera & I can get back to all Canon gear, at the end of the day though they are really just Tools, but you tend to make your bed once you get into the Lens side, not hard to jump ship on a couple of Camera Bodies, but a 100k on Lenses ?? I'm with Canon for the long haul I guess.

I will echo Nikon's terrible menu system designed by a delusional monkey on crack cocain. It's much less user friendly, but both get the job done.

171
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon's Roadmap for 2013 [CR2]
« on: January 27, 2013, 05:00:06 PM »
<div name=\"googleone_share_1\" style=\"position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;\"><g:plusone size=\"tall\" count=\"1\" href=\"http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=12748\"></g:plusone></div><div style=\"float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;\"><a href=\"https://twitter.com/share\" class=\"twitter-share-button\" data-count=\"vertical\" data-url=\"http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=12748\">Tweet</a></div>
<p><strong>What’s coming this year<br />

</strong>A very reliable source has told us what Canon has planned in 2013 as far as product launches go. This is looking to be a slower year for new Canon products, especially when compared to 2012.</p>
<p>None of this includes new Cinema EOS products.</p>
<p><strong>Cameras<br />

</strong>There will be 3 DSLRs launched in 2013, two of them will be “entry level” and one will be “mid level”. The two entry level cameras will probably be a new Rebel and a 70D.</p>
<p>The midlevel camera is probably the EOS 7D Mark II. This camera will get its own launch festivities sometime in the second half of 2013 we’re told.</p>
<p>There will also be one new EOS-M body, which is a pretty logical step forward for the platform.</p>
<p><strong>Lenses<br />

</strong>4 new EF lenses will be launched in 2013, there was no mention of exactly which lenses it would be. We all know the usual suspects, and everything points to a new 100-400L and that would sit nicely next to a new 7D.</p>
<p>We’re hoping to get a more detailed breakdown of the upcoming lenses soon.</p>
<p><strong><span style=\"color: #ff0000;\">c</span>r</strong></p>


Predictions:

100-400mm f/4.0-5/6 IS L - same image quality at f/4.0 as the old 70-200mm f2.8 L  IS Classic (better than the current version but worse than the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS)

50mm f/1.8 IS

35mm 1.4 L II (Sigma beater)

14-24mm f/2.8 L

172
Canon General / Re: Why did you choose Canon?
« on: January 26, 2013, 09:28:56 PM »
It is interesting to hear stories why people choose Canon when there are a lot of other firms? Nikon, Pentax, Sony...

I personally was always interested in photography and was shooting quite a lot when I was young with analog cameras Smena and Zenit- E (Soviet type cameras). My first digital camera was P&S Sony bought in 2004, however, i was not satisfied with its quality (at that time analog cameras quality was much better than digital).

In 2007 I acquired Canon G7 which was able to produce better quality photos comparing to other P&S cameras. Finally in 2012 I decided to buy DSLR and definitely choose Canon as they had more attractive design comparing to Nikon and much bigger variety of lenses (I always admired L class white lenses, which in my mind was always associated with superb quality). I never Pentax, Sony or other firms. Currently I am happy with my EOS 7D, however, have plans to move to FF (of course, that would by 5D Mark III). That's why my almost all lenses (except for EF-S 18-135) are compatible with FF cameras.

It would be interesting to hear your stories why you choose Canon.

I have no qualms about switching brands at any second. My primary reason for sticking with Canon is this:

1. The 5D Mark III has around 1/3rd to 1/2 a stop less noise than the d800, I can use that as noise is a constant battle for me.
2. The colors on the 5D Mark III are nicer in my back to back testing.
3. The 24-70 II and the fact it's an f/2.8 APO lens that's sharper than a prime.


That's all.


173
Lenses / Re: 100mm 2.8L Macro IS as a portrait lens
« on: January 25, 2013, 12:37:21 PM »
I am going to purchase a prime lens in the 85-135mm range, mostly for portraits and indoor shots on my 6D.
I already have a 70-200mm 2.8 II, but I often don't want to lug all that weight around.

I've been leaning towards the 135L, but recently have been thinking about buying a 100L macro for roughly the same cost as the 135 and using it for portraits and tightly framed indoor shots.  The 100L's macro capability would just be a nice plus I probably wouldn't use that much.

My concern with the 100L macro for my intended use is that I've heard it is soft beyond 10-15 feet.  I certainly need a lens that is capable of sharp pictures at longer ranges than that.  Does anyone who has used this lens have any comments or experience to share?

Since portrait and general purpose shooting is my primary need, should I just skip the macro lens for now and pick up the 135L?  I imagine I'll own both lenses eventually, but it might be 6-12 months before my next lens purchase.

The 100mm macro has harsh bokeh past macro distance. It should never be chosen as a portrait lens.

174
Lenses / Re: Canon 50mm 1.4 IS?
« on: January 19, 2013, 04:57:38 PM »
This is definitly fake, thepaint  texture pattern is identical to the 35mm.

If you look at 50mm lenses though they are generally horrible for image quality. Take any 50mm lens from Nikon, Lecia, Zeiss, Sigma, and they perform as well as most primes perform at f/1.4 when they're set to f/2.5-f/2.8.

If this lens was f/2.0 or f/1.8 it wouldn't matter as long as it was as sharp at f/2.0 as current lenses are at f/2.8.

I would really love to see a 50mm IS with round aperture blades and a focus on extreme image quality across the focal range, it would be amazing.

175
Lenses / Re: I want a 135mm 1.8 IS L
« on: January 18, 2013, 04:42:58 PM »


Just as an asside Nikon has a patent on one possible design for this exact lens:

http://nikonrumors.com/2012/03/09/nikon-135mm-f1-8-lens-patent.aspx/

This is actually a very interesting design because it has very high distortion, 2%, yet it is extremely sharp and has no CA whatsoever both in the APO sense and otherwise.

As long as someone is listening at Canon it shouldn't be especially challenging to make this lens.

176
All full frame pro lenses:


16-35mm f/2.8 IS - Based on the specs this should be even sharper than the existing 16-35mm f/2.8, but much more expensive.

http://nikonrumors.com/2013/01/09/nikon-patents-for-16-35mm-f2-8-vr-lens-dual-lens-hood.aspx/

135mm 1.8 IS - This lens would not be especially hard to manufacture and is in bad need of an update.

http://nikonrumors.com/2012/03/09/nikon-135mm-f1-8-lens-patent.aspx/

55-300mm f/2.8-f/4.0 IS  - This particular way of making this lens has f/2.8 until 140mm!!, doubles as a 77-420mm f/4.0-f/5.6 with a 1.4 TC  - 5 ED elements!!! If it were good it would be very exciting.

http://nikonrumors.com/2012/11/13/nikon-patent-for-a-55-300mm-f2-8-4-full-frame-lens.aspx/

50mm 1.2 which isn't soft like the current Canon version:

http://nikonrumors.com/2010/02/07/there-is-a-patent-for-a-new-nikon-af-s-nikkor-50mm-f1-2g-lens.aspx/

Yes I know these are all from Nikon Rumors, but I hope Canon is watching them and responds.

These would be profoundly amazing

177
Lenses / I want a 135mm 1.8 IS L
« on: January 16, 2013, 03:51:47 PM »


Canon needs to make this lens, now.

178
Lenses / Re: Sigma 8-16mm on FF & Crop Vs Fisheye on FF & 15-85 @ 15
« on: January 15, 2013, 03:43:06 PM »
For you all curious people.

I have to put this up in 3 parts.

Enjoy!

Can you post the full resolution 13mm shot? I'm very curious to see the resolution.
You can upload it to picturepush.com for free.

This might be a reasonable alternative to the Samyang 14mm that has less distortion. Though likley it will have much lower resolution.

179
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: whats up with 5d2 used pricing?
« on: January 12, 2013, 03:10:44 PM »
as a 450D user I'm on the hunt for a good deal on a 5d2 or save for 6D or 5d3   

however I always see people selling bodies with 5-25K clicks attempting to sell the 5d2 for 1500 or even more, because they spent 2 grand on it a year ago. 

I dont think I'd pay more than 1400 with body and kit lens.   Is everyone crazy hoping we don't know what the market looks like or just hoping to find a sap.

The 24-105 doesn't command the sale price it used to, but it still can easily go for $800 used.  So you are basically trying to get a 5d mkii in like new condition to good condition (and I believe the 5dmkii is graded for 500,000 to 750,000 shutter actuations which means it still has 97% of its lifespan left) for around $600. 

I have seen a refurbished 5d mkii sell for 1400 plus tax at Canon... and I've seen the new 5d mkii body, plus a 24-105mm, plus a printer with a big rebate sell for 22 or 2300 at B&H. 

As for the marketplace, ebay and Amazon marketplace generally set the market.  And the cheapest body is still around $1400.  $750 for the 24-105.  So a best case scenario would be 2150 for used in very good condition. 

For what it is worth, I buy and sell gear all the time.  And generally if I want to make a quick sale, I set my Craigslist price at what the used price is at Amazon minus their 8% commission plus 20 or 30 bucks... because people like to haggle and I'll happily knock off that extra $20 so they feel like they are getting a deal. 

So you talk about people not knowing the market... I suggest you do some market research.

+1 body was selling for $1800 just 80 days ago for the body only.

180
Lenses / Re: Your "precious" lord of the red rings is?
« on: January 10, 2013, 12:36:02 AM »
Your house is burning and you can only grab 2 lenses from your kit, the rest will burn.  Which 2 do you HAVE to have?  For me, I'd say my 70-200 2.8 Mk II and my 24-70 2.8 Mk II.  They are my newest and cost a fortune, but I love portrait work with my 100 2.8 L macro.  I guess I can order another when the insurance kicks in haha.

Sigma 85mm 1.4 & Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 Mk. II.

Both of these are known for having issues from copy to copy. All other lenses can be replaced, these are priceless. Or at least would take 2 weeks and 5 copies of each to get right.

Pages: 1 ... 10 11 [12] 13 14 ... 23