October 31, 2014, 01:24:07 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 - PavelR

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 6
16
Lenses / Re: your goto everyday lens and why?
« on: March 04, 2013, 07:38:06 AM »
(I usually ride my bike slowly thru my hometown... along the river... only one lens [+body] sitting in my backpack.)

I was surprised by the lens choice as well, however this is hard to argue with, it sounds like a nice day  :)
... except for me, it would be a nice convertible, but that's details  ;)
The winter is finally passing...
(The pictures were taken in 2009 = long time before I bought Canon and 200/2.)

17
Lenses / Re: your goto everyday lens and why?
« on: March 04, 2013, 06:29:08 AM »
200mm f/2.0 you can't beat magic
+1
That's your everyday goto lens?
Yes, If I go "light" ;-) (only one lens) + not knowing exactly what I will be shooting...
200/2 produce the best subject isolation and is usable on 2, if the sun goes down...
For an evidence: I do not go to shoot every day - 99% of the time I'm shooting at weekend.
(I usually ride my bike slowly thru my hometown... along the river... only one lens [+body] sitting in my backpack.)

18
Lenses / Re: your goto everyday lens and why?
« on: March 04, 2013, 02:41:35 AM »
200mm f/2.0 you can't beat magic
+1

19
Technical Support / Re: Teleconverter and DOF
« on: March 01, 2013, 09:58:05 AM »
DOF will be smaller because of the bigger magnification.

If you crop the image taken w/o TC to the same framing of the other one, you get two identical results.

these kind of "explanation" are exactly why 80% don´t get it.   :P  :D
The first sentence is the definition of the change.
The second is the last step to produce the image that can be compared.
Anytime you cut some sentences from the article, you can get words that can not be understood...

20
Technical Support / Re: Teleconverter and DOF
« on: March 01, 2013, 09:50:21 AM »
DOF will be smaller because of the bigger magnification.
You can see it:
Take two photos - one with TC and one w/o TC.
If you crop the image taken w/o TC to the same framing of the other one, you get two identical results.
DOF is described perfectly at http://toothwalker.org/optics/dof.html

but that includes enlarging.
i guess you mean croping and enlarging to the same size as the other image?
i don´t want to imagine what that does with the COC.... and stuff.

and how can i get the same results when you first say the DOF is different?   ???
because when i enlarge the image the parts that appear sharp will then become unsharp?
because i enlarge the COC?

i want to know if i can calculate the DOF of a lens 100mm f2 + 1.4x TC the same way i would calculate a 140mm f2.8 lens.

if what neuroanatomist wrote is correct, and i can ignore the other stuff i have read (that lenses with the same physical aperture diameter have always the same DOF at the same focus distance).
Yes, I mean cropping and enlarging to the same physical size on the display / paper / ...
Difference can be seen on cropped and uncropped image (TC image is for getting adequate magnification).
I can not help you with math to calculate the DOF, because it depends on the final magnification ~ crop, lens sharpness, viewing distance, and many other factors, thus such number does mean nothing to me... (I need to know my lenses and predict the real result with different apertures; I do not want to convince anybody about the sharpness of the photo because DOF calculator says: it is in the DOF...)
There is another thread discussing DOF and background blur deeply: http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=11109

21
Technical Support / Re: Teleconverter and DOF
« on: March 01, 2013, 08:44:47 AM »
DOF will be smaller because of the bigger magnification.
You can see it:
Take two photos - one with TC and one w/o TC.
If you crop the image taken w/o TC to the same framing of the other one, you get two identical results.
DOF is described perfectly at http://toothwalker.org/optics/dof.html


22
Lenses / Re: What are Canon's sharpest lenses?
« on: February 21, 2013, 05:29:42 PM »
Canon's sharpest lens:

300mm f/2.8 IS II

Canon's sharpest lens at f/2:

200mm f/2L IS

Canon's sharpest lens at f/1.4:

85L
+1

23
Speedlites, Printers, Accessories / Re: Where is this new flash?
« on: January 30, 2013, 05:52:57 AM »
Don't ever make a buying decision based on a rumor.  90+ percent do not happen.

I did it already 4 times ;-)
Long waiting, but I'm glad that I own new version now...

24
Lenses / Re: 200mm F2 IS OR 135mm F2
« on: January 24, 2013, 10:44:13 AM »
I own both and 85/1.4, the best IQ I get with F 2.8 and much better subject isolation is on 200mm.
(AF of 200/2 is also faster and the most consistent.)

25
Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II
« on: January 18, 2013, 11:11:32 AM »

Without reading the review, just give me this lens and 24-70 f2.8 II on FF...........I'm done :-X

No need to carry: 24L, 35L, 50L, 85L, 135L, and 200L
Do you care about IQ?
70-200 II is not able to replace 85/135/200Ls in many situations...

I wouldn't spend my money on 24-70 f2.8 II & 70-200 f2.8 IS II, if IQ is not important in photography.
Thus you are lucky man not seeing the difference of 85,135,200 vs 70-200 - all @ 2.8 and your bag can be pretty light.
But I can clearly see that zoom @ F3.5-4+ can match (contrast + sharpness) the prime @ F2.8, but @ F3.5-4 there is less subject/background separation, thus If I want best IQ, I take only 24-70 II + longer primes.
(BTW: 24-70 II is nothing special till F3.5-4 too.)

26
Lenses / Re: 135L vs 85L vs 70-200L II
« on: January 17, 2013, 12:39:56 PM »
There is no way 70-200 II at 135@2.8 = IQ of 135/2@2.8.
I own both (+85/1.4, 200/2) and all those primes render better contrast and sharpness across the frame...

Actually, the 135mm f2 @f2 (wide open) carries simular sharpness, contrast and colour to the 70-200mm f2.8 L IS II when shot in the 135-200mm @ f2.8. It's surprising but true. The prime flares more but has slightly less fussy bokeh wide open, but the 135L when stopped down to f2.8 the 135L renders worse. The non rounded aperture blades are pretty obvious where as the zoom stopped down a stop or two looks nicer.

It's easy to split hairs when trying to see which is sharper. For my lenses, there is little difference between them. Yours might be different.
It is not much surprising that that both wide open are similar...
But I need to use F3.5 - 4 on 70-200 II to get the same IQ as 135 @ 2.8. (BTW: The same apply to the 300/2.8 IS I.)
Problem with flare + yellow cast on 135 I have only in direct sun light in the frame or near the frame.
Bokeh: it is hard to tell, but I did not notice any problem with 135/2.8+ vs 70-200/3.5+

27
Lenses / Re: 135L vs 85L vs 70-200L II
« on: January 17, 2013, 07:25:37 AM »
I completely agree. I'm also a wedding photographer, with a simular range of lenses. My opinion of the 135L is that it's a prime equvilent of a 70-200/2.8. It's a bit brighter, a bit lighter, lacks IS but is equal in IQ. It can melt backgrounds just as easier, although with a little less working distance. It's less obtrusive too. Most 70-200mm lenses are closer to 135mm at their min focus distance and the focal difference is usually less than the figures say in real world use. Although I take my 70-200 for wedding receptions, I rarely use it. I really prefer using my 85L or 135L.
These days there is more choice in the Canon range. The 100mm L IS macro and the 135L offer overlapping abilities in terms of focal length and IQ. While the 135L offers simular overlapping abilities with the 70-200. Most natural light photographers would choose a prime over the zoom. But many event photographers would probably choose a zoom over the prime due to its increased versatility.

Unless the OP is engaged in a specific professional need to shoot with both the 85L, 135L and 70-200 then I would suggest sticking to just one in that range. Let's face it, it's expensive kit and very simular in function and there are better things to spend money on...like a second camera body.
There is no way 70-200 II at 135@2.8 = IQ of 135/2@2.8.
I own both (+85/1.4, 200/2) and all those primes render better contrast and sharpness across the frame...

28
Lenses / Re: 135L vs 85L vs 70-200L II
« on: January 16, 2013, 05:48:28 PM »
I never had much problem with the 85L II on the 5D II if I only used the center point for single shot.  Using the outer points usually returned blurred images.  But yes, the 5D III's focus accuracy makes it much more of a joy to use.

I find the 85L and the 70-200 II to be a good combination and that the 135 to be close to the 70-200.  The 135 has a 1 stop advantage and is smaller, but usually the 70-200's zoom versatility trumps those advantages.
135 delivers far better contrast and sharpness.

29
Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II
« on: January 16, 2013, 07:50:26 AM »

Without reading the review, just give me this lens and 24-70 f2.8 II on FF...........I'm done :-X

No need to carry: 24L, 35L, 50L, 85L, 135L, and 200L
Do you care about IQ?
70-200 II is not able to replace 85/135/200Ls in many situations...

30
Lenses / Re: January 8, 2013 Announcements?
« on: January 04, 2013, 01:41:27 PM »
Not really. The 35L is just fine.
It is better if Canon fill the holes in their lineup, before upgrading an already great lens like the 35L.

I have to disagree.  Based on TDP's ISO 12233 charts, the new 35mm f/2 IS is sharper than the current 35L with both shot wide open, right out into the corners.   I'd like a refreshed 35/1.4L with improved optics (sharper than a lens that costs half as much would be nice), and weather sealing. 

As I've stated before, every L-series prime of 100mm and shorter has been updated or newly released in the last 6 years...every one except the 35L.  It's overdue...
I have to disagree - 34L is quite OK and there are other primes needing refresh more.
+ I do not see any reason to compare wide open lenses - why don't you protest that 50/2.5 wide open is visibly better across whole frame than 50L wide open?

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 6