September 17, 2014, 08:01:37 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 - TommyLee

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 9
16
Lenses / Re: Best 35mm wide open????
« on: September 26, 2013, 12:29:42 AM »

[/quote]

When it comes to bokeh, I find PZ to be pretty useless. I do not find their sharpness charts much useful either.

I own the 35L. Tell me what you want me to prove to you - that it has great bokeh, or that it has poor one. I can prove both with examples.
[/quote]

Pi
this is such an accurate comment...thanks for summarizing all this in such a short statement......

yes...we start with some superb equipment....but then....
I am sure a lens' owner is responsible for SOME of the blur quality...by selecting what works in the background.....  it must be a lot like getting a good sound out of a musical instrument...all these variables.... distance, repeating objects, different size objects, light angles...

that is part of the mystery...ain't it grand?

IMO

17
Abstract / Re: Beautiful bokeh! Let me see yours!
« on: September 23, 2013, 11:42:55 PM »
Here's one of my favorites.


PERFECT................
in all ways

18
Lenses / Re: Best 35mm wide open????
« on: September 23, 2013, 11:29:03 PM »
Nice Photo!
[/quote]

thanks.... MonteGraham
I like these people...and this shot
my daughter, her mother ...my replacement - NewDad - ha!..
all very nice folks....
I -old dad- had just been fed by NewDad.... a master Chef...

this 35 Sigma is PERFECT for these liv room shots... I just love it for that....

sometimes it is as good (bokeh) as the 135 / 85....

but the king is the 85 for sure...it solves all lo light problems...

I swear the 35 bokeh CAN BE very smooth....
sometimes it is awful with leaves ...repeating small stuff..etc

thre lenses ......  14L, 35 Sigma, 85L II = case closed
IMO

19
Lenses / Re: Best 35mm wide open????
« on: September 23, 2013, 11:45:20 AM »
Optically, the Sigma looks very good, and the bokeh is excellent.
There is a reason I warned against making generalizations from one comparison only. Here is an example of less than excellent bokeh:



You must have used a lens extensively to know its weak and strong sides. The bokeh performance can really surprise you in many situations.

the sigma 35 CAN get busy...and  not handle busy backgrounds as well ...as ...say the 85L II,  but this shot below is ALSO how well it can do....  you have to be careful with any lens if you are shooting for bokeh..

here I see
smooth and nearly identifiable secondary figures...smooth transitions...all judgement of course

love mine

20
Lenses / Re: Best 35mm wide open????
« on: September 22, 2013, 08:39:17 PM »
clearly for me the 35 sig is waayy better than my 35L (was)...
I sold the 35L BEFORE the sigma...and loved that canon a lot...

then I tasted a  ...   sharp-wide-open....  lens with little fringing/CA.....the sigma...

now I am really spoiled...

used my 24mm f1.4 mk I last night and ...uh ...I forgot how weak  it can be  wideopen...
nice but ..it ain't a sigma 35 class of lens....  I did try the 24L II and it was a bit better on a few rentals....
but not like this sigma is....

if the sigma 24 rumor is true...I will try that one too

I might add if CANON finally redesigns / releases the 35 II ...they DID NOT release (when they saw the new sigma) ...if it is better - I will get it...

I await Canon's move on this

TOM

21
Lenses / Re: 14mm mk2 or 16-35 mk2?
« on: September 22, 2013, 08:31:39 PM »
I had the 16-35 II for a few yrs ...and rented the 14L II twice..
finally I bought it...
I love it...

kept the 16-35...but use it less...

with the 14L II, sigma 35  and Canon 85L II ...I find that I like those primes....
even though the zoom is still nice....and usefull

14 has more CA/fringing, not as good bokeh qual (IMO)  but 14 is sharper all over ...especially edges... and very low distortion...   2mm is a LOT....

I doubt I can sell the 16-35 unless I decide to get down to 3 lenses or so...

...I keep the 24-105 for a very good general purpose walkaround....

I find I am not using my 70-200 II much... but my  activity is changed lately...good optic

so for ME the 14L  is the wide extension of a kit ...or the 135L is the long extension of a kit (leaving out the 70-200

again I love my 14L and walk around with just this ...or maybe a 35 sig or a 100macro as a second lens...

TOM

22
Lenses / Re: Canon 16-35 II f/2.8L AND/OR Canon 14mm II f/2.8
« on: September 20, 2013, 02:55:46 PM »
I have the 16-35 II ...got it first... a very nice lens
and
the 14L II had about 1-2 yrs...
also have the 70-200 II ...do NOT have the 24-70 ...have 24-105


MY PLAN was to have the 14L as a wide end of 24-70 II + 70 200 II
and also use 14L +35 Sigma + 85L II + 135L  as prime set

I could not bring myself to sell the 16-35 II because it was pretty useful in a two lens set...
like 16-35 + 100L macro...

now the compares
-  14L a fair bit sharper and a lot less distortion than 16-35

-  I believe the 16-35 bokeh quality is slightly better than the 14L

-  14L has more CA / fringing than 16-35

-  14L just has a better quality result (when you remove the fringing in LR / DPP)

-  14L  is small / compact....compared to 16-35  one fav feature for ME
....  the blasted 16-35 hood NEVER fits when I need it to....

-  14mm is a LOT wider /able ...  I wanted that...but as said it is more a specialty lens


.......................

for YOU
you already have zoom  in the 24-70
seems like the 14L fits underneath that lens..
BUT
you seem to be into the usefulness of a zoom ..
I see no primes ....
(me I carry the 14L, sig 35 and 100L/135L as a solid prime solution..I dont see that path in your lenses)

I never fell in love with the new 24-70 because I wanted I.S. on that range....
so I use the 14L below the 24-105 ....and a 135L above....
I use the 70-200 II less and less..and may sell it...(it is a wonderful optic though)

I am happy to carry a 14L 35 siggy and ...'something longer...maybe  a macro ...those 3 do all I NEED
..............or sometimes.... a 70-200 +TC2x... depending on needs)

so my response is the 16-35 is a fine lens .....and MAY get you to sell the 24-70 mkI  lens

I say get the 16-35 ...but make sure it performs... they vary .....

TOM


these 14L shots are a LOT wider , sharper, less distorted and sharp to edges than the 16-35...but that is what I wanted...besides the small lens size



23
I just threw up in my mouth

24
we all have to go sometime

maybe if he was still alive...
you could hook up the Sigma Dock..
and he could walk out...on the dock



25
     Thanks for all the really great responses.  I really appreciate it.  I think I'm gonna go with the 135 so feel free to let me know if anyone would like my 100 2.0 or 200 2.8 II ( corsteiner@aol.com ).  I like primes a lot.  Maybe it's partly due to having one less thing to do (zooming) so as to focus more on everything else.  I think, too, that there's just a different quality to the result, but I'm not experienced enough to say that with total confidence.
     Much appreciated.

good choice...
if you find more light than you thought ...and more $$$ lying around you can do a 70-200 II...
it is great..
but the clean simple solution is feet + 135L + FF(center crosspoints) ...
you will have enough variables past those features....

it will work!!!

I also tried a lot of things in dark jazz clubs..
the 85L II, 135L ,24L  (didnt have sig 35 at the time but it would have been wonderful) 35L

but in the clubs I needed a bit more reach so as not to fall onto the stage (ha)...
THAT is why 135mmm AND f2 .................  WORKS.......
Canon will have a very hard time replacing this 135 f2 lens...
and sigma's (rumored) 135 f1.8 OS will be a crazy new lens ...if it arrives.....

this is why I decided that 14L II,  sig35 1.4 and 135L are a complete kit....
(as if there is such a thing)

TOM

26
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Camera for keen 9 year old.
« on: August 19, 2013, 11:54:13 AM »
Keep an eye on WEX used section, I picked up a 400D body for £79 from them and it looked basically new. It would be a great place to start and to grow from, admittedly once you've added a kit lens it'll be more than £100 but not by much, I've seen the kit lenses go for less than £40

I believe this is right on....................
this sounds ...as close as one could get to the budget and still have real camera control...

an (near) obsolete slr... but enough to try the features ...set things etc....


for sure done  breakdown and 'project'... and get some new cropper or a midrange slr and a good lens....not yet...
as you said.... try the small path FIRST

spoken as a grandfather who would LIKE to see the kids - grandkids get 'hooked'....

they will tell you if they NEED more

TOM

======

I ......ALSO.....discovered my girlfriend did NOT WANT a big camera ...just one in purse...
doh!.....  THAT.....is projecting our vision.... not everyone is a photojournalist-geek

so....go slow...


of course...
IMO

27
option 1:
stick with the 5D3

5D3 + 24-105  + 134 f2

add a... tamron sp-pro 1.4x TC... or Canon 1.4 III......
for the 135 and a set of kenko extension tubes for macro
the VERY next lens would be a sigma 35mm f1.4

finally.... if you want really wide
 a 14L II or something more exotic

the final primes would then be ....14, 35 and 135 ..... IMO ......all needed range  covered
....cept for the very long stuff....
and you already have the 100-400

so option 1....but add the sigma soon


Enjoy

28
Lenses / Re: Best setup for falling stars
« on: August 18, 2013, 08:46:35 PM »
Best set up for falling starts?

You could try the Betty Ford Clinic?


ha ha you beat me to it

FIRST OFF people here have great ideas and pics... wonderful...

on a less serious note
I usually use a 35 f1.4 sigma ..... on Lindsy Lohan...in the clubs....

sorry ......when I saw your post I had to un-restrain myself....

again........... I love the REAL work here

TOM

29
yrs ago I did ballet /rehearsals and the like with 1d3  and 5D2...
this was a dark setting ...i mean poor light and even sometimes natural light but not enough of it
so dark and action  =  f2 NOT f2.8

I also had 100 macro (non L)

the 135 f2 was great on the 5d2 ...the 1d3 was fast but iso limited..
NOW
the 6d with 135 will be just right...
not quite as fast to focus/frame rate.... but plenty on light

I have not used the 100 f2 ..but it is not as good with ITS wide open setting...

my 70-200 f2.8 II...is good but I believe not fast aperture enough....

the 135 and your feet are the solution...chase and frame everything...
just use the center cross point..... I think...
... IN MANUAL......keep the shutter speed up......and let the iso float...auto
? spot meter?... that is up for discussion....

nothing else (ie no other mentioned hardware) will work as well...and be sharp and clean..(cough 100 f2...cough)

 IMO...
but what do I know.....

6d and 135L ...has to rock.... in some way.... for this........

TOM


 

30
Lenses / Re: What lens delivers the strongest background blur?
« on: August 14, 2013, 10:42:56 AM »


Wait till you try the 24mm @ f1.4, get closer with stronger perspective distortion, yet still provides tons of blur. That is why 24 1.4 is special, it offers this effect at widest angle of view in 135 system. :P

yes...it is a fun lens for sure....
I also like flower shots on it....  and when I first got it I went off in that direction for while...

this is my 24 L mk I  .... mine is a sharp copy...but the mk II is sharper and less CA/fringing...
I didn't upgrade my 24L because I didnt use it enough...and the improvements not enough to justify the $$....but mk II is pretty nice

a 24 1.4 (wideopen) in a club or cafe or the street... in the evening... is very fun.

I find the 35 sigma giving canon a run for the money...
I would like to see them beat sigma with their 35L II...



Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 9