April 18, 2014, 03:43:51 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 - TommyLee

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 9
16
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

17
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

18
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

19
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



20
I just threw up in my mouth

21
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



22
     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

23
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

24
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

25
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

26
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


 

27
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...



28
Lenses / Re: What lens delivers the strongest background blur?
« on: August 11, 2013, 11:07:24 AM »
I have enjoyed reading this discussion ...and learned a lot...thanks


.......Ok [comparing] a tractor to a lamborghini then.




lamborghini makes a very  nice 4WD tractor

just sayin'

////////////////
those long lenses are nice..... that 200mm f2 shot was especially lovely...


but
I think there is a lot to be said for a moderate wide angle (35mm)  FAST(f1.4) lens that can include
a prime subject ....close up... and yet blur out - but leave recognizable -  a nearby secondary background subject

choose your fav brand.....

I like that compositional effect

this needs  - I think a close focus ability and a secondary subject  not-too-far-away
I think some of the discussion covered this issue




TOM




sigma 35mm @ f1.4

29
Software & Accessories / Re: Canon Close Up Lens and Step-Up rings
« on: August 10, 2013, 09:49:59 AM »
yes they work great...just get the 77mm
( I am not aware of any issues with a very small distance added by the ring...if that concerns you)

I bought the 77mm (largest) 500d
and a few  rings....
77-72,   77-67,  a few others  ... even for the original 58mm-thread, 100mm macro

when I used the 500d more... I left a 72-77 ring on the 135 f2...\
and 67-77 on the 70-200 f4 I.S. .....
.....AND got lens caps in the 77mm size for each

further, I worked out a system to carry the 500d with its own dedicated 77mm lens cap
and left the most used ring (72-77) on the back of the diopter....
and....had a litte case to carry the package...

this kept the  surface pristine/unscratched...EVEN if I had in a pocket for quick use

I used the 500d on the 70-200 II (77mm), 24-105 (77mm) and 135 f2 (72mm)  the most

so when I have a tele lens on, I can reach into my pocket get the 500d - protected by a lens cap AND an adapter ring......
if it is a 77mm tele...I remove the ring ..........if it is a 72mm tele I leave it on and attach to lens

this is how I used to do long walkabouts with the 24-105 ...for example
it really was a useful, quick switch into 'macro'.......
walk thru the 'hoods' shooting houses..... bldgs...
when I saw a nice front garden with bees and such..
grab the 500d from my pocket, and QUICKLY convert the 24-105 to a macro and get some shots..wonderfully efficient...I got so I could do the whole thing without losing eye contact.

this (and a 12mm tube) would make a FF camera + 24-105 into a great travel system... so you can shoot Paris flowers too without carrying a macro lens
/////////

I just took a shot of the typical kit for you ............attached
hope this helps

TOM








30
Lenses / Re: Sigma 24-70 f/2 OS HSM Coming? [CR1]
« on: August 05, 2013, 04:42:50 PM »
I think the new series of Sigma lens are amazing and they are so sharp it is scary!  However not sure if I was the only one experiencing this but after buying the Sigma 35mm 1.4 (their new one) I ended up returning it and taking the older Canon 35mm L 1.4 instead.  While the Canon is less sharp, I was always finding exposure to be weird with the sigma .  With the Canon 35mm however my exposure was always on the notch.

Anyone else experience "exposure" challenge with the new series of sigma lenses?


not me...
sorry you had a bad experience...and your 35L is likely pretty good...however

me
I sold my 35L - actually in anticipation of a coming 35L II...I was not using it as much as I thought..maybe because wide open was not quite 'there'...liked it but was preparing for a coming Zeiss killer....

I did like to use the shorter 35L hood also on the 135L .........made a nice small kit...with just a little lens bag....and they shared filters too......but the CA and sharpness was one notch low...

but then ....Canon ran into the closet and shuddered...(it seems to me) ...with their current, unreleased - 35L II  at the appearance of the sigma 35 1.4...and its loved performance .....so I tried it...

it is a couple clicks off perfect (MAed to my 5D3)...and sharper wideopen than the canon was at f2 or f2.8
solid exposure, colors...very low CA/fringing....almost as fast to focus if not the same...and accurate
(I give credit to the 5D3 there)
if Canon puts OUT their revamped-but-struggling 35L II-b, then I will try it....
of course it will be $2000 or so....ha!

also canon better get busy replacing the 180mm macro with a f2.8 I.S. or maybe f4 I.S ...or I will just relent and dive into Sigma again...

well,
while I am on the subject...the 24-70 f2 rumor (with or without I.S.) may also take some of my money...

/////////
I am glad your 35L pleases you ......mine did not - fully ..... to answer your question

I love Canon but they need to get their board and engineers awakened... 
just how I see it

I recommend the sigma 35 ..... maybe try another one

TOM

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