October 21, 2014, 09:02:04 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 5 ... 9
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...

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


sigma 35mm @ f1.4

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


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

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...

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


Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II
« on: August 03, 2013, 08:31:01 PM »
I switched from crop (10-22 canon)  to FF ... w/16-35 II and saw a fair bit of improvement....
loved this lens on the 1DIII ...

I finally got the 14L II which has a lot less distortion full-wide ... but a lot more fringing / CA ...
(mostly correctable)

but I COULD NOT sell the 16-35 II...just too useful...mine is clean and sharp

I find the 16-35 and a 100L macro  make a nice walk-around pair...so capable
(I sometimes bring the 14L and sig 35 with the 100L or 135L  as an alternative setup)

the review was nicely done ...not a techy review..
but I must say some very nice shooting examples...
really showing what the lens can do...within a short report

the 24-105 is a nice lens and meets most needs...as a one lens kit
but 24mm ...never seems to be quite wide enough....

so .. 16-35 is ....a good lens to have for FF shooters
it really is the way to go for FF wide - IMO

just my thoughts ...thanks for a good look at it

I find this site pretty useful.....

Lenses / Re: 85L or 135L?
« on: August 01, 2013, 07:28:46 PM »
earlier I said  ...with a few details...
that you could get the 135L AND a Sigma 35mm f1.4  ...... for the price of the 85L II (which I do love...)
well if you got the Canon 135 f2 USED  you could get.............................

a USED 135 f2, - beautiful with good reach and extendable to 190 with a 1.4x TC
a new Sigma 35 f1.4 - top of the performance heap
...and a used 85 f1.8  - a close performer-competitor of 85L f1.2...faster to focus

...all for  the price of a NEW 85 f1.2L II ......
close enough in price .... to call an even exchange... IMO

three lenses 35, 85 and 135...
fast, famous, well-performing glass
covering a wide and popular range...

I can speak for all the lenses except the 85 non-L ...just relying on comments and test results

what I say again is that the 85 L  is wonderful but too spendy and specialized - IMO - when compared to some great high-performing alternative sets of lenses


all that said ....and re-reading BECKSTORY post...  MONEY ASIDE

I say
just add the ....ethereal, magical.... 85mm f1.2L II  .....  and end this quest....

it is different.... the others are NOT of the same planet...
I know you waited for this to finally get said....

I like the 85L wideopen or .....usually below f1.4..
there..... it is special.... and there it .... welcomes the companionship of Sigma 35 f1.4....
others stay at home that day............... ok maybe the 14L sneaks a ride ....

but in the weak light........ those two rule IMO

you have to get out just before sunrise ...in a city.....to see what I mean


Lenses / Re: Wide angle lens' for crop sensor camera
« on: August 01, 2013, 09:17:32 AM »
agree with neuro here..,,
I have not tried Tokina 11-16 ...but Canon 10-22 is a good performer...
solid build

It should come as kit lens on crop body  -  IMO

I sold mine for $700 after yrs of use ...more than I paid new..
they are avail used...just check out to insure it is optically right...

usually less than $700
refurbished from canon would be ideal

I went from crop body to 5D2...
the 10-22 was last lens sold before the crop body (50D)

as the wide end on a cropper, the 10-22 (becomes 16-35mm) prepares you for a lot of options
to cover useful range...
...the 24-70/105 zooms fit right in..
I liked carrying the macro/ 10-22 as a 2 lens kit....

16-35 II replaced the 10-22 on FF.. same basic framing... a little better than 10-22..
then got 14 L II
still have the 16-35 II .. too useful to give up

resale of 10-22 is solid too..
as I said TOKINA might be good too...did not try it..heard good things

just my opinion


Lenses / Re: Wide Angle lens for my 6D
« on: July 24, 2013, 04:17:19 PM »
IFF ...
you had a 16-35 II..
you could take the 100 macro and be done....

that would get in at ABOUT the $1000 level

I hate to say it
the 14L II, 35 sigma and the 100 macro would be lovely for travel...meet all the normal needs

that is at least $2500 put into the 14mm and 35mm  lens... selling the 24-105 nets  $650+
gets you down to ~ $850 short  past the $1000 limit

you could just get the 35mm siggy and accept 24mm as widest...

I believe a traveler should have a very good f1.4 to f2 lens ...near the normal range.. for clubs etc....
...more important than LONG.....  IMO

travel safe


Software & Accessories / Re: PC Monitor for photo editing
« on: July 23, 2013, 04:17:36 PM »

So what is the price difference between the 24" -27" and 30"?
This new monitor will sit alongside my current 23" Samsung monitor on what is a decent size desk but going any bigger than 24" might not be a good idea for me.

yes yes
there is some logic to staying at/near 24"...with two mons
keep that thought...

a very large ......and a medium mon  dont mix well in the dual mon setup

I believe the NEW dell 30" was about $1100, the 27 dell at that time was $750-800 I think...
and whatever the newest 24" is ...it is way cheaper / even with IPS and better qual/features...

having 2 mons.... seems logical to have two (about) the same size..
I left that place and just went for one large one..
gave my girlfriend the old 24"
and I missed it after 5 mins....it was a great bit of hardware...lasting thru 3 CPUs

maybe the newest / (researched) ...best.... 24" dell is  ...an inexpensive and good option..
I gave up calibrating mons because I never print and just shoot to see what I have... just for my eyes

but if 'cal' is in the cards ...then that is also a cost...maybe on the 24" for sure
I am not a reference here...

except that DELL was always a very good value... and still seems to be ... 24-30"

just my thought


spend the little leftover $$ or pounds (if any) on a samsung 840 pro ($250) ....256Gig  ssd...ha!
they RIP...

good luck on choices


Software & Accessories / Re: PC Monitor for photo editing
« on: July 22, 2013, 01:39:24 PM »
I had a dell 2412 ...was good enough...

got a dell new 30"
lovely pretty close  un-cal-ed

I HEAR the new 2413  stuff is good

stretch for the 30" if you can

really nice to have some space

wow the zeiss is NEARLY as good in the corners ....as the center....
but I need autofocus...please

I love my 135 f2 Canon...
but then
I loved my 35L and sold it
and now use a much better performing lens ...the Sigma 35 1.4

my sigma 35 is sharp wideopen.... corners are pretty good..
but nuttin like  LensRental's Zeiss test .........yikes!

Siggy made a nice f1.8 zoom that is well thought of...

I am ready for Sigma's f1.8 OS 85mm lens.....
(by the way I agree with comments that is will cost around $1300...a fair price IMO)
and if they even come close to zeiss corners....
Canon will need to call an emergency board meeting...to discuss Sigma versus Canon
(they should have done this yrs ago)

Canon STILL owes us their 35L II ...that THEY PULLED..... JUST as the Sigma 35 was released
this is ....waiting....waiting.....waiting.....hello?.........anyone home there?

just my observations


Lenses / Re: Move from 24-70 f/2.8L Mk I to 35mm F/1.4?
« on: July 18, 2013, 04:28:29 PM »
I'm considering selling my 24-70 f/2.8L MkI because it has gone practically unused since I got the 24-105 F/4L IS.

Now I'm considering getting a 35mm f/1.4 instead - either the Sigma or the Canon. At the moment I think I would prefer the Canon eventhough I've good experience with my Sigma 50 mm f/1.4.

I know these 35mm lenses have been discussed to death but now that for most people the initial love affair with the Sigma is probably over, I'd like to hear your *real world* thoughts on the matter of choosing between these two. Maybe you've had to make this choice yourself or even owned both lenses.

I know about the lab test data but prefer to hear from you some real world comparisons. These include portability, reliability, subjective quality etc etc. So please, your (subjective) opinions.

 for me I choose the sigma
I HAD a 35L ...it was a good copy..
with the fringing and moderate sharpness wide open

I liked using it along with the 135L
because I ONLY carried the 135L hood...[EDIT:  doh!... I got that backwards -I used 35 hood on 135]
which fit onto the 35L and gave SOME coverage and protection..kept the kit small
my point is they were a nice couple

so then I HEARD Canon was coming with the 35L II..
so I sold the 35L I and got good, solid, market price for it...

THEN I relented and tried the sigma
(*while waiting for Canon to get their 35L II act together)
of course Canon was apparently 'spooked' by the sigma quality.... and did NOT issue their (I bet underdesigned) 35L II

I would say the sigma is one of my best , reliably performing lenses so far...compared to...
MY ...70-200 f4 I.S., f2.8 II, 85L II, 135L, 24L I,   original 100mm macro AND 100L macro, 16-35L II
reliable,  accurate focus   sort by best first...
100L, 85L II (yes very good), 70-200 II, 70-200 f4, 16-35 II and last ...24L I .. just a bit temperamental

the siggy is sharp wide open, has good.... to pretty good.... bokeh quality, accurate and sharp shots every time......even distant subjects @ 1.4 gave sharp subject and a little blur in background....accurate!!
a better lens (for me) than a 50mm

I say.... if you could trade the old 24-70 for this siggy 35 performance...
it would be a great trade..
I have a 24-105 and cant get myself to get the 24-70 II...when I still have a 35sigma 1.4 to use

just my thoughts....
having / still having .....some very good lenses

I take the 14L II, 35 sig, 135L.....OR 100L.....   as a 3-lens kit... which does all that I need

that's my thought on the matter
I hold the sig 35 as tightly as the 135L when I bring them both...

Canon needs to get over the embarrassment and give us a 35L II   that is world tops quality
35/50mmm range....
I will buy it  on the spot

just my tried and tested opinion

I had a 30mm sigma on a crop body...yrs ago...and it was nice when I got accurate focus
which was...... usually... at best
BUT THIS 35 1.4 sigma  is a different animal....
on a 5D3 (which improved accuracy on ALL my canon lenses)
it nails  - wide open or stopped down  - the focus ......always

just note this fact in your decision

Software & Accessories / Re: Normal RAW vs Dual ISO Raw Example Video
« on: July 17, 2013, 11:12:33 AM »
cleaned up the shadow noise quite a bit.....

so....when does this ship to walmart?

Lenses / Re: Help Me Build My Lens Stable!
« on: July 16, 2013, 11:16:01 AM »
I also highly recommend the 35L.
Awesome on a FF- Body.

Plenty of people are actually selling their 35L copies to purchase the new 35mm Sigma. I would highly recommend the Sigma instead of the 35L.

35mm is really great. I don't know why people prefer a 24mm lens when with the 35mm you actually place people in other spots than the middle. With a 24mm people will already start to turn into mutants.

yes I sold my 35L which was a good sharp copy..
the Sigma 35 1.4 is sharper wideopen than the Canon @ f2 or f2.8....

and cleaner too

and 35mm is - IMO - a more useful range than 50mm

so there you have a fast lens that is usable wide open.....
(delivers most of its sharpness / quality wideopen)

the 135 is also usable wideopen

16-35 II and 70-200 f4 I.S covers the rest of the needs...maybe a macro if you want that

my fav set is 14L II, 35 sig, 135L f2

seems all you really need to add ... to your list...is the sig 35 1.4.

my opinion


DoF ~ focal length * aperture * subject distance
If you want to shoot the same picture using the same lens with both FF and crop sensor cameras, you need to be closer to the subject with FF camera to get the same framing and that's the only difference.

this is really it... good simple explanation...
 and badgepiper added  a bit more....

to get the same framing ...in the result.....you move closer on FF...
and closer....shrinks the DOF...
in basic terms...

this is all you need to keep in mind .....IMO....

Lenses / Re: 50mm Primes that don't suck wide open?
« on: July 11, 2013, 04:13:09 PM »
In preparation for my upgrade to a 5d3 (from a 60D) later this year I'm trying to compile a list of potential prime lenses to get between the 35 and 100mm range. I've already got a 24-105L and will sell my non-L 70-300 to get the L version. Also have a 50mm 1.8 so I'll need to get a 85 1.8 to get my portrait capability back.

Then the question remains: Do I keep the little plastic toy (which never use wider than 2.8 anyways) or just get a pancake (which is actually pretty usable wide open, vignetting aside)? Do I even need a 50? I know the 50mm 1.4 isn't great wide open either and has fragility issues but at least it'll work with the automatic CA corrections in the 5d3 (I shoot RAW+jpeg). The sigma 50 1.4 is...really big for a 50mm prime, has AF quality control issues and won't work with auto CA corrections. Rumor mill has it that the sigma 50 is due for a rebody to the "art" line they've got going now but probably won't get an optics refresh... Oh yeah, the 50mm 1.2 is a no thanks I'll keep the money. Everything 50mm seems to be a compromise and you'd think after so many decades of people using such a prolific "normal" lens the designers would have perfected the formulas by now.

Do I even need a 50?

I have the 50 1.8 ...ok in a  pinch I suppose...

but.....NO ....skip the 50mm.....I never found one  that I liked

get the sigma 35 f1.4 ...
this is a VERY good 'normal' lens..
it is just GREAT wide open
sharper than most other lenses ...wide open
clean...from most aberrations..

I just went for a walk with what I think is essential......
an ultrawide 14L II (or choose a 16-35 II)
a sigma 35 1.4....really good value and sharp...and it pops the shots....
and a 100mmL macro (or choose the 135 f2)

add a 12mm tube and a 1.4x TC (a tamron fits the macro or the 135L)  - especially with the 135L ,

and insert your .... 5D3

love it all

I have the 24-105 (nice lens) if I only want ONE lens.... it never fails to please....24mm is pretty wide already
and....I also have a few specialty lenses ...85L II, 70-200 f4 I.S., 70-200 f2.8 II.... 24L (mk 1)

but the three basic lenses (100L versus 135L ...you decide)
are enough to do the typical stuff...

start there


Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 9