December 19, 2014, 01:38:54 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 6 ... 9
46
Software & Accessories / Re: PC Monitor for photo editing
« on: July 22, 2013, 01:39:24 PM »
I had a dell 2412 ...was good enough...
un-cal-ed

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



47
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...

so
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

TOM

48
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
TOM

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














49
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.....
clever

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


50
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.

just
my opinion

TOM

51
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....

so
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....


52
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
I M O

TOM






53
Canon General / Re: Lost inspiration
« on: July 11, 2013, 08:41:48 AM »
I have just moved continent, from Asia back to Europe. We've been home for just about a month now and I have barely touched my camera since. As my identity here indicates photography is a hobby, not my profession. I normally like portraits and street/travel.

Before we moved back I showed my pictures at a local gallery which was great fun, I even sold a few prints. I spent a lot of time preparing that show and shooting and shooting to get enough material. Maybe I got exhausted from that or maybe it is like a journalist friend of my said the other day: 'Transition kills creativity'. Maybe I have higher demands on myself now and am afraid to take bad pictures.

I hope to get it back soon enough though. I just wanted to share this with you guys here. Any thoughts of course are welcome. Do you lose inspiration sometimes? What do you do to get it back?

I thought I had taken ALL the pics of my town......
and rolled to a halt...

I found if I get out for a walk ...re-meet the area...chat up some people...
I see new stuff...

I pushed my creativity out there...by taking  a fast lens (35mm, sig 85L) out in early morn sunrise ... and also an ultrawide angle..14mm......
these make me see more of what I missed in my seeming boredom....

just a thing that helped me

I mean if I was suddenly in Paris it would be easy...but in familiar digs.. you need to look around again

try the early morn thing ..life is happening in a diff way there
...I liked dilbert's idea..above........get a theme...yes that's it..
the am morn thing was a theme for me...get more themes...

then collect the best theme shots in folders and give yourself a show.. to check progress
good luck
TOM


54
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: sigma 120-300 new and old
« on: July 10, 2013, 07:26:40 PM »
ok
thanks....

I sort of thought the new one was ..almost the same... wait for a test..
but the 300mm is a bit short...ok

I really cant see the big prices for the new 200-400 +1.4TC

it is SURELY a fine optic..
but
I can see a couple acres in southern Oregon  a better investment...good grief!
this only because I am not a pro in need of the top thang..

I see it ...if I was

thanks for a little info on the sigma

55
Lenses / Re: Just got my 135L!
« on: July 09, 2013, 08:18:34 PM »
Quote
the 135 [...] has a little better quality bokeh...

This is a huge understatement.


ok  ok....the 135 is wonderful... I like it better than the 85L II....  it is way at the top...I agree
but the macro is good too...
no it does not win the contest....   neither does the 70-200 f4 or f2.8....but they are fairly good...

thanks for NOT letting that slide.....

in my 14L, 35 sig and 100L/135L  triad...... the bokeh on the 14L is ...well ugh... but I dot use it that way.
the sig 35 1.4 is  not perfect, but nice and is so sharp wide open that you forgive a little busyness there...
the 100L macro is pretty good but no prom-queen....
THEN the 135 just coasts on thru....on that set...

yes it is a lovely optic

but I am taking the sigma to the prom.....it is so useful to have so sharp, and clean at the 'normal' range...  sorry Canon...dont miss my 35L anymore



(I dont use 50mm)

56
Lenses / Re: Just got my 135L!
« on: July 09, 2013, 01:58:30 PM »
I was debating purchasing a 135L - actually placed an order for a refurb at a great deal with Canon but later changed my mind and canceled it... reason being that i already own the 100/2.8L and 85/1.8. Reading owners comments on both 135/2L and 100/2.8L it seems like the two are pretty close in terms of image quality but 100/2.8L is more verstile with macro focus ability (135 min focus distance is 3 ft) as well as IS.

Anyone who has owned both could comment on both these? DO you agree the two lenses are pretty similar but with 100 being more verstile?


I have a llot of good lenses..
theh MAIN ones I want to take out..
are the 14L II, 35 sigma and then EITHER the 100L macro or 135L f2..

so to your question ...I have a tough time deciding..
the 135 gives faster aperture...for lo light, takes a 1.4x well  and has a little better quality bokeh...
seems more useful
BUT the 100 L  macro is quite good and if I.S. is needed in the mix...it goes ...instead of the 135

so you see ....it is a toss-up ...unless I.s  versus f2 speed is a decider...

I am a stop and shoot the flowers guy so the macro 'draws more water' with me...
but some days I take the 14L 35 sig and 85L II(or maybe the 135 f2) JUST for lo light, first-sun AM shots..
tha macro has no standing on those moments...

cant lose... just choose

LOVE THIS STUFF..
and I await the NEW SENSOR/focus tech...70D...and then FF
... and these new options with the SAME FREAKIN LENSES....go Canon!!!

I bet
if macro is not so important to you ...then 135 f2 and a 12mm tube is fine...
I.S. is a helper ...not a decider... I suppose

TOM

the real news is..... the sigma 35 1.4 is sharper than any comparable canon ...wide open...
man....I love it....
pair that with a 135 f2, (or 85L II) and you have a serious lo-light kit....add a 14L for some spicy flavor

yum

57
EOS Bodies / Re: So I made the jump to FF - now what?
« on: July 07, 2013, 07:03:14 PM »
not knowing WHAT you like to shoot

but
for me...I have a bunch of lenses..
and I regularly RETHINK what I NEED to do things..

I would say the number one lens used to be my 100mm macro (both versions were owned)
BUT the fav lens is the 35mm sigma f1.4 ...I would skip 50's and get this first
it will define low light shooting .... I am very sure

then...one USE of FF is realizing the wide-angle..
SO... immediately after financial recovery...
get either.. a 14mm II (expensive) or a 16-35 II......(almost as expensive)

finally for a little reach ...either a 135L f2 (with a 12mm tube), or the 100mm macro..

or for bigger reach.... a longer zoom like 70-200 f4  I.S. or f2.8 II... both are the tops...
those zooms get pretty useful for sports/action ...and even portraits...
but I would put that option down lower on the list...

wide...fast normal (35mm) ....and long/fast prime... CARRY-ABLE stuff

all the rest are very specialized ... and IMO... less needed..unless YOU are specialized...
then you NEED THEM

MAYBE 14mm II, 35mm Sigma  and a 70-200 f2.8 (1.4x TC too) if you really want all that reach...

I could see starting with a 35 sigma and the 70-300L as mentioned
as the only two at first .....THEN an ultra - wide as $$ Permit...

I enjoyed / owned a lot of the good lenses but I come back to these limited choices...especially when I have to carry them anywhere

I admit to a 24-105 zoom as a staple..... a very good one... but the 'edge' comes from the primes...IMO

by the way
I dont use a tripod and seldom use a flash.. but weddings and such etc would need the flash

just some samples from the fav lenses

/////////////
6D is supposed to be sensitive...that would really work the sigma 35 f1.4  nice and hard...

enjoy the camera...dont miss 'wide' experiences...

TOM








58
WOW
a lot of work..to manage

thanks for this useful forum


now my most used spot


TOM

59
may I suggest the finest FACE lens-VALUES for canon.........  will be the 35 1.4 sigma...yes a bit wide....
but it gets ....close and is inclusive of the scene...sigma 35 ...better than the canon - I own both
perfect - full quality - wide open if you want or need it.... a crazy good lens... I like it more each day

and 135 f2 canon L...again.... perfect wide open ....beautiful piece
for ...longer and strictly a good face...
----------
maybe 85LII  ....love it to death.......  but more $$

I do not care for the 50L... for any of this...
just my idea


14L II, 35 sig, 135 f2(sub 85L II if you want) ...all you need (one tube and a 1.4x TC for 135)...that's it

tom

2 samples of 35 sig, one each of 135L and 85L
add a 14L II and ....travel-on......

60
Lenses / Re: Is the 16-35 L II worth its price?
« on: June 06, 2013, 04:09:20 AM »
I had the 10-22 canon on crop sensors...loved it

thren got the 16-35 II when I moved to 5D2...
\
loved it.. it was very good...still have it with 5D3...
but I got the 14L II and love it more..

the 16-35 is still useful when I have a small kit ...
like a 16-35 and a 70-200 ...or maybe just with a 100L macro..
the zoom covers toward normal..

but for me if I want the best..I use the 14L II..
fits nicely below the 24-105 (or 24-70 II) ...or just a great prime like the 35 sigma...maybe add a 135 f2L...

14mm is wonderful..
I guess 50% more for that one..

the 16-35 actually has lower chromatics/fringing than the 14L II...this is all correctable
14L sharper...over all...and  to the edges...for sure

is 16-35 worth it ....yes...pay attention to your copy to make sure it is good...
but...it IS worth it - IMO

TOM



Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 9