April 18, 2014, 05:09:36 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 - JVLphoto

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 15
31
Reviews / Re: Review - Canon 85mm f/1.8
« on: January 06, 2014, 10:52:53 AM »
clartephoto, more great shots, thanks for sharing.  It's nice to have you on CR.

The guy in the review can say that his images with the 1.2 are more magical... OK.. thanks. I wonder how one would quantify that. Could it be that when one drops $2,200 on a lens that they feel obligated to feel it is full of magic?
Have you used the 1.2?  If not, how can you say he's right or wrong?

No I have not used the 1.2. He is the one reviewing, how can he prove himself correct? What does "magical" mean? It is a meaningless statement and therefore completely unhelpful as a "review." It would make a lovely Tweet though...

Quote
The 1.2 lets in more light for sure, I'm not convinced it is sharper, and if focuses slower.

I don't mean to be rude but this is one of the least helpful reviews I've ever seen on a reputable camera website.
LOL back at you - the old "I don't mean to be rude" preceding the rude statement.  Saying that doesn't make it any less rude.

I'm sorry you were offended, perhaps it was rude of someone to call this article a review...

Good thing you can find over 100,000 meaningless statements over on my twitter feed! https://twitter.com/justinvl

And I'm not going to debate about what is and isn't rude, that'll probably lead to how you were raised and it's best not to go there.

Also, 85's are the perfect focal length for a bit of free-lensing!


32
Reviews / Re: Review - Canon 85mm f/1.8
« on: January 06, 2014, 10:46:45 AM »


I was hoping your "LOL's" were because those cons were mostly jokes (sarcasm) but I see it was lost on you. No problem, you're right in your observations and I certainly *don't* think the 85 1.2 is worth the extra money (I haven't bought one) but I do compare the two because focal length is an obvious comparison tool. I did mention I compare it more in line with the 50 1.4, 40 2.8 and other "like-class" lenses.




I don't know what your copy of the 50 1.4 is but my 85 1.8 makes my 50 look like it is constantly out of focus. They have similar chromatic issues though.


My 50 performs great f/2.0 and onwards, where the 85 definitely was sharper opened up at 1.8. I also use a lens hood with my 50 but didn't have one for the 85 which would make a difference in some situations. The 50 is such a well used lens from so many you'll definitely find mixed feelings towards it in the forums on my "review" of it (or article, don't know how you feel about it so I'm treading lightly with my phrasing) http://www.canonrumors.com/reviews/review-canon-ef-50mm-f1-4/

I'm also sorry you don't have enough magic in your life to be unable to understand it as a quantifiable statement, while I agree it's not a technical achievement that can be measured it seemed an apt description of the "feeling" I got out of the images produced between the two lenses, like love, but I wouldn't want to compare the feeling I get for my wife to that of a lens. Hopefully some day you'll feel the same about something  :'(

33
Reviews / Re: Canon 85mm f/1.8
« on: January 02, 2014, 11:16:26 AM »
Personally, I like the background to be smoothly blurred, but not wiped out entirely.  I'll offer some examples for your entertainment:

Looking good and yeah, nice and sharp. It's definitely a great lens (especially for the price).

34
Reviews / Re: Review - Canon 85mm f/1.8
« on: January 02, 2014, 10:54:03 AM »
clartephoto, more great shots, thanks for sharing.  It's nice to have you on CR.

The guy in the review can say that his images with the 1.2 are more magical... OK.. thanks. I wonder how one would quantify that. Could it be that when one drops $2,200 on a lens that they feel obligated to feel it is full of magic?
Have you used the 1.2?  If not, how can you say he's right or wrong?

The 1.2 lets in more light for sure, I'm not convinced it is sharper, and if focuses slower.

I don't mean to be rude but this is one of the least helpful reviews I've ever seen on a reputable camera website.
LOL back at you - the old "I don't mean to be rude" preceding the rude statement.  Saying that doesn't make it any less rude.

Ha ha - WORD!

35
Reviews / Re: Review - Canon 85mm f/1.8
« on: January 02, 2014, 10:53:26 AM »
The 85 f/1.8 is a very solid lens but the 85 f/1.2 is a distinct step up

Many of you guys above are quite adamant you can't see a difference in shots from the 85 f/1.2 vs the 85 f/1.8 for the samples provided so far  - below are some shots I have taken on the f/1.2 which in my opinion just can't be replicated using the 85 f/1.8 (but I accept I may be wrong, so very happy to be proven incorrect):

"Step Up" vs. step... different? I think people need to evaluate what they need. If it's fast or good AF then the 1.2 isn't a step up at all. But I do agree with you, as I wrote, there's something in the files right out of camera with the 1.2 that I couldn't compare to the 1.8 (trust me, I tried).

Great shots.

36
Reviews / Re: Review - Canon 85mm f/1.8
« on: January 02, 2014, 10:50:55 AM »
I have to LOL at this review.

I just purchased this lens for $319 at B&H. I shoot with a 5D3, 70-200 2.8L, 24-105L, and a 50 1.4. My verdict on this lens? It is brilliant.

I don't expect it to match a lens that costs nearly SEVEN TIMES AS MUCH. The fact that there is so much debate on this subject tells me I'm not just drinking the koolaid the lens it truly brilliant.

The guy in the review can say that his images with the 1.2 are more magical... OK.. thanks. I wonder how one would quantify that. Could it be that when one drops $2,200 on a lens that they feel obligated to feel it is full of magic?

The 1.2 lets in more light for sure, I'm not convinced it is sharper, and if focuses slower.

As the reviewer put it the only cons to the 1.8 are no hood included and it doesn't have a red ring on it. I've got two red rings, one is brilliant the other is OK (guess which? lol). I'm not sure I have thought about the ring on either of them in more than a passing way ever.

I don't mean to be rude but this is one of the least helpful reviews I've ever seen on a reputable camera website.

I was hoping your "LOL's" were because those cons were mostly jokes (sarcasm) but I see it was lost on you. No problem, you're right in your observations and I certainly *don't* think the 85 1.2 is worth the extra money (I haven't bought one) but I do compare the two because focal length is an obvious comparison tool. I did mention I compare it more in line with the 50 1.4, 40 2.8 and other "like-class" lenses.

And hey, thanks for not meaning to be rude.

37
Reviews / Re: Review - Canon 85mm f/1.8
« on: December 30, 2013, 12:01:04 PM »
Nice to see a review of my favorite lens by my favorite reviewer!

I'd have to say his observations match mine regarding performance at various apertures, fast autofocus, light weight, etc...

The funny thing about this lens is how people always compare this great all around portrait lens to it's very specialized 1.2 L cousin.  Rather than a technical comparison, we end up discussing feelings, intagibles, magic and other vague things.

I have no doubt that under some conditions, the L version will give more contrast and more saturated colors.  (I have the 135 L and that is certainly a good example of the L effect.)

The thing is... in Lightroom, I have sliders for saturation, clarity and sharpness that will give me any look I want.  I can make images from the light, cheap 85 look just like the ones from the heavy, expensive 85, for all practical purposes.

So in my mind, the only advantage of the L lens is the 1.2 aperture.  Would I use that if I had it?  Considering that I normally use my 85 around F/2.5, I'd say not.

What we are really seeing here, in my opinion, is a victory for the Canon marketing department.  Many photographers buy the 85 L as a prestige symbol and very few of them really use it to any advantage that could not be more easily and cheaply accomplished with the 85 F/1.8.   Or the 135 L, if your goal is to wipe out the background and create dreamy bokeh.

I think this review is a good example of how most people think about these two lenses.  They can tell the 1.8 is a nice, useful, practical lens, but they are just sure that the extreme price of the 1.2 L and the magic red ring must symbolize something very important.

Your mileage will certainly vary!  :)

Yeah, I kept going back to my (in focus) images from the 1.2 being like "ooooh that's really nice" and while I had some good photos with the 1.8 they just weren't as much of a hit. Same difference between the 50 1.2 & 1.4 in my opinion.  There IS something there, maybe even un-quantifiable, but it will almost certainly cost you that much more for a marginal quantifiable difference... and not necessarily "improvement," but aesthetic difference which is really what this is all about right?

38
Reviews / Re: Review - Canon 85mm f/1.8
« on: December 30, 2013, 11:55:24 AM »
lol - perfect Rey, from someone who's used all of these lenses more than I have.

39
Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 24-70 f/4L IS
« on: December 30, 2013, 09:43:03 AM »
I really think Canon should have improved the 24-105 f4 L and left this one on the shelf. The only appeal of the range is if you have a 2.8. At this price I would rather invest in the Tamron 24-70 f2.8.

Yeah, and with the Sigma 24-105 out now receiving excellent reviews I see the place for this lens a little less. *except* for how compact it is.

40
I have a dozen stands, none of them are the same. If a C-stand is out of your price range and/or too heavy, the 420 combi boom is excellent. There's also a steel base version that I'd recommend if you can handle a bit more weight since it *might* negate the need of a sandbag in some scenarios (though I still recommend one).

If you're going to put three flashes on there you may also want to consider a counter-weight. Either a small sandbag, or one of these small weights: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/5194-REG/Manfrotto_172_172_Counter_Balance_Weight.html helps to off-set the balance of the heavy flashes with all their batteries.

41
Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 24-70 f/4L IS
« on: December 11, 2013, 08:12:27 PM »
The Canon 24-70 f4 L IS seems to be treated like the red headed stepchild on the internet. It's not easy to be the little brother to the Canon 24-70 F2.8 II lens. I first borrowed 24-70 F4 lens for a 2 week trip to Glacier National Park. The lens was superb on my 5D3.  Easy to hike with and IS. I liked it so much that I bought one when I got home. On the 2 copies that I have used of this lens, both have been very sharp, fast accurate AF and great IS.
 I have used the  Canon 24-70 F2.8 II and IMO the 24-70 F4 gives up little in IQ to his bigger brother.
I have found in my use of this lens that the 50mm focal point is quite contrary to popular opinion on the interenet, the 2 copies of this lens that I have used were/are very sharp.
This Canon 24-70 F4 L IS plus my Canon 70-200 F2.8 II make for a superb combination. Same filter size. Both have Canon's newest IS. Superb image quality and sharpness.
If you don't really need the f2.8 aperature and want IS, this is a lens you really should try.
The much loved Canon 24-105 of course is another option to consider, especially given the price of it now. I chose the Canon 24-70 F4 over the 24-105 for it's much better handling of distortion at 24mm and upgraded IS.
I dont miss the extra reach of the 24-105 because I carry the 70-200 for that. That's my real world review of this lens.

Perfect. Thanks!

42
Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x
« on: November 26, 2013, 03:59:27 PM »
In a foolish effort to re-open discussion on the Canon EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x LENS here are a few more images... including sports and wildlife :-P


43
Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x
« on: November 26, 2013, 03:35:02 PM »
Indeed.  I do feel my Ferrari clarification was not really out of bounds, though.  And your review of the 17-40 was different...it was a subjective review of a product that had been out a very long time (it had been "over-reviewed", many many verdicts were already in...your review was a little like seriously listening to a 10 year old newbie to Shakespeare, lecture a long time stage director about his technique and about the writer's intent.  Not saying you are a newbie to the 17-40 lens, I'm saying your review had that effect, when compared to everything the world has had a decade to say about the 17-40.). 

But subjectively reviewing a newer, and unique supertelephoto lens like the 200-400, is more appropriate, in my opinion.  Fewer people have experienced one for themselves (far fewer!).  I like your secondary shots you posted here better than many you posted in the review, also.  Anytime you can get a girl in a pool to fling water off her hair is a good day!  And no offense, but frankly I can write better than you can, Justin, so it should be me reviewing all these lenses!  (You might be a better photographer than me, though...hard to say).  But either way, I'm not gonna move to the great white north, ever, so I guess I'm out!

"And no offense, but frankly I can write better than you can, Justin, so it should be me reviewing all these lenses!  (You might be a better photographer than me, though...hard to say). "

I really wish you guys would stop saying "no offense" before all the offensive things you say, how about just say something offensive and own it?  Also, I write in Canadian, which is probably harder for you to read because of the translation.

44
Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x
« on: November 26, 2013, 08:02:10 AM »
I'll dive back into this one :o and I promise not to be sarcastic. Really.

Justin, we can't take your review seriously because you have talent and are a full-time working photographer.  You didn't shoot any test charts, don't shoot for National Geo or SI, and you must be foolish with your finances if you can't afford a $12k lens.  Seriously, being a photographer just isn't enough.

What we need is someone who thinks that $12k is their child's weekly allowance, who shoots 2x a year (on safari) but owns every Canon lens ever made and has at least 500k followers on Twitter.  This person also needs to shoot newspapers, brick walls, and everything else that no one shoots in real life.  Ideally the review will also include 3 of the best shots he or she has ever taken in their life because let's face it, if you can't do that during the month you have the lens, you're not much of a reviewer.  Bonus points if the reviewer  has made over 100,000 posts on CR ;)

Okay, in all seriousness, if people want to read reviews of this lens wildlife and sports photogs, there's Arthur Morris, Richard Bernabe, Peter Read Miller, etc. who have posted reviews or insights about the lens (see links below).  Justin has never pretended to be anything other than what he is and from what I can tell, most of us would love to have half his talent and work as a full-time photographer.  While his reviews may not be from the perspective you want, they are honest and I like that they are from someone who isn't an obvious user.

As for the Ferrari comment, I own a sports car (German, not Italian) but consider dropping $12k pretty serious money all the same.

http://www.richardbernabe.com/blog/2013/11/24/canon-ef-200-400mm-f4l-is-usm-extender-1-4x-lens-review/
http://www.birdsasart-blog.com/2013/11/23/having-a-blast-at-bosque-with-the-canon-200-400-with-internal-extender/
http://pixsylated.com/blog/peter-read-miller-canon-200-400mm-london-olympics/


This made me smile, and those links are excellent resources. Thanks!

45
Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x
« on: November 25, 2013, 08:08:32 AM »
The Canon1 person seems to have taken a similar approach at criticizing Justin's review, to how I reacted to his review of the 17-40.  The difference being no one else seems to have attempted to climb up Canon1's backside, like they did mine!

There's already a quite nice thread about this lens on CR, mostly by people who seem to own the lens.

As for comparing owning this lens to owning a Ferrari...I disagree.  For one thing, most Ferrari models are priced very high above what many who would buy a $13k lens, could either afford, or justify spending (or have the desire to spend).  For another thing, there are a few older Ferrari models on the used market that don't cost much more than this lens.  So it mostly depends on which Ferrari you're talking about.  Certainly the new ones are pricey!  And then there are those collectible ones that even Bill Gates might think twice before bidding on!

Yeah, where are those Canon fanboys when you need 'em? :)

As for the Ferrari, I'm just saying some items, value-wise, are far beyond what most people are capable of affording if they "need it" for work or not. For some people, the value of this lens outweighs their net annual income. I'm expressing the difficulty in "reviewing" or even quantifying a purchase that is so far outside of my income bracket that I have nothing to compare it to. We can both agree the prospect of buying a car *or* a Camera lens is certainly a big decision.

But, as Canon1 said, the more time I take with it and others like it surely I must improve right? And, in the end, my reviews are highly subjective opinion pieces more than quantitative evaluations with MTF charts and sharpness spectrometers. It's why we're able to disagree on the 17-40... there's no wrong answer, just "right for you."

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 15