March 03, 2015, 07:16:50 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 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 16
Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L
« on: September 12, 2013, 06:27:07 PM »
I thoroughly enjoyed the review when I read it the other day, I then also enjoyed the other wide angle recommendations people were offering in the earlier pages of comments. However the pissing match is kind of ridiculous guys.  :P

Thanks, and I agree.  ::)

Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 50mm f/1.4
« on: September 12, 2013, 06:25:39 PM »
I'm going to have to go through my catalogue and look for closer focused images to see if I've had many issues? One of my own handicaps is I'm notoriously bad at manual focusing shallow depth of field, which could mean in those situations I've countered any potential back focus issues by using live view to focus or, and I'm a bit embarrassed to admit this, I sway forward and backwards slightly when in bust mode to get an "average" focus that hopefully works.  :P

Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 50mm f/1.4
« on: September 12, 2013, 06:21:38 PM »
Canon 50mm F1.4 was my first prime lens, and I still have today. It's embarrassing when friends ask me what I think about it ... ??? I reply that I never use the F1.4 aperture, but only from F1.8. :-\ Then they wonder why I have not bought the model F1.8, and I say that only has good image from F2.5, and I say with regret that there is no reliable 50mm, sharp and durable for canon. :( But, the model "L" is not good? ??? I answer that it is good, but only from F1.4, and not worth the price at all. :-[ After hearing my explanation, they look at me with dismay, and I say to try to 40mm, or wait for a decent refresh 50mm. ;)

Ha ha ha, that sums it up pretty well!

Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 50mm f/1.4
« on: September 12, 2013, 06:19:51 PM »
Agree with most of the points, but there is one that is missing: The serious design flaw of the internal focus barrel.  It's very fragile. If you are extended out to infinity, and the lens gets banged at all, you're almost sure to have some problems. You'll find that the lens stops focusing (manual or AF) and the ring will only turn a very short amount. What has happened is that the end of the focus barrel has been bent slightly, and the pin that travels through the guide can't make its way back and forth. It's happened to me. You can try to fix it yourself or pay somebody to do it, but either way you've got problems. 

All that said, this lens has been a workhorse for me. I recommend that everybody have one. Just store it with the focus in the middle, and you should be fine.

Never happened to me but I guess I've been lucky, seems like a lot of people had to service this lens but, fortunately, I haven't (yet).

Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 50mm f/1.4
« on: September 12, 2013, 06:18:21 PM »
The 50 1.8 II is the superior and more reliable lens.

Unless you hate pentagons ;)

Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 50mm f/1.4
« on: September 12, 2013, 06:16:22 PM »
Good, balanced review from Justin as usual!!
For my money...I bought the Sigma f/1.4 for my 5DIII.....(mine focuses just fine...I know some don't)..I think its a better lens than the Canon, but I know that topic is a hornet's nest. Just MY opinion, put my money where my mouth is and enjoy the results, every time.
Now...If Sigma would just make an new ART Series 50mm f/1.4..we may all be happy! (well, almost. LOL!).

I love the images I've seen from the Sigma, colour and contrast to be specific. But it came out when I was still *very* wary of Sigma products and was still plenty happy with my Canon 1.4.

Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 50mm f/1.4
« on: September 12, 2013, 06:12:36 PM »
I always found f/2 to be the sweet spot with this lens and loved it on my crop, but not as much on my full frame.  It always seemed too short for portraits, and too long for much else.  Just not my favorite focal length, to the point of selling my 50 f/1.2 recently.

I can't remember if I asked this after the 50 f/1.2 review, but why would you show bokeh at f/7.1?  It seems like maximum aperture or  the common aperture of f/1.8 would have made more sense.  Most people looking for great bokeh aren't shooting at f/5.6 or higher, but maybe there's some logic behind this such as showing the shape of the bokeh when stopped down.

Yeah, just to illustrate the shape.

Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 50mm f/1.4
« on: September 12, 2013, 06:09:01 PM »
"While the outer shell of the 50mm 1.4 is clearly stronger than the 50mm 1.8"  Pure B.S!  The internet is full of cases of people and videos repairing their Canon 50mm 1.4.  A moderately sharp bump to the front usually breaks the auto-focusing.  It is a notoriously fragile lens.  Boken is better than the 1.8 bit after 5.6 the 1.8 is noticeably sharper than the 1.4.  So, the 1.4 is more fragile than the 1.8, less sharp than the 1.8 and smaller apertures and costs 3x as much.  It's the least desirable of the Canon 50mm lenses.   I have a 25 year old metal mount 1.8 that could beat the pants off of the 1.4 and you can pick one up for 100 bucks.  The difference between 1.4 and 1.8 with a camera with a modern sensor is meaningless, both are really, really fast.  both are really really sharp.  Certainly not worth a triple price premium .  This review sounds like someone trying to justify a recent purchase that they have clearly over paid for

I bought it 7 years ago, it's done okay by me.

Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 50mm f/1.4
« on: September 12, 2013, 06:07:20 PM »
Want canon to come out with an update.. I think it's a great middle class lens that really performs well but they can do better with build quality in general. Maybe add IS? Sigma 50 is really nice.. Going there if canon doesn't come out with an update soon.

Bet you they will, but at what price? $800 maybe?

Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 50mm f/1.4
« on: September 12, 2013, 11:34:18 AM »
I agree totally with the review and love my 50 1.4. I'd like to see the review doing a bit more to push would-be buyers into getting a hood though. Aside from reducing flare, the hood does a lot to protect the 50 1.4's particularly delicate AF mechanism. What's more there's no need to pay through the nose for the Canon hood - cheap compatibles serve just as well.

Ah, yes, I should have mentioned this. I have a cheap rubber hood that folds in and out and works great. No way was I paying for Canon's branded plastic money maker.

Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L
« on: September 12, 2013, 11:32:03 AM »
What I'd really like is a nice sharp 17mm.  Something like the TS without the movements.  I'd even settle for f4.  I'd even take the 17-40 f4 if it was sharper.  But in this age of super teles and zooms, is my request so difficult?  A sharp 17mm, corner to corner?  Zeiss 18mm?

I have the Zeiss 18/3.5 on my 5D mk III, and the lens is very sharp corner to corner. This lens is also rated as one of the ten sharpest lenses tested by the Swedish magazine Foto,*%252018%2F3%2C5%2520ZF. småbildskamera = full frame camera.

Seriously.  Imagine what innovating Canon would have to do if Zeiss had AF lenses we could use in our mount.  I've pondered getting one of their magical wide primes for some time for landscape work, which I'd shoot largely in LiveView.  But AF would be so useful for non-tripod work.

What's the genesis of not having AF on Canon/Nikon-mount Zeiss lenses, anyway?  It's not a patent thing, is it, b/c the other 3rd party lens folks reverse-engineer AF function into their hardware...  Is it a trade agreement or something, and if so, why would Zeiss leave all that money on the table?  Did they strike an AF-exclusivity deal with Sony?  Just curious.

- A

I wonder if AF just interferes with the optics somehow? More electronic bits inside make less room for sweet sweet glass.

Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 50mm f/1.4
« on: September 12, 2013, 10:46:06 AM »

I just read 50 1.4 review and completely have no idea why NOONE mentions about its huge problems with AF. I have a 5D3 and tested 7(yes-seven) samples of 50 1.4. First one I just sold after servicing as I thought it's a lens problem or camera, next one I serviced 3 times with my camera. Thought it might be something with calibration, adjustments etc. Then I checked with my local shop another samples so...every 50 1.4 has the same issue!!

Why nobody check this lens AF with different distance??? it has HUGE focusshift at close distance and it is almost unuseble in some circumstances when stopped down. To be more detailed:

When focusing at close distance ie. up to 1m ie. 60 or 70 cm (if u set AFMA perfectly @ F1.4) the lens hits the target  Checked and adjusted with LensCal. Now check the lens at f3.5 or f4.0 at the same close distance. No way u achieve the proper focus. It far away for your desired focus point. Backfocus is really bad. Point "0" is completely out of focus and blurred, the sharpest point is "2" or "3" at the scale.

The lens is completely unusable stopped down at close distance, 1.4 is very soft therefore there is now way the get really sharp photos or desired details. Lens spec. mentions 0,45m as minimum focus distance. Checked it with ie. f3,5 and watch where is focus, sharpness and where is the whole DOF-behind the focus point!

Now do the same with LV-perfect focus, razor sharp, completely different DOF position.

Another problem is focusing in incadescent light-try this with this lens-results are really different from daylight.

Tested a lot of 50 1.4 (seven) from diffrent sources, not is the same time,  and all have the same problem. Why nobody mention about such a issue???

I've never had this issue, at least not that I know of (also using a 5D3)... but I also don't necessarily do focus calibration tests. I take photographs of subjects, and if they're "off" I adjust (I've done this with my Sigma 35 1.4 slightly).

Anyone else have this issue?

Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L
« on: September 12, 2013, 10:23:51 AM »
I recently read a neat technique using Lightroom 5's new radial tool to create an inverse sharpening overlay. So instead of drawing a circle just to create a vignette (yes, I'm very guilty of this) you can use that space to sharpen the edges a bit to help balance the image.

Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L
« on: September 12, 2013, 10:09:28 AM »
Some more 17-40 photos, because that's what lenses are for  8)

(Roller girl was actually shot at f/4, which kind of shows I think).

I'm still trying to wrap my head around the (presumably Canadian) guy in a Blackhawks jersey...

lol, well we're allowed to be fans of teams that win aren't we?

Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L
« on: September 12, 2013, 09:49:27 AM »
Dear Friends


Thanks, I never read that one... though it's comparing the 17-40 to the 16-35 f/2.8 (version 1)... so while the empirical tests on the 17-40 are still very good, the comparison is less relevant... unless of course someone's buying a used 16-35 version 1  ;D

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 16