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.
And I didn't really pour it on the lens, I fashioned a dummy container then masked the lens in from a separate shot.
Indeed, ELA suggests that and a couple other PS manipulations...but it was well done!
Thanks, that's an interesting site, though I'm not quite sure how to read the "results"
http://fotoforensics.com/tutorial-ela.php
And I didn't really pour it on the lens, I fashioned a dummy container then masked the lens in from a separate shot.
Indeed, ELA suggests that and a couple other PS manipulations...but it was well done!
You call that shi7 syrup? It's CRAP.
Ha ha, I bought it *specifically* for the shoot. I wouldn't feed my kids with it, but 100% pure maple syrup is a bit expensive to go pouring over a lens for one shot
Not only that, but the cheap S___ has all sorts of thickeners that make it more photogenic. Perhaps not surprisingly, they also do a good job at thickening those who eat it....
I'd do two things for that shot, though...first, I'd transfer the syrup to a small pitcher so it wasn't so obvious that it's the cheap S___...and I'd also consider using motor oil / transmission oil / Slick 50 / etc. instead of syrup.
...it would depend, of course, on whether or not the lens was intended to remain functional after the shot. I'd probably ask Canon for a warranty reject destined for the scrap heap for a donor lens, but I know there're photo shoots where nobody would bat an eye at a few hundred spent on props.
Cheers,
b&
You call that shi7 syrup? It's CRAP.
I love the 40. My normal use for this lens is everyday except the weekend, I have it when I drive to or from the office. Like Trumpetpower said: looks like a high-end P&S camera .
Another excellent use is when I'm using 70-200 but I want to have something good for a relative wide image.
I don't think the reviewer's conclusion has done this lens justice. The innuendo is that this lens is 'quite good for the money', and this is misleading - it's very good in it's own right irrespective of cost. The centre is as good as the 50 1.4 at f2.8, from f4 to f11 it has superb across-the-frame sharpness, and it is a modern 'for digital' lens which controls the digital clipping to highlight' better than made for film lenses IMO
Guys don't be too hard on the reviewer. Like any review it is but one man' opinion and personal criteria. I had the 50/1.8 and I rather have the 40/2.8 due to the optical quality.
I had Cps upgrade my firmware the day I bout it.
Not sure I understand the people complaining about this review. Since when have the reviews here been anything more than personal, real-world usage? That's what's good about them. If you want the technical, $1000 worth of software and optic-testing equipment reviews, you know where to go to get that.
I thought it was a good review, and provided some real-world perspective. If I had to complain, and this isn't a complaint so much as a question, why didn't you use it for some short videos. I mean, isn't this lens primarily aimed at DSLR video use over still photo?
I would totally buy this lens over the nifty-50 based on the tighter build quality alone, not to mention the focusing system.
That's called a review these days? Amazing. Why not make a head line out of the other 100 reviews of that lens?
The question kept distracting me through the whole review:
Did you REALLY pour syrup on the pancake??? I imagine it would have been much too sweet for the pancake’s own good.
.
From a magazine editor's standpoint, this is pretty blah with uninspiring images. Very little useful information.
Roger, at LensRentals said all that needs to be said in four sentences:
"This is really an amazing lens. Little pancakes are cute and all, but usually aren’t of very good image quality. This one has exceptional image quality and does it at an amazing price. Probably the best bargain of a prime lens that exists, anywhere, for anything."
@ Viggo - Unfortunately, it seems you may have gotten a dud. You say you bought this copy used, I wonder if the seller fully disclosed the motive behind sale?
Thanks! That is really what I wanted to hear also. I remember this lens as an absolute killer, but both CA and contrast and sharpness is only good at 70mm and useless at 200mm, so I rather it be a dud than me remeber too great things about it.
I've asked him if he would take it back, awaiting reply. But yeah, even though it looked as new, it must be a reason he sold it... I´ve never gotten a bad copy, at least not to this extent before, bummer...
One day one of you guys will actually take some photos
"...... and the old and rather crappy 50/1.4......."
That might be your experience with your copy of the lens, it isn't mine as I keep saying. I bought this lens in 2004 and it has never been to Canon, or anywhere else, for service work, unlike nearly every L lens I own, it also needs zero micro AF adjustment. It has been round the world several times, it has flown on planes and in balloons, it has sailed half the oceans and seas, it has rattled around carelessly in camera bags and rollers the entire time it hasn't been a rest stop for my 1Ds MkIII, and 1Vhs's before that, it has been thoughtlessly ignored and under appreciated its entire life, it is mine and it just works.
1/ 50 f1.4 @ 1.8 full FF image
2/ 100% crop from above image, I have printed this to 16"x24", IQ is perfect
3/ 50 f1.4 @ f1.8 full FF image with red crop box on it
4/ 100% crop of above image, frome edge of frame
Now I don't know what results you guys are getting, or indeed if half of you shoot at all, but if a lens consistently returns images like this I really don't feel the need to "upgrade" it for >$1,000
For the record, when I first used the lens, I wasn't able to get the clarity I wanted, but after some rethinking, researching, and relearning how to shoot and focus correctly, I rarely get a soft image...and if I do, it's always user's error.
