August 29, 2014, 12:20:12 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 - wayno

Pages: 1 ... 11 12 [13] 14 15 16
181
Software & Accessories / Re: Manfrotto 055 vs 190, 498 vs 496
« on: January 10, 2013, 08:16:47 AM »
Being 6 foot 2, I chose the taller 055XPROB. I rate it highly - it's heavy but I'm used to it now and in many ways its weight is reassuring. It's been going strong for 18 months and I've bad to tighten one of the legs once - which was easy.

182
+1 again for the Speedliters handbook

183
Lenses / Re: Your "precious" lord of the red rings is?
« on: January 07, 2013, 10:06:09 PM »
That's quite a furnishing ...

184
Lenses / Re: Your "precious" lord of the red rings is?
« on: January 07, 2013, 02:58:53 AM »
Ill bite - as gratuitous as this thread is:

The 70-200L is 2.8ii probably although the 24L ii is a pretty fine lens that I'm very fond of. But they are just tools!

185
Lenses / Re: lens for a lightpainter
« on: January 05, 2013, 05:44:01 AM »
Weather sealed? 17-40 would be my pick with a filter. Shame in a way because that can potentially exacerbate flare but I think ultra wide is the way to go for night work... That's my preferred style anyway. Most things on my page are shot with a 17-40 although I rarely light paint.

 I checked out your work,pretty amazing stuff how do you go about shooting i mean settings gear,lights if any ,postprocessing etc
I guess you have shorter exposures ,under a minute.

P.S : how sharp would the 17-40 be on a 7d ??

Thanks for that - most of my night photography is at least 2 minutes. Some exceed 6-7 minutes. Settings-wise:

ISO200 (normally), no filters at all, 2 minutes on average, F8. Post processing for colour and contrast etc - only levels and curves and some selective dodge and burn. Mostly just Lightroom workflow (99% of the time).

With regards to the lens, I think the 17-40 would arguably be sharper on crop given the edges are cropped away (which are the weak bits on FF) - but it would not have the dynamism of UWA on the 7D. I used a 10-22 for a few months on my 550D and I loved it for night work however the 17-40 on the 5D2 is a step up in IQ undoubtedly (for me). I have seen people here say the contrary but I just do not see it - the images are 'deeper', sharper and more contrasty. With regard to night photography, the 17-40 handles flare much better and starbursts are cleaner and punchier. 10-22 starbursts were always filled with untidy globules of light whereas the 17-40 ones are cleaner and just 'glow'.

So with regards to night work, I would thoroughly endorse the 17-40. A lot of people are critical of this lens and consider it inferior to the 16-35. For day work (and photojournalistic work) I suspect there might be something (vaguely) in it however for night work, this lens is a winner. Night photography makes most lenses look good
and this one is no exception.

Whilst I have a nice collection of primes and love using them for day/portrait work, I would be lost using them at night. The UWA zoom is an essential part of my work at night - as I do not have time/luxury to compose slowly and thoughtfully. The wide angle potential allows leeways, especially in tight spots.

I would be slightly wary of capping the 17-40 with a filter though, as you must to weatherproof/resist it as it may make it more prone to flare. I don't believe the 10-22 is weather resistant, regardless?

That said, the 17-40 is a great lens on FF but I feel it's a bit boring on crop. Which kind of defeats the purpose of having a flexible UWA lens for night work. I suppose it depends on what you plan to shoot (and how).

Hope this helps in some way!

186
EOS Bodies / Re: Camera (Body Only) or Camera with Bundle Kit
« on: January 05, 2013, 04:03:44 AM »
Another recommendation would be to purchase Bryan Peterson's "Understand Exposure" and Michael Freeman's "The Photographer's Eye."

Agreed. The Peterson book was very useful to me.

187
Lenses / Re: lens for a lightpainter
« on: January 05, 2013, 03:55:12 AM »
Weather sealed? 17-40 would be my pick with a filter. Shame in a way because that can potentially exacerbate flare but I think ultra wide is the way to go for night work... That's my preferred style anyway. Most things on my page are shot with a 17-40 although I rarely light paint.

188
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Cannot Keep Screwing It's Customers Over
« on: January 04, 2013, 11:08:14 PM »
Sensible edit. The twists and turns of camera forums. Any forums!? :)

189
Lenses / Re: 24L or 35L
« on: January 03, 2013, 06:26:41 AM »
I have both. The 24L ii is slightly sharper, has slightly better contrast and colour and I think is a bit better built. However the 35L is a great lens and is definitely more flexible/useful on a regular basis. That said, portraits from the 24L can be amazing and nothing else quite matches what it can produce. Certainly the practical choice is the 35L.

190
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon 5D Mark iii + 50 1.4 ii?
« on: January 03, 2013, 04:37:10 AM »
I must be lucky but I've just been going through all of my holiday snaps - some of which were taken with the 50 1.4. Most of those wide open are tack sharp - perhaps not as knife-blade as the 24L II or the Sigma 85 but still more than sharp enough to be discernably impressive. I found this lens soft and inconsistent on my old 550D but it's very impressive on my 5D2. I say go for it.

191
Lenses / Re: EF 24-70 f/2.8L IS Exists as a Working Prototype [CR2]
« on: December 19, 2012, 08:07:16 PM »
The legendary 70-200 2.8 II IS is starting to sound like a bargain in comparison to what this likely will be. I wonder if the 24-70 II will start to normalise price-wise sometime between now and then?

192
Third Party Manufacturers / The seemingly amazing Sigma 35
« on: December 19, 2012, 06:27:39 PM »
I have the 35L and I love it. Despite its age it seems to deliver the goods and is sharp wide open.

By all accounts the Sigma betters it in most regards, including on price. I have no immediate plans to replace my 35L with the Sigma as in reality there is always going to be a 'better' lens out there somewhere. The idea of selling of L to get Sigma does seem slightly skew to me too.

Am I alone in this thinking or is this an opportunity to maybe pocket $1-200 on the side and land a 'superior' product, at least until the 35L ii arrives (which will likely be still much more expensive).

Thoughts?

193
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Crop vs FF for landscape photography
« on: December 13, 2012, 12:47:55 AM »
Given you have a crop already, albeit a 40D, just leap frog directly to the FF especially if 6D goes down in prices. Perhaps even 5d2 as its price new or used is bound to slide even further with the entry of 6D.

7D II when it shows up is bound to sport better features, but I subscribe to the idea that crops are transitionary in the long run. Also, most EF lenses that are "blah" on crops, come into their own on FF... This is particularly true for good UWA lenses IMHO.

Agree about EF lenses coming into their own. My 50 1.4 was average at best on my crop. It shines on full frame.

194
Lenses / Re: 50mm upgrade or 85mm coverage?
« on: December 12, 2012, 01:29:11 PM »
I've owned and used the 85 1.8 for a couple of years and it is indeed a very good lens but the Sigma 85 1.4 is another beast altogether. Suggest it is a more marked IQ and visual impact lens vs the 85 1.8 than the 50 1.2 is vs the 50 1.4.
The 85 1.4 has a considerable x- factor to its output - much like the 85L however I think the 85L is somewhat slow and specialized whereas the Sigma is just more versatile and very very close in IQ etc

195
Lenses / Re: 50mm upgrade or 85mm coverage?
« on: December 12, 2012, 07:47:00 AM »
In that I went down that route and have no qualms at all. The Siggy is tack sharp and luscious where it counts.

Pages: 1 ... 11 12 [13] 14 15 16