October 21, 2014, 09:06:43 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 - wayno

Pages: 1 ... 12 13 [14] 15 16
196
Lenses / Re: 50mm upgrade or 85mm coverage?
« on: December 12, 2012, 07:42:03 AM »
(2)

197
Lenses / Re: Reikan FoCal EF 24-70L version comparison
« on: November 21, 2012, 06:17:12 PM »
Yeah... and I've used my 35L over 2.8 about 10% of the time :)!

198
Lenses / Re: Reikan FoCal EF 24-70L version comparison
« on: November 21, 2012, 05:39:01 PM »
Charts aside, I know from both the 24L and 35L I get great 1.4 images. May not be as textbook sharp as at F2 but in real life shooting I have found 1.4 to be impressively sharp. The 24 is a whisker sharper too at least on my copy.
I don't dispute the charts but I don't care to dwell on them too much. I don't need to. My point is that calling the 35 terrible at 1.4 is IMO inaccurate. But granted what's terrible to me may be quite different to you.

"terrible" is a relative term and depends on what you are trying to do. The 35mm f/1.4L is one of my favorites.
My copy of the 24mm II is the same, just a shade sharper and a bit better color. But you have to look real hard for it.

Yes agreed. I don't wish to labour the point any further - each to their own etc... But i reckon as has been suggested that if you're into photographing brick walls and other flat surfaces then the 35 1.4 would be a disappointment at the 1.4 end. However in my experience in using it for portraiture, I've found the 35 1.4 helps to make lush and gorgeous images and the centre is surprisingly sharp. Sharp enough for me and those who purchase my images and blow them up large.

I have the 24-70 MKI and I've never really taken a shine to it. Convenient and still very sharp but I just find the 2.8 a bit 'meat and potatoes'. Practical but not 'magical'. I'm guessing, despite the improvements, I'd still feel similarly about the Mk2 version. But I've only quite recently been bitten seriously by the prime bug.

199
Lenses / Re: Reikan FoCal EF 24-70L version comparison
« on: November 21, 2012, 04:23:24 PM »
Charts aside, I know from both the 24L and 35L I get great 1.4 images. May not be as textbook sharp as at F2 but in real life shooting I have found 1.4 to be impressively sharp. The 24 is a whisker sharper too at least on my copy.
I don't dispute the charts but I don't care to dwell on them too much. I don't need to. My point is that calling the 35 terrible at 1.4 is IMO inaccurate. But granted what's terrible to me may be quite different to you.

200
Lenses / Re: Reikan FoCal EF 24-70L version comparison
« on: November 21, 2012, 03:19:47 PM »
"Terrible" IQ at 1.4 for the 35? Have you used it? Mine is sharp at 1.4 where it counts. It allows for gorgeous images at 1.4.

201
Canon General / Re: Photography websites. Where are you posting?
« on: November 18, 2012, 05:58:03 AM »
Flickr for a lot of things:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/56462773@N07/

My Facebook page for particular highlights and other bits and pieces:

www.facebook.com/waynegrivellartandphotography

That's what I stick to at present...

202
Lenses / Re: Advice 5d3, wide angle
« on: November 13, 2012, 07:36:42 PM »
I have the 17-40L and I rate it highly at F8 despite what a lot of others seem to think. As I understand it, the 16-35 isn't much better overall IQ-wise (if at all) but obviously has the advantage of being a stop faster.

I also recently bought the 24 1.4 which is fantastic but for my purposes, I tend to find it's best strength as a wide portrait lens (for that it's excellent). The type of wide angle work I do is mostly night photography and usually demands some FL flexibility given tricky spots and opportune moments etc.

Thus, my vote would go to the 17-40L for the best value/overall solution.

Dream lens still? The Zeiss 21 but at $2K-ish, I have other goals such as one of the Canon TS's (17 or 24)

203
Lenses / Re: How often do you use 35L @1.4
« on: November 13, 2012, 07:27:59 PM »
I use mine between 1.4-2.0 90% of the time. I find even at 1.4, it's very sharp (better than I thought it would be, to be honest). As most of it's for portraiture, this works well for me.

204
Video & Movie / Re: Looking for some feedback
« on: November 07, 2012, 02:09:25 PM »
Agreed.... Well done. Good score, too.

205
Lenses / Re: 24 1.4 II- wow
« on: November 07, 2012, 01:37:16 PM »
Sure to soon!

206
Lenses / 24 1.4 II- wow
« on: November 07, 2012, 05:59:49 AM »
Being a wide angle shooter with an occasional penchant for portraits, this lens seemed to fit the bill for me and despite it's hefty price, I'm convinced of it's excellence. I simply cannot believe how razor sharp it is at 1.4 let alone 2.8. Despite comments I've read to the contrary, this has the sharpness/clarity edge on the 35 1.4 (and I rate that lens very highly). The shallow DOF at that focal length has a particularly 'journalistic' effect which is truly wonderful.

Just thought I'd put it out there at how chuffed I am.

Sold!

207
Lenses / Re: Hold out for EF 35/2 IS or jump in with classic 35 1.4L
« on: November 06, 2012, 04:06:47 PM »
I cant agree that the 35L and the 50 1.4 are of similar build quality. The 35L is a league ahead in that regard, despite it's age, IMO.

208
Ha... In the context of that particular statement I can understand the response. Methinks that perhaps wasnt quite the sentiment you intended to express? :)

With 60d sell off, the 5d2 and the 135l seems a reasonably good answer to me.

209
Lenses / Re: Trip to Namibia next year... what gear?
« on: November 03, 2012, 05:23:47 AM »
So open ended. A 5d3 with a 24-105L kit lens would be a reasonable start.

210
Lenses / Re: Thinking about a 17-40 f4L USM. Thoughts?
« on: November 03, 2012, 01:12:41 AM »
I've said this before but this lens is a champion for the price. I agree at f8 it's damned sharp and for most landscapes that's what you'd be shooting at. I also hand hold f8 iso200 city / urban shots with it too and rarely get blurry images. The reciprocal guide for shutter speed relative to FL invariably means sharp shots. On FF its an excellent commonsense landscape lens which also happens to perform more than ably.

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