October 21, 2014, 05:05:55 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 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 16
61
Lenses / Re: WA lens advice 16-35 II or the TSE 17
« on: June 09, 2013, 04:16:36 PM »
Skip 16-35 II. Nothing special @ f2.8.  I'm thinking 14mm prime, since 95% of my landscape shots @ 16mm.

Thanks ... The 14mm prime crossed my mind too. But from what I've heard you can stitch the TSE's images quite well and make it a panoramic shot ... That said, I wouldn't mind a canon 14-24 which is as good as the 24-70 II.

Count me in for that ;)

I'd prefer a 16-35 or 17-40 that is a close IQ equal to the 24-70ii. When you use the 24-70ii enough it's interesting how you start to take for granted corner to corner sharpness...

62
I have all three of the lenses you refer to. Definitely go for the f/2.8 II.

Agreed. The 70-200 2.8 ii is heavy but awesome. Go for it.

63
Lenses / Re: What is the next Canon lens you want or covet and why...
« on: June 08, 2013, 06:35:57 PM »
At the moment I'm done buying stuff... finally :)

Hope this feeling lasts!

Pretty much feel the same way. Maybe a 5d3 later in the year. Maybe.

64
I've been looking through my pictures and I have to say, I am not very happy with the IQ of the 24-105. I suppose that's why I never really use it and depend on my 50 1.4 most of the time. I really don't even want to have to use it. I'm ok with the 24-105 supplementing focal range but honestly, I think it's going to end up getting sold one way or the other. And if I do sell it, I can buy another lens a lot sooner.

Can either of the 2.8 zooms compete with the 50 1.4 in IQ? Are the 2.8 zooms comparable to each other in IQ?

The best zoom I have ever used is the 24-105, so I guess I feel a hint of skepticism regarding their performance versus primes.

I had never been that interested in the 24-105 and after I used one, I enjoyed the zoom range but I felt the images lacked something special. It is a useful lens but has none of the X factor (tangible or otherwise) of the 24-70 II.

65
I've been looking through my pictures and I have to say, I am not very happy with the IQ of the 24-105. I suppose that's why I never really use it and depend on my 50 1.4 most of the time. I really don't even want to have to use it. I'm ok with the 24-105 supplementing focal range but honestly, I think it's going to end up getting sold one way or the other. And if I do sell it, I can buy another lens a lot sooner.

Can either of the 2.8 zooms compete with the 50 1.4 in IQ? Are the 2.8 zooms comparable to each other in IQ?

The best zoom I have ever used is the 24-105, so I guess I feel a hint of skepticism regarding their performance versus primes.

The 24-70 II destroys any Canon EF 50mm prime at f/2.8 and smaller.

I wouldn't go quite that far but it is better. The 24-70 II makes most equivalent range primes look a bit stale. Apart from the shallow DOF thing.

66
PowerShot / Re: Camera for Granny
« on: June 08, 2013, 08:43:44 AM »
The perfect camera for Grandma is one which I've been screaming at manufacturers for years they should make ... not too big and not too small; prime lens, no zoom; accurate optical viewfinder ... a true "Point & Shoot" camera. Well, someone finally did ... the Fuji X100s.

Anyway, I'd also explore the Olympus Tough series ...

I have an x100s and it is excellent. But it is not suitable for grannies, IMO.

67
Lenses / Re: Is the 16-35 L II worth its price?
« on: June 08, 2013, 08:40:10 AM »
The sunstars with the 16-35 are among the best I've ever seen on any lens.

You should see the sun stars on the 24-70ii, if that's the case (if you haven't already). At f8 they're remarkable.

68
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: I'm returning my Sigma 35 1.4
« on: June 07, 2013, 07:15:21 PM »
I returned my sigma yesterday and got my 35L today. I was extremely happy the first 15minutes. The handling is right; the AF is substantially faster (maybe 30%?) and incredibly consistent; and the bokeh is beautiful.

Then came slight disappointment. On computer screen even without zooming there's very visible CA and purple fringing on some images. I think I'm seeing them because I know where to find them.

Sharpness wise the 35L is sharp enough at 1.4. Maybe Sigma is sharper but the 35L is sharp enough for my purposes.

I love the AF and handling of the 35L. Every shot so far is accurate. The CA is a bit annoying. Maybe this is the biggest limitation of this old lens. There's less vignetting than Sigma but I care less about this. I think the 35L is too expensive also.  The Sigma is priced right. But its AF is a big disappointment, at least as far as my copy is concerned.

I'm leaning towards keeping the 35L. There is quite a bit of work to remove CA in LR, but maybe I'll live with that.



Maybe I'm missing the point but I just remove CA with one button in LR. Removes enough of it to be a non issue for me at least.


With pictures taken at 2.8, one click on "remove CA" in LR will take care of most unwanted colored lines. Pictures taken below 2.8 need manual defringing with the dropper. Maybe I'm not doing it correctly. Any insights would be appreciated. That's just my observation from 3 hrs of owning it. Could be wrong.

No you're probably right, I just don't find the corrected CA offensive. Just a personal thing.

69
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: I'm returning my Sigma 35 1.4
« on: June 05, 2013, 07:12:19 PM »
I returned my sigma yesterday and got my 35L today. I was extremely happy the first 15minutes. The handling is right; the AF is substantially faster (maybe 30%?) and incredibly consistent; and the bokeh is beautiful.

Then came slight disappointment. On computer screen even without zooming there's very visible CA and purple fringing on some images. I think I'm seeing them because I know where to find them.

Sharpness wise the 35L is sharp enough at 1.4. Maybe Sigma is sharper but the 35L is sharp enough for my purposes.

I love the AF and handling of the 35L. Every shot so far is accurate. The CA is a bit annoying. Maybe this is the biggest limitation of this old lens. There's less vignetting than Sigma but I care less about this. I think the 35L is too expensive also.  The Sigma is priced right. But its AF is a big disappointment, at least as far as my copy is concerned.

I'm leaning towards keeping the 35L. There is quite a bit of work to remove CA in LR, but maybe I'll live with that.



Maybe I'm missing the point but I just remove CA with one button in LR. Removes enough of it to be a non issue for me at least.

70
Lenses / Re: If you could only have three lenses...
« on: June 03, 2013, 02:01:16 AM »
24-70ii, 70-200ii and a 35 1.4- either the L or the Sigma.
I'm a bit bored of UWA and could probably live without it.

71
HDR - High Dynamic Range / Re: My kind of HDR
« on: June 03, 2013, 01:58:58 AM »
No comment.

Oops I just did. Sorry not my thing - but it's clearly yours which is all that matters at the end of the day.

72
Lenses / Re: EF 24-70 II + Cokin P
« on: May 30, 2013, 05:36:09 PM »
Yes. Even with the 82mm adaptor - quite a bit and a fair bit beyond 24 from memory.
You need to upgrade to the Cokin z-pro or a Lee system. Been there.

73
You do realize that those with an xD or xxD body and more than 1-2 lenses are a minuscule fraction of the Canon dSLR user base, right?    ::)

Out of interest, is there anywhere that shows total numbers of each camera sold ?

I daresay the Rebels would be rocking those numbers quite hard...

74
80 million 50mm f/1,8 Mk II  :P ;D

Um... 200 135 f2 soft focuses? :)

75
I used to get hot pixels from jpg shooting but have never seen one when shooting in RAW in LR. I've assumed LR sorts it out on conversion. I refuse to believe my 5d2 is impervious to it but I've never seen one in nearly two years of relentless night shooting.

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 16