March 02, 2015, 03:50:39 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 - dr croubie

Pages: 1 ... 85 86 [87] 88 89 ... 94
1291
Lenses / Re: 14-24L & 24-70L II Talked About Again
« on: July 13, 2011, 02:02:58 AM »
For starters, the Canon EF 14mm has exposed front element and rear gelatin filters. Very similar to the EF 15mm fisheye. Per reviews I've read, the Nikkor 14-24mm has better IQ than the EF 14mm & EF 16-35mm, and I just checked Amazon - the Canon EF 14mm costs $2,250 and the Nikon 14-24mm costs $1,920.

I have an EF 17-40mm f/4 and an EF 24-70mm f/2.8. If Canon brings out a reasonable competitor to the Nikon 14-24mm and improves the EF 24-70mm's IQ, I would uppgrade the two lenses I have with the two new lenses.

Not to detract the thread too much but is it possible to make a 24-70mm that doesn't externally extend while going through the focal lengths and if so how much additional costs would that tag to the price?  I could have sworn at one time Sigma made such a midrange zoom lens.

Easy, just add more plastic around where the barrel would extend, put one token piece of glass on the front, and keep the rest of the design exactly the same :)
(and then the lens is permanently as long as the longest it is now)
Or don't even put a piece of glass on the front, a la the 16 - 35 L.


Also, I think the 14-24 would do more wonders for canon than they realise, especially if it's f/2.8. It would attract a lot of 7D (maybe even 60D) buyers, as an upgrade path to a Full Fram eventually. Sure, the 10-22 is wider, but i'd put up with 'only' 14mm until i upgraded to FF, and the only other fast/2.8 option is the Tokina 11-16 (i'd take a Canon FF compatible and probably better IQ if it's an L, over the Tokina for 3mm wider and probably a lot cheaper).

1292
Canon EF Prime Lenses / Re: Canon EF 50MM 1.2L
« on: July 12, 2011, 10:28:11 PM »
I've always wondered about the 50 f1.0 L... I've read that it was discontinued due to cost, but doesn't the 85L have more glass than the 50 f1.0?  Is it something about the design?

from what i know about lens design, the only thing prohibiting fast telephoto lenses is size/weight/cost.
But the wider the angle, the harder it is to deisgn something fast with decent IQ, especially at the borders, and especially once you get wider than the diagonal (43mm for FF). Look at the photozone.de reviews of the 35 f/1.4 and 24 f/1.4, their centre sharpness is off the scale at f/2.8-4ish. but their border sharpness is off the other end of the scale at f/1.4.
the 85 1.2 ii is sharper than the 50 1.2, for sure, but it's not the stellar performer itself either. the 50 1.4 looks better on paper, but it's got its own problems as Neuro mentioned (in short, every lens purchase is a decision between what good you need and what bad you can put up with).

I can't find a review of the 50 1.0 on any modern site, too old and i suppose no reviewer can afford it (or noone can afford to lend it to them). the only one is from the site where wikipedia cites here, and that was on film. If it didn't stand up to film, it definitely won't stand up to 20+ MP.

From the canon Camera Museum, it weighs 985g, only 40g less than the 85 1.2 (i or ii). so near enough to the same amount of glass. It's what they do to the glass and what it's made of that makes the cost, and i'd suppose that with all the manufacturing costs put together, plus a decent margin, it was out of reach for anyone but the most dedicated, even then you'd make more money selling to pro portrait-takers who'd rather use an 85 or 100/135mm.

i'm almost wondering, with digital and APS-C these days, if we might see a resurgence in demand for it enough for canon to release a 50mm f/1.0 II version? It makes a bit more sense taking a portrait with a 50mm lens on a crop body than a FF (but then why use a 7D to take a portrait?). and the original f/1.0 was designed in 1989, with computer design i'm sure they could beat the performance if they started fresh now...

1293
Canon EF Prime Lenses / Re: Canon EF 50MM 1.2L
« on: July 12, 2011, 09:43:26 PM »
What is the consensus on the plastic/cheapie EF 50mm f/1.8 II used primarily as an interview, locked down lens for a budget documentary?

As in a film? (opposed to a still picture i mean).
you can't get any more budget than the 50 f/1.8, it's softer and slower than the 1.4, but you can't beat it on price. even filming at 1080p you probably wouldn't notice the softness much.
i'd prefer IS for filming, but if you've got a stable enough mount/tripod, or only doing static scenes, it'd be fine for me...

1294
United Kingdom & Ireland / Re: Odd requirement!
« on: July 12, 2011, 07:54:49 PM »
actually, i was going to suggest a gorillapod too, it's actually the only tripod i've got atm. i figured i might get laughed at by the real pros for not having an arca-swiss on carbon fibre setup though so i didn't mention it...

i asked my mum to pick me up the small gorillapod cheap in hong kong for my P&S, she came with an SLR Zoom model. i ended up buying the small one myself, the good thing about it was that it comes with its own little lens plate (1*1.5cm or so).
the bad news is that (at least with the smallest model) the balls cracked a little too easily, maybe i was too forceful, maybe it was because it was 5 under and i was trying to manipulate it. long story short i ended up gluing some bits together, and accidentally glued the lensplate to the plateclamp.

now i've got my 7D, i've put a small ballhead on the SLR Zoom model, and it has no trouble supporting the weight of ungripped 7D and 70-300L (1.8kg or so combined), even just from the body, no tripod ring...

how big is the wife's camera? the small gorilla is really small, the slr zoom is huge. i think there's a model or two between them, check it out...

1295
Lenses / Re: Lens recommendations for t2i crop sensor
« on: July 12, 2011, 04:31:39 AM »
With AF Microadjustment, you can choose to do either.

If your sensor/lensmount is misaligned, you can choose option 1, and every lens is adjusted by the same amount.

If only one lens is off, choose option 2, and you can adjust up to 20 lenses individually. But you can only adjust per type of lens, ie if you have 2 copies of a lens, then both will be adjusted by the same amount.

Personally, i'd use option 2 anyway, unless you absolutely know your camera is the reason all your shots front/back focus...

1296
EOS Bodies / Re: 1Ds Replacement Soon?
« on: July 11, 2011, 07:17:18 PM »
I think there are so many software those can handle raw video, but most of them requires money.

and if you can afford a $3000-$10000 camera, and actually need the quality of raw video because you're a pro actually making movies, then you can afford to shell out $a few hundred for editing software.

1297
Lenses / Re: Thoughts on primes
« on: July 11, 2011, 07:12:54 PM »
Tell ya what I'd also love to see right now, a low cost good quality wide prime - something in the 12-15 range, perhaps a second in the mid 20's, specifically for APS-C with a low f of about 1.8-2.0 to pair up with my current 15-85mm for low light wide use, pancakes perhaps ?  What else ? How about a APS-C specific (L quality) 50-150mm f2.8 with IS ? to give crop bodies a decent 70-200mm alternative ?  With an APS-C specific teleconverter - I don't want a big fat heavy lens and body hanging around my neck !

i think you've just quoted my wish list right there too. there was a patent app on this site i saw for an EFS 11 f/2, that would be perfect. A canon answer to the sigma 30 1.4 DC (ie, sharper wide open, i'd pay more for it, just smaller and cheaper than the 1.4L). And the protrait zoom, ~ 40-160 f/2.8 would be my range (to couple the 16-35), even make it FF and L, perfect for all-round wedding lens.

I've just had a look through a few of my favourite portrait shots of the past few months, - with the missus on a ferris-wheel with the niftyfifty head only,
- in a park with 15-85 at 55mm full body and a tree, 70mm waist-up from a lot closer,
- with friends in a park with the 70-300L at 124mm full body, 300mm head and shoulders, 200mm waist-up, i even let him touch my camera to take some shots of me (not as good) 70mm full body with a lot of extra space coz he held it horizontal.
(but ok, i don't do portraits (or anything else) professionally, these were opportunistic with the lenses i was carrying at the time.)

So yeah, they're all really over the shop, it really depends on how much space you've got.
the only advice i'd think of is that you can always crop an 85mm shot down, if you get the 100mm or 135mm, there's only so far you can walk back before you hit a wall. unless you're going to print them as 3'x4' posters, you don't have to fill the frame to use every pixel you can...

1298
Lenses / Re: Canon 400mm L 5.6 .. So what's changed in 19 years?
« on: July 11, 2011, 06:48:06 PM »
I'd read it as
'sealed for drips/dust getting into the lens itself and between glass elements' +
'not sealed for anything getting between the lens/camera mount'.

the first one is good, noone wants dust between their elements, but it's not the end of the world if you do. the second one, yeah, that could be the end of the world if you get water in there. I've used my 7D in slight rain with 15-85, nothing bad happened, but it wasn't a downpour.
but no camera is perfectly sealed unless you buy those indestructible P&S, so there's no substitute for common sense and treating nicely. I found that out the hard way...

1299
United Kingdom & Ireland / Re: Odd requirement!
« on: July 11, 2011, 07:27:11 AM »
i probably didn't elaborate enough, my idea was to leave the tripod, ballhead, plate clamp attached together, then have a plate screwed to a new smaller ballhead, and screw that to the camera.

suppose it would make it a bit more bulky leaving it on permanently, and if you screw it together each time it's not much different to just screwing the plate onto the camera when you want it. it just sort of lifts the plate away from the camera so you can still open the battery door was the idea.
and which threads do you want to prevent getting damaged? the male on the plate or female in the camera?

1300
United Kingdom & Ireland / Re: Odd requirement!
« on: July 11, 2011, 06:51:08 AM »
so you've got a tripod, with a plate clamp, and you want to put a camera onto that, without screwing the plate onto the camera?

how would she feel about permanently attaching anything else to the camera that doesn't block the battery?

Or you can attach the lensplate to a small ballhead and carry it separately, screw the camera to the top of the ballhead, and clip it into the tripod when you want to use it?

1301
United States / Re: Heat Waves
« on: July 10, 2011, 07:06:00 PM »
I've just done some googling for a nice diagram that looks like the one that explained it to me from my physics book when i was in high school, came up with this, ok, it's talking about mirages but it explains the basic concept.

As for infrared refracting less than other waves, you've probably got a point that it would refract less. but then, you've got an infrared image, which i would like to try once or twice, but i wouldn't want it for every photo (not sure about the OP).

The lion photo i saw in London at an exhibition for the Travel Photographer Of The Year at the royal geographical society or something (just opposite The Albert Memorial and around the corner). probably finished now anyway. But i fully intend to enter next year, i've got over 20,000 photos from a few years in europe and asia, something's gotta be worth showing...

So i did at least remember that it was shot at 40mm, even if it was a nikon. the description of how he took it was from the back of an open-sided safari ute/truck thing, mounted to a mono/tripod upside down, holding by the feet of the tripod and either timer or remote/cable release (i think remote release). it would be nice if they put those descriptions on their website though...

1302
Lenses / Re: recommend me a telephoto lens
« on: July 10, 2011, 06:45:34 PM »
I went through this decision a month ago, i bought a 70-300nonL with my 7D last september, if you upgrade your body to the 7D or 5D2, the fuzziness at 300mm will show up a lot worse than on the 20D. (although i'm still wondering if my lens was just a really bad sample). Check out some pics i posted in the lens gallery.

Basically, when i replaced, i looked at every canon in the range and compared them:
- 70-200 f4 nonIS €5-600: good and cheap, but i really like IS.(which is why i didn't shell out the extra for it in sept). Also, i wanted the extra reach. Also not sealed.
- 70-200 f2.8 nonIS €1000-1100ish: really good IQ and wide aperture, but no IS or sealing.

- 70-200 f4 IS €1000-1100ish: apparently one of the sharpest zoom lenses you can get these days. I did read somewhere (TDP or Photozone probably) that the 70-200 f4 IS + 1.4x TC (ii or iii) were a tiny smidge behind the IQ of the 70-300L. Also, unless you have a tc already, add another €300 or €500 for a ii or iii t/c and you've spent a (bit) more than the 70-300L. I'd also rather leave one lens on than mess around with t/c swapping, by which time the subject might be gone.

- 100-400L: €1550ish: I've never tried the pushpull, some people have strong opinions either way. basically from reviews i got the opinion that there was nothing wrong with the IQ or IS, but just beaten by the 70-300L. i decided against it just based on weight/size/extra €200/older IS.

- 300mm f4L: another option was keep the 70-300nonL for the 70-200 range and swap to the prime to get usable IQ at 300mm. decided against this based on weight and swapping annoyance, versatility of a zoom, and photozone said the prime IQ was about the same as the 70-300L @300mm, but you do get an extra 1-stop.

- 70-200 f2.8IS ii: i'd have got it if i could afford €2200.

- 70-300L: which i ended up with for €1350. I don't mind the 'slowness', it's the fastest of any comparable variable zoom for each focal length (except the 100-400 stays at f5 longer). It's shorter and lighter than the others, the IQ is really great, the contrast and saturation are amazing. I've handheld 300mm at 1/15s for really sharp shots (even some at 1/10s but didn't keep them all). can't use with canon teleconverters, i've heard you can kenko 1.4 t/cs, but i don't know which type (mc4, mc7, pro300, some report different apertures to allow autofocus) and i don't know about the IQ (but i'd be guessing just a bit below the 100-400 @ 400).

1303
Lenses / Re: Lens recommendations for t2i crop sensor
« on: July 10, 2011, 06:20:05 PM »
Hm, calibrating in Canon services has cost smth about 30€. Well, you won't afford any Canon lens for these money, but at least 1 correctly working lens is quite OK result :)

Thats a very low price.  they won't even look at a lens in the USA for that price.  Even the lowest cost lens, the 50mm f/1.8L has a flat rate of $95 plus tax and shipping one way (to them).

You looking at the right price list? my 50mm f/1.8 cost me €90, that's not more than US$130 even with the low value of the US$ these days...
I'm going to investigate what they cost in AU$, gotta ring canon some time this week...

1304
Lenses / Re: Lens recommendations for t2i crop sensor
« on: July 10, 2011, 08:03:04 AM »
and if you want to go down the road of fast primes, want to stay really really cheap, and don't mind Manual Focus all the time, there's always a lot of M42 and other old primes easily adaptable to canon cameras on ebay, bargains for the bad ones, $1-200 for good sharp specimens (like Takumars and Zeiss)

1305
Lenses / Re: Lens recommendations for t2i crop sensor
« on: July 10, 2011, 07:54:00 AM »
a) besides the 17-55 f/2.8, there's the 16-35L and the 24-70L, but more expensive...
Some people say the Tamron or Sigma 17-50 f/2.8, not as good, but nowhere near as expensive.
other than that, you'll be using Primes. the 50 f/1.8 is a bargain $100, the 28 f/2.8 around $200, 35 f/2 at $300, 50 f/1.4, 20 f/2.8, 28 f/2.8 get up to half the price of the 17-55 f/2.8. Also Sigma make an APS-C only 30 1.4 around that price too...

b) yes, and it's called AF microadjustment. But only on the 50D (not 60D), 7D, 5D and the 1 series. Otherwise, send your camera and all your lenses in to canon together, i have no idea what it costs though (only pros get it for free if they buy enough expensive stuff)

Pages: 1 ... 85 86 [87] 88 89 ... 94