16
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 12-24 f/2.8L [CR1]
« on: February 27, 2013, 08:03:44 PM »
Aw man, now I need to change my user name to Canon 12-24!
May 21, 2013, 12:27:19 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.
17
Landscape / Re: Yosemite in the wintertime
« on: February 26, 2013, 06:25:02 AM »I did notice that about 80% of photographers were walking around with a 70-200 F2.8 (canon/nikon/tamron/etc.). For the life of me, I could not figure this out!
Does anyone know why everyone in Yosemite has that lens attached to their camera 24/7???
Shooting around dawn/dusk and not the typical midday (when it's less touristy) you'll find most of the "not-so-serious" photographers back indoors and the serious ones out with their tripods and non-70-200 set up. Thank goodness for this as it weeds down the # of photographers on the popular vantage points in the valley during these times.
What did surprise me was the multitude of people shooting standard wide angle landscape shots in the daytime, on tripods. I fail to see the logic of this. If they're shooting macro, or wanting to participate in the "stream water as smoke" fad, with long exposures and ND filters, that's one thing. Or if it is late afternoon light, then yes I can see needing a tripod. But if they are not doing long exposure, there's no reason for a tripod in mid afternoon light, in my opinion. It certainly limits the total number of shots you can take, to constantly move around a tripod and set it up, and aim the camera, etc.
If we are talking midday lighting (non-overcast) it's going to be a high dynamic range environment. One reason could be HDR shots or multiple exposure (as you need the images to align up) and then in post-processing mask/layer/blend in parts of the scene where there are harsh shadows or blown out highlights. Regardless of HDR or not, I always like to bracket my landscape shots. In fact I prefer having a tripod and carefully selecting my scenes, composing the shots, making sure the shots are leveled, and shooting through live view magnification to get critical focus to minimize the work in post process and going through thousands of images trying to narrow them down that end up hogging up hard drive space that probably won't ever see the light of day. In the case of using live view to shoot to get that perfect focus, I find myself using a tripod nearly 99% of the time regardless as you don't have your face pressed up against the viewfinder to support/balance the camera. Another reason I would use a tripod midday is when I'm shooting with my tilt shift lens with live view as it helps compose the scene easier.
"Best aid to composition is a tripod."
18
Lenses / Re: Is the 45mm TS-E good for wedding photography?
« on: February 16, 2013, 12:24:43 AM »
Good for engagement sessions or that small window where you can take the bride and groom away before/after the ceremony for some shots as there is time to compose/tilt/shift the shot while at the actual ceremony/reception you may not have the luxury of time for the "in-the-moment" shots to compose and tilt/shift your images.
19
Lenses / Re: Considering the Zeiss 21
« on: February 14, 2013, 03:23:03 PM »
I am curious to those that mention the 17-40 and 16-35 II are not sharp in the corners compared to the Zeiss 21mm, what f-stop were you using to compare to make the statement? Was it wide open or stopped down to around f/8-f/11? From what I've seen, the Zeiss only handles chromatic aberration and slightly less distortion than the Canon equivalents in the corner, but in regards of detail/sharpness they are pretty much similar stopped down to around f/8 (which I would assume most would use the lens for in landscapes - with the exceptions of astrophotography, low light events, or portraits).
In my personal usage, I have passed on owning the Zeiss 15mm and 21mm as they were not weather sealed like the Canon equivalents. Taking the lens out to destinations right up close to the ocean shoreline, dealing with mist from waterfalls, in rain, snow, etc. didn't seem practical in the long-term for usage.
For the price of a new Zeiss 15mm + $300+ filter, I decided on a used 16-35mm II + 17mm TS-e to cover my wide angle uses (16-35 II when I need filters & versatility of a zoom for more outdoor landscapes and the 17mm for urban/interiors).
By the way the 17mm TS-E can use filters with the compromise of slight vignetting at certain degrees of shift. This link can provide the DIY details:
http://www.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.linsenschuss.de%2Findex.php%2Fblog%2F79-canon-ts-e-17mm-f4l-filterhalter
In my personal usage, I have passed on owning the Zeiss 15mm and 21mm as they were not weather sealed like the Canon equivalents. Taking the lens out to destinations right up close to the ocean shoreline, dealing with mist from waterfalls, in rain, snow, etc. didn't seem practical in the long-term for usage.
For the price of a new Zeiss 15mm + $300+ filter, I decided on a used 16-35mm II + 17mm TS-e to cover my wide angle uses (16-35 II when I need filters & versatility of a zoom for more outdoor landscapes and the 17mm for urban/interiors).
By the way the 17mm TS-E can use filters with the compromise of slight vignetting at certain degrees of shift. This link can provide the DIY details:
http://www.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.linsenschuss.de%2Findex.php%2Fblog%2F79-canon-ts-e-17mm-f4l-filterhalter
20
Lenses / Re: Anyone Want an Improved 16-35mm over the much requested 14-24mm?
« on: February 13, 2013, 12:57:02 AM »
I much prefer a 14-24 to a "third" version of the 16-35.
21
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 14-24 f/2.8L in Late 2013 [CR2]
« on: December 15, 2012, 11:02:36 AM »To everyone saying they would buy this lens immediately, I have to ask, and I'm not trolling...how is the current 14mm L lens letting you down? Is the ability to zoom from 14-24 that killer of a feature?
For me it's sharpness and the chromatic aberrations in the corners on the 14 II. Also the versatility to compose ultra wide angle shots from 14-24mm when you may be restricted by a fence/trail/cliff/etc.
22
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 14-24 f/2.8L in Late 2013 [CR2]
« on: December 14, 2012, 01:18:09 AM »
I can see it being $2499+ (hopefully Canon prepares it's 2.8 trinity of the 14-24, 24-70, 70-200 2.8 IS within the $2-2.5k mark), though I am personally prepared and set aside up to $3k for this lens!
Besides optics, I just hope they don't screw up the lens cap design with the protruding glass front with a cheap plastic cap cover that just comes right off in your bag like on the Canon 8-15mm fisheye, Nikon 14-24mm or like the the slide in caps on the Zeiss 15mm or Canon 14mm II that over time and use will show noticeable wear on the built in lens hood. Hopefully Canon can get it done right like the twist-on cap design on the 17mm ts-e!
Besides optics, I just hope they don't screw up the lens cap design with the protruding glass front with a cheap plastic cap cover that just comes right off in your bag like on the Canon 8-15mm fisheye, Nikon 14-24mm or like the the slide in caps on the Zeiss 15mm or Canon 14mm II that over time and use will show noticeable wear on the built in lens hood. Hopefully Canon can get it done right like the twist-on cap design on the 17mm ts-e!
23
Lenses / Re: Advice 5d3, wide angle
« on: December 01, 2012, 02:37:12 AM »
I would sell the 60d unless you really value the articulating screen or do macro work.
I use a similar 5d3 setup with the 24-70 II and sold my 16-35 II for the 17mm ts-e instead.
I use a similar 5d3 setup with the 24-70 II and sold my 16-35 II for the 17mm ts-e instead.
24
Landscape / Re: Visiting Napa Valley. Need tips
« on: November 24, 2012, 11:49:15 AM »
Hands down #1 visit in napa:
+ Castello di Amorosa
+ Castello di Amorosa
25
Lenses / Re: Help!! 17 TS-E vs 16-35 II vs 17-40 vs 14II vs. Tokina 16-28 2.8 for Landscapes
« on: November 16, 2012, 01:46:06 AM »
I had tried shooting with all of those lenses except the Tokina for landscapes.
I've settled with the 17 TSE and 24-70 2.8 II landscape combo where I placed a preference in corner sharpness. The 17-40/16-35/14ii just didn't cut it for me even between f/8-f/16.
While the 24mm tse II is shaper than the 17mm tse, I found for tight spaces like interiors I just need the 17mm. Sometimes like along coastal shores, cliffs, or fenced off paths where the 17mm could be too wide the 24-70 is a good compromise providing versatility without the sacrifice in image quality. The additional 2.8 gives those rare few chances you want to experiment with long exposure astro-photography like shots as well.
I've settled with the 17 TSE and 24-70 2.8 II landscape combo where I placed a preference in corner sharpness. The 17-40/16-35/14ii just didn't cut it for me even between f/8-f/16.
While the 24mm tse II is shaper than the 17mm tse, I found for tight spaces like interiors I just need the 17mm. Sometimes like along coastal shores, cliffs, or fenced off paths where the 17mm could be too wide the 24-70 is a good compromise providing versatility without the sacrifice in image quality. The additional 2.8 gives those rare few chances you want to experiment with long exposure astro-photography like shots as well.
26
Lenses / Re: Picking the Best 24-70mm f/2.8 Lens by WOMP
« on: November 15, 2012, 03:13:44 AM »
For events, wouldn't the focal range of 24-70 mainly be utilized for taking still shots of groups of people posing for a shot with or without flash where IS would be more handy especially in low light/indoor locations? Honestly I would think the percentage of motion/candid/unposed shots at an event where IS would not be needed would be a pretty small in comparison to the overall batch of event shots?
I would think most of the candid shots where motion blur is highly more likely, are people walking up/down stage, mingling at a social event, or a bride walking down the aisle where utilizing a longer telephoto range like between 70-200 would be more suited?
My point that I am trying to address is to all those that can't understand why there should be an IS in this 24-70 focal range. On another note, I did select the Canon 24-70 2.8 II over Tamron because I place a higher value in the overall sharpness/image quality over image stabilization.
I would think most of the candid shots where motion blur is highly more likely, are people walking up/down stage, mingling at a social event, or a bride walking down the aisle where utilizing a longer telephoto range like between 70-200 would be more suited?
My point that I am trying to address is to all those that can't understand why there should be an IS in this 24-70 focal range. On another note, I did select the Canon 24-70 2.8 II over Tamron because I place a higher value in the overall sharpness/image quality over image stabilization.
27
Canon General / Abe's of Maine files for Bankruptcy!
« on: November 09, 2012, 10:33:19 PM »
I am not surprised this business is filing for bankruptcy with all the negative reviews it's been getting from Yelp (which their VP regularly moderates and removes 1 star reviews), and from reseller ratings.
I figured I would post this here as CanonRumors.com utilizes them in the price comparison watch, honestly they just aren't worth to deal with - heads up to all.
http://www.twice.com/articletype/news/abe%E2%80%99s-maine-files-chapter-11/103879
I figured I would post this here as CanonRumors.com utilizes them in the price comparison watch, honestly they just aren't worth to deal with - heads up to all.
http://www.twice.com/articletype/news/abe%E2%80%99s-maine-files-chapter-11/103879
28
Pricewatch Deals / Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS Preorders
« on: November 06, 2012, 08:40:08 AM »
Another 6 month period of announcements with no 14-24 lens, with my 14-24 savings account growing larger each time. At this point I wouldn't mind dropping up to $3500 (more than the Zeiss 15mm) on a Canon 14-24 2.8 than wait years on other oddball lens announcements! If Canon wants to charge a super premium on that lens, I couldn't care less, just push it up the pipeline for production!
29
Lenses / Re: Two Lenses to be Announced Shortly.....
« on: November 04, 2012, 06:38:01 PM »
two EF-L lenses? I must be dreaming! From the past I would think if anything one would be an ef-L and the other is an ef-s?!
30
Software & Accessories / Re: Camera bag for two bodies with attached lenses?
« on: November 02, 2012, 04:05:46 AM »
Thinktank Retrospective 20
I use this to hold 2 5d2s with 70-200 2.8 II and 24-70 attached back to back (so prisms don't bang/hit each other).
If you need to include a flash there are those thinktank modular addons you can add to the side of the bag or could toss it in the front expandable pocket of the bag.
I use this to hold 2 5d2s with 70-200 2.8 II and 24-70 attached back to back (so prisms don't bang/hit each other).
If you need to include a flash there are those thinktank modular addons you can add to the side of the bag or could toss it in the front expandable pocket of the bag.