October 23, 2014, 12:42:49 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 - littlepilotdude

Pages: 1 [2] 3
16
Canon General / Re: Portraits
« on: November 26, 2012, 10:09:11 PM »
Hi,

How do I put my name out there?

17
Lenses / Re: 50mm 1.2
« on: November 26, 2012, 09:57:49 PM »
This is a little off topic but, is the 135L a good combination of portrait lenses?

18
Canon General / Portraits
« on: November 26, 2012, 09:15:11 PM »
Hi,

I am trying to get into paid portrait photography but the only thing is, how do you get into that?

19
Lenses / 50mm 1.2
« on: November 26, 2012, 07:50:27 PM »
Hello,

How does the 50mm f/1.2 compare to other 50mms? Is it worth the extra $1400 from the 1.4?

Thanks,

littlepilotdude

20
Lenses / Re: Portrait lenses
« on: November 23, 2012, 08:57:32 AM »
Hi,

I think that I have narrowed the choice do to the 135L because, I generally shoot at the 105mm range of my lens and I would like the extra reach. I will still keep in mind the 200L, though it might be a bit too long to be a portrait lens.

Thanks,

littlepilotdude

21
Lenses / Re: Portrait lenses
« on: November 22, 2012, 10:15:38 PM »
It is funny, people pay nearly $6,000 for the 200 f2 and say it is the most awesome portrait lens ever with amazing compression and unmatched "look", same for the older 200 f1.8 at $3,000 secondhand, but when it is the more modest 200 f2.8 L suddenly the focal length is too long! And lets not forget all the 70-200 owners that end up with portraits from the 200mm end.

Indoors the 200, especially with a crop camera, can be unworkable, outside and/or with a ff camera the 200mm focal length can work very well, just look at the 200 f2 lens sample thread on this site for some examples.

As for holding off on the 135 for fear of updates, don't forget the 200 f2.8L is an ancient lens too.

Hi,

Thanks for that input, I thought that since the 200 II was a mark II version, I thought it was recent until I looked it up and it was released in the 90s. I might buy it because it is a cheap lens and I'm looking for a new L lens that is inexpensive.

Thanks



Must it be an L?  As Neuro said, 85mm F1.8 is one of the best even if it's cheap.  This is also workable in an indoor shootout.

Hi,

It doesn't need to be an L, but since it is one of the cheaper L models, I am considering this and the 135L. I haven't looked at the 85 1.8, but I am going to take a look at it sometime.

Thanks

22
Lenses / Re: Portrait lenses
« on: November 22, 2012, 09:57:28 PM »
It is funny, people pay nearly $6,000 for the 200 f2 and say it is the most awesome portrait lens ever with amazing compression and unmatched "look", same for the older 200 f1.8 at $3,000 secondhand, but when it is the more modest 200 f2.8 L suddenly the focal length is too long! And lets not forget all the 70-200 owners that end up with portraits from the 200mm end.

Indoors the 200, especially with a crop camera, can be unworkable, outside and/or with a ff camera the 200mm focal length can work very well, just look at the 200 f2 lens sample thread on this site for some examples.

As for holding off on the 135 for fear of updates, don't forget the 200 f2.8L is an ancient lens too.

Hi,

Thanks for that input, I thought that since the 200 II was a mark II version, I thought it was recent until I looked it up and it was released in the 90s. I might buy it because it is a cheap lens and I'm looking for a new L lens that is inexpensive.

Thanks



23
Lenses / Re: Portrait lenses
« on: November 22, 2012, 09:30:29 PM »
If I were just starting out, and being on a  budget, would this be a good lens?

In that case, I'd recommend the 85mm f/1.8 - in terms of IQ for cost, it's one of the best values in the Canon lineup, and it's a great focal length on FF for portraits.

Hi,

I might buy the 135L. Do you guys know any people that use a 200L?

Thanks

24
Lenses / Re: Portrait lenses
« on: November 22, 2012, 08:59:42 PM »
It wouldn't be my first choice for a portrait lens, no.   I'd take 135mm or 85mm lenses, first.

But just about any lens can be used for portraits.  For example, the 600/4L IS II:

Hello,

If I were just starting out, and being on a  budget, would this be a good lens? I'm also thinking about the 135mm, but I here that it might be upgraded, so I'm not sure.

Thanks for your input  :)

25
Lenses / Re: Portrait lenses
« on: November 22, 2012, 08:57:57 PM »
yes....


any where between 50-200mm is a good focal length... 

what camera do u use though as the crop factor maybe important too

Hi,

I'm using a 5D Mark II, so no crop factor.

26
Lenses / Portrait lenses
« on: November 22, 2012, 07:10:10 PM »
Hello,

Is the 200mm F2.8 II a good portrait lens?

27
Lenses / Re: 70-200 F/4
« on: November 19, 2012, 08:52:45 PM »
Hello,

I shoot portraits, but I also shoot just general subjects.

Thanks,

littlepilotdude

28
Lenses / 70-200 F/4
« on: November 19, 2012, 08:35:54 PM »
Hello,

If I were to buy a 70-200, either the F/4 IS or the 2.8. I don't have enough money for the 2.8 IS II. What would be the better purchase? The IS is better because of IS, but 2.8 is good because of the 2.8 aperture.

What do you think?

Thanks,

littlepilotdude

29
Lenses / Re: 50mm
« on: November 10, 2012, 02:32:21 PM »
You did not say what you would use it for, or if you would be a heavy duty user or ligh user.  There is not a huge difference in image quality between a cheap 50mm f/1.8 and a $750 lens.  For the most part, you are paying for a wider aperture, improved construction, and faster autofocus.
If you are only going to use the lens occasionally, get the Canon 50mm f/1.8.  However, if you want to use manual focus one of the others will be better, the Zeiss being much easier to manually focus.  However, with manual focus, you run into other issues like the viewfinder size, focus screen type, etc.
Another thing to understand is that lenses perform differently on APS-C and Full Frame bodies.  The Sigma 50mm f/1.4 is optimized for Crop bodies, while the Canon 50mm f/1.4 is optimized for use on FF bodies and has better IQ on FF than the Sigma does. 

Hello,

I would use this lens quite frequently in all situations. I'm looking for a well constructed lens and good quality. I have used the Zeiss and it was great. I have also used the Canon 50 1.4 and it wasn't as good as the Zeiss. The only one I haven't used is the Sigma. I use a 5D Mark II, so I wouldn't go with the sigma since it isn't great with full frame.

Thanks,

littlepilotdude
Are you talking the Zeiss 50mm f/1.4?  It certainly is not as good optically as the Canon 50mm f/1.4, but has a better build by far.  With a wide aperture autofocus lens, its pretty common for the AF to need fine tuning with AFMA for the best results.
Here is a link to comparisons of test data.  The Zeiss has less viginetting, but loses by a lot in the other areas.
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Lenses/Compare-Camera-Lenses/Compare-lenses/(lens1)/196/(lens2)/341/(brand1)/Canon/(camera1)/483/(brand2)/Zeiss/(camera2)/483

I was talking about the 50mm in general.

30
Lenses / Re: 50mm
« on: November 09, 2012, 08:40:12 PM »
You did not say what you would use it for, or if you would be a heavy duty user or ligh user.  There is not a huge difference in image quality between a cheap 50mm f/1.8 and a $750 lens.  For the most part, you are paying for a wider aperture, improved construction, and faster autofocus.
If you are only going to use the lens occasionally, get the Canon 50mm f/1.8.  However, if you want to use manual focus one of the others will be better, the Zeiss being much easier to manually focus.  However, with manual focus, you run into other issues like the viewfinder size, focus screen type, etc.
Another thing to understand is that lenses perform differently on APS-C and Full Frame bodies.  The Sigma 50mm f/1.4 is optimized for Crop bodies, while the Canon 50mm f/1.4 is optimized for use on FF bodies and has better IQ on FF than the Sigma does. 

Hello,

I would use this lens quite frequently in all situations. I'm looking for a well constructed lens and good quality. I have used the Zeiss and it was great. I have also used the Canon 50 1.4 and it wasn't as good as the Zeiss. The only one I haven't used is the Sigma. I use a 5D Mark II, so I wouldn't go with the sigma since it isn't great with full frame.

Thanks,

littlepilotdude

Pages: 1 [2] 3