August 02, 2014, 03:23:28 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 - Sporgon

Pages: 1 ... 12 13 [14] 15 16 ... 114
196
Canon EF Prime Lenses / Re: Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 STM "Pancake"
« on: May 03, 2014, 12:18:28 PM »
Here's another 40 Pancake shot, this time a panoramic of North Landing, a cove just North of Flamborough Head, famous for it's chalk cliffs and nesting sea birds.

5DII + 40mm @ 1/200, f9, ISO 160. Hand held five frame pano.

It was a very misty morning, but the sun broke through for about one minute, then everything was covered in a blanket of fog again. No time for a tripod.
That's awesome, too bad weather was not perfect for the cliffs in the background ... still a very beautiful handheld landscape image.

Thanks Rienz ! Very kind of you. I was pleased with this one, especially as I wasn't going to be bothered with calling in - the weather looked too bad.

197
Landscape / Re: Post Your Best Landscapes
« on: May 03, 2014, 11:12:13 AM »
Last of the sunlight for a day over Givendale in the North of England

5D + 35 f2

198
Well, those 2 lenses are targeted at different markets.

The 24-70 f/4 is targeted at the lower end of the market where IS (shooting at slow shutter speeds or have shaky hands) and wants closeup/short 'macro' operation with fairly good image quality, but not top end.

You may be interested to know that I have a friend and colleague who must be one of the most financially successful photographers in recent times - we're talking $400,000 yachts here, all genuinely from photography - and he now uses a 24-70 f4 IS.

It's inaccurate to say it's not aimed at 'top end'.

I'm tempted to say the 24-70 f2.8 II is aimed as much at very wealthy hobbyists as much as professionals who want the best possible IQ straight off the camera but I don't have any hard evidence for this, so I'd better not  ;)

199
Canon EF Prime Lenses / Re: Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM
« on: May 03, 2014, 03:22:48 AM »
There is no fun shooting @ f2 Eldar :P
But for a lot of the others, I think many of them would benefit from a slightly deeper DOF.

+1, my thoughts exactly.

@Eldar; you have a very beautiful, elegant daughter !

(presumably she got her looks from her mother  ;). )


200
I think pixel peeping is a good way to waste a good thing.
;D

Like it  !
 
I've started checking my images at 50% and find it's a better reference for checking real resolution.

I still maintain that 22 mp on FF is 'high mp'. If I want more than this I want a larger format.

201
Landscape / Re: Sunset landscape
« on: May 02, 2014, 11:29:39 AM »
Strolling alongside the River Ouse in Northern England opposite the new wind farm which is sited in front of Drax Power Station, the largest one in Europe.

5DII + 24-105L @ 105 mil f8, ISO 100.

202
Canon EF Zoom Lenses / Re: Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM
« on: May 01, 2014, 04:29:50 PM »
Good to see that the 24-105L thread is still alive. The 24-70 f4 IS is definitely better than the 24-105L in the 24-70 range, but the 24-105 is much better at 71-105.

This was shot at 105.

203
Lenses / Re: 135L v 85 1.8
« on: May 01, 2014, 05:53:10 AM »
+1 on the 85 focal length. For myself, over the years, I have found the 85 mil to be highly versatile. There are many reasons why it has been so popular on 35 format. On the other hand the 135 length is a bit of a half way house between 85 & 200.

Canon have decided to offer the excellent value 85/1.8 or the uber expensive 85/1.2 with nothing in between on price. Maybe this is because the 85/1.8 is difficult to improve on in terms of price/quality.

Yes you get PF in high contrast wide open but that's the penalty of the excellent bokeh, indistinguishable from the 135L IMO. The manual focus is pretty poor but do you really need that now ? Yes the 135L is a little sharper/contrasty wide open but can you really tell the difference after a touch of UM ?

I'm an 85/1.8 fan. I sold my 135L and kept the 200/2.8L and the 85/1.8.

204
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Yongnuo shows 1.4/50mm lens for EF
« on: April 30, 2014, 05:46:48 PM »
Interesting: this looks like it is the EF 50/1.4

I wonder if this means Canon has a new 50 that is about to be launched, and the old 50/1.4 is going to be discontinued - at least by Canon.

205
Lenses / Re: Canon hood options for the EF 35mm f/2 IS USM
« on: April 30, 2014, 05:30:54 PM »
The EW 65 II hood is for the old 35/f2, and it is a snap on like the 85/f1.8.

It won't fit the IS lens because the barrel of that one is a larger diameter.

As the EW 72 is a petal type hood it can't be snap on due to the problems rotation would cause.

206
Photography Technique / Re: Thin dof posing/shooting advice
« on: April 30, 2014, 04:09:48 PM »
I think I'm getting a handle on your situation now; am i right in thinking you just use the 17-40 and 70-300, and you were using the latter as it is a better 'portrait' type lens ?

Yes, that's right, certainly better as the 17-40L ... I only recently moved to ff and used the 17-40L on crop as a "normal" zoom. Alas, "pro" doesn't just mean spending money, but also earning it and make do what's availabe?

If you are going to shoot these types of pictures I would strongly recommend you get a fifty of some sort; the 50/1.8 is  the cheapest way in.

I had that until it broke after it fell down (100% plastic) but I hated it as it's so soft and has a horrible bokeh. I also have to admit that I currently feel that for two models (pet & person) I can do most things @70mm other people might use a 50mm for because they have it in the bag?

It's not just a case of 'what you have in your bag at the time'. If you need to produce a certain type of shot then you must be able to achieve it, more so when you are being commissioned to do so. There is a significant difference between 50 and 70.

I know what you mean about the 50/1.8. My other suggestion for maximum cost effectiveness is the 40 pancake. This lens has a very pleasant bokeh in many instances.

If you are shooting again tomorrow I suggest trying your 17-40 at 35-40 @ around f4 - 5.6 depending on what is going to give you your 0.5 -0.7 m dof that you are looking for. I think you might be surprised. When you look at agierke's 35mm shot at 1.4 there is no problem with lack of compression, in fact it is an excellent picture. You are going to be in a different orientation and closer and not focusing on a single pane so you'll need to use a smaller aperture. Remember to try and get a focus point fore or midway of your dof range.

Post what you get, I'll be interested to see.

207
Photography Technique / Re: Thin dof posing/shooting advice
« on: April 30, 2014, 01:10:45 PM »
i agree with sporgon about using a 50mm or 85mm rather than your longer focal lengths.

Double-post because this is an important question for me: Most shots are 85mm-160mm - but I really don't have an option because I'm lacking a "standard" zoom, 17-40L ("standard" on backup 60d crop) and 70-300L. My 100L with f2.8 produces a way too thin dof wide open.

Currently I have to work out if I really need a "standard" lens or prime in the 50mm range for these types of shots, if if using 70mm and a few steps back is sufficient... I'm quite on a budget here, and these charity shots are not paid :-\

I think I'm getting a handle on your situation now; am i right in thinking you just use the 17-40 and 70-300, and you were using the latter as it is a better 'portrait' type lens ?

You are really missing the 50 mm focal length on FF. I think in your original post you asked what a professional would do. Well I think I can say with 100% certainly that there will now be one single (genuine) professional who doesn't have access to the 50 mm focal length.

If you are going to shoot these types of pictures I would strongly recommend you get a fifty of some sort; the 50/1.8 is  the cheapest way in. 

208
Photography Technique / Re: Thin dof posing/shooting advice
« on: April 30, 2014, 11:10:40 AM »
Quote from: RustyTheGeek link=topic=20739.msg392134#msg392134 date=

Personally, when I shoot people, esp groups or couples, I have learned the hard way to not drop below f/5.6 (depending on my distance which is usually within on camera flash range) and try to move the subject(s) away from the background as much as possible if I want it to blur.  I can go with a more narrow DoF (lower f stop) the further I am away from the subject.

You make an important point that many people miss: 2.8 and less isn't everything.

209
Lenses / Re: Canon's f/1.2's: What is really going on?
« on: April 30, 2014, 11:04:03 AM »
As Mack says, don't get hung up on lens changes causing dust issues. If you only shot primes and changed them a lot, assuming non extreme conditions, you'll have a lot less dust issues than the guy who's pumping his variable length zoom in and out !

Sure the later versions are 'weather sealed', but that doesn't stop microscopic dust getting past the brush seal on the barrel, and the eye piece on the camera.

Lenses such as the 24-105, 24-70, 70-300, 100-400 will bring more dust into the camera than changing lenses ever will.

210
Photography Technique / Re: Thin dof posing/shooting advice
« on: April 30, 2014, 10:49:28 AM »
I think it's your choice of focal lengths that's causing you the problems you describe. By using medium telephoto at this distance and framing, the aperture you are having to use to get adequate dof is overcoming the subject isolation.

If I was going to shoot this same thing I'd be going for 50 or 85 mil and an aperture in the f5.6 region depending on distance, and then I'd be choosing my focus point carefully in order to be mid / fore of my desired dof. Even the 40 might work well.

On these shorter lenses at closer focusing distances you will retain an appropriate level of subject isolation. F2.8 wouldn't be appropriate for what you are trying to achieve anyway.

There's a reason why the 50 and 85 mm focal lengths are so popular  ;)

Pages: 1 ... 12 13 [14] 15 16 ... 114