Cory said:

That leads to an UWA being the "best" choice or not for landscape in bright sunny/water/snow conditions or maybe sticking with a normal prime for that even if limiting at times.

Click to expand...

Well, it's 'best' to have the focal length you need, IMO. Shooting with an APS-C body, you have very limited options for ultrawide prime lenses (i.e. wider than 15mm), and a wide or normal prime (or zoom) may not give you the AoV you need. Using a tripod and pano head and stitching shots is an option, but that doesn't play nice with a CPL either.

Even on an ultrawide, a CPl is good for cutting reflections from water, increasing saturation for foliage, etc., and sometimes the uneven skies aren't a big deal.

Hi,

i'm just back from 2 weeks in Namibia last month.

Here is what i had :

5d mk3
24-70 2.8l ii
70-200 2.8l is ii
extender 2x iii

all fitted in a lowepro flipside 200 aw, which was pretty convenient to carry.

as you have 2 bodies, i'd say longer lenses on the 7d and wide ones on the 5d mk 3.

imho no need to have many lenses. just pick one carefully for each body and stick to it.
try to find a bag where you can put them both with the lenses already fitted to the bodies (it will save you time to clean).

consider a wide range tele like the 100-400 with maybe a teleconverter. it might be a more versatile option over have multiple lenses.

kirkcha said:

The kit price dropped another $50 this morning at B&H. $2,399

Click to expand...

That'll probably be due to the 24-70/4 production setting in and the "new" - not necessarily "better" - kit arriving ... at least in Germany I didn't see any price drops during the last month. And since 6d availability is still limited (I asked in a shop a week ago) I don't see the price changing a lot anytime soon :-\

when I did the comparison of the 70-200 on eos m vs 300 f4L on 5dmk3 last night i also did the sigma 35
i'll post up some 100% crops when i post up those others I have to say at f1.4 it is very impressive and it just keeps getting sharper.

heres a 100% crop of the sigma 85 unedited f2 and lowish iso on the 5Dmk3
and a street shot with the lens at f1.4 iso 800

sama said:

tcmatthews said:

If you looking for a bargain 70-300mm and are in the USA the Tamron 70-300mmVC is $349 after a post purchase rebate on amazon.

http://www.amazon.com/Tamron-70-300mm-4-0-5-6-Digital-Cameras/dp/B003YH9DZ4/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1360717879&sr=8-2&keywords=tamron+70-300

I picked one up just before Christmas on a similar rebate as a backup. It is a good deal at that price but it is larger than the canon 70-300 and arguably better.

Click to expand...

+1 I have one and it is very sharp.

Click to expand...

+2! A fantastic lens for the money. Very sharp in the center at 300/5.6 and very very good VC.

A few samples with the Tamron 70-300:

http://500px.com/photo/22312343
http://500px.com/photo/22314267
http://500px.com/photo/22313587
http://500px.com/photo/25804313

Anyone heard if the Pro2 will be replacing the G1X or referred to as the G2X?

Yes, waiting six hours sounds little long. Depending on the time of day and season birds are very active in my backyard. Great shots BTW! I love the second of the Chickadee shots and the 3rd one of the Juncos the best.
I found another example setup using 5 flashes. This time the subject is a hummingbird.
They using the canon 300mm f2.8 IS with a Kenko 20mm ext macro tube to focus from closer distance.
I'm thinking one could rent the Speedlite flashes perhaps even the 300mm f2.8 IS. I have some thoughts that perhaps I should have got a Canon EOS 1Ds Mark III 21.1MP Digital SLR Camera instead of the Canon EOS 5D Mark II 21.1MP as it's 45-point AF is got to be better. I understand they are about 2K used. Anyway they explain the setup and provide pictures under the shot of the hummer.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/michelroy/2627962852/#

The 300mm f2.8 is one amazing lens and I've rented it before as a treat.
I'm thinking about getting the Canon EF 400mm f/4 DO IS USM Super Telephoto Lens or at least renting it. I understand it is excellent for BIF (BIF) captures.

might sound silly, but if you turned the image 90 degrees then it would look like a person and maybe tell a little more of a story than it does now

nice tip thanks...

ckwaller said:

bchernicoff said:

I haven't read through this whole thread, so I don't know what was previously discussed, but I've found the default lightroom sharpening to be too agressive... accentuating high-iso noise. Also, under Camera Calibrationrofile, try Camera Faithful or Camera Neutral...it may give you a better rendering than Adobe Standard depending on what you are going for. Let me know if any of that helps you out. I'm genuinely curious.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the info. I tried the Neutral/Faithful profiles and they didn't do much to alleviate the noise. As you said, Lightroom's Standard noise level (25) is far too harsh, and I had better results when dragging the Sharpening slider to '0.' There was still a bit of noise left when compared to the raw file in DPP.

Digital Paradise, I love the photo of the dog shot @ 1600 ISO. You mentioned applying no NR for this photo. Do you mind me asking which program you ran it through, or was it straight out of camera?

I'll post a comparison of a LR photo and that same photo in DPP later this evening/tomorrow to show the difference I'm getting. As mentioned, I'd love to find a way to mimic DPP's effects directly in Lightroom. However if I have to, I suppose I'll just add DPP as the precursor step to Lightroom in my overall workflow, to alleviate the noise.

I'm curious, has anyone with a 5D3 + LR noticed this (Seeming) software problem? Or is it just a few?

Click to expand...

I used PS but LR which I own is the same. Straight out of camera but there was an oops. PS/LR color noise defaults to 25 and I forgot to turn it off. Here is another one with colour NR off. Made little difference. I mask at about 80 in the detail pallet which helps.

For 24-70 I recommend the Tamron with 2.8 and VC. Telephoto wise, well no one can decide that for you. The 70-200 4L IS is dead sharp, 2.8L II IS is even sharper. Also, double the cost.

If you need 1 lens, the 16-35mm is usually it. I think pictures would look too similar if everything was taken at the same focal length.

Having said that, a 17 TS-e (14mm if you need autofocus), 50mm f/1.2 and a 300mm f/4 (f/2.8?) might be a cool combination

I had one and it got a noticeable amount of dust inside the rear element after use outside on a windy day. The gap is quite large between the lens body and and the barrel containing the front element. This barrel is what moves in and out when you focus. I was able to clean the rear element* and decided to sell it in favor of the Sigma. I don't regret this decision at all. The Sigma was roughly half the cost, had much better AF, and with a UV filter on the focusing barrel is contained.


*the rear element is mounted to the lens mount, so removing the four screws holding the lens mount in place will allow you to pivot it out where you can blow off the dust. I did this while wearing a dust mask and un-powdered latex gloves to avoid adding anything worse to the situation. It came out looking like new, but the whole process made me quite nervous.

When you want to use a Takumar 50mm 1.4 SMC on a full frame, you'll run into the problem with the mirror hitting the back of the lens. You can mod the lens though, wrote a bit about that on my website www.florianbieler.de. Going to try the lens out as soon as my M42 adapter arrives.

When you want to use a Takumar 50mm 1.4 SMC on a full frame, you'll run into the problem with the mirror hitting the back of the lens. You can mod the lens though, wrote a bit about that on my website www.florianbieler.de. Going to try the lens out as soon as my M42 adapter arrives.

BrianMichael said:

Canon is said to be a lil sharper.. But not worth $1000 more.. Plus..

Click to expand...

The Canon is more "worth it" if corner sharpness is paramount or often really shooting @f2.8 - but if the general style is to shoot @f4+ for increased dof and only for available light emergencies wide open then the Tamron with vc and 6 year warranty has a strong case - if you can get a good copy.

Yes, there is one report of a lens element coming loose and if I'd be a full time pro on heavy duty shooting the build quality might favor the Canon, but currently that won't hinder me from getting the Tamron.

privatebydesign said:

Slightly off topic, Dave Black made a series of videos a couple of years ago now promoting the benefits of hotshoe flash stadium lighting, it is an interesting series and now the 600EX-RT is here much much cheaper than he was using and they have the four digit coded channel protection.

The advantages he gives for small strobes over big flashes is pretty interesting too, but the real benefits are when you move outside.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpyLIakjVnM

Click to expand...

These are all very good points. After the lighting discussion in a previous thread I have started to learn flash for the same reasons. Outdoor ski/snowboard can be difficult to nail in bright mid-day light or on a cloudy day. Flash helps a ton!

+1 for sure!

brad-man said:

I have the Sigma and it is one of my favorite lenses. If this 35 drops to the level the 28mm IS was a few days ago ($550@Adorama), I may just pick one up for the same reasons. I almost grabbed the 28 IS as a replacement for my EF28 f1.8, but 2.8 isn't quite fast enough. Unlike some around here, I would like to have IS on ALL of my lenses...

Click to expand...

I recently rented the Sigma and bought the new Canon, used them mostly outdoors at night in very low light, and am very impressed by the image quality generated by both of them.

There is, however, one area where the Sigma plainly trumps the Canon, and that is coma. In the photos I took it was negligible on the Sigma wide open and completely gone by c. f2; and where it *was* visible, it didn't extend all that far into the image. I didn't try either lens on a crop sensor camera, but I wouldn't be surprised if it didn't show up at all when paired with such a camera. On the Canon it's not only much more noticeable, but extends farther into the image (though it's not as bad as the 28mm 1.8 or Nikon's 50mm 1.8D, where it covers all but a tiny patch in the middle) and would likely affect images created by a crop sensor. I suppose I should note that it's a rather superior sort of coma: the "sails" or "wings" (or whatever you call them) are crisply defined, not amorphous smears.

In any event, if you find coma as annoying as I do and take photos in situations likely to generate it, you'll want the Sigma, which not only trumps the Canon IS in that regard but (as far as I can tell) just about any other fast, wide prime. (I won't be keeping the Canon.)

One of the problems in this discussion is that the word professional has two meanings. One is a general term relating to the quality of one's work, one's ethics, and how reliable one is, with respect to others in a certain line of work. The other generally means that you are paid to do the work as opposed to doing it as a hobby. Ideally the two would go hand in hand but not always.

I believe Ken's definitions are useful his audience -- which is mainly people who are about to spend too much money on a camera.

Although there are several things I don't like in my Canon gear, nothing is really worth mentioning as far as image quality is concerned, I'm pretty OK with it. But there's one thing that really bugs me, it's not a quality issue, I'd rather call it a logical conflict. I know this topic has been covered hundreds of times among various fora in the last decade, it just seemed to me worth mentioning it in this thread. It's about the symbols used for metering modes. Spot (rectangle and dot) and partial (rectangle and circle) are quite intuitive, but evaluative (rectangle and circled dot) and center-weighed average (empty rectangle) are absolutely counterlogical, they should be inverted. I know we have all get used to this already, so Canon eventually swapping them would generate more confusion, nevertheless this thing is so illogical that really upsets me every time.

Logical cheers!

Mr. Spock

Interesting

Good one!

Not to say Manfrotto does not have it's uses but it isn't to be used with gear exceeding $4,000.

You are courting trouble if you do.

docholliday said:

dolina said:

Went cheap with the Manfrotto and really regretted buying it. I ended up buying a Gitzo that I am superbly happy with.

GMCPhotographics said:

Three years ago I bought a GT3541LS and it's extraordinarily stable compared to any Manfrotto I've tried. But it's achillies heel is sand and sea water. In fact it's so bad in coastal conditions that they are appalling. I recently did a trip on the Lincolnshire coast shooting grey seals and the tripod needs so many replacement parts in only 9 hours of shooting. It needs three lower tubes and all the locking joints need replacing.
In my opinion, these tripods are useless in extream sea salt and sandy conditions. They literally seize up or fall apart.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I had a Bogen/Manfrotto that shattered on me at 20F - and dropped my Hasselblad 203FE with 110/2 on the ground when I was shooting. Yeah, that was the last of my touching anything Manfotto branded.

Click to expand...

Dylan777 said:

Alex said:

Very nice bit of kit.. Enjoy

Click to expand...

Thanks Alex....I'll take a day off from work tomorrow to test drive this "little monster". I'll post some pictures. Stay tune

Click to expand...

My wife took the kids to Chuck E. Cheese over the weekend with my RX1. Since then, I haven't seen my RX1 back yet

Here are some pictures that she took. Also, others were taken by her friend(s) with my RX1: http://albums.phanfare.com/isolated/fPRlYszx/1/5948895

Here is a 45% crop that is currently on my facebook cover, shot with the Rokinon 85mm mounted to a large format field camera with Fujichrome Velvia 50, handheld while jumping on a trampoline at sunset...(ok I lied it's just from my 5 year old crop camera!) The camera needs to start kindergarten, it's getting old...but I hate to see it grow up! ISO 1600, f/1.4, 1/400/sec, handheld, live view focus and framing. I really can't accurately focus with the viewfinder and this lens, especially for darker scenes at a distance. The lens can really go almost this sharp when cropped at 100%, but not at ISO 1600, or wide open...maybe by f/3.2 or so, at ISO 800 or below. Ergonomics and lack of AF are the only problems with this lens. Those things cost money.