Posts

charlesa · Nov 11, 2012

Sell you mine? It is a beautiful lens if you can cope with the manual focus that is.

gmrza · Nov 10, 2012

neuroanatomist said:
NormanBates said:

What full frame gives you is MORE bokeh, not better bokeh (i.e. DoF is shallower).

Click to expand...

It's my understanding that bokeh refers only to the quality of OOF blur, not the quantity. Therefore it can be better or worse, but 'more bokeh' is an non sequitur.

At least that is the way the OED sees it:
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/bokeh?q=bokeh

the visual quality of the out-of-focus areas of a photographic image, especially as rendered by a particular lens.

Mt Spokane Photography · Nov 10, 2012

alben said:
Thanks for the info, I had not realised the 2x would be f11 :-[ any preference between the Canon or Kenko, my instinct is to go with the Canon Mk111 even if it is more expensive.

Alan

One thing to consider is that the Kenko will work with lenses like the 100mmL and the 70-300mmL while the Canon TC either will not mount at all, or only works at certain focal lengths.
I bout a Kenko f/1.4 and it worked for about 20 images and then dies the 2nd time I went to use it. I did not replace it, just returned it because Canon announced the f/8 firmware and I already have Canon TC's.
I have not heard of reliability issues with Kenko, so it might have just been bad luck.

Mt Spokane Photography · Nov 10, 2012

You have two custom file naming setups in the 5D MK III, its easy to switch. You can also quickly change one of them for each bracketed shot, but that might get frustrating.
In any event, stack them in lightroom and that will keep them together.
http://lightroomsecrets.com/2009/04/stacking-your-bracketed-shots/

Dylan777 · Nov 10, 2012

Jesse said:
Has anybody compared these 2 lenses at 24-35 yet?

16-35 II is no where near 24-70 II from f2.8 to f5.6 - over all range. Can't wait for Canon next WA, similar or better to Nikon 14-24. Sorry to say that 16-35 II is not "De Lens" for Canon.

littlepilotdude · Nov 10, 2012

Mt Spokane Photography said:
littlepilotdude said:

Mt Spokane Photography said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

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.

JPAZ · Nov 10, 2012

Bang bang, shoot shoot.

So I did "pull the trigger" on this lens. So far all seems fine, but, the Kevlar vest that I wear while using it is a little snug...... ;D

Thanks all.

Cgdillan · Nov 10, 2012

Dylan777 said:
Cgdillan said:

I just heard that we will be seeing a new 70D and 7D mkII!!!
Here is the timeline I was told

present:
The 7D and 60D will remain current

year 2015 still current

year 2018 new sensor tech announced

year 2025 70D and 7D mkII receive a long awaited upgrade and have digic VI processors and an 18MP hybrid sensor with phase AF for continuos focus in video mode! Also, the power of the new processor will enable 1 full stop better high iso when shooting jpeg.

seems about right to me...

Click to expand...

You must be really f_ken bored....to have this type of topic posted

I was...

Nov 10, 2012

bran8 said:
I am wondering if some light could be shed on the max useable print size for landscapes taken with a 5dii/5diii. I have looked over another post on this forum that discussed this topic and have read some of the links provided, but am still left wondering a few things:

1) The link that was given referencing a tutorial on Adorama's website suggested that the print size be limited to the pixel dimensions divided by 135. That would give a roughly 42" x 28" print (rounded up) printed at 240 dpi for the 5d mark ii. My question is, how accurate is that assumption? What if I print at 300 dpi?

2) How much of an advantage does someone using a d800 (or for that matter a 46mp Canon when the time comes) have over someone using a 5dii when printing at say 45" x 30" or 60" x 40"? Anyone with experience printing landscapes from a d800 vs. a 5dii/iii?

3) What do you find the best program is to enlarge landscape photos? I have Perfect Resize 7, but have found that I like the results from CS6 better. I feel that Perfect Resize 7 gives results that look more like a painting (on the screen, I have never printed one of these to a 60" x 40" size, so maybe it looks better than CS6 once it is printed), but I really don't know a lot about the program and only use basic settings. Am I missing something there?

4) I know that a common answer to the question of how large can you print a photo is, "It depends." I would like to get a more specific answer from someone that commonly does print large, high-detail landscape photos. How large are you willing to print landscapes taken with a 5dii/iii?

Thank you in advance for any responses to any of the above questions!

You can go 2 miles x 3 miles wide as long as your viewing distance is about 9 miles or more away.
Viewing distance is what matters.

The question for you would be how far away will it be viewed.

sagittariansrock · Nov 10, 2012

Firstly, >1600 ISO images from 7D aren't bad, and I am sure in the hands of competent photographers are perfectly usable- however, that I feel is the one weakness of that excellent camera.
Secondly, when you think of all the extra light there is to be had if you go FF (I know FF users can also think the same of going MF!) and all the shallow DoF that you can use creatively, that is one big incentive.
I haven't ruled out 5DIII, in fact that is what I am going to save up for now- thanks to the general advice I got in this thread and elsewhere. I do think I'd miss the fps of the 7D if I go with 5DII/6D.
But this is very good advice:

elflord said:
If you're shooting indoors a lot, you'll be better served by faster glass

dtaylor said:
* Finally, for the price and hassle of moving, why not just add a fast prime?

I think I'd benefit from f/1.4 glass as well- it will counter my high ISO problem as well as provide the shallow DoF when I do go FF. But I think a 24mm or 35mm will suit me better indoors. 50mm on a crop is too long. I used to have the 1.4, but ended up selling it and just kept the 50 1.8.

Promature · Nov 10, 2012

Thank you everyone for the replies. Unfortunatley (or fortunately for my wallet), I'm going to be at work for the whole night, so I'll have to hold off on moon shooting for a few more nights now. However, the clouds are looking quite wonderful for a spectacular sunrise. I'll be sure to post them tomorrow morning.

gmrza · Nov 9, 2012

The 24-105 f/4 is a very popular lens amongst wedding shooters in Melbourne. - Even Yervant uses it.

While a f/2.8 zoom is a blessing in terms of having the extra stop of light and more accurate AF, a lot of the time a wider aperture only affords you enough DoF to get one person in focus - unless all your subjects are parallel to your focal plane, which is often not true.

If you are only shooting with one body, the 24-105 also allows you the benefit of not having to change lenses as often. - Apart from 1 stop less light, the 24-105's bokeh is nowhere near as nice as the 24-70 f/2.8II.

My wife started out shooting weddings using mainly the 24-105 (partly because of not having other lenses), but is gravitating more towards the combination of the 24-70 f/2.8II and 70-200 f/2.8 IS USM II. The double Blackrapid strap just arrived in the post this week ;-)

Someone else made the comment about using a cheaper prime to make up for the lack of a f/2.8 zoom - that was one of the strategies my wife applied as well - taking along a 50mm f/1.4 as well and using it when she really needed low light performance.

Mooose · Nov 9, 2012

Flattering.

x-vision · Nov 9, 2012

dlleno said:
They've telegraphed the big MP FF (to keep people from jumping to Nikon I suppose) ...

Canon hasn't telegraphed anything.

The 46mp figure is derived by scaling the resolution of the 7D/60D sensor to FF:

18mp * 1.6 * 1.6 = 46.08mp

Not sure who thought that this was a good idea but it looks like wishful thinking to me.

40mp would be much more palatable, for example.
A 40mp sensor will be able to achieve UHD video resolution (3840 × 2160) with 2x2 pixel binning.
Canon is already doing 2x2 pixel binning on the 5DIII for HD video (hence the magic number 22mp).
And it would only make sense if they do the exact same thing on a high-MP camera.
This would require a 40mp sensor, though, not a 46mp sensor.
So, 40mp is actually more likely than 46mp for the high-MP camera.

The 46mp figure is not only not telegraphed by Canon but it's also a very weak [CR0] rumor.

Krob78 · Nov 9, 2012

Florida Panther~ 8)

Bosman · Nov 9, 2012

http://www.eoshd.com/content/9044/exclusive-canon-confirm-1d-c-4k-dslr-is-same-hardware-as-the-1d-x

This to me is identical enough to be called identical for all intensive purposes. I agree to disagree. I am thinking about firmware being the main thing to Canon's camera sensor capabilities. Firmware and gapless sensors being the last way to give their cameras a boost before moving to more advanced sensor tech. I claim no knowledge on the matter but believe it. Chuck Westfall did seem to allude to great firmware being a major advancement during the 5dm3 release.

Nov 9, 2012

Hi Everyone,

I've shot Leica Rangefinders for the last couple of years. Prior to that I was a Nikon film user. I just purcahsed a Mark III and to say I'm overwhelmed would be an understatement. I have the opportunity to get on the field this weekend for the pregame activities, warm ups, etc. at the Panthers-Broncos game. I have a 70-200 II IS lens but I need some advice regarding settings for the Mark III. I'm reading the manual and a Nook download but I just don't have the time to learn and figure things out for myself since the game is this weekend.

Any help with settings, etc., would be greatly appreciated!!!

Chuck Alaimo · Nov 9, 2012

Zlatko said:
NormanBates said:

Forget about inflation, exchange rates, and all that. Those are all excuses. The 5D3 doesn't have to compete with a 5D2 released at $2700 4 years ago. It has to compete with the D800, which has a much better sensor and sells for $3000.

Click to expand...

Right, it does have to compete against the D800, which was priced lower at introduction. Happily, the 5D3 price is coming down.

However, the question of a "better sensor" depends on the intended use and the preferences of the user. I prefer Canon color for photos of people, so the 5D3 has the better sensor for me. If I were a landscape photographer, I'd probably favor the D800 sensor.

And other important factors come into the equation. Without a smaller Raw file format and without a super-quiet shutter mode and without Canon ergonomics and certain Canon lenses and the Canon radio-controlled flash, the D800 is less attractive for me, and therefor less competitive even at a lower price. For these reasons, the 5D3 competes very well for some photographers, whether priced the same as the D800 or higher. It comes down to the needs and preferences of the photographer.

So there are multiple factors, some of which have greater importance to certain photographers; DR is just one of them. Back when Nikon didn't offer a full-frame camera or any camera with excellent high ISO performance, some photographers still preferred Nikon because other factors were more important to them. This is why reducing camera competitiveness to just one or two factors and a price doesn't work.

There are obviously many photographers for whom the D800 will be a better fit and likewise many for whom the 5D3 will be a better fit, notwithstanding any price differences. It's apparent that Canon and Nikon intentionally design at least some of their products with somewhat different buyers in mind (with a good deal of overlap, of course) — this way they don't have to compete strictly on price.

+1 ...others have said it so I'll repeat it...why are we so dogmatic about this that we can't just use 2 systems if the needs for both are that great? I shoot weddings, portraits and events as my bread and butter...but I do also shoot landscapes and cityscapes and urban decay, etc, etc too. If demand for my art were to get to a point where I could live off of it, then yeah I would seriously consider picking up a d800. But, right now for me the service end is more lucrative - and yeah, the 5d3 is the better camera for that kind of work.

Bosman · Nov 9, 2012

Manual is so much better than relying on the meter to decide shutter speed.

Nov 9, 2012

Its available at B&H.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/895598-REG/Rokinon_cv85c_85mm_T1_5_Cine_AS.html

RLPhoto · Nov 9, 2012

florianbieler.de said:
After spending some weeks thinking about this 135 and especially it's massive price tag (at least for me it is), I decided to trash my 70-200 4.0L non-IS (don't use it that often anyway) and get the 135 instead.

So now I own the 100L and the 135L. I am going out for a testdrive later this weekend to see if it's really that magic. But I very much hope so.

Enjoy! If you recieved a good 135L copy, You'll find it's just as sharp as your 70-200 F/4 @ F/2.

bornshooter · Nov 9, 2012

RLPhoto said:
I like the punchy-colors much better.

You must have been eye-level when shooting these shots because the first photo has a-lot of headroom. If your going for atmosphere around your model, a lower angle would seperate and yet, make the background present. Eye level or above eye level tends to put emphasis on the foreground in-front of your subject.

thanks for the tip i will give it a go on my next shoot

Random Orbits · Nov 9, 2012

d8032 said:
I've gone back and forth with myself over the 15 vs. the 8-15. I think the 8-15 is reasonably priced, but I don't know that I would use the wide end of it very much and question if the difference in cost could be better used somewhere else. Do you have experience with either lens? What types of situations would you want the circular image the 8mm produces on a FF body?

The zoom range of the 8-15 is nice if you have camera bodies of different formats, which you do. You can get full frame 180 diagonal AOV with both bodies, and you can decrease the AOV on the crop by using it at longer focal lengths. The longer focal length on a crop effectively uses the center of the image circle, which is less distorted.

dmcassidy · Nov 9, 2012

No not a pro but on a weekend trip in the keys my camera went down and luckily one of the others in them group had a spare 7d so I could continue with the trip. Prior to that I never would have thought about having two bodies. After all the good comments I am going to kept my 1div and get rid of my two 7ds at whatever I can get for them. Thanks again to everyone

robbymack · Nov 9, 2012

bruce

i only rented a copy of the tamron for a weekend alongside the 24-70ii so my experience may not be as great as some, and since no one has hands on a 24-70 f4 the rest is speculation on my part. What I can tell you is that compared to your 28-135 you won't be disappointed with the tamron. Its sharper than any 24-70 f2.8 mark i I have ever used and it's $1000 cheaper than the 24-70ii. The 24-70ii is sharper across the range than the tamron, but I wouldn't call it twice as sharp which is what it should be for twice the price. I suspect the 24-70 f4 you are considering will be likely as sharp as the Tamron, but you lose the f2.8. AF does feel a tad bit slow when compared to the 24-70ii, and it does struggle a bit more in low light, but then again you have primes to cover that issue. I would say for a GP zoom it is probably the best bet right right now. You get the f2.8 advantage over the 24-105 and it has the IS advantage over the 24-70ii, and while canon says you can have a 24-70 f4 maybe by christmas I'm going to guess the normal canon production delays will end up tossing it into february.

Personally I am holding out for a price drop on the tammy to closer to $1100 before pulling the trigger. In the mean time I picked up a nice copy of a 24-105 on craigslist a few months back for a little less than $700 and if I ever want to sell it I won't lose much if any value. Heck if the 24-70 f4 is not that great I may even make a little money on that lens.

Posts

Posts

Attachments

Filter

Forum statistics

Gallery statistics