Lee Jay said:

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:

One of the best things that I saw in this video was the microcontrast on that page of text. If you have watched his video on the Zeiss Otus 85, you will find that this text compares very nicely to the what the Otus did in similar situations, where he contrasted it with the 85L II. That microcontrast could mean some serious pop in shots taken for, say, wedding photography (that, to me, is one of the potentially most exciting applications for this lens).

Click to expand...

Really? I actively avoid rectilinear ultrawides for people photography because of the egg-head phenomenon you get at the edges of the frame. That's why I like the fisheye for that - keeps people's heads round. In fact, when I have shot rectilinear, I've often added a massive amount of barrel distortion in post just for this reason.

Click to expand...

In that sense I've found the native 'moustache' distortion of the Samyang 14mm to be very beneficial when there are people at the edge of the frame. Doing a lens correction on that one quite significantly stretches the edges (and makes it less 'wide' too). Natively it's relatively forgiving for people at the edges of the frame so for stuff that doesn't necessarily have to be too rectilinear I leave the lens correction off.

Mirror hangs on 5d mkii with 44m-4. Just my two cents, it really doesn't matter if it hangs, just put a rubber band around the lens mount and screw it onto the adapter. I used a thin rubber band and it gives it about a finger nails width of room. I lose infinity focus at f/2 but if I'm going to be shooting close to infinity, I'm going to be using my 50 1.8, the helios is all about the bokeh. This also lets you focus just a bit closer for even more bokeh.

Here are some photos I've taken with mine and a couple of tips, while it is super sharp in the center, anything off dead center will be so so. I don't know if the 7 is multicoated but either way, these lenses like to flare.

When you are talking about adapters and IQ, it is only relevant, if the adapters use glass elements. It is not the case with NX adapters, so it shouldn't be an issue, but there might be issues when it comes to auto focus.

I have read a review where they experienced some slower AF speeds, when using some EF adapters because of the electronics.

But yes, there is NX to EF adapters. Fotodiox makes one, and I have been happy with Fotodiox products in the past.

Steve said:

TexPhoto said:

But I really wonder if this lens will out resolve a 70-200 f2.8 IS II? This is one of the sharpest lenses in the world. I would put my money there, add a 1.4X converter III and shoot my pants off.

Click to expand...

It would be better to have a native 300 at 2.8 then a 280 f/4 via tc. That said, I think the 70-200 2.8 + tc might be better for the OP simply because he has a limited budget and needs to shoot indoor and outdoor sports. Another alternative could be to get both a used Sigma 70-200 2.8 for ~$650ish (or the Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC) and a used Canon 300 f4 IS for ~$1000 and get decent coverage indoor and outdoor with native FL's and apertures. Either way would be cheaper than the 120-300 2.8 and have a bit more versatility, even if its not ideal for dedicated field sports shooting.

Click to expand...

If the 300 is as sharp as the 200, or the "280" yes, it would be better to have a 300. But in this case the 200 is much sharper. And as the shooter is using a crop camera with a very high pixel density, the lens being sharp is much more important.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=844&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=0&LensComp=687&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=0

In fact after looking at this test, I'd say ditch the teleconverter and shoot at 200. Crop to 300 or whatever is needed.

jrista said:

The data IS there...it may be starting to get softened by diffraction on the smaller pixel sensor, but that doesn't change the fact that until your diffraction spot is larger than 11µm, your smaller pixels are still resolving more detail. Even at 11µm, the smaller pixels will still be resolving a rounder spot than the larger pixels (which will be resolving a rather blocky spot).

Click to expand...

Thanks for the explanation, I guess these analog (light) to digital (data) concepts aren't self-explanatory and that's why a lot of people are confused about how the conversion works, including me

Happy to have been of help.

Have fun with your 85 !

Djaaf.

Circular polarizing filter.

I picked up the 24-70VC a few weeks ago and was not impressed that the focus ring turns the other way to all Canon lenses. The zoom ring is also at the front of the lens, which is awkward to use, and impossible, if you have the lens hood on in the reversed position. I liked the build quality and it is a good size and weight for the 5D3. The Autofocus was slower then the Canon 24-105L is tested it against, but still fast enough. Focus in low light was also quite good and about the same as my 35mm f2IS lens. But I was expecting better sharpness. I tested the Tamron against the 35f2IS, 50 1.4 and 85 1.8, the primes were all better at f2.8 which is fair enough as they are all stopped down. But I decided to keep the primes and retuned the Tamron. I rather have 3 small, fast and light primes that have better IQ.

I decided I will wait and save up for the Canon 24-70ii. or see what Sigma brings out.

Designed by Zeiss, but made by Sony in Japan. That's not a bad thing - Sony make some nice lenses.

Just got the sigma 50 art and I didn't think I would be that impressed but I am. It's incredibly sharp, no problem with autofocus on a 1dx and pretty good bokeh! I'd really recommend this lens, great price, amazing lens!

No i have not but their k4000 1x1 lightpanels and their small camera lights z96 are great

Re: Almost too precious for words

JonAustin said:

Was Linda McCartney / is Stella McCartney a photographer, or is Stella just trading on her dead mother's name?

Click to expand...

Photo by Linda McCartney (Linda Eastman)

Initial impressions: Very nice little camera. More importantly, it fits my wife's needs perfectly.

Sabaki said:

Hey all

So I'm curious, does a maximum flash sync speed of 1/250th make much difference over 1/200?

I shoot macro with my MR-14EX at 1/200.

Click to expand...

Total exposure = (Ambient Component) + (Flash component).
Faster sync speed allows you to pull down your ambient exposure component down. If your goal is to shoot at wider apertures and to drag down the ambient component then you'll want as fast sync speed as possible. If you are shooting at narrower apertures (e.g. macro with plenty of depth of field) then ambient contribution is most likely low in any case so I don't see a practical benefit.

sanj said:

neuroanatomist said:

AvTvM said:

Although I will stick with my 4S for as long as that little sucker keeps working. Just love that form factor.

Click to expand...

Luddite!

Seriously, I'm sticking with my 4S as well. Meets my needs just fine. Tough little bugger, no case on it, it's dropped from waist level to pavement ~10 times, just some dings on the edges and one $30 back glass replacement.

Click to expand...

Me sticking with my 4s as well. But how come it fell 10 times??

Click to expand...

Usually juggling keys, kids, and groceries. Another reason I have a 1-series body. 8)

Well, I dropped some mula yesterday, but despite getting a great offer below $10k on the 200-400 1.4, at the last minute I decided to get a new ef 300 2.8 II. (I've already got a 2 x TCIII to take it to 600mm).

Reason for 200-400- It's a zoom. Don't have to remove to add teleconvertor. Miss fewer shots when the action comes to your side of the field.

Reasons for 300- will be the highest DxO rating of any lens I've got, and higher than the 200-400.
Smaller than zoom.
Less expensive by $3000.
Seems by reports to work well with TC's.
f 2.8 so faster.

I really like zooms for framing, but I like resolution, too. So, we'll see.
Thanks for all the advice.

neuroanatomist said:

dgatwood said:

Use a mechanical shutter. By physically opening and closing a shutter, you expose the entire sensor all at once, then cover it up all at once, so the exposure at the top of the frame occurs precisely at the same time as the exposure at the bottom of the frame.

Click to expand...

That's true at slower shutter speeds, but not at faster shutter speeds. A camera's Xsync (max flash sync) speed is the fastest shutter speed at which the entire sensor is exposed at once. At speeds faster than that, the second curtain starts it's traverse before the first curtain finishes, so the sensor is exposed through a moving 'window' between the shutter curtains; that window gets narrower as the shutter speed increases further.

Click to expand...

Fair enough. Focal-plane shutters are definitely less than ideal. They're just better than most non-global electronic shutters.

Almost the entire reason for using the 85/1.2L design is precisely because it achieves f/1.2. Otherwise, shoot with the 85/1.8 and be done with it. I currently own the former and have owned the latter.

So no, I would not get an 85/1.4 even if it were a smaller, more durable, and faster-focusing lens, or even if it had IS, because the 85/1.2L II is a specialist design. It produces a very distinctive look that is particularly suited for flattering portraits in low-contrast lighting. Although it's not a perfect lens, in the right use cases, it performs stunningly well. A lot of the disappointment over the 85/1.2 design comes from people who use it when other lenses would be more appropriate.

As for an 85/1.0 design, it's not likely. It would need to come with at least an 85mm (more realistically, ~ 88mm) diameter front element, when most lenses of this class do not exceed the 77mm front filter diameter. It would be even heavier and fatter than the 85/1.2L II. The optical design certainly is doable, but the mechanics and ergonomics make it impractical, as it may even require a larger diameter ring USM than the 85/1.2L II--which, along with the superteles, is already in the largest class. Many considerations become easier at the shorter focal length of 50mm--not that the 50/1.0L was designed without its own compromises. I'd be happy if Canon revived the 50/1.0L, never mind an 85/1.0....

dilbert said:

What you've said here is that Michael Reimann is owned by Seth Resnick. Is that what you wanted to say?

I said exactly what I wanted to say. Note the spacing for paragraphs.

Click to expand...

ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION IS: NO, THAT NOT WHAT I SAID... LOL...

luminous-landscape is NOT owned by seth resnick, instead it is owned by michael reimann according to my understanding... but who care...

MichaelHodges said:

Nothing in the squirrel looks in good focus, and the whiskers are eaten away by noise/noise removal.

That shot was best left for a full frame sensor.

Click to expand...

Clumsy processing, maybe?

pwp said:

EOS 2000D? It wouldn't want to be confused with the $18,000 2 megapixel D2000 from 1998
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_EOS_D2000

-pw

Click to expand...

Do you really hope to reply to a thread from 2010 and a person that is no longer a CR member?

in terms of ability and price Canon is cheaper than Nikon from long days before.

People usually compare the big telephotos from Nikon and Canon.

But they just do not understand that the previous versions of Canon IS mk1 are equal or better than current Nikon telephotos (most of them).

Newer Canon IS mk2 telephotos as tech and optics are one step ahead of all sport systems ever made.

You can found same trends and for other optics and cameras on the second hand market.

But nowadays Nikon are forced to show better gear for the money than Canon and they succeed in a lot of cases. Mainly in some newer lenses and cameras.

Don't like Canon's never ending firmware crippling game? Want 4k? Fyi: "AXIOM Beta: The first open digital cinema camera"...

The plan is to democratize camera technology and put the power back into the hands of the users. It is a self liberation by creating high end tools that we ourselves love to work with - fully independent of any of the big established camera corporations. The time has never been better for such a revolution than it is today!

Click to expand...

https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/axiom-beta-the-first-open-digital-cinema-camera

http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=11787.25

unfocused said:

Actually, this is something I've been contemplating. I'm pretty much a RAW-only person, but lately I've been asking myself a couple of questions: why do we always insist on evaluating the camera's performance based solely on RAW? I mean, realistically, isn't it the results that count? If we can shoot in JPEG and produce significantly better results because the programmers at Canon (or Nikon or Sony or Fuji or whatever) are better than us at converting that data to JPEG, why should we discount the camera?

Click to expand...

Generally its because in those discussions where it matters people are talking about raw technical performance at the sensor level. Overall performance might be a different discussion. I only shoot jpeg with my Fuji because when I shot RAW and processed by hand the results weren't really markedly better but sure took longer to get. Fuji's jpeg engine is remarkable imo. Canon's sooc jpeg engine is hot garbage as far as I'm concerned so I'd love to know how the 7DII's RAW performance is compared to my 1DIV. If it really is better at 3200 than the 7D was at 800 in RAW (lol) than its absolutely worth a look but if they are just slamming it through those DIGIC 6's jpeg NR routines then its not nearly as exciting to me.

9VIII said:

yorgasor said:

If she doesn't start out with a 1DX, she's going to grow up with a stunted understanding of cameras and a diminished interested in photography. Besides, the 1 series is famous for its ruggedness. It should be able to stand up to whatever she can dish out.

Click to expand...

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/801115795-USE/canon_9313a002_eos_1d_mark_ii_digital.html


DO IT!

This is actually a good idea!

I can't think of anything cooler than growing up with my own 1D, even if it is only 8 megapixels.
(If you think it's expensive, tally up the cost of all her other toys and tell me the long term value of those. The only negative aspect I can think of is it might be too heavy, but once she can safely manipulate an object that size go for it!)

Click to expand...

Crud, that would be really cool to give my son a 1D IIn. Heck, I'm tempted to do it, just so I can play around with the 1D series feature set! "Hey, can I borrow your 1D IIn for a little bit? I'll trade you for my 5D3..."