dr croubie said:

a) yes that would be cool. There's already a lot of other T/S adapters for various lenses to Mirrorless systems (i've also got a few for MF lenses to my EF bodies)
b) But 'af passthrough' wouldn't work. AF works by looking at the relative phase-differences of the lightwaves coming through the lens. as far as I know, if the lightwaves aren't coming in at the right angle, AF would struggle (if you've ever used a tilt or shift lens, or lensbaby, you'll know it messes up the light-metering, same deal). But using contrast-detect in live-view works (for light metering at least). so maybe it might work for AF too (the contrast-detect af, not the phase-on-sensor). Still, I don't know what would be the point of a t/s lens with af...
At least being able to pass the aperture-closing signals through would be good, then any EF lens would be a t/s lens (no point on ef-s lenses). I was thinking that might be difficult to keep constant-rotation in the adapter, the wire links can't go around forever. But then I realised that normal TSE lenses so that anyway, so there's probably a way around it...

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

Jesse said:

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

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

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!

Click to expand...

elflord said:

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

Click to expand...

dtaylor said:

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

Click to expand...

dlleno said:

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

Click to expand...

• 18mp * 1.6 * 1.6 = 46.08mp

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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?

Click to expand...